Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleagues for being here this morning. I am pleased to join this effort. I want to particularly thank my colleague from Missouri, who has been a relentless voice on opening up and bringing a little sunshine to not only this issue but a lot of things that go on here that maybe make some of our colleagues a little uncomfortable, but she is constantly being that voice and pushing and prodding and trying to make sure we improve the process.

I also want to thank my colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma, who--as I think the Senator from Missouri said--we may not always agree with, but there are very few Members in this body who are more straightforward and honest about what they believe in and are more consistent, which probably frustrates some of us. But he is absolutely consistent in what he believes and he holds our feet to the fire. I commend him for bringing forward his holds and being willing to step up and explain them.

Like the Presiding Officer, I am a new guy here. But unlike so many of my colleagues, I have never been a legislator. I was a business guy for a number of years and I had the honor of serving as Governor. Quite honestly, I had a little TV in the Governor's office and whenever the legislature was in, I simply turned it off. So I don't fully appreciate, perhaps, all of the traditions of a legislative body. And I don't, by any means, know the history as well as my colleague from Missouri and my colleague from Oklahoma surrounding holds. But I did a little bit of research, and it seemed to me this ``holds'' notion came up as a courtesy in the last century because Senators had to travel a long distance to get to the body. They couldn't be here because they were traveling--on horseback--and it would take days or weeks. So somebody might say, as a courtesy, that we are going to set this aside or put a hold on somebody until the Senator can get here and explain himself or herself--I guess himself, at least at that time--in a fuller manner.

It seems to me that some of the traditions of this institution that were used on occasion--whether it is holds or filibusters or what have you--to keep this body functioning, are now being so overused that we seem to be institutionalizing dysfunction. I think the Senator from Oklahoma has made the case that neither side has clean hands, and whatever is up today may be down tomorrow.

One of the things I think the Senator from Missouri in her effort has done is to say: We are not saying we ought to change the rules for this moment in time. We want to change the rules forever. I can't explain to anybody in the Commonwealth of Virginia why in the 21st century we have something called a ``secret hold,'' where somebody can say: We don't like this guy or gal and we don't want them to be put forward, debated, and voted up or down for some secret, unknown reason.

I know my colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma, has said that most of the Members may have a legitimate reason--because they do not agree with the individual's philosophy or their background, and that is a very legitimate reason to raise--but I do know there has been at least--and I can't ascribe motives--a recent press report about an issue that brought some controversy here to the floor where a Member held one of the President's nominees not because the Member felt there was anything wrong with the nominee's qualifications but as a leverage matter, to try to encourage the administration to change a law with Canada on a totally unrelated matter. That, to me, seems like institutionalizing dysfunction and not--back to what I have at least been able to read about the history of holds--as a courtesy because folks can't get here and make their case in person. Even with our slightly dysfunctional airline system at this point, we can get here within a couple of days, absent storms.

So again commending my colleague from Oklahoma for stepping up on this one, where there is a problem with someone the President is putting forward--this President or any future President--we ought to acknowledge it, we ought to say what is wrong, we should have a spirited discussion, and then we should either vote the person up or down.

I am anxious to listen. If there is something wrong with some of these folks, let's vote them down and tell the President to put up somebody else. But 16 months into this administration--as a former business CEO and a former CEO of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I couldn't imagine having my folks languish in limbo in this kind of skull and crossbones kind of secret hold society stuff. It seems as if it was something that came out of the 18th or 19th century, where certain institutions of higher learning transported this idea of secret holds here to the floor of the Senate. It doesn't seem to make sense.

I am going to finish, because there are other colleagues, and the Senator from Oklahoma is going to have to rise a number of times because there are a lot of folks we have to go through, so I won't go on with this issue. But I am proud to be part of this effort with the Senator from Missouri, and I hope the Senator from Oklahoma will continue to raise issues--particularly around public spending--where I hope to find lots of places of common cause to join him. I appreciate his willingness to come forward. I sure as heck hope that more Members, on both sides of the aisle, will join this effort.

We can be respectful of the Senate and we can be respectful of its traditions, but it sure as heck seems to me that in the 21st century, the notion of secret holds ought to be one of those traditions that gets left behind. So in that spirit, I have two sets of nominations, both en bloc, since they are both Democrats and Republicans, to try to make the point that, in some small way, this is not about partisanship. It is about process.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar Nos. 589, Anthony Coscia; 590, Albert DiClemente; and 788, Jeffrey R. Moreland, all to be Directors of the Amtrak Board of Directors; 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 related to the nominees be printed in the Record.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source