Sheldon Whitehouse

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Under a previous order, at 12:20 p.m. tomorrow, there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to consider the Wall Street reform bill.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the majority leader for his steady and strong leadership through these times. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 498.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, we are now, for those who are tuning in, in a situation in which the Republicans who filibustered probably about 100 times in this session, are now filibustering not a piece of legislation, they are filibustering the ordinary procedural technical motion on the Senate floor to move to that piece of legislation. There will probably be a whole second filibuster when we actually get to the Wall Street reform bill. For now, what they are filibustering is moving to proceed under the Senate rules, to take up the bill and begin the debate. In obstructing us from even debating the Wall Street reform bill, the Republican minority has once again shown the American people whose business it is they serve. Make no mistake about it, Wall Street bankers are chortling tonight about this, Champagne corks are flying across Wall Street, all in celebration of the Republican success in once again obstructing reform. Each day the Republicans delay us, high- powered investment banks make more money on highly leveraged gambles. Each day the Republicans delay us, mortgage brokers, unregulated by a consumer protection agency, push people into poor quality mortgages with confusing terms. Each day the Republicans delay us, CEOs continue to get rainy day bonuses, unchecked by proper corporate governance and oversight. Each day these Republicans delay us, credit card companies trick and trap American consumers with exorbitant rates and fees and no consequences. Each day the Republican minority delays us, Wall Street wins and Main Street loses. The ties between the Republican party and Wall Street CEOs are pretty well documented. News outlets, for instance, reported earlier this month that the leaders of the Senate minority sat down with two dozen top Wall Street executives to discuss Wall Street's concerns with these proposed reforms. Nobody is talking about what was said, what deals were made, what winks and handshakes were exchanged. The meeting was behind closed doors. But the very people who brought about the housing bubble and the financial meltdown and profited handsomely through both have been strategizing with the Republicans on how to prevent us from cleaning up their industry. They have good reason to do so. By continuing to operate too-big-to- fail firms, these executives make millions in the good times and get taxpayer bailouts in the bad times. It is win-win for Wall Street and lose-lose for the American people. The American people have about had it with that deal. They want Wall Street cleaned up. An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted yesterday found that an overwhelming majority, 63 percent, of Americans support ``stricter Federal regulations on the way Wall Street firms conduct their business.'' Every one of us can vouch for that from what we are hearing from our constituents at home. The Republican minority can delay reform but they cannot defeat it. Remember Joshua; he walked around the city of Jericho blazing his horn. The first time the walls did not come down. The second time the walls did not come down. He had to go seven times around the city of Jericho before those walls came down, but the walls of obstruction of the Republican minority are going to come down on this issue because the American people will not have it any other way. Let's look at the provisions of the bill as it passed Senator Dodd's Banking Committee that they are so upset about, the bill that the Republicans are so upset about, they are obstructing us from even debating it and beginning the process of legislating. The bill would end government bailouts by establishing an industry- financed wind-down mechanism to put banks that are failing out of their misery. That is how we would deal with future meltdowns--no more taxpayer bailouts, no more AIG. The Republicans, amazingly, assert that this industry-financed resolution fund to put an orderly end to banks that have gotten in trouble will actually perpetuate government bailouts. That does not even make sense. So why are they saying it? Well, they are saying it because a Republican pollster named Frank Luntz determined that if you call a bill a bailout bill, the public will be alarmed and confused and upset and against it. So they are saying it because the polling shows that is what will concern Americans. We have gotten to the point where it is no longer important in American debate for words to be true; it only matters that they have the requisite effect. Well, words that are used for their effect without regard for whether they are true have a name; it is called propaganda. Frankly, it is beneath proper debate in this forum. The bill would also create a strong consumer products regulator to make sure Americans are never again fooled into subprime mortgages and other tricky, ``gotcha'' financial products with little hooks and tricks and traps in there to catch the unsuspecting consumer. We need a regulator in place who can monitor the market and act quickly when there is a consumer hazard. We need this new agency to do for credit cards and mortgages what the Consumer Product Safety Commission does for toasters and toys. A tough, independent consumer protection agency is a plain-old good idea to give consumers a fair shake. The bill would also consolidate existing bank regulators so that banks cannot shop around for the most lenient regulator. Under the bill the Republicans won't even let us debate, regulations would be strengthened over all financial firms. No more changing your charter just to avoid the rules you don't like and picking your favorite regulator. Again, these are commonsense protections against Wall Street trickery. But they are being blockaded. Perhaps the provisions that have the CEOs most distressed are the ones that would crack down on runaway executive compensation. It is really remarkable that even in the worst of times, Wall Street bankers pay themselves multimillion-dollar bonuses. There really are no lean years, it appears, on Wall Street, just good times and really, really, really good times. The bill the Republicans will not let us debate would give shareholders a stronger say on management compensation and would ensure that the compensation committees of boards of directors, the ones who are figuring out what the CEOs should be paid, are composed of directors who are independent, who are not tied to the management: No more having your pals and golfing buddies decide how much you should be paid. It would also require companies to develop policies that would permit them to rescind compensation--to take it back--if the executive is found to have engaged in fraud. Again, these are commonsense provisions to prevent unfairness and to give the American people a chance. Yet the Republicans will not even let us debate them. The American people have grown sick and tired of delay and obstruction, and they want their Congress to move forward with the people's business. This is something on which we should agree. The American people also overwhelmingly favor stronger regulation over Wall Street banks. So let's get to it. I implore my Republican colleagues to cut the delay tactics and let us debate a bill that will help prevent future financial crises. If they have a better idea and they want to offer it on the Senate floor, that is what we are here for. But let's get to the bill. Let's begin the process of serving the American people. Let's end the endless filibuster and obstruction and delay. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, April 22; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there be a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the final 30 minutes; that following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Denny Chin to be U.S. circuit judge for the Second Circuit, as provided for under the previous order.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, there will be up to 1 hour for debate prior to a vote on the confirmation of the Chin nomination. Senators will be notified when the vote is scheduled.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 483.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H. Con. Res. 222 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage for 5 or 10 minutes in a colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Oregon.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I, first of all, want to salute Senator Wyden of Oregon for his long work on this issue. He has been working on this issue since before I came to the Senate, before I had any experience of secret holds, and saw--as we are seeing right now--their pernicious effect. At present, we are looking at probably a little less than 80 secret holds by Republicans of President Obama's nominees--some judges. In the past few days, Senator McCaskill and I have come to the floor to push some of these nominees forward, to ask unanimous consent they go forward. In one case, a nominee was a judge who was supported by both a Democrat and a Republican--the Senators from his home State--who had passed out of the Judiciary Committee by a unanimous rollcall vote of 19 to 0. They have been held for months and months. The distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, was put in the unfortunate position, since he had voted for this nominee in committee, to have to come to the floor and raise an objection to the unanimous consent request for a judge who he voted for in committee and one of his Republican colleagues supported--the home State Senator supported--to have to object to that nomination going forward because somebody had a secret hold. We went through a great deal of these. I want to salute Senator McCaskill. She carried the greater part of the burden. I only tried to move a few. I think she tried to move over 70 by the time the day was done. I really want to extend my appreciation to her for that. I say to Senator Wyden, as I understand it, the rule is that now that these unanimous consent requests have been made, there is a 6-day-of- session period that has now begun to run, and at the end of that 6 days, our Republican colleagues will be obliged to disclose publicly their holds, who is holding it, and what their reason is. I understand there is a potential loophole, which is they could pull sort of the old switcharoo, and in the 6-day period the Senator or Senators with the hold could all release their hold so that at the end of the 6-day period they have no hold to disclose, but they could connive with another colleague to put in a new hold, since the unanimous consent request, so they can start the process all over and hide their accountability. But it strikes me those are really the only two choices our Republican colleagues have: They either have to divulge or they have to engage in a game of switcharoo, connivance with another Republican colleague to try to duck out from under the rule which was passed I think by 92 votes. It has very strong bipartisan support. I say to Senator Wyden, I just wanted to clear that understanding with the Senator since he is an expert on this issue, that the clock is running, that they have 6 days to come clean about this; and that the only two ways out are either to divulge or connive with another Senator to engage in a little switcharoo.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. So to have 80 secret holds by one party, all at once pending in the Senate, is not consistent with the history of the use of this procedural tactic in this body. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. We are looking at an empty page. So just to summarize, the clock has run as a result of this series of unanimous consent requests Senator McCaskill and I have put forward. The 6 days have begun. By the end of that, one of three things--as the Senator has corrected me--will have happened. Either the hold will have been lifted, and then we can move to unanimous consent and clear these individuals who the President has nominated and get them to work for the American people or, two, the Senator who has the secret hold will have to acknowledge publicly and become transparent and clear and candid with the rest of the body about who they are holding and why, or, three, they can engage in this rather obscure, shall we say, game of rotating holds, what I called the switcharoo, ducking out before the time runs and getting somebody else to actually have your hold for you but get in a proxy. Given this was a rule that was adopted with a very strong vote, a very strong bipartisan vote, and that it is now a rule of the Senate, what comment would the Senator have on that third tactic in terms of its merit and appropriateness, if we find it is being used at the end of the 6 days? Would that spur the need for reform of this rule?

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The legacy of the Senator from Oregon on this, with 10 years of work, is very impressive to this newer Senator. I appreciate so much what he and Senator Grassley have done over the years to begin to put an end to this practice. I think the straw that broke the camel's back--or maybe the 80 straws that broke the camel's back--was the absolute avalanche of secret holds that has confronted our new President from this Republican minority. It has come to the point where the President, I think fairly, believes his ability to staff his own administration is being compromised by people who will not stand and be counted and be accountable for the reason for their opposition. It is being done in the dark, secretly, and without any accountability. I agree that needs to be put to an end. So I urge people who are watching this: The sixth day has begun--6 days of session. At the end, we will know who is doing this or we will be able to clear these nominees, and we will have broken this unfortunate practice, to a significant degree or we will have learned something I think very unfortunate about our friends on the other side; that is, that they have agreed to connive with one another to play a switcharoo and bring in a new Senator to dodge the clear import of the rule that the Senator from Oregon and Senator Grassley worked on, on a bipartisan basis, to put into effect in this body and which was approved by an enormous majority of this body. So the clock is running and we will see. We will learn a lot about this institution and our colleagues in 6 days. I thank the Senator for his leadership on this issue. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I appreciate the distinguished Senator's objection. We do have 101 nominees on the Executive Calendar. The objections have holds which are secret. They are holding up people, as I said, for an average of 106 days. While it is nice one or two might be given a time agreement by the minority party, it does very little to relieve the blockade that the minority party is engaged in of judicial and Executive nominees. I will continue forward. I call up Executive Calendar No. 701, the nomination of Nancy Freudenthal to be a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming. She passed out of the committee by voice vote--a voice vote, as the Presiding Officer knows, is a vote without dissent--on February 11, 2010. She has decades of experience as a public servant and as a lawyer in private practice. She currently is Wyoming's First Lady. If confirmed, she will be that State's first female Federal judge. It is the practice of the Judiciary Committee not to put forward judges unless the consent of the home Senators has been obtained. I point out that both the Senators from Wyoming are Republicans. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session, and notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 701, the nomination of Nancy Freudenthal; that the nomination be confirmed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Yes. It was to call up Executive Calendar Nos. 656 and 657, which are the nominations of Judge Albert Diaz and Judge James Wynn to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As the distinguished Senator from Arizona will recall, since he sits with me on the Judiciary Committee, Judge Diaz was voted out by a vote of 19 to 0 back on January 28, 2010. If my math is correct, that means the distinguished Senator from Arizona voted for this nominee in the Judiciary Committee. Judge James Wynn was reported out the same day, January 28, by a vote of 18 to 1. I don't know if the Senator was the single dissenting vote in that overwhelming vote in support of Judge Wynn's nomination. Judge Diaz served in the Marine Corps and has 9 years of State court judicial experience. Judge Wynn is a certified military trial judge and a captain in the U.S. Navy Reserves. My unanimous-consent request was that the Senate proceed to executive session, and notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar Nos. 656 and 657; that nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record, as if read, and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I call up Executive Calendar No. 702, the nomination of Judge D. Price Marshall to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, a district court nominee who has been held up and filibustered. This district court nominee, Judge Marshall, is currently a judge on the Court of Appeals for the State of Arkansas. He spent 15 years in private practice in Jonesboro, AR. He served as a law clerk to Seventh Circuit Judge Richard S. Arnold. Judge Marshall was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on February 11, 2010, by voice vote and without dissent. He has been held and blockaded on this floor. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session, and notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 702; that the nomination be confirmed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.