Floor Statements

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:30 a.m. The majority will control the first half and the Republicans will control the final half. Following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of the STOCK Act. Senators will be notified when votes are scheduled.

Mr. President, I am told that S. 2041 is at the desk and is due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I would object to further proceedings with respect to this bill at this time.

Mr. President, for a few weeks in March 2010, Alan Frumin was one of the most talked about men in the entire city of Washington. The Senate was poised to send a historic health care reform bill to President Obama's desk for him to sign, but the usual procedural hurdles stood in the way.

Health care policy staffers were camped out in Alan Frumin's office studying Senate procedure and precedent. But despite the pressure, despite the national spotlight, Mr. Frumin remained calm and professional through what must have been one of the most intense moments of his career. For a very few weeks, every Capitol Hill reporter knew his name for sure. His respectable face was on every political news blog. Every political science professor talked about him. Even a few folks outside the beltway learned what on Earth was a Senate Parliamentarian. What do they do? He was briefly a Washington celebrity. But for those of us who work in the Senate, Alan Frumin has always been a star, even when very few of us knew who he was or what job he did. But it did not take us long after coming to the Senate to learn that quickly.

Alan has served in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate since 1977. In his 18 years as chief Parliamentarian, he has made countless difficult decisions with composure. He has a knowledge of complex rules that certainly would be deemed to be extraordinary. These are rules that are convoluted, and procedures are somewhat unique. But he understands every one of them.

He is, above all, impartial to a fault. I have been upset at Alan a few times when I wished he were not so impartial, but he has always been impartial. That is why he is the only Parliamentarian ever to be hired by both Democratic and Republican leaders to serve in this crucial role. In fact, he was retained in his position despite a change

of Senate control four times by five different majority leaders.

One cannot be an effective Parliamentarian without being fairminded and judicious, but Alan Frumin also brings to the job a willingness to hear both sides of an argument and consider every side of the issue. He has patience. I have never heard him raise his voice. I never saw him to be agitated. He is always calm and cool. What a wonderful example he is for all of us.

The truth is, Senate Parliamentarians aren't simply appointed, they grow into the job. So I am pleased that the talented Elizabeth MacDonough, who has worked for Alan for a decade, will succeed him. Elizabeth will be the sixth person to hold the job of Parliamentarian since it was created in 1935, and the first woman. She steps into very large shoes.

I will miss Alan's experience and guidance greatly, but I wish him all of the best in his retirement. But he is really not going to retire; he is going to continue to edit Riddick's Senate Procedure, the official book of Senate procedure, and no one is more qualified than Alan to do this.

Congratulations, Alan. Thank you very much for your service.

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

Mr. President, I have a substitute amendment at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lieberman, I call up an amendment, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I am happy to hear what that amendment does, and I thank the Senator.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 359.

I ask the clerk to read the entire resolution.

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

Mr. President, how many amendments are pending?

We started this morning at about 11 o'clock. We had to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill, which was supposedly a bill everyone wanted. It is too bad we had to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed, but we did. We have been working all day to set up rollcall votes--all day. We thought we had one a few minutes ago, but a couple Senators came over and said: There will not be a vote on that unless I am guaranteed votes on mine--even though their votes are totally not relevant or germane to the subject matter.

I appreciate Senator Lieberman and Senator Susan Collins. They are fine legislators. They understand what this body is all about and how important this legislation is and how important they are as managers of this bill. So they are negotiating on several of the amendments.

But at some point, Mr. President, this becomes ridiculous. To have Senators come over here and say they are not going to allow a vote on an amendment unless they are guaranteed votes on nongermane, nonrelevant amendments? Then people criticize me for not having an open amendment process? It becomes a circus. This is not the Senate that we have had or should have. At some point, we need cooperation from Members on both sides of the aisle to set up votes and dispose of these amendments and move on to passage of the bill.

I do not want to have to file cloture on this bill. I just want to alert everyone, if we continue the way we are going, where people are saying: You cannot have a vote on any amendment unless I am guaranteed a vote on my nongermane, nonrelevant amendment--what am I supposed to do to protect this body?

So I would hope the night will bring some common sense to some Senators. It is really--I will not say embarrassing, but it is a little bit, to these two fine Senators who have worked together for years on a bipartisan basis on some of the most sensitive issues this country has, protecting the homeland. We could not have two better people working on a bill to create some bipartisanship. But this is unfortunate and unfair and not right, and I, as the leader, am not going to let this continue forever.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 31, 2012, at 10 a.m., to conduct a committee hearing entitled ``Holding the CFPB Accountable: Review of First Semi-Annual Report.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 31, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 31, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Extenders and Tax Reform: Seeking Long-Term Solutions.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 31, 2012, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 31, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD-266 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Video Privacy

Protection Act: Protecting Viewer Privacy in the 21st Century.''

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 4:30 p.m. this afternoon. Senators will be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the STOCK Act. At 5:30 p.m. there will be a rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the STOCK Act.

Mr. President, Americans believe Congress is broken, and it is no mystery why. Political divisions in this Chamber are so great they often prevent the Senate from performing even its most fundamental difficulties. Divisions are so great they prevented this body from confirming Presidential nominees, which is a constitutional obligation we have. These days, it is no longer enough to be a qualified nominee. It is no longer enough to have bipartisan support. And in the case of judicial nominees, it is no longer enough to be reported unanimously out of the committee.

Last year, my Republican colleagues blocked or delayed scores--scores of outstanding nominees. Why? Because they want to defeat President Obama. They said so. That was their No. 1 goal. And it is he who made these nominations. So that is the No. 1 goal, to go after him any way they can. At the end of last year, Republicans refused to allow votes on 16 judicial nominees who were reported out of the committee unanimously--Democrats and Republicans.

Unfortunately, this year may bring more of the same. Already this year--the last few weeks--some Republicans have come to the floor and threatened to drag out the confirmation process for every nominee for the rest of the year. This Republican obstructionism is supposedly retribution for President Obama's recess appointment of Richard Cordray. No one questions his qualifications--no one. He was called upon by the President to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. If we have a qualified leader at the helm, this Bureau will be able to effectively protest things that are wrong and protect middle-class families from the greed and excess of big Wall Street banks. It will not impact smaller financial service firms that help Americans

who do not want to use banks, and it will not impact the banks or nonbanks that deal fairly with consumers, but it will deal severely with foreign nonbanks that are ripping off customers. This Bureau will serve as a watchdog against the kinds of abuses that nearly collapsed our financial system in 2008.

President Obama is right to recess-appoint Mr. Cordray. It is protected in the Constitution. That is a constitutional obligation and benefit President Obama has--or any President has. It is in the Constitution. President Bush had the same right to make recess appointments even though Democrats kept the Senate in pro forma session. Bush did not exercise that right or challenge the pro forma sessions in court because Democrats worked with him to confirm hundreds of his nominees. Unfortunately, Republicans have refused to work with President Obama as we did with President Bush. Instead, they are threatening political payback and more delays.

This brand of obstructionism is the reason Americans are disillusioned with Congress. They believe Congress cannot get anything done. It will take cooperation between Democrats and Republicans to turn that perception around. So we should show the American people that, with cooperation--we know it works, cooperation between the two parties--this body can accomplish great things.

Mr. President, as to the STOCK Act, I am glad to see that spirit of cooperation is alive as we move forward. At least I hope so. It is bipartisan legislation. Members of Congress and their staff have a duty to the American people. They may not use privileged information they get on the job to personally profit. But the perception remains that a few Members of Congress are using their positions as public servants to serve themselves instead.

Insider trading laws were created to level the playing field and stop Wall Street excesses. And Members of Congress are not above the law. We must play by the same rules by which every other American plays. The STOCK Act will clear up any perception that it is acceptable for Members of Congress to profit from insider training. It will end any confusion over whether Members of Congress can be prosecuted for their serious crime. They can be.

I am really disappointed that I had to file cloture to stop a Republican filibuster on this worthy legislation, but I did. Rather than let us move to this, we had to file cloture to stop this filibuster. So when we get on this bill--and we will get on this bill-- we are going to have an open amendment process. It is my wish that Republicans will not abuse the comity that should be here in the Senate, and I hope these amendments that are offered will not be nongermane, nonrelevant. I hope we can legislate on issues that are in the context of this legislation. I repeat, it is sure too bad we had to file cloture.

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

Mr. President, this is not the time for a debate with my friend, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming. I would just say there are two sides to the story. Try to have my friend, the Senator from Wyoming, explain to Jeff Hill, a young man who, within 2 weeks after turning age 24--he had to go off his parents' insurance when he turned 23--got testicular cancer. His parents had to spend money they didn't have, borrow money they didn't have to take care of the problems this young man developed with testicular cancer, all the surgery, radiation, all the other chemo he had. Try to have him explain to the more than 2 million seniors who have been able to have wellness checks as a result of this law we passed. How about the people in Nevada who have come to me with tears in their eyes, explaining to me that their daughter or son now has the ability to have insurance because they cannot be denied insurance because of a preexisting disability.

That is why we have seen this litigation which has been generated, and the appellate courts by a 3-to-2 margin have favored the law, including a brilliant decision written by an extremely conservative judge, Judge Silberman in the DC Court of Appeals, who upheld this law. That is why many consumer groups have joined in the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, along with the pharmaceutical industry, along with the insurance companies--because this is something that is good for the American consumer.

That is why it was so unfortunate that the Republicans blocked something that would help consumers after the financial wizardry that took place on Wall Street that basically tore down the economies of so many different States. When we passed the Dodd bill, we wanted to make sure consumers were protected. That is why we tried for months and months to have someone selected to fill that spot.

Republicans said: We do not like the law. We like him, but we don't like the law, so we do not want the law effectuated, so we are not going to approve him. And they did not. That is why President Obama, under the terms of the Constitution that is written to protect this country, has in that Constitution the power of recess appointments.

That is what he did to protect the consumer.

The health care law we passed protects the consumer.

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.