Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Friday, May 7; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of S. 3217, Wall Street reform.

Mr. President, there will be no rollcall votes during Friday's session of the Senate.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, more than 18 months after the collapse of Lehman Brothers put our financial system into a deep freeze, we are at a crossroads in history. We can continue to turn a blind eye to the very real threat that excessive risk taking and reckless deregulation pose to our economy or we can choose to learn from the financial disaster that nearly brought our economy to a screeching halt. I urge my colleagues to choose reform.

We can't wait any longer to take on the challenge of overhauling the rules of the road for our financial system. We have a regulatory system based on the 1930s and 1970s and a financial world in the year 2010. We have an economic imperative to pass a strong set of financial reforms. The shock waves in the real economy that resulted from the financial crisis are still being felt today by the millions of Americans who can't find a job or are facing foreclosure, who can't pay their children's college tuition or have to put off retirement because their savings have been decimated.

We have 9.7 percent unemployment in this country, not because of any reform proposal that has yet to become law

but because of an irresponsibility in the financial system and a broken-down financial regulatory system that was last updated in the 1930s and allowed too many firms, and even whole markets, to slip through the cracks. If we do nothing, we will surely find ourselves facing a similar crisis in the not too distant future.

Senator Dodd and my colleagues on the Banking Committee have put together a bill with strong forward-looking reforms that make our financial system stronger and more stable so it can return to its fundamental role--helping our economy grow and innovate and create jobs. The bill lays out new rules of the road, fills gaps in our regulations, and protects consumers and investors. Most importantly, by creating a new resolution authority--which I know my colleague from Virginia, who is sitting on the floor here now, has worked very hard on--this bill ensures that taxpayers will never again have to bail out large financial institutions. Firms that fail, will fail, period. There will be no rescue or bailout, only an orderly unwinding that forces stockholders and bondholders to suffer, not taxpayers.

As a New Yorker, I see the connection between Wall Street and Main Street every day. The financial industry is responsible for 500,000 jobs in New York City, and most of them are not the kind of fancy, high-paying jobs you read about or see in the movies. The average salary for these jobs is about $70,000. But I realize the financial system plays a special role far beyond Manhattan. There are many analogies. It is the heart of the economy, the lifeblood, the circulatory system, the engine of the economy or the oil that greases the gears. Whatever image you choose, it is absolutely critical to helping businesses grow and innovate and create new jobs. So our reform must be forward thinking and strong but not punitive or vindictive or vengeful, because that will hurt the whole economy.

With the special status of the financial system come special responsibilities. The industry has reacted to many of the new proposals by arguing that they will kill innovation. But because we can make cars that go 200 miles per hour doesn't mean we shouldn't have speed limits. In general, I think this bill strikes the necessary balance between maintaining an innovative and competitive financial system while ensuring that the recklessness that occurred by some on Wall Street will never again threaten the financial health of Americans on Main Street. Make no mistake about it, these reforms will be good for both Wall Street and Main Street.

The bill will create a financial system where consumers and investors on Main Street can have confidence in the products and services they receive and where they put their money; a financial system focused on getting capital into the real economy, so people can start new businesses and grow their existing ones. At the same time, the certainty and stability that reform will provide will make our financial system even more attractive to investors around the world and will help keep America at the forefront of the world's economy.

I believe this bill will strengthen jobs and income creation in my State of New York, not leak it, because it will make the system stronger. It will make people have more confidence in that system, and money from around the world will flow into New York, which is the capital of the financial system for our Nation and our world.

The bill Senator Dodd put together is stronger in many ways than most people expected it to be a couple of months ago. It contains several core reforms that will go a long way toward fixing the problems that crept up in our financial system over decades. The bill would make sure taxpayers never again have to foot the bill when large institutions fail; make sure every large financial institution has a regulator looking over its shoulder to prevent excesses, and a council of regulators looking at risks across the whole system; make sure derivatives--which, when abused, can put the whole system at risk--are traded transparently, at the very least, and on an exchange whenever possible.

I should note this is a huge change from the way the derivatives market works now. We would go from a totally unregulated market to one that is regulated, where regulators know every trade that happens and risks can't build up in the system without anyone knowing better.

The bill will also make sure there are stronger consumer protections to ensure institutions can't take advantage of average Americans in their mortgages, credit cards, or other financial instruments. It would give investors additional power to hold their boards accountable so they are not asleep at the wheel the next time their management is loading up the company with risk.

Like many of my colleagues, however, I believe there are areas of the bill I wish to see improved, and I will continue to work with my colleagues on the floor to do that. First, I wish to see even stronger consumer protection in the financial services area, and I am working with Senators Reid and Durbin and others to strengthen this part of the bill. This is an area where I have worked hard for decades now in Congress, both in the House and Senate. It is clear to me we can't force Congress to pass a new law every time a credit card company figures out a way to skirt the old laws. We need an independent agency whose only mission is to protect consumers, and that agency needs to write and enforce rulings across the board for all financial institutions.

I am sponsoring an amendment to expand the enforcement authority of the Consumer Protection Bureau over all nonbanks, such as payday lenders and rent-to-own companies, to make sure consumers are protected no matter who they rely on for financial services.

In the area of consumers, small companies can rip off consumers just the way large companies can. And while large companies can pose a greater risk to the system as a whole, small companies can pose every bit as great a risk to the individual consumer, and the distinction between the two is faceted and unfair.

I also think the bill could go farther in dealing with credit rating agencies, and I am working with Senator Franken on a proposal that would reduce the conflicts of interest inherent in their current business model. There are other changes I will proposal as well.

In conclusion, we have many tasks in front of us if we are to rebuild the American economy, but a stronger financial system focused on the needs of the real economy is crucial in that effort. There should be no doubt that part of putting us back on the path to prosperity requires instituting smart, thoughtful financial reforms.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Enemy Combatants

Madam President, last Friday, I introduced S. 3295, the DISCLOSE Act, because Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections. I am joined by 40 of my Senate colleagues as cosponsors.

Decades ago, Justice Louis Brandeis boldly said, ``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' That is exactly what this bill will do--shine a light on the flood of spending unleashed by the Citizens United decision.

The DISCLOSE Act will drill down and give the public the information they have a right to know. No longer will groups be able to live and spend in the shadows.

The Court spoke in the Citizens United decision. And while there is disagreement with its ruling, there is room to maneuver. This legislation does not circumvent the Court by reimposing a backdoor ban on corporate spending. Instead, the DISCLOSE Act closes certain loopholes and relies on enhanced disclosure, an idea endorsed by the Court. This legislation meets the test of constitutionality.

The aim of the DISCLOSE Act is simply to level the political playing field so that special interests do not drown out the voice of the average voter. It applies to corporations and advocacy organizations the same rules that candidates already have to abide by. And it applies these rules equally across the board. It covers corporations and labor unions alike, as well as 527s, social welfare organizations, and trade associations.

The DISCLOSE Act will do the following:

First, new disclaimers on all television advertisements funded by special interests will be required in order to uncover who is really behind the ad. If a corporation is running the ad, the CEO will have to appear to at the end to say that he or she approved the message, just like a candidate must do today. If an advocacy organization is running the ad, both the head of the organization running the ad, and the top outside funder of the ad, will have to appear on camera. Additionally, a list of the top five funders to that organization will be displayed on the screen. This will stop the funneling of big money through shadow groups in order to fund ads that are virtually anonymous. For the first time, the money can be followed back to its origin and the source of the money will be public.

Second, an unprecedented level of disclosure is mandated, not only of an organization's spending, but also of its donors. In disclosing their donors, organizations will have a choice--they can either disclose all of their donors that have given in excess $1,000, or they can disclose only those donors who contribute to the group's campaign-related activity account, if they solely use that account for their spending. All spending intended to influence an election--be it on television, radio, print, mailers, robocalls, and billboards--would flow through this account. And every donor who contributes more than $1,000 would have to be disclosed. Organizations must not only disclose these donors to the FEC, but also to the public on their Web sites and to their shareholders and members through their annual and quarterly reports.

Third, loopholes created by the Court's decision are closed. The first loophole is closed by preventing foreign-controlled entities from spending unlimited sums in our elections through their U.S.-based subsidiaries. This was a loophole specifically mentioned by Justice Stevens in his dissent. Foreign leaders who don't have American interests in mind shouldn't have the ability to influence our elections. The second loophole is closed by banning companies with government contracts in excess of $50,000 from making unlimited expenditures. The third loophole is closed by banning expenditures by companies that receive government assistance such as TARP. Taxpayer money should not be used to help corporations influence elections.

Finally, in an attempt to allow all candidates and parties to respond to ads funded by special interests, the current law granting lowest unit rate to candidates is expanded by giving those same rights to the parties on a limited geographic basis.

I ask my colleagues to join me in sponsoring and passing the DISCLOSE Act.

I ask unanimous consent that a section by section analysis of the DISCLOSE Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, May 5, 2010, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on ``Voting By Mail: An Examination of State and Local Experiences.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Lynden

Armstrong at the Rules and Administration Committee.

Mr. President, as Senator Gillibrand and I have expressed to Senator Harkin, we share Senator Specter's concerns. The citizens of our State rely upon the New York State Higher Education Services Corporation, HESC, to provide similar services, which have also been funded with the earnings HESC has retained from their role as a State guaranty agency.

Yes, I do. That is why Senator Gillibrand, Senator Specter, and I believe it would be beneficial for the Secretary of Education to use this authority for State guaranty agencies that provide valuable services.

Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of the nomination of Judge Denny Chin to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Judge Chin is, first and foremost, a highly qualified and experienced nominee to one of the busiest courts in the country.

Judge Chin's life story speaks volumes about his own talent and determination, but also about the opportunities that this country offers--opportunities that made it possible for him to make the journey from Hong Kong, through Hell's Kitchen, to New York's best schools and now to the Second Circuit.

No one could be more qualified. No one could have a more impeccable record on the district court. And, he has the bonus of providing needed diversity to our appellate bench.

Nonethless, after passing him out of committee unanimously, my Republican colleagues required the majority leader to file cloture on his nomination. It took 4 months--4 months--to get an up or down vote on him. It is good for the court system and the country that we are finally doing it this morning.

He has been a sitting judge in the Southern District of New York for 15 years, during which time he has presided with exceptional skill over some of the most challenging and important cases in the country.

Judge Chin is a quintessential New Yorker: He graduated from our best schools--including Stuyvesant High School and Fordham University Law School--and practiced there his entire career. His family emigrated from Hong Kong to America when Judge Chin was just 2 years old. His father worked as a cook and his mother worked as a garment factory seamstress in Chinatown. He grew up in a cramped tenement in Hell's Kitchen with his four siblings. He later practiced in New York as both a private lawyer and a Federal prosecutor.

Throughout my time in the Senate, I have applied the following criteria to each nominee for the federal bench: Is he excellent? Is he moderate? And will he bring diversity to the bench?

On excellence: Besides his obvious academic and professional credentials, Judge Chin has earned a unanimous well qualified rating excellent by ABA.

But more important than this, in my book, are the views of his peers who come in contact with him every day. Few judges have earned the accolades that litigants have given Judge Chin, whether they have experienced his courtroom in victory or defeat.

For example, in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary--which compiles evaluations of judges from practitioners--lawyers describe Judge Chin as ``a judge's judge,'' ``conscientious,'' ``extremely hard-working,'' ``very bright,'' and ``an excellent judge.''

In short, no one--no one--questions Judge Chin's excellence, his intellect, or his temperament.

On moderation: There is more than one way to evaluate Judge Chin's moderation.

First, he is a tough, but fair, sentencing judge. In an observation that is emblematic of Judge Chin's moderation, one attorney has even said of Judge Chin: ``[h]e is a decent human being but he doesn't let that influence his sentencing.''

Judge Chin is, in fact recently best known for sentencing Ponzi scheme operator Bernard Madoff. In a case that could have been a complete circus, that involved hundreds of victims who lost every penny they had, Judge Chin ran the proceedings with dignity and efficiency and sentenced Madoff to the highest possible sentence.

Judge Chin said:

The message must be sent that Mr. Madoff's crimes were

extraordinarily evil and that this kind of irresponsible

manipulation of the system is not merely a bloodless

financial crime that takes place just on paper, but that it

is . . . one that takes a staggering human toll.

In addition, Judge Chin has said explicitly that he believes in a modest, moderate role for judges. In his 1994 questionnaire that he submitted during his confirmation to be a district court judge, he wrote:

My view is that judges ought not to legislate; that is not

their function. Judges interpret and apply the law, keeping

in mind the purposes of the law.

Finally, Judge Chin has plenty of bipartisan support. His nomination garnered glowing letters from former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Republican-appointed U.S. Attorney John Martin, who hired him 30 years ago and has practiced before Judge Chin. He had not a single vote against him, Democrat or Republican, in committee.

On the topic of diversity: It goes without saying that Judge Chin's confirmation would improve the diversity of the Federal appellate bench. He already has the distinction of being the only Asian American judge to serve on the Federal district court outside of the Ninth Circuit. With his confirmation, he will be the only currently active Asian American appellate judge on the Federal bench.

So, let us proceed to approve Judge Chin without further delay, and keep one of the busiest dockets in the Federal judiciary functioning smoothly. I am proud and pleased to have a role in this historic moment for our Federal courts.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on

Rules and Administration will meet on Thursday, April 22, 2010, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on ``Examining the Filibuster: History of the Filibuster 1789-2008.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Lynden Armstrong at the Rules and Administration Committee on 202-224-6352.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Thursday, April 15, 2010, at 10 a.m. to hear testimony on the nomination of Stephen T. Ayers to be Architect of the Capitol for the term of 10 years.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Lynden Armstrong at the Rules and Administration Committee on 202-224-6352.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, first, I wish to salute my colleague from Virginia. There has been no one in this body who has stood more firmly and more intelligently and more successfully for veterans than the junior Senator from Virginia, and I thank him. I hope the other side will heed what he has asked, which is not anything to do with politics but simply in the benefit of our veterans.

Madam President, second--and I am going to speak on a local matter in a minute--I wish to compliment Senators Reid and Baucus and Harkin and Dodd for the great job they have done. What a momentous day it is. Today is a moment to ignore the politics--how it will affect this party or this election or this President. For the next decade and henceforth, there are going to be 1 million people each week whose lives are made better by what we have done today. There is going to be a young person, God forbid, who is in an automobile accident and because she has good health insurance, she will get cured and live a better life; whereas, until now, she wouldn't. There is going to be somebody who has cancer, and in the past their insurance company would have said: Forget it. Now they are going to get that treatment. There is going to be a poor person who walks into a community health center and gets diagnosed early and cured and able to live a productive life. There are going to be countless young people who are worried. My daughter called me right after the House passed health insurance at 1 in the morning and she said: Dad--she is getting out of law school. She is going to have no health insurance until she starts her job 4 or 5 months from now, and she was worried about whether she could afford to buy it. She said: Dad, I got health insurance. I can be on yours.

So it is little instances and big instances. Every day, every week, every month people's lives are going to be made so much better by what we have done. That is what we ought to think about today, regardless of our differences. I am proud to win a small part of that, but again, I salute some of the giants who led us here: the President, whose faith in getting this done never waivered; Speaker Pelosi and her crew over in the House; and, of course, our leader, Harry Reid, who, in his low- key but relentless way, makes sure we do what we have to do and unites our cause.

Madam President, I wish to spend the rest of this time talking about a local matter of some concern. One of the nice things about being a Senator, you work on big matters and small matters and they are all enjoyable and all are important. This isn't small but more local, shall I say.

With NASA searching for a new home for three soon-to-be-retired space shuttles, it is time to convince NASA that the Big Apple has the right stuff to showcase one of these iconic spacecraft.

The perfect location for a retired space shuttle is the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum on Manhattan's West Side in my hometown of New York City.

Yes, it will be a huge boon to New York's economy and a magnet for tourists.

But showcasing a genuine space shuttle will not only bring visitors by the millions, it will inspire multitudes to learn, explore and dream, of adventure.

It is perfect for NASA, too: The agency's explicit goal is to have these magnificent vehicles seen--and their history understood--by the greatest number of people possible.

No other location in the nation can offer the millions and millions of visitors who will stream into the Intrepid to view and experience the shuttle.

Housing an iconic spacecraft in New York City--the media center of the world--guarantees it will appear in countless news and entertainment programs broadcast throughout the nation and world, providing incalculable public-relations value to NASA.

Just yesterday I spoke to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and he has informed me that the Intrepid is in good shape to be the permanent hangar for one of the shuttles.

The Intrepid is competing with museums in 25 other cities to win one of the shuttles, including Washington's Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.

NASA has been clear that they intend to award the shuttles to the sites where the most people could view them.

With the Intrepid already drawing one million visitors a year it is clear that the Intrepid is the best possible spot for a shuttle.

NASA also requires any potential host location to raise significant funds.

I have no doubt that the Intrepid's drawing power and New York City's deep and diverse philanthropic community are more than able to compile all the resources needed.

Yet skeptics may ask why a space shuttle should be brought to New York City.

Perhaps they don't know that the Intrepid led the recovery of astronauts during the Mercury and Gemini programs in the 1960s.

The exhibit will be sure to attract heavy foot traffic too: The Intrepid will house the shuttle in a glass enclosure on Pier 86--close to Times Square and many other tourist attractions, accessible from major airports, passenger-ship terminals and highways.

Countless boys and girls, as well as adults, with boundless imaginations, will be able to stroll over to the West Side and take in the truly magnificent icon of science, exploration and innovation.

With 20 institutions across the country competing to receive one of the retired shuttles, Discovery, Endeavour and Atlantis, we should all join the fight to bring a space shuttle to the greatest city in the world. a no-brainer.

It is a non-brainer.

I, along with some of my New York colleagues, are working hard to land the shuttle here, and I hope we are able to convince NASA that we are ready, willing--and very able--to be the home for a shuttle.

I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I object until we discuss the order of business.

Without objection, Madam President.

I ask unanimous consent that first the Senator from Oklahoma be recognized for 5 minutes, then the Senator from North Dakota be recognized for 10 minutes and that no motions be in order during the time of their speeches and immediately thereafter we resort back to a quorum call.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my request be modified so that the Senator from Oklahoma may have up to 10 minutes to speak.