Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. SHELBY. Thank you. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Rich Steinmann and Kate Mattice, detailees from the Federal Transit Administration serving the Banking Committee, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of this bill.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in my capacity as the chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs regarding the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2004. Section 105 of the act will create a new Office of Intelligence and Analysis within the Department of the Treasury. The Office is to be headed by a newly authorized Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It will enhance the Department's access to intelligence community information and permit a reorganization and upgrading of the scope and capacities of Treasury's intelligence functions in light of the Nation's counterterrorist and economic sanctions programs. This section was drafted with bipartisan participation and close coordination with the Department of the Treasury. The particular terms governing the new office are important to me as chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs over legislative and oversight matters relating, inter alia, to the Nation's economic sanctions laws and the Bank Secrecy Act, and, more generally, because of the importance of carefully delineating the limitations on any part of the U.S. intelligence community that lie within the structure of an executive department of the Government. I have a letter signed by the ranking member of the Banking Committee, Senator Paul S. Sarbanes, and myself addressed to Secretary of the Treasury John W. Snow, as well as Secretary Snow's response. This letter reflects the agreement of Treasury about the organization, structure and role of the new Office and Assistant Secretary position created and important related organizational matters concerning the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the Office of Foreign Assets Control. I request unanimous consent that the two letters be included in the Record. They provide, I believe, a good statement of congressional intent with regard to the establishment of the new Office and the new Assistant Secretary position. At this time I would yield the floor to the ranking member of the committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Senator Sarbanes.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I yield myself as much time as I require.

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise tonight to speak on behalf of the President's right to select qualified judges of his choosing and the Senate's duty to provide advice and consent on these judicial nominees by means of an up-or-down vote on their confirmation. The quagmire in which we currently find ourselves I believe threatens the constitutionally-vested discretion of this and all future Presidents in appointing those judges they see fit. Second, it threatens the independence and effectiveness of the federal judiciary, and third, it threatens the future function and effectiveness of the United States Senate as the deliberative and distinguished institution it is today. Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution vests the President alone with the power of appointing Federal judges ``with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.'' Nowhere does the Constitution grant the Senate any power over selecting judicial appointments. A review of over 200 years of the Senate's history and practice makes it clear that the Senate's role in Presidential nominations is either to confirm or deny their appointment by means of an up-or-down vote on the floor--nothing more and nothing less. The unprecedented obstruction we are now experiencing is simply unjustifiable, I believe. Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it. Those of my colleagues who are currently blocking confirmation of the President's circuit court nominees have admitted to doing so on ideological grounds. They feel that these nominees are outside of their definition of ``mainstream''--whatever that may mean. When Senators impose a subjective litmus test on judicial nominees, they are really just seeking out candidates that agree with them ideologically. This introduces a political element into the constitutional framework of judicial appointments that isn't there--and with good reason. The Constitution grants Federal judges lifetime tenure and salary protection precisely in order to insulate them from political influences. The Senate's standard for confirming a judge should simply be a nominee's honesty, competence, temperament, and appreciation for the proper constitutional role of an Article III judge. Any test beyond this substitutes the judgment of individual Senators over that of the President and unduly politicizes a position that is intended to exist outside the realm of politics. What is more, as my colleagues in the minority continue to use their ideological litmus test to justify blocking the President's circuit court nominees--four so far, with more promised--these unfilled vacancies impose a heavy burden on our judiciary. The ability of these appellate courts to manage their caseloads and to effectively interpret and apply the law is dependent on a full complement of judges available to consider and rule on pending cases. We all know the saying ``justice delayed is justice denied,'' and we simply can not allow our own political agendas to undermine the fair application of the rule of law. I would encourage all Senators to take a step back from the current debate and envision the future of this Senate if the obstruction of these judicial nominees continues. Do we really want to operate in an environment where judicial confirmations require 60 votes? That is the direction in which we are rapidly headed. I can understand that some of my colleagues don't agree with our current President's politics. That is politics. I can understand that this President's judicial nominees may not be to some of their ideological liking. That is politics. However, this does not justify denying a judicial nominee a simple up-or-down vote. I feel quite certain that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would not be nearly as accepting of these obstructionist tactics if they proverbial shoe were on the other foot. I am not asking any of my colleagues to vote in favor of confirming a nominee that they oppose. I leave that determination to their discretion. I am simply asking them to allow the Senate to complete its constitutionally-appointed duty in providing the President with advice and consent on all of his judicial nominees. Now, I would like to take just a few moments to discuss two of the President's filibustered circuit court nominees in which I take a particular interest: Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor and California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown. Bill Pryor is the President's nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. I have known Bill for many years and have the highest regard for his intellect and integrity. Whether as a prosecutor, a defense attorney, or the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, he understands and respects the constitutional role of the judiciary and specifically, the role of the federal courts in our legal system. I am confident that Bill would serve honorably and apply the law with impartiality and fairness, if he were confirmed for the Eleventh Circuit. Unfortunately, Attorney General Pryor's nomination has been filibustered for most of this year. Janice Rogers Brown is the President's nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which is widely regarded as the court second in importance only to the United States Supreme Court. I am proud to say that Justice Brown is a native of my own State of Alabama, having been born in Greenville and raised in Luverne before moving to California. The progression of her career to serve on California's highest court--the first African American woman ever to do so--is a remarkable story of success through hard work and dedication that serves an example for us all. Justice Brown has enjoyed a distinguished career on the California Supreme Court, most recently receiving 76 percent of the vote the last time she came before California voters. Justice Brown possesses the highest character and ideal temperament for this important judgeship. Unfortunately, her nomination is subject to filibuster and thus the D.C. Circuit is denied her services. It is the role of the Senate to provide the President with advice and consent on his judicial nominations. We can only fulfill this duty by allowing each of these nominees an up-or-down vote by the full Senate. The proper function and balance of the executive, judicial and legislative branches depends upon it. It is my hope that we can end this impasse tonight and vote on each of these nominees. Let the majority vote. Let the majority count. If we get the majority vote, they will be confirmed, but they should not be obstructed. They should not be filibustered. I yield the floor. 

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of LTG John S. Caldwell, Jr., Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology at the Pentagon. After 36 years of exemplary commitment and dedicated service to the United States Army, General Caldwell is retiring. General Caldwell's career has been vast in the command and staff positions he has held. Beginning as a Platoon Leader at Fort Meade, MD, in 1967 until his current assignment at the Pentagon, he has been a steady and dedicated member of the United States Armed Forces. A graduate of the United States Military Academy, West Point, NY, General Caldwell's career has been one of dedication, service, and sacrifice. Upon graduation, he was commissioned in the Armor/Cavalry. He has commanded armored cavalry units from platoon through battalion, had combat duty with the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment in Vietnam, and served two tours in the Federal Republic of Germany. He has held a variety of other assignments including: Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development and Acquisition, Headquarters, Army Materiel Command; Director, Army Digitization Office, Headquarters, Department of the Army; Assistant Deputy for System Management and International Cooperation, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Research, Development and Acquisition; Assistant Professor for the Department of Engineering at USMA; Research and Development Coordinator, Office of the Project Manager, Abrams Tank Systems; Operations and Training Officer, S-3, for 2nd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment; Operations Staff Officer and Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations, Plans and Training for the Army Staff; Research and Development Staff Officer, Army Studies Group for the Office of the Chief of Staff, Army; Chief, Strategy Application Branch of the Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate, J-5, for the Joint Staff, and, Project Manager, Abrams Tank Systems. General Caldwell is often sought after for his knowledge and insight into the critical issues facing our country today. He is a decorated soldier, having received the following decorations and badges: Distinguished Service Medal, with Oak Leaf Cluster, Silver Star, Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters, Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal, with Oak Leaf Cluster, Air Medal, Army Commendation Medal, with Oak Leaf Cluster, Army Achievement Medal, Ranger Tab, Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge, and Army Staff Identification Badge. On this Veterans Day, I celebrate and applaud the distinguished career of LTG John S. Caldwell. A courageous soldier, fearless leader, and patriot, General Caldwell is much deserving of a relaxing and enjoyable retirement. My best wishes go out to his wife, Judy, his family and friends in this time of celebration.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute or less. We are getting ready to vote on the Fair Credit Reporting Act. We were able yesterday to move it to where we are today. We believe we have put together a bipartisan bill. We expect a heavy vote on both sides of the aisle. It is a complicated piece of legislation. I commend Senator Sarbanes, my colleague and the ranking Democrat, for his leadership in helping us to get where we are today. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, if it is proper at this time, I move to table the Feingold amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to thank some of the staff who did outstanding work on the Banking Committee--Kathy Casey, chief of staff of the Banking Committee; Doug Nappi, our general counsel; Mark Oesterle, one of our counsel. I also thank some of the Democratic staff who worked with us on this: Steve Harris, who is Democratic chief of staff; Marty Gruenberg; Lynsey Graham Rea, and Dean Shahinian. They have all worked together in a bipartisan fashion. I believe that is why this legislation was brought out of the committee unanimously and we will be able to pass it, because we had a lot of input from Members and committee staff on both sides of the aisle. It makes a difference.

Mr. SHELBY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, Senator Sarbanes and I have reviewed the amendment. We have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. SHELBY. I object.

Mr. SHELBY. I believe the Senator from Wisconsin has an amendment pending.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Nelson of Florida, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the Democratic leader. First of all, we have gotten to where we are tonight on the Fair Credit Reporting Act coming out of the Banking Committee by working together in a bipartisan way. Senator Sarbanes and the Democrats on the committee have been involved in the formulation of this legislation as so many members of the Banking Committee have. That is why we are here today. That is why we believe we have put together a far-reaching, very complex piece of legislation. We are going to continue--assuming this bill passes and goes into conference--to work together because that is the only way we are going to pass this legislation. This legislation, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, would expire at the end of this year. We know we are working on a deadline. We are working on a good piece of legislation. We want to continue that. I yield to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I move to table the amendment.

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote be deferred temporarily.

Mr. SHELBY. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SHELBY. If the Senator will yield, we do have a copy of the letter from Sallie Mae.

Mr. SHELBY. I take a minute to commend Mr. Durbin, the Senator from Illinois, for his good work in this area. He has recognized this as a very important issue and has done something about it. Whether it is Sallie Mae or anybody else, what we are interested in is all the reporting we can get that would affect someone's credit. I again commend Senator Durbin for the work he has done. I am sure he will follow up and make sure this is part of the law.