Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I rise today to discuss the President's nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Solicitor General Kagan will begin on June 28. But my consideration of her will not begin then. As so many of my colleagues, I began considering her the day her nomination was announced because I want to learn as much as I can about President Obama's choice to fill one of the most important jobs in the land, a job as a Supreme Court Justice. Even though there are many questions we all still need to ask this nominee, and we do that in the hearings, I would like to speak today on how she appears to me based on her initial job interview, the interview I had in my office, and the work that has been done so far to gather information about this nominee. After meeting with her and hearing about her, I can tell you that I am very positive about her nomination. Solicitor General Kagan is an intellectual heavyweight who brings an incredibly broad variety of legal experiences to this nomination. In so many of the legal jobs that she has had, she has been a trailblazer. In 2003 Kagan became the first woman in Harvard Law School's 186-year history to serve as dean. It is hard enough to manage lawyers, as I know from my former job as county attorney, much less manage law professors. She did it with much aplomb. In 2009 she became the first woman to serve as Solicitor General, the chief lawyer representing the interests of the American people before the Supreme Court. One particularly interesting aspect of her background is that she has worked in all three branches of government. She served as a Supreme Court clerk, as an adviser to then-Senator Biden when he was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and, of course, she has worked in two different Presidential administrations: in the White House Counsel's Office as a domestic policy adviser and now as Solicitor General. When I look at her resume, I notice two things: One, she has an appreciation of how the law impacts the lives of ordinary Americans. When you are involved in considering the nitty-gritty details of different policies, when you have to figure out where to compromise to protect Americans, and where to hold firm on a piece of legislation or a position you take, you have to know exactly what the consequences of your recommendations will be. You have to think about the lives that will be impacted. The second thing I notice is she has a track record of listening to different viewpoints and bringing people together, whether it was her track record of recruiting law talents while dean, whether it was conservative law professors or liberal law professors, or working with Senators from both parties on tobacco legislation. She has practical experience reaching out to and working with people who have very different beliefs and views than she does. That is increasingly important on a very divided Supreme Court. Some of my colleagues have questioned whether she is fit to be a Supreme Court Justice because she has never been a judge. First, I have to wonder whether these same colleagues would have objected to putting, say, Chief Justice Rehnquist on the Supreme Court--he was not a judge before--or Justice Brandeis or Justice Frankfurter because they did not have any judicial experience. Would that have been the excuse, because they were not nominated? In fact, more than one-third of all Supreme Court Justices in the history of this great country were not judges before. If we think about the Court right now, every single one of them came from what has been called the judicial monastery. I think it is great that we actually have a nominated candidate that came from a different part of the world, someone who was in the private sector, someone who has worked in the U.S. Government, who has managed people, who has had to make tough decisions. I think that is a good thing. But, additionally, I think it is important that we bring someone with that kind of perspective. Solicitor General Kagan brings so many interesting legal experiences to the table. Beyond that, her current job, Solicitor General, is actually referred to as ``the Tenth Justice'' because it is such an important position. She represents the American people before the Supreme Court. That is incredibly important training for an individual nominated to serve on the Court. It is worth noting that the last Solicitor General who subsequently became a Supreme Court Justice was no other than Thurgood Marshall, Elena Kagan's mentor and former boss. So I hope we can put to rest this idea that only judges are qualified to be Justices because if that were the rule in this country, one-third of our Justices, so many of them great ones, as noted by people from both sides of the aisle, would never have gotten to the Court. I also want to talk about one other issue that has come up in the 2 weeks since Elena Kagan was nominated. I wish I did not have to talk about this issue because it is not worthy of discussion in this great Chamber. It is not something we would be normally talking about with a Supreme Court Justice. But I learned last year, during Justice Sotomayor's hearings, that Supreme Court nominations truly bring out the ``silly season'' in Washington, DC. Last year, for example, there were stories and comments, mostly anonymous it is worth noting, that questioned Justice Sotomayor's judicial temperament. According to one news story about the topic, ``[Judge Sotomayor] develop[ed] a reputation for asking tough questions at oral arguments and for being sometimes brusque and curt with lawyers who were not prepared to answer them.'' As I said last year, where I come from asking tough questions and having very little patience for unprepared lawyers is the very definition of being a judge. As a lawyer, you owe it to the bench and to your clients to be as well prepared as you can be. As Nina Totenberg said on National Public Radio: If Sonia Sotomayor sometimes dominates oral argument at her court--if she's feisty, even pushy--then she should fit right in at the U.S. Supreme Court! I think it was Justice Ginsburg during that time who commented: Well, look at Breyer. Look at Scalia. She will fit right in. This became an issue at our hearings and she was questioned about this. I thought we had come to a time in our country where we could confirm as many gruff, to-the-point female judges as we have confirmed male judges. Well, this year is no different. There was a lengthy article this weekend in one of our major newspapers about Elena Kagan's clothing, describing it as--I will say in rather critical terms, it talked about at length her leg-crossing style. Now I have to say, I took note of this since it was compared to my leg-crossing style. I have to say I never thought I would be discussing this in this Chamber. But, in fact, this was a major article that stirred much commentary all over the blogs. I do not think such an article was ever written about Chief Justice Roberts. I am trying to picture this, if he was in a meeting with Senator Hatch, if there was a major article written about the two of them and who was crossing their legs and who was crossing their ankles and how they were facing each other. I do not think that happened. Was such an article written about Justice Alito or was such an article written about Justice Rehnquist when he was being considered by this great body? It is my 50th birthday today, and I must admit, I thought we were somewhat beyond what happened to me when I was 10 years old in Beacon Heights Elementary School and decided one day to wear bell-bottom pants, flowered bell-bottom pants to fourth grade, and was kicked out of my class by Mrs. Quady. I was told: At Beacon Heights Elementary School girls only wear dresses. I had to go home and change my clothes. Well, a lot has happened since those days in fourth grade. Now on my 50th birthday, it is my hope that as we consider the Solicitor General of the United States, Elena Kagan, she will be considered on her merits, she will be asked tough but fair questions; the questions should not be where does she shop, but, rather, does she have the first-rate intellect, unimpeachable character, and judicial temperament to join the highest Court in the land. That should be what we are talking about at the hearing. That should be what the press is focused on. That should be what my colleagues are to decide on. Just think about how far we have come. When Sandra Day O'Connor graduated from law school 50-plus years ago, the only offer she got from a law firm was for a position as a legal secretary. Justice Ginsburg faced similar obstacles. When she entered Harvard in the 1950s, she was one of only 9 women in a class of more than 500, and one professor actually asked her to justify taking a place that could have gone to a man. Later she was passed over for a prestigious clerkship despite her impressive credentials. In the course of more than two centuries, 111 Justices have served on the Supreme Court. Only three have been women. If confirmed, Elena Kagan would be the fourth and, for the first time in its history, three women would take places on the bench when arguments are heard this fall. Let's focus on what matters. Let's focus on the credentials, on the qualifications, on how she answers the questions, not on how she crosses her legs. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 4175, As Modified

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I recently saw firsthand the miles and miles of oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico. The scope of the disaster is staggering, and an oil rig the size of a football field shouldn't suddenly explode in a massive fireball and threaten the entire coast of our country. But beyond that potential, if they closed the Port of New Orleans, think of the effect that would have on Minnesota or the effect it would have on other parts of our country. And I don't believe the taxpayers of this country should have to pay for that. That is why I support the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Liability Act, which will help ensure that the current liability gap for a single oilspill will not apply to the gulf coast oil disaster and make sure that BP--a company that just a few weeks ago flouted its record profit of $6 billion in the first quarter of this year alone--will pay for this and that the taxpayers of this country--already burdened with the cost of the difficult economic times and what Wall Street has done--are not stuck with the bill. Mr. President, I am supportive of the work my colleagues have done, and I thank Senators Menendez, Nelson of Florida, and Lautenberg for their efforts.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, this amendment assures the Nation's monetary policy has a connection to Main Street and not just Wall Street. As the president of the Grand Rapids State Bank in Grand Rapids, MN said to me recently: All Senators should be reminded that the Federal Reserve System was created to serve all of America, not just Wall Street. If you talk to the regional Federal Reserves all over this country, they need this information. This amendment makes a difference. This amendment has support from the Lone Star State of Texas to the North Star State of Minnesota. I ask for your support.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank Senator Merkley for his leadership on this issue. I was proud to work with him on this issue. I thank Chairman Dodd as well for advancing this amendment, for the work he has done in this area. I also want to mention my good colleague in the House, Representative Ellison, who was a leader on this in the State legislature in Minnesota and now in Congress. We worked on this issue in this bill together. Complex and deceitful lending practices were at the heart of the financial crisis, and as we work to reform Wall Street we must ensure that the homes and the home equity of Americans are not put at unnecessary risk. With 1 in 7 homeowners--1 in 7, who would have ever thought that--delinquent on their mortgage or already in foreclosure, and many home loans delinquent, the housing market continues to slow economic recovery. It has been estimated that each year predatory mortgage lending results in a loss of $1.9 billion for American families. It is critical that families have access to safe, fair, and affordable mortgages. I see my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, who has seen firsthand in his State people losing their homes, people at the mercy of call-lines where they cannot reach anyone when they are calling for help. Important borrower protections such as those we have in Minnesota should be a national policy to help safeguard families across the country. A decade ago, just 5 percent of mortgage loan originations were subprime, meaning they were made to borrowers who would not qualify for regular mortgages--only 5 percent. By 2005 it was 20 percent of mortgages that were subprime. It was a disaster waiting to happen. This expanded home ownership to millions of people, but it also greatly increased the risk to our financial system. In Minnesota, in 2000 there were 8,347 subprime mortgages issued. By 2005 it had increased more than fivefold to more than 47,000 subprime mortgages. However, we now know that between 60 and 65 percent of people who ended up with subprime mortgages actually qualified for traditional mortgages. We need to make sure this never happens again. That is why last year I introduced the Homeowner Fairness Act, which is comprehensive housing reform legislation that proposes tough new national standards based on the successes of the Minnesota mortgage lending law passed in 2007. That is why I have joined Senator Merkley on an amendment that will ensure several key ideas from this bill are included in the Wall Street reform bill. These are not radical ideas. The fact that practices were ever allowed to take place should be shocking to those who have not even heard about them. First, this amendment would require all mortgage originators to verify a borrower has the ability to repay a mortgage before giving loan approval. Let me repeat that. This amendment would require mortgage originators to verify a borrower has the ability to repay a mortgage before they approve the loan. It may just sound like common sense that you wouldn't loan someone money without first figuring out if they were able to pay, but these lenders never intended to keep the loans they originated long enough for it to matter. They simply sold their risky bets to someone else and put the profits on the bank. Second, this amendment would prohibit a mortgage originator from steering a borrower toward terms that are more expensive than those for which he can qualify. In recent years, loan originators were often paid more if they got borrowers to take out predatory subprime loans, even when the borrower qualified for a prime loan. It is important to remember that the crisis we are addressing today with this comprehensive Wall Street reform bill was first triggered by the downturn in the national housing market. This downturn brought to light the prevalence of unsound lending practices, especially predatory lending tactics in the subprime market. Ultimately, this disregard for underwriting standards spread risk throughout the financial system as these unsound loans were securitized and sold, chopped up and sold again. No one had any skin in the game. Although the market for some prime mortgages was less than 1 percent of global financial assets, the faults in the system that started with unscrupulous origination practices allowed the turmoil in the housing market to spill over into other sectors. When sound mortgage loans are made they provide families with a piece of the American dream. But when loans are made recklessly, without concern for the consumer, these loans become nightmares--not just for the families who are left on the hook but for our entire economy. We need to make sure those abusive and exploitative mortgage practices come to an end. For far too long, subprime lenders have put the homes and home equity of Americans at unnecessary risk. These commonsense protections are essential to restoring our economy and preventing a future crisis in the housing market. I ask my colleagues to support the Merkley-Klobuchar amendment, and I yield the floor to my friend and great leader on this issue, Senator Merkley of Oregon.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Hutchison, for her great leadership on this issue. We have worked together from the beginning on this amendment, and you can see there is support for this amendment from the Lone Star State to the North Star State, spanning this country--as you look at the many States across this country that truly believe it is important to have the regional Federal Reserve involved in decisions, not have anything and everything concentrated in Washington and New York City, which we believe got us into lots of this trouble in the first place. The amendment we have offered is important because what it does is seek to preserve a system that ensures that the institution charged with our Nation's monetary policy has a connection to Main Street, not just Wall Street--Main Street in Benson, MN; Main Street in Austin, TX; Main Street in Denver, CO. That is what we are talking about. As I have said before, Main Street banks pretty much stayed away from the high flying, way-too-risky deals of the past decade, and when the pavement on Wall Street began to buckle and collapse, these banks-- these small community banks--did not panic and run to Washington with tin cups and outstretched hands. Like the rest of Main Street, they suffered because of bad bets made on Wall Street. But they kept doing their work. They kept serving their customers. So now, with us debating a Wall Street reform that will affect how these small banks, these community banks do business, I think they have a right to speak up. That is what this amendment is about. I would like to give a lot of credit to Chairman Dodd, who is here as usual in the late evening hours, as well as Ranking Member Shelby, along with the rest of their Banking Committee who worked so incredibly hard. Chairman Dodd has been working with us on this amendment and has been working with us on many issues affecting the community banks. I thank him for that. I think we took another important step yesterday when we passed the Tester-Hutchison amendment that will make sure community banks pay only their fair share when it comes to Federal bank insurance. But the issue my colleague, Senator Hutchison, so eloquently discussed is whether the Federal Reserve will continue to oversee our State member community banks. That issue still remains. Like I am sure all of you have, I have heard from my community banks. I have heard from the Fed. I have thought about this a lot. I just want to give you an example of what those community banks--the bankers out there in the heartland, who basically are standing out there with their feet firmly on the ground, with their briefcases in their hands. They were not there as these credit default swaps swallowed and swirled around their heads. They were there just doing their job. Here is what Noah Wilcox, the president of Grand Rapids State Bank in Grand Rapids, MN--Grand Rapids, MN, home of the Judy Garland Museum. If you ever want to go there, you can actually put your head in a cut-out hole of the Tin Man. Yes, you can. The Tin Man--right--needed a heart. The lion needed courage. And the scare crow needed a brain. You could go there to Grand Rapids. Well, this is what the president of the Grand Rapids State Bank said: All Senators should be reminded that the Federal Reserve System was created to serve all of America, not just Wall Street. From the Lone Star State to the North Star State. When Congress established the Federal Reserve in 1913, Congress purposely created a system of regional banks, overseen by a board in Washington, to ensure that the power of this institution would not be concentrated far from these banks and the communities they serve. That is why I believe Mr. Wilcox's--the guy from Grand Rapids, the banker-- statement rings especially true. He was not just advocating for his bank or other banks in Minnesota or across the country. He said the Federal Reserve was created for ``all of America.'' The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis just does not supervise banks, it also partners with the communities it serves by providing resources and sharing expertise. I will give you one example. We have Art Rolnick, known nationally for the work he has done on early childhood development. He works with the Federal Reserve. He is one of their policy experts. He is retiring this summer. He has literally devoted the last few years of his career looking at early childhood development--the investment. He has put out numbers. He has put out studies straight from the Federal Reserve because he had that information on the ground to show the kind of return of investment you get when you invest in kids early on. I do not think we would see that coming out of the Federal Reserve in Washington. This came out of the regional banks. This interaction with regional banks can clearly be seen in the interdisciplinary research it conducts in Minnesota with the University of Minnesota and in its partnerships with financial institutions and community-based organizations to provide investment in low- and moderate-income communities. Together the regional banks provide a presence across this country that gives the Fed grassroots connections--not just in board rooms in New York, not just in the hallways of Congress in Washington, but right there in Grand Rapids, MN, on Main Street--insights into local economies. What is happening with the timber industry? What is happening with the medical device industry? They know that on the front line. What is happening to the high-tech industry? What is happening with the telecommunications industry in Denver? That is what the regional banks do for us. They also provide legitimacy when they have to make tough decisions-- when the Fed has to make those tough decisions--to have those regional banks out there with legitimacy in the banking community and the business community to say: This is not just about Wall Street; this is also about Main Street. Their geographic diversity also allows the regional banks to develop unique expertise. For instance, the Federal Reserve Bank in Minneapolis has a wide breadth of knowledge in the agricultural economies of Minnesota and the other States in its district. You are not going to get that in the middle of New York City. You are not going to get that in the middle of Washington, DC. Through the Federal Reserve of Minneapolis, the community banks they supervise have a better understanding of the markets that ultimately aid them in their loan making decisions. Through their working relationships with community banks, the regional Federal Reserve banks also collect and analyze important information about the movements and trends in local economies. Because community banks interact with so many parts of the economy--from the ordinary folks who bank with them, to the small businesses they provide loans, to real estate developers, and even local governments--their connections to the communities they serve provide a unique perspective for the Fed to tap. This relationship is a two-way street, as it also provides a voice for our community banks that would be lost if the Federal Reserve were to only supervise the largest banks. A system like this would certainly limit, and potentially distort, the picture the Federal Reserve gets of what is happening in our Nation's banking system. I repeat, this crisis did not happen because of this little bank in Grand Rapids, MN. It happened because eyes were not watching what was going on on Wall Street. Eyes were not watching what was going on in these big banks. The rest of these guys--these small banks--they were the ones who were the victims of this crisis. As the president of the Federal Reserve Bank in Minneapolis pointed out in a speech this past March, it would be shortsighted to conclude that the Federal Reserve ``can safely be stripped of its role as a supervisor of small banks.'' As he noted, disruptions in the financial system can come from all sectors and the connection the regional Federal Reserve banks provide to local economies can be vital in ensuring the stability of the financial system. Opponents will argue that the Federal Reserve does not need to supervise banks to gain insight into them, that they can get this information by other means and through other sources. But, currently, much of the Federal Reserve's interaction with community banks comes from the supervision done by its examiners. Many of these examiners have lived and worked in the districts they serve for many years, and the information they provide is critical to the Fed's understanding of local economies. This system--a system that serves all Americans--is threatened if we do not act. Currently, the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis--and I am sure you see this in Texas, in Missouri, in Colorado, and the Federal Reserve's banks all across this country--currently, the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis oversees over 600 banks in the Ninth District. Without this amendment, it would oversee one--one--bank. This is what my friend, the Senator from Texas, is talking about. You would go from 600 banks--in an area that did not cause this financial crisis, that was simply a victim of this financial crisis--you would take 600 banks from them, send them out somewhere in a consolidated way to Washington and New York, and they would oversee one. All they would have is a bank holding company with over $50 billion in assets. This means connections to over 600 communities will be lost, not just in Minnesota, but in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. That is the region. The Federal Reserve System was designed to prevent it from being focused just on Wall Street, at the expense of Main Street. That is why the Hutchison-Klobuchar amendment is so important, to put this bill in a place where we not only get the great accountability of the bill, with the great work that is being done in every single sector, so we do not make these mistakes again that were made that brought us to the brink of a financial crisis that allowed all of these banks to be on the verge of collapse--and some of them, in fact, collapsed on Wall Street--that is an important piece--but it is equally important to make sure our Main Street community banks get a fair shake and that the Federal Reserve in the regional areas of this country--from the Lone Star State to the North Star State--be allowed to continue to get the information they need to do their job. I urge other Senators to join Senator Hutchison and me in supporting this amendment, to make sure the voices of our community banks, the voices of our small towns across the country and the local economies they serve, continue to be heard. Mr. President, I yield back to Senator Hutchison.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, can I just commend Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby for setting this tone. There was an article this weekend about how we are working together on a major piece of legislation. As my colleagues can see from the amendment, Senator Hutchison and I have a bipartisan amendment, and I appreciate the chairman's openness to this amendment and his kind words. I thank him for his work.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Next, John Laub, to be Director of the National Institute of Justice. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 581, John Laub; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statement relating to the nominee be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. As a member of the Commerce Committee, again, I am very concerned that we still do not have a Deputy Administrator for the Federal Aviation Administration in place. As we know, there have been many recent incidents. We are trying to get the FAA reauthorization done to finally modernize our airports with NextGen so we can have the next generation of airport control, so we can better process our planes, so we can better land these planes, so we can have more safety, so we can have less congestion at our airports. This is very difficult to do when you don't have in place all of your managers who are supposed to be managing the Federal Aviation Administration. We have had incidents in Minnesota of a plane that overran the airport and ended up in Wisconsin. We have had planes that have been sitting on the tarmac for 6 hours with passengers without food and water. We have had all kinds of issues with aviation, and yet--and yet--my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, while supportive at times of these efforts to modernize our air traffic control system, are blocking the nomination of the deputy administrator for the Federal Aviation Administration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 782, Michael Peter Huerta; that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, another job here that is unfilled--one of the 107 relating to maritime issues, and again we are dealing with an incredibly sensitive and catastrophic issue with this oilspill in our oceans--the Administrator of the Maritime Administration is being held by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I don't know what the motives are. Maybe they do not like this person. We don't know who is holding this. All I know is that a President has to get his team in place when he is dealing with an issue as catastrophic as this BP oilspill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 783, David Matsuda; that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Finally, Mr. President, we have Arthur Allen Elkins, who has been nominated to be the inspector general of the Environmental Protection Agency. Again, we are dealing with an environmental crisis down in the gulf coast area. Yet we can't even get this inspector general in place. I know many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle support having inspectors general in place so we can look at what is going on in government, so we can figure out what is happening and get things right. Yet this nomination is being held. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 794, Arthur Allen Elkins; that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I see the Presiding Officer has a smile on his face as he realizes I have reached the end of the nominees I am reporting on today. But I will tell you this: Having managed an office of 400 people--a government office, a local county attorney's office--I can't even imagine trying to run that place without having my top people in place and that kind of security. It is very difficult to cut government spending, to make the kinds of decisions you need to make when you don't have your top team there to get the work done. Worse than that, with these secret holds, it is very hard to even understand why these people are being held, who is holding them. That is why we are working so hard to get rid of this. As I said, this crop of Senators that has come here in the last 2 years does not like business as usual. We just want to get the business done. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank you for the correction. I appreciate my colleague's statement about his general support--I assume he meant for getting rid of secret holds, and he can correct me if I am wrong--his general support for changing this process and getting things done. I will say that when we are in this time of economic challenge, no matter what the motives, I really do not care what is in the heads of my colleagues when they put on the holds. I do not even want to go there. What I care about is getting things done in the government when we have so many people unemployed, when we clearly have to move ahead and do more about small business and exports. All I know is this: If we want to talk about the difference, at this point, 107 Obama nominees are on hold and being obstructed. At the same time--whether it was because not enough were nominated, I do not really care--at this same point, Bush nominees waiting for a vote--there were eight. My bigger answer to this is, who cares about who did it or who did what when. What matters to me is that we move ahead and get going. It is no surprise to me that the Senators who have taken the floor this morning and are surrounding me are Senators who want to see good government, Senators from open States with big blue skies, such as the State of New Mexico, Senator Udall, who is now the Presiding Officer; or my State, the State of Minnesota, which has always been a leader in open government in moving things ahead; or Senator Warner, who knows what it is like to manage a large State and knows you have to have your team in place if you want to get things done in the State of Virginia; or Senator McCaskill, who has been leading this effort from the Show-Me State, the State of Missouri--show me who is doing these holds. The bigger issue is not just making sure we can run this government and getting the government moving and helping people again. The bigger issue for me is that things should not be done in secret. If you are going to put a hold on someone, we should know who and why you are doing it. I said the other day that this reminds me of an Olympic sport, a relay race, passing a baton from Senator to Senator so we cannot figure out who is holding the baton. They rotate who is putting on the holds, and they get around the rule. If delay were an Olympic sport, my colleagues would be getting a gold medal because there has been so much delay with these nominees, and it has to stop. I want to give a few examples of the kinds of nominees we are talking about and the kinds of nominees we would like to see get confirmed. I want to give some examples of who these are, and I will then go through and make a request to confirm them. We are right now in the middle of an oilspill of cataclysmic proportions in the gulf. I am going there this afternoon to see it. We are going to have a major hearing in our environmental committee on Tuesday. Do you know who is being held up right now? Michael Tillman, to be a member of the Marine Mammal Commission, is being held up; another guy, Daryl Boness, to be a member of the Marine Mammal Commission. Normally, one might not think this is the most important position in government. I say two things: One, we are dealing with marine issues right now, extreme marine issues of what is going to happen to our wildlife in the oceans. The second thing we are doing with this--why would anyone hold up members of the Marine Mammal Commission? One guy I actually know--Mark Rosekind, to be a member of the National Transportation Safety Board. He does a good job. Like you, Mr. President, I am a member of the Commerce Committee. We know how important it is. Earl Weener, to be a member of the National Transportation Safety Board. As we are dealing day-in and day-out with issues of threats to our transportation, the potential of airplanes that have gone down in the sky in the middle of Buffalo, and we have potential terrorist threats to our transportation system, what are we doing? We are holding up the nominees. We have Toyota putting out cars that basically kill people across the country because the safety measures were not taken. They just paid the biggest fine in the history of this country. What are we doing? There are Members who are secretly holding up members of the National Transportation Safety Board. Why would we do that? I will start with these. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 592, Mark Rosekind, and Calendar No. 787, Earl Weener, both to be members of the National Transportation Safety Board; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominees be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Again, this is a perfect example. We look at what happened with the Buffalo flight going down. We look at what happened with the Toyota cars. We look at what is going on across this country as we are focusing on terrorism and what happened in Times Square just recently. This is not the time to block nominees to the National Transportation Safety Board. Whatever the motives, whatever the reasons, at this point I do not care. I think the President should be able to have his team in place. Next, I mentioned the Marine Mammal Commission, as we are dealing with an oilspill across the gulf. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 784, Michael F. Tillman, and Calendar No. 786, Daryl J. Boness, both to be members of the Marine Mammal Commission; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominees be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Very good. Again, marine mammals. We are dealing with animals that are almost certainly going to die because of this oilspill, and there are people on the other side of the aisle who have decided to block these nominations. Next, Warren Miller, nominated to be the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management at the Department of Energy. I don't know the reasons this hold was put on, why he is held up, but I do not believe any person in this country believes we should have no person directing the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 404, the nomination of Warren Miller; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Next we go to Winslow Lorenzo Sargeant, to be Chief Counsel for Advocacy in the Small Business Administration. Mr. President, 64 percent of the jobs in this country are created by small businesses. Wall Street has been making record profits, but small businesses in this country are still suffering. Wall Street got a cold; Main Street got pneumonia. This is the time for a robust Small Business Administration. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 427, the nomination of Winslow Lorenzo Sargeant; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, the next one that is being held of these 107 nominations is Benjamin Tucker, to be Deputy Director for State, Local, and Tribal Affairs in the Office of National Drug Control Policy. As a former prosecutor--and I know you do, Mr. President, as a former attorney general--I understand the importance of having people in place to work on our national drug policy and to reduce the illegal drugs in this country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 556, Benjamin Tucker; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. For a minute, sure.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, the next of the 107 nominations being put on hold is P. David Lopez, Calendar No. 618, to be general counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 618, P. David Lopez; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, the next one is Jill Long Thompson, to be a member of the Farm Credit Administration. Coming from an agricultural State, I understand how important it is to have people in place for the Farm Credit Administration, especially during this difficult time. Because of agencies such as the Farm Credit Administration, at least our rural areas have not gone off the cliff and have maintained some stability but are always challenged. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 628, Jill Long Thompson; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, next, James P. Lynch, to be Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Again, as a former prosecutor, it is incredibly important that we have statistics on crime, that we know what is going on so we can develop the best policies and triage the cases so we can keep our neighborhoods safe. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 705, James P. Lynch; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I say thank you so much to my friend from Texas. I wish to thank her for her leadership on this issue. As she mentioned, our amendment seeks simply to preserve the Federal Reserve's authority to supervise community banks and bank holding companies as well as to preserve a system that ensures the institution charged with our Nation's monetary policy has a connection to not just Wall Street but to Main Street. As the Presiding Officer knows, for the most part, our mid-sized banks, small banks in the States throughout this country--Texas and the Midwest--stayed out of these risky deals. They stayed away from these high-flying, way too risky deals of the past decade. They made meat- and-potatoes loans to consumers and businesses in their communities. They did well for their customers. These Main Street banks did not dance down the yellow brick road to Wall Street dealmaking or Washington hobnobbing. When the pavement on Wall Street began to buckle and collapse, these community banks did not panic and run to Washington with tin cups in outstretched hands. They continued to conduct their business, behaving the way--well, the way banks are supposed to behave. The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, along with 11 other regional banks, provides a presence across this country that gives the Fed grassroots connections, insights into the local economies, as well as legitimacy when they have to make tough decisions that affect not just Wall Street but the small local banks that serve so many of our communities. Through their working relationships with community banks, the regional Federal Reserve banks also collect and analyze important information about the movements and trends in local economies. This relationship is a two-way street as it also provides a voice for community banks that would be lost if the Federal Reserve were to only supervise the largest banks. As the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis noted, it would be shortsighted to conclude that the Federal Reserve: ``can safely be stripped of its role as a supervisor of all banks.'' As he noted, disruptions in the financial system can come from all sectors, and the connection the regional Federal Reserve banks provide to local economies can be vital in ensuring the stability of the entire financial system. I say to my friend from Texas, just this morning Noah Wilcox, president of the Grand Rapids State Bank in Grand Rapids, MN--a part of the country most hurt by this economic downturn caused by Wall Street-- wrote to me and said this: All Senators should be reminded that the Federal Reserve System was created to serve all of America, not just Wall Street. I thank the Senator from Texas for her leadership, and I look forward to working with her on this amendment. I was glad that Senator Murray joined us on our amendment, and we have a number of other cosponsors. Again, I thank the Senator.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the very important bill we are very hopeful we can move on today to start the debate on Wall Street reform. I understand there may be an agreement to move forward with this bill. We don't know that yet. If it is true that we have an agreement to start the debate on this bill, then it is very fitting that I go through why this bill is so important. If we don't have an agreement, then it is even more fitting because we know the American people got severely hurt by the crisis on Wall Street, by the fall of many of our financial institutions, and they were not the ones who were supposed to be hurt. So we need to fix this so it doesn't happen again. Nearly 3 years after the financial system began to melt down, America continues to suffer the effects of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, homes, and their retirement savings. Although some key indicators are beginning to move in the right direction, many families, such as those we know in Minnesota, are still struggling, and the economic damage is very slow to heal in their towns. On Wall Street, however, it seems to be back to business as usual. Last year, Wall Street's largest firms handed out record bonuses totaling nearly $146 billion, an 18-percent increase from 2008. Meanwhile, overall U.S. per capita income declined 2.6 percent. So it is little surprise that Wall Street financiers are not enthusiastic about reforms that could change the way they do business. In fact, some of them claim Wall Street just has a few potholes that need fixing. Well, I think they need more than that. What Wall Street needs is more stop signs and key intersections and some good traffic cops. This bill we have is the product of months of bipartisan negotiations. For the first time ever, this bill would create a nine- member financial oversight council chaired by the Treasury Secretary and made up of Federal financial regulators. This council would serve as an early warning system for systemic risk, something that was clearly lacking 3 years ago when these institutions that people were advertising as gold and their investments as gold went tumbling down onto the people of this country. The domino effect of deeply interconnected financial companies, such as insurance giant AIG, didn't just create economic ripples, they sent a tsunami surging through the entire economy. This financial oversight council will be charged with scanning the system for systemic risks and putting speed bumps in place to ensure we never see a crisis such as this one again. This council will, for the first time, bring the regulators together to form a picture of the entire system, so one regulator will not be dealing with one problem while another is dealing with another with no information being shared. This way there will be one place where they can look at the entire financial system and look for those warning signs of problems. This bill will also stand at the intersection and make firms slow down by increasing the costs of being large and complex. The most interconnected firms will be required to hold larger levels of capital to minimize their risk to the system if the investments go bad. All we are asking for, so taxpayers don't have to bail out these firms, is that they have significant resources and enough resources on hand in case they face troubled times again. If firms are going to create risk to the system, they need to take some responsibility. We clearly saw in this crisis what a lack of capital can do, how it can bring a firm to the brink, and the downward spiral it can cause when they are unable to attract new investors. As much as we would like, we simply can't predict how a future crisis might unfold. I believe one of the most important lessons we can take from this crisis is that the American taxpayer should never again be left on the hook for the unconscionable bets of Wall Street. The American taxpayers' money is not meant to be used to play games within a casino, where you can throw their money around and then maybe some of it will come back and some of it will not. We have to make sure this doesn't happen again. Preventing American taxpayers from being forced to bail out financial firms starts with strengthening big financial firms to better withstand stress, looking out for systemic risk, and putting a price on activities that pose a risk to the financial system. In the event that a firm was to fail, this bill creates a safe way to liquidate failed financial firms that will not leave the taxpayer on the hook. First of all, it updates the Federal Reserve's authority to allow systemwide support but no longer allows it to prop up an individual firm. Second, it requires large, complex financial companies to submit plans for their rapid and orderly shutdown should they start to go under. These plans will help regulators understand the structure of the companies they oversee and serve as a roadmap for shutting them down if the company fails. Under this plan, most large financial companies are expected to be resolved through the bankruptcy process. Bankruptcy allows those who invest in a firm to better access their risks, and it allows the possibility that a company will emerge again in some way intact. If we have a situation where a firm would not go into bankruptcy and its failure could bring down the whole system, we make the process of resolution as hard as we can on that firm. We start by shutting down the business and throwing out those who caused the mess. This is a very different route than we took in this crisis where we propped up firms and kept them alive because of the risk it was going to pose for the entire financial system. We don't want to be in that position again. The taxpayers don't want to be in that position again. If a firm chooses our resolution, the Treasury, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve must first all agree to put a company into the orderly liquidation process. A panel of three bankruptcy judges must then convene and agree within 24 hours that a company is insolvent. At that point, the FDIC would step in and resolve the firm through this orderly process and in a way that doesn't harm the overall system. The cost of resolution would be paid for not by the taxpayer but by a $50 billion fund built up over time--and this is key--paid for by the industry, paid for by the industry, not by the taxpayers. Finally, I wish to talk about a key portion of the bill that came out of the Agriculture Committee, a committee on which I serve, led by Chairman Lincoln. The portion of that bill I wish to talk about is the focus on transparency and accountability to the over-the-counter derivatives market. Bringing transparency and accountability to the over-the-counter derivatives market is essential to our economic system and the American taxpayer and is as important as any other piece of reform we are going to be debating. Reckless trading of unregulated over-the-counter derivatives played a significant role in triggering the financial crisis in the fall of 2008. AIG, using a type of derivative known as a credit default swap, took enormous risks in guaranteeing at least $400 billion worth of other companies' loans, including those of Lehman Brothers. When the financial crisis hit and AIG was unable to make good on its commitments, Treasury and the Federal Reserve were forced to step in to accept untold, unknown risk to the financial system. In the end, the government put up $180 billion of taxpayer money to save AIG from collapse. I bring up AIG to point out the dangers of an unregulated, over-the- counter derivatives market. Derivatives, when used properly and backed by sufficient collateral, play a crucial role in our financial and economic systems. We think about airlines that want to hedge their risk with the price of oil. You think about agribusinesses. All over this country that goes on. But this is a whole different issue we are talking about. When irresponsible financial institutions are allowed to make unconscionable bets, hidden from the view of the markets and its regulators, the stability of our entire financial system is threatened. Right now, the over-the-counter market counts its transactions in the hundreds of trillions of dollars, but under the current system, there are almost no requirements that the most basic terms of these contracts or even their existence be disclosed to regulators or the public. Think about it: Trillions of dollars changing hands and no one even knows what is happening. The goal of the bill we have today is to finally bring transparency and accountability to these unregulated markets. For the first time, under this bill, all trades will be required to be reported to the regulators and to the public. With this information, regulators will be able to effectively monitor risks to the system and prevent market manipulation and abuse. Transparency will also benefit those who use derivatives to hedge risks, as they will be better equipped to evaluate the market, as price information will finally be made public. By requiring mandatory clearing and trading for standardized derivatives, this bill will greatly reduce the ability of risk to build up to a point that could, once again, burst and threaten the financial stability of our financial system. I have often said that when Wall Street gets a cold, Main Street gets pneumonia. We can't let this happen again. In this bill, careful consideration has been made to ensure that commercial entities--this was the work done in our Agriculture Committee--to make sure that commercial entities that hedge solely to mitigate their own commercial risk are not brought under requirements meant to address the failures of a market they had no hand in. We think about all the people who didn't have a hand in this problem that got affected. We think even about our small banks in the State of Minnesota. They didn't engage in this kind of risky behavior. I think about them sometimes standing there with their briefcases in the heartland, with those credit default risks swirling around their head that they never used or engaged in, saying: Toto, we are not in Kansas anymore. Because, as we know, some banks in this country had a brain. Some banks didn't go to Oz and think they could go back with the American taxpayers' money. So we have to remember that as we go forward. But the most important thing is to make sure we put a traffic cop at those intersections, that we put some stop signs at those intersections, that Wall Street isn't allowed to drive down in their Ferraris while the government is following behind in a Model T Ford. Enacting these reforms is not just important for our financial markets, it is important for ordinary Americans. While very few people outside of those involved in these markets understand or see the impact of derivatives on their daily lives, their misuse contributed to a recession that left millions without jobs, businesses shuttered, and trillions in household savings lost. The legislation we passed out of the Agriculture Committee and that Chairman Dodd has worked to incorporate into this bill will bring these dark markets into the light of day and ensure they will never again threaten the stability of this financial system. It is very important that we bring this before the Senate, that we begin debate on this bill. That is why, as we look at the rumors swirling around that, in fact, there is a deal and that we are going to be able to at least begin the debate on whether to proceed--not debate on the bill--we are still working out the details. We think this is a good bill. We look forward to working with our colleagues on it, but we can't even get to ``go,'' we can't even get to ``start'' if we can't get this bill on the floor to debate. So we are looking forward to discussing this bill, debating for the American public and getting it done. The Americans who lost their jobs, their homes and their savings and are scared every day that it is going to happen again because of the recklessness of Wall Street deserve no less. Thank you. I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to express my disappointment that we were unable to reach an agreement today to begin debate on reforming Wall Street. As my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, so eloquently put it, this is not the time to say no. This is the time to move forward and get something done. Someone referred to the Senate the other day as dysfunction junction. It was a nice little rhyme, and I can tell you it is incidents such as the one we saw tonight, where our friends on the other side of the aisle will not even allow debate to start, that leads to that sad name. We are ready to move away from the station. There are those of us who have been out talking to our constituents, and we know the train has to leave the junction. The train has to move ahead, and we need to move ahead with this Wall Street reform. Last week, I came to the floor with some of my colleagues to talk about another delay--a delay of nominations. These are nominees who have been voted out of committee, sometimes with unanimous support, but are now waiting months for a full vote on the Senate floor. During this same timeframe in the Bush administration, five nominees were outstanding. Yet the same time during the Obama administration over 100 nominees are outstanding. So if there is anyone who doesn't believe us about this delay and what is going on, look at those numbers and look at what is happening with this reform. It is ironic we are talking about putting rules in place to prevent Wall Street from gaming the system, when we have plenty of Senators who are gaming the system right here. But there is a problem with that. The American people aren't a game of chance. They don't want the dice rolled over their futures. They don't want the dice rolled over their family homes. They want us to get this done. Look at what has happened with this filibuster, again stopping us from going to debate. In the entire 19th century, including the struggle and the debate about slavery, fewer than two dozen filibusters were mounted. Between 1933 and the coming of the war, it was attempted only twice. Under Eisenhower and JFK, the pattern continued. In 8 years of the Eisenhower administration, only two filibusters were mounted. Under Kennedy, there were four. But now we see this tactic being employed over and over. This year alone, since January, we have had over 50 filibusters. I can tell you I believe, in the end, we are going to get this done. I believe, in the end, we will have Republican votes for this bill because I know there are some colleagues on that side of the aisle who want to get this bill done and who have been working to get it done. But the reasons I heard raised today for holding up debate do not ring true. First off, advancing the idea that this bill isn't already a bipartisan product would be a slight to all those who have worked on it. I see Senator Dodd over here, who worked for months and months and months to craft a bipartisan bill. The bill we have before us is the product of countless hours of negotiation between Members on both sides of the aisle and incorporates many of the agreements that were reached. If anyone thinks there is a more important issue to have before the Senate, that there is some reason we shouldn't be debating this, I don't think they have been talking to the people back home. The people understand that while Wall Street maybe got a cold and has bounced back and is doing well, Main Street has pneumonia. Small businesses today are still starved for credit. The small banks, which Senator Menendez pointed out had nothing to do with starting this crisis, are also suffering. That is what is happening in this country today. Nearly 3 years after our financial system began to melt down, America continues to suffer the effects of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, homes, retirements, and savings. Although some key indicators are beginning to move in the right direction, I can tell you, having been home this last weekend, many families are still struggling, and the economic damage is slow to reverse itself on Main Street. Meanwhile, on Wall Street, the largest firms handed out record bonuses totaling nearly $146 billion, an 18-percent increase from 2008. What do we have at home? U.S. per capita income declined 2.6 percent. Boiled down to its essentials, the financial crisis was about risk. Everyone thought they could manage but, instead, things got wildly out of control. Three years later--and I think it is hard for people to believe this--we can't seem to even get past a debate tonight about actually getting the bill on the floor. Three years later Wall Street is still operating by the same old rules. That is why it is so important we begin this debate. There may be some of my colleagues who think all Wall Street needs is fixing a few potholes. Well, that has been tried before and it certainly didn't work. I think what we need are some stop signs at some intersections and some very good traffic cops. There is a lot more to the modern financial system, as we all learned, than meets the eye. We need transparency and accountability. That is in this bill. We need an early warning system for too big to fail. That is in the bill. We need derivatives reform, and I am not talking about the good work businesses do to weather an economic storm when they hedge their bets within their businesses. I am talking about the wildly out-of-control, over-the-counter derivative trails when financial institutions were trading things they didn't even understand and creating the big mess we are in. Reform legislation must include, and this legislation does include, provisions to look out for the best interests of consumers by educating them about their financial choices, ensuring that they have access to less risky products and protecting them from abusive sales practices, including from nonbank lenders. When we look back at what happened the last few years, it is like Wall Street was driving down the street in their Ferrari and the government was following behind in a Model T Ford. That has to stop. When we look at the history of this country, when we have been confronted by major challenges, we always rose to those challenges. When Hitler was running across Europe and Pearl Harbor happened, our country didn't just say no. We rose to the challenge, and the greatest generation won that war. When the Russians were going to put a man on the Moon, we didn't just say: Oh, go ahead. We are not going to get involved. Cloture Motion