starttime 1271856621.62054
C-SPAN2.
ETERNAL GOD, THANK YOU FOR
BEING OUR STRENGTH AND SHIELD,
FOR WE TRUST YOU TO GUIDE OUR
STEPS.
BRING UNITY TO OUR LAWMAKERS SO
THEY WILL BE A FORCE FOR GOOD
FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE
WORLD.
REFRESH THEIR FAITH, RENEW THEIR
VISION, AND REKINDLE THEIR
COURAGE SO THAT THEY CAN FIND
COMMON GROUND AND GLORIFY YOU IN
THE LIVING OF THEIR DAYS.
STIR THEIR HEARTS WITH THE
PRESENCE OF YOUR SPIRIT,
PREPARING THEM TO BE INSTRUMENTS
OF YOUR WILL.
WE PRAY IN YOUR SACRED NAME.
AMEN.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: PLEASE
JOIN ME IN RECITING THE PLEDGE
OF ALLEGIANCE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE
TO THE FLAG
OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA,
AND TO THE REPUBLIC
FOR WHICH IT STANDS,
ONE NATION
UNDER GOD,
INVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY
AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
CLERK WILL READ A COMMUNICATION
TO THE SENATE.
THE CLERK: WASHINGTON, D.C.,
APRIL 21, 2010.
TO THE SENATE:
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 1,
PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE STANDING
RULES OF THE SENATE, I HEREBY
APPOINT THE HONORABLE TOM UDALL,
A SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, TO PERFORM
THE DUTIES OF THE CHAI
SIGNED: ROBERT C. BYRD, PRESIDENT
PRO TEMPORE.
MR. REID:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. REID: FOLLOWING LEADER
REMARKS, THE SENATE WILL BE IN A
PERIOD OF MORNING BUSINESS FOR ONE HOUR.
DURING THAT TIME, SENATORS WILL
BE PERMITTED TO SPEAK FOR UP TO TEN MINUTES EACH.
THE MAJORITY WILL CONTROL THE
FIRST 30 MINUTES.
THE REPUBLICANS WILL CONTROL THE
FINAL 30 MINUTES.
FOLLOWING MORNING BUSINESS, THE
SENATE WILL TURN TO EXECUTIVE
SESSION TO DEBATE THE NOMINATION
OF CHRISTOPHER SCHROEDER TO BE
AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL.
THERE WILL BE UP TO THREE HOURS
FOR DEBATE PRIOR TO VOTE ON
CONFIRMATION OF THIS NOMINATION.
UPON DISPOSITION OF THE
SCHROEDER NOMINATION, THE SENATE
WILL CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF
THOMAS VANASKIE, UNITED STATES
CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.
THERE WILL BE THREE HOURS FOR
DEBATE PRIOR TO VOTE ON
CONFIRMATION OF
MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD NOTE THE
ABSENCE OF A
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
MR. REID: I
CONSENT THE EQUAL OF THE QUORUM
BE TERMINATED.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. REID: MR. PRESIDENT, EVERY
ONE OF OUR SERVICE MEMBERS
DESERVES THE UNQUALIFIED
APPRECIATION AND ADMIRATION OF
THE UNITED STATES SENATE AND OUR
ENTIRE NATION.
TODAY, I WANT TO SALUTE THE
SERVICE OF ONE SUCH SOLDIER, A
MAN WHO FIRST ANSWERED HIS
COUNTRY'S CALL IN WORLD WAR II
AND HASN'T STOPPED.
BOB O'MALLEY SERVED OUR NATION
WITH DISTINCTION IN THE TENTH
MOUNTAIN DIVISION INOMBAT IN
EUROPE.
HE WAS A SERGEANT, A SQUAD
LEADER WHO LED HIS MEN BRAVELY AND WITH HONOR.
HE PUT HIS LIFE ON THE LINE ON
MANY OCCASIONS TO PROTECT HIS
MEN, FIGHT FOR FREEDOM AGAINST
NAZI GERMANY.
HE WAS RECOGNIZED WITH HIS
SQUAD'S ADMIRATION, COMBAT
INFANTRY BADGE AND, BECAUSE HE
WAS WOUNDED, A PURPLE HEART.
BUT HE HASN'T STOPPED SERVING
HIS COUNTRY.
BOB CAME TO WASHINGTON IN 1965,
WORKED FOR CONGRESSMAN ROBERT
SWEENEY BEFORE STARTING A
27-YEAR CAREER WITH THE
DOORKEEPER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THAT'S WHERE I FIRST MET HIM AS
A YOUNG MEMBER OF CONGRESS.
THE DOORKEEPER MR. MALLOY AND
MR. O'MALLEY HAD THIS SUITE OF
OFFICES AND IT WAS KIND OF A
HANGOUT FOR DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS
OF THE HOUSE AND ESPECIALLY IT
WAS A WAY FOR NEW MEMBERS OF THE
CONGRESS TO BECOME ACQUAINTED
WITH WHAT WAS GOING ON OVER
THERE.
THEY WERE VERY CARING ABOUT THE
NEW MEMBERS AND ALWAYS POINTED
US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
I HAVE ALWAYS REMEMBERED THOSE
TWO MEN FOR ALL THE MANY GOOD
DEEDS THEY DID ON MY BEHALF.
HIS WAS A 27-YEAR CAREER WITH
THE DOORKEEPER.
AS I INDICATED, THAT'S WHERE I
MET HIM.
BY THE TIME THE WAR IN
AFGHANISTAN STARTED IN 2002, BOB
HAD RETIRED FROM SERVICE IN THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MOST RETIREES MAY BE CONTENT TO
SEEK A WELL-EARNED LIFE OF
LEISURE BUT SERGEANT O'MALLEY
DID NOT.
HE SIGNED UP FOR A NEW AND
WORTHY MISSION, WAKING EVERY DAY
TO SERVE OUR NATION'S WOUNDED
WARRIORS.
WHEN THE WAR STARTED, HE WENT
BACK TO WORK AS A VOLUNTEER,
AGAIN A VOLUNTEER, SUPPORTING
AND CARING FOR THE MEN AND WOMEN
OF THE TENTH MOUNTAIN DIVISION,
HIS OLD UNIT.
HE HAS MADE COUNTLESS VISITS TO
WALTER REED, THE GREAT MEDICAL
CENTER WHERE THESE WOUNDED
WARRIORS COME TO RECUPERATE.
ON ALL THESE VISITS TO WALTER
REED, HE WOULD TAKE COUNTLESS
HOURS, TALKING AND SHARING
STORIES ABOUT THE DIVISION AND
TAKING HIS FELLOW VETERANS TO
BALLGAMES AND OTHER EVENTS,
INCLUDING THE SHARING OF MEALS
ON MANY OCCASIONS.
WHEN MANY OF THESE WOUNDED
WARRIORS COULDN'T MAKE IT HOME
FOR THE HOLIDAYS, BOB WOULD
REACH INTO HIS OWN POCKET AND
PAY FOR THANKSGIVING, CHRISTMAS,
AND NEW YEAR'S DINNERS FOR
SOLDIERS AND THEIR FAMILY AT
SOME OF THE FINEST EATERIES IN
THE WASHINGTON, D.C., AREA.
BOB SAYS THAT HELPING SOLDIERS
RECOVER FROM THEIR WAR INJURIES
HAS ADDED YEARS TO HIS LIFE.
WE KNOW IT'S ADDED YEARS TO THE
LIVES OF THOSE HE HELPS ALSO.
BOB O'MALLEY WOULD BE THE FIRST
TO TELL YOU THAT THIS IS NOT A ONE-MAN MISSION.
HE HAS HAD HELP FROM MANY
DIFFERENT AREAS.
WHENE DECIDED TO HELP THOSE
WOUNDED ON THE BATTLEFIELD,
THOUGH, FOR EXAMPLE, HE ENLISTED
THE HELP OF ANOTHER VETERAN, DON
VISCANI SR., AN ORIGINAL MEMBER
OF THE TENTH MOUNTAIN DIVISION
OF WORLD WAR II.
HE ASKED DOM TO HELP AND DOM WAS
HAPPY TO HELP ENTERTAIN AND
SUPPORT THESE TROOPS.
MANY OF BOB'S FRIENDS SOON
JOINED THE CAUSE AS WELL AND
THEY ARE A CONSTAN PRESENC
UPON THE SOLDIERS, WHETHER THEY
ARE HERE OR AT HOME.
OUR ARMY WOULD NOT BE THE BEST
PLACE IN THE WORLD WITHOUT THE
WORK OF VETERANS LIKE SERGEANT
O'MALLEY WHOSE LIFE HAS BEEN
SYNONYMOUS WITH SERVICE,
SACRIFICE, AND SELFLESSNESS.
HIS INSPIRATION TO ME, TO OUR
ARMED FORCES AND OUR COUNTRY.
HE IS A HERO, AND I'M PROUD TO
CALL HIM A FRIEND.
WOULD THE CHAIR ANNOUNC
BUSINESS NOW?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: UNDER THE
PREVIOUS ORDER, THE LEADERSHIP
UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THERE
WILL NOW BE A PERIOD OF MORNING
BUSINESS FOR ONE HOUR WITH
SENATORS PERMITTED TO SPEAK
THEREIN FOR UP TO TEN MINUTES
EACH, WITH THE MAJORITY
CONTROLLING THE FIRST 30 MINUTES
AND THE REPUBLICANS CONTROLLING
THE FINAL 30 MINUTES.
MR. REED: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM RHO RECOGNIZED.
MR. REED: THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
FIRST, LET ME JOIN MAJORITY
LEADER REID IN SALUTING THESE
INCREDIBLE AMERICANS WHO ARE
WITHS TODAY, WOUNDED WARRIORS
AND BOB O'MALLEY.
AS SOMEONE WHO HAS SERVED 12
YEARS IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY,
MY APPRECIATION AND RESPECT IS
PROFOUND FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DONE
AND WHAT YOU CONTINUE TO DO.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IFER A CIRCUITOUS CONNECTION TO
THE TENTH MOUNTAIN DIVISION.
MY CLASSMATE FROM WEST POINT
COMMANDED THE TENTH MOUNTAIN IN AFGHANISTAN.
I WAS TRE TO VISIT THOSE GREAT
SOLDIERS SEVERAL TIMES.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE
D THANK YOU FOR YOUR
INSPIRATION.
MR. PRESIDENT, I'M HERE TODAY
NOT ONLY TO SALUTE THESE GREAT
AMERICANS BUT ALSO TO TALK ABOUT
THE URGENCY OF BRINGING THE
ISSUE OF FINANCIAL REFORM TO THE
SENATE FOR OPEN DEBATE AND FINAL
PASSAGE.
WE HAVE WITNESSED THE WORST
FINANCIAL CRISIS IN THE HISTORY
OF THE COUNTRY.
WE HAVE SEEN WEALTH, TRILLIONS
OF DOLLARS OF WEALTH EVAPORATE
BECAUSE OF THIS FINANCIAL
CRIS.
AND TO HEAR PEOPLE NOW TALKING
ABOUT WELL, YOU KNOW, THIS IS
NOT A GOOD BILL, THE QUESTION IS
NOT WHETHER WE SHOULD DELAY
FURTHER OR GO FORWARD.
THE QUESTION IS GOING FORWARD
WITH PURPOSE, AMENDING THE BILL
ON THE FLOOR IF NECESSARY, IN AN
OPEN AND TRANSPARENT WAY SO THAT
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC CAN SEE THAT
WE'RE MOVING FORWARD ON PERHAPS
THEIR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY,
RELATED TO THE ECONOMY.
ECONOMIC
REFORM ARE INTEGRATED KEY
ELEMENTS, A WE CANNOT HAVE
LONG RUN ECONOMIC SUCCESS
WITHOUT FUNDAMENTAL FINANCIAL REFORM.
AND SO WE'RE HERE TODAY TO
ESSENTIALLY URGE THAT THE
ANTICIPATED VOTE ON MONDAY BE
AFFIRMED OVERWHELMINGLY.
SEND A MESSAGE TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE THAT WE'RE ON THE JOB FOR
THEM.
WE'RE DOING THE WORK THAT WE
HAVE TO DO.
WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH A COMPLEX
AND SIGNIFICANT LEGISLATIVE
MEASURE, BUT WE HAVE TO DO IT
NOW, AND THE TIME FOR
DISCUSSION, THE TIME FOR
CONSIDERATION PRIVATELY HAS PASSED.
NOW WE HAVE TO ACT.
AND I THINK WE HAVE TO ACT
BECAUSE WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT
THE STATUS QUO IS UNACCEPTABLE.
AND THO
THEN SAY NOT NOW, NOT NOW,
NOW ARE ESSENTIALLY DEFENDING
THE STATUS QUO, AND WE HAVE TO
ASK SEVERAL QUESTIONS.
WHO DOES THE STATUS QUO FAVOR?
WELL, IT FAVORS THE
BIG BANKS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
WE HAVE SEEN OVER THE LAST
SEVERAL DAYS THAT THESE BANKS
ARE REPORTING RECORD PROFITS.
MOSTLY BASED ON TRADING.
HERE IS ANOTHER IRONY BECAUSE OF
THE SYSTEM WE HAVE TODAY.
WE ARE IN DESPERATE NEED OF
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY ON THE LOCAL
LEVEL.
THE FUSION OF CAPITAL AND
LENDING, ALL THOSE THINGS.
WHERE ARE THE BANKS MAKING THEIR
HUGE PROFITS?
ON TRADING.
ESSENTIALLY TAKING THEIR MONEY
AND OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY AND
GOING IN AND NOT INVESTING IN
NEW PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY BUT
BETTING ON FINANCIAL PRODUCTS.
THAT IS NOT, IN MY VIEW, WHAT WE
SHOULD BE DOING AT THIS MOMENT
ENTIRELY.
WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT IF WE
DOOTHING, THE BANKS WILL
CONTINUE TO OPERATE AS THEY
HAVE, AND THAT, I THINK, HAS TO
BE CORRECTED.
THE SECOND QUESTION IS WHAT
ACTIVITIES ARE PROTECTED BY THE
STATUS QUO?
EXOTIC DERIVATIVE TRADING.
WE JUST SAW THIS WEEK WHERE THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION HAS MADE ALLEGATIONS
AGAINST GOLDMAN SACHS.
NOW, THAT WILL BE DETERMINED IN
A COURT OF LAW, BUT THE
COMPLEXITY OF THE TRANSACTION,
THE SYNTHETICS DEBT OBLIGATION,
WHICH COULD TRANSLATE WAS
ESSENTIALLY PICKING OUT SOME
REPRESENTATIVE MORTGAGE BONDS
AND THEN BETTING ON THEM.
SOMEBODY TOOK THE SIDE THAT SAID
THEY'D STILL PAY.
SOMEBODY TOOK THE SIDE THEY'D DEFAULT.
WHAT DID THAT ADD TO OUR
ECONOMIC CAPACITY?
IN FACT, ONE OF THE IRONIES OF
THIS WHOLE CRISIS IS THERE WAS
SUCH A PROLIFERATIONF THESE
TOXIC MORTGAGE BONDS THAT THEY
NO LONGER COULD SELL THEM ON A
PROFIT SO THEY STARTED
ESSENTIALLY CREATING VIRTUAL
SECURITIES, THESE SYNTHETICS.
AGAIN, WHAT HAS IT ADD TO THE
ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY
UNITED STATES? NOT MUCH.
IN FACT, SOME WOULD ARGUE
NOTHING AT ALL.
WE HAVE TO HAVE A FINANCIAL
SECTOR WHICH PERFORMS ONE OF THE
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF ANY
FINANCIAL SECTOR, THE ALLOCATION
OF THE CAPITAL TO PRODUCTIVE
USES: HIGHWAYS, BUILDING,
EDUCATION SUPPORT, ALL THOSE
THINGS THAT NOT ONLY RETURN A
PROFIT TO THE INVESTOR BUT ALSO
BUILD UP OUR CAPITY AND B
UP OUR WEALTH OVER THE LONG
TERM.
THE THIRD QUESTION I THINK --
WELL, GOING FORWARD WITH THE
ACTIVITIES PROTECTED, NOT ONLY
DERIVATIVES TRADE, DARK POOLS OF
MONEY, HUGE PRIVATE EQUITY FUNDS
THAT ARE SHADOWY IN TERMS OF
THEIR INVESTMENT STRATEGY EVEN
TO REGULATORS.
AND THEN WE HAVE TO ALSO LOOK AT
THE CREDIT RATING AGENCIES.
THEY'RE CONTINUING TO OPERATE
AND, FRANKLY, YOU HAVE TO SAY
THAT THEIR PERFORMANCE IN THE
LAST SEVER YEARS WAS
DISAPPNTING, AND THAT'S BEING
VERY DIPLOMATIC.
BUT THEY WILL CONTINUE TO
OPERATE AS THEY HAVE IN THE PAST
BECAUSE WE WILL NOT GET TO THE
REFORM THAT'S SO NECESSARY.
AND, OF COURSE, THE WALL STREET
SALARY STRUCTURE, THE INCENTIVE
COMPENSATION.
WHAT THEY DO WILL CONTINUE TO BE
UNAFFECTED BY ANY TYPE OF
STRUCTURAL CHANGE IN THE
FINANCIAL SECTOR.
SO FOR ALL THESE ACTIVITIES, IF
YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THEM,
THEN VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION TO
PROCEED ON MONDAY EVENING.
IF YOU'RE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH
THEM, I YOU D'T WANT TO SEE
THE REMAINING BANKS CONTINUE TO
OPERATE AS THEY HAVE, THEN YOU
HAVE TO VOTE, IN MY VIEW, TO
MOVE FORWARD TO DEBATE AND
ENGAGE ON THIS ISSUE.
NOW, THE THIRD QUESTION WE HAVE
TO ASK IS, WHAT DOES THE STATUS
QUO DO FOR CONSUMERS AND TAXPAYERS?
AND THE ANSWER IS, VERY, VERY
LITTLE, IF ANYTHING AT ALL.
WE HAVE SAW IN THIS WHOLE
SITUATION
THINK IN SOME CASES MISLED, IN
SOME CASES IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT
THEY COULDN'T AFFORD THE CREDIT
ARRANGEMENT THEY WERE SIGNING ON
TO.
BUT THE INCENTIVES ON THE OTHER
SIDE WAS NOT TO LOOK BEHIND THE
VENEER OF THE BORROWER BUT
SIMPLY TO GET THE LOAN SEALED
AND THEN SELL IT OFF TO A
SECURITIZATION -- THROUGH A SECURITIZATION PROCESS.
WE HAVE TO CHANGE THOSE
INCENTIVES, AND IF WE DON'T MOVE
THIS LEGISLATION, WE DON'T HAVE
A CHANCE OF DOING THAT
SO WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD.
AND SOME HAVE CLAIMED, THE
REPUBLICAN LEADER AND OTHERS,
THAT THIS IS JUST A PARTISAN EXERCISE.
IT HAS NOT BEEN A PARTISAN EXERCISE.
WE HAVE BEEN, UNDER THE
LEADERSHIP OF CHAIRMAN DODD,
ENGAGED IN THIS EFFORT FOR
MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS.
SOME PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE FORGOTTEN
AROUND HERE, BUT WE STARTED A
MARKUP OF THE FINANCIAL REFORM
BILL NOVEMBER
WE HAD A
BROUGHT IT TO THE COMMITTEE.
WE STARTED OPENING STATEMENTS.
AND THEN EVERYONE SAID OH, WE
HAVEN'T HAD TIME ENOUGH TO DO
THIS, WE WANT MORE DISCUSSION.
SENATOR DODD, EVEN WITH THE
URGENCY
MEASURE,AID FINE, I RESPECT MY
COLLEAGUES, I RESPECT THE
PROCESS WE'LL STOP, WE'LL START TALKING.
WELL, THE NEGOTIATIONS WENT ON
AND ON AND ON.
IT WAS CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO
SENSE OF URGENCY ON THE OTHER
SIDE TO MOVE TO DECISIVE VOTES
AND THEN HE
MEMBERS, SENATOR CORKER AND
OTHERS, IN A DISCUSSION.
I'VE BEEN DISCUSSING DERIVATIVES
IN A VERY THOUGHTFUL WAY WITH
SENATOR GREGG FOR MONTHS, BUT
WE'VE REACHED THE POINT NOW
WHERE WE HAVE TO TAKE DELIBERATE
ACTION, WE HAVE TO MOVE TO THE
FLOOR TO DEBATE AND VOTES AND
FINAL PASSAGE.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S -- WE
HAVE TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD.
AND THE WAY TO MOVE FORWARD TO
VOTE ON THE MOTION TO PROCEED ON
MONDAY EVENING.
NOW, WE'VE HEARD CLAIMS THAT
THIS IS
THINK WOULD BE A HUGE SHOCK TO
MANY OF THE -- MY COLLEAGUES ON
THE COMMITTEE WHO'VE BEEN
WORKING ON THIS FOR MONTHS AND
MONTHS AND MONTHS, AND SENATOR
CORKER AND SENATOR WARNER
PARTICULARLY WHO CRAFTED THIS
POSITION.
I MEAN, THE REALITY IS THAT IF
WE DO NOTHING, WHICH IS THE
EFFECT OF VOTING AGAINST THE
NOTHING, WE COULD HAVE A CRISIS
NEXT WEEK.
GREEK SOVEREIGN DEBT.
THERE'S HUGE TURMOIL IN EUROPE
ABOUT GREEK BONDS, THE ABILITY
OF THE GREEK GOVERNMENT TO PAY,
THE NEED FOR SUPPORT.
IF THOSE TALKS COLLAPSE AND
SUDDENLY THROUGHOUT THE
FINANCIAL SYSTEM THERE IS A RUSH
FROM SOVEREIGN DEBT, NOT JUST
GREEK DEBT BUT OTHER
COUNTRIES -- AND SOMETIMES
UNJUSTIFIED -- WE DON'T QUITE
KNOW, I SUSPECT, WHO'S HOLDING
ALL OF THIS, WHAT ARE THE
SYSTEMIC EFFECTS.
WE HAVE TO BE PREPARED FOR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND THE NOTION THAT WE'RE --
THIS CRISIS HAS PASSED AND WE
CAN JUST GO ABOUT OUR MERRY WAY
WITHOUT DEALING WITH THESE
ISSUES I THINK IS -- IS -- IS
NAIVE.
AND THE WAY TO DEAL WITH IT IS
TO ESTABLISH A RESOLUTION
MECHANISM, AND SENATOR WARNER
AND SENATOR CORKER HAVE DONE A
REMARKABLE JOB IN CRAFTING ONE.
AND THE QUESTION WITHIN THAT
RESOLUTION IS: WHO'S GOING TO
PAY?
MR. REED: AND, FRANKLY, THEY
STEPPED UP TO THE PLATE TODAY
AND SAID LET'S PUT THE BANKS ON
THE LINE FOR THE FIRST $50 BILLION.
THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME, BECAUSE
IT'S CLEAR WHO'S GOING TO PAY.
NOT THE TAXPAYER BUT THE BANKS.
BUT IN ANY CASE, WE CAN'T REALLY
ENGAGE ON THIS DISCUSSION OF THE
MECHANISM AND HOW IT WILL
FINALLY COME OUT UNTIL WE BRING
THE BILL TO THE FLOOR, DEBATE IT
AND VOTE UPON AMENDMENTS OR
CHANGES, AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE
TO DO.
BUT THIS LEGISLATION IS CLEARLY
NOT A BAILOUT FOR THE BANKS.
IF IT WAS, THEY WOULD BE
SUPPORTING I.
FRANKLY, ALL THE NEWSPAPERS I
READ SUGGEST THE INTENSE
LOBBYING EFFORTS AGAINST IT,
WHICH, COINCIDENTALLY, FAVOR
THOSE WHO WANT TO VOTE AGAINST
TAKING THE BILL UP.
SO I THINK WE'RE IN A SITUATION
WHERE WE HAVE TO PROC FORWARD.
AS I SAID, IF WE DON'T MOVE
FORWARD, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE
SIGNIFICANT ISSUE OF CONFIDENCE
BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND
STABILITY IN OUR FINANCIAL
SYSTEMS.
THESE ARE COMPLEX, INTRICATE ISSUES.
THESE REQUIRE DEBATE, DISCUSSION DISCUSSION.
I DON'T THINK ANYONE SHOULD BE
PRESUME HUSBANPRESUM HUSBAND IS ENOUGH TO
STAND HERE AND SAY OURS --
PRESUMTIOUS ENOUGH TO STAND HERE
AND SAYURS -- WE KNOW WHAT TO
DO AND WE'RE GOING TO DO IT
WITHOUT THE INPUT OF OUR
COLLEAGUES.
AND THAT COMES ULTIMATELY WITH
DEBATE ON THE FLOOR, DEBATE AND DISCUSSION.
NOW, AGAIN, WHERE ARE WE IF WE
DON'T TAKE UP THIS MEASURE NEXT
WEEK?
WELL, A $600 TRILLION MARKET IN
DERIVATIVES WILL REMAIN OPAQUE,
COMPLEX, CONFUSING AND A
POTENTIAL VULNERABILITY FOR OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
AND I SAY $600 TRILLION, BECAUSE
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUTERIVATIVES
MARKETS, BILLIONS ARE, YOU KNOW,
THAT'S A ROUNDING ERROR.
IT'S TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
AND A MISCALCULATION, MISTAKE,
MISJUDGMENT IN THAT MARKET HAS
HUGE CONSEQUENCES.
THE BIG BANKS WHO SELL THESE
COMPLEX TOXIC INSTRUMENTS TO
PENSION PLANS, ESS
TAKING SAVINGS AND TRADING THEM,
GAMBLING WITH THEM IN SOME
RESPECTS, THEY WILL CONTINUE TO
DO THAT.
THEY'LL NOT ONLY TAKE PENSION
SAVINGS BUT THEY'LL TAKE
MUNICIPALITIES' MONEY IN FANCY
BOND ARRANGEMENTS WHERE THEY
ESSENTIALLY CREATE AN AUCTION,
SWITCH THROUGH INTEREST RATE
SWAPS, A VARIABLE RATE FOR A
FIXED RATE, BUT SUDDENLY IN THE
MIX OF THIS CRISIS THE OPTIONS
COLLAPSED AND MANY
MUNICIPALITIES AND PUBLIC
ENTIES ENDED UP PAYING THE
DEFAULT RATE, WHICH WAS MUCH
HIGHER THAN THEY WOULD EVER PAY
IN A SITUATION OF AN INITIALLY
ISSUE OF A FIXED-RATE BOND.
ALL OF THESE THINGS WILL
CONTINUE.
UNREGULATED MORTGAGE LENDERS WHO
WILL I CONTINUE TO GO OUT AND
OPERATE UNDER THE
ORIGINATE-AND-SELL MODEL WHICH
HAS LED TO SO MANY PROBLEMS.
PAYDAY LENDERS, WHO ARE CHARGING
IN SOME CASES 900% INTEREST,
WILL BE UNREGULATED.
CREDIT CARD COMPANIES, EVEN
AFTER OUR EFFORTS WITH THE
CREDIT CARD LEGISLATION, ARE
TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT THE RULES
TO MAXIMIZE THEIR PROFITS.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE PEOPLE
WHO BENEFIT FROM DELAY,ROM
TAKING THE COURSE OF ACTION OF
DELAY AND DENIAL, I WOULD SAY,
BECAUSE THIS URGE THAT THIS IS A BAILOUT BILL IS DENYING THE
FACTS OF THE BILL, DELAY AND
DENIAL WILL BENEFIT ONLY THESE
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND NOT
CONSUMERS AND NOT TAXPAYERS.
SO AS A RESULT, MR. PRESIDENT, I
WOULD URGE ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES
ON MONDAY TO VOTE TO PROCEED TO
THIS BILL.
AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO ASK THREE
QUESTIONS, AND THIS WILL
DECIDED ON MONDAY EVENING.
STATUS QUO FAVORS THE BANKS.
IF YOU WANT TO FAVOR THE BANKS,
THEN VOTE AGAINST CLOTURE.
STUS QUO OPERATES TO ALLOW ALL
SORTS OF ARCANE ACTIVITIES WHICH
WE'VE KNOWN HAVE POSED SIGNIFICANT THREATS TO OUR
FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
IF YOU WANT THESE ACTIVITIES TO
CONTINUE UNIMPROVED,
UNCORRECTED, VOTE AGAINST
CLOTURE.
STATUS QUO DISFAVORS CONSUMERS
AND TAXPAYERS.
SO IF YOU WANT TO SEE THEM
CONTINUE TO BE ON THE SHORT SIDE
OF THE SALE, VOTE AGAINST CLOTURE.
I WOULD URGE WE VOTE F
CLOTURE, WE MOVE FORWARD, WE
REFORM OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM,
PROTECT CONSUMERS, STRENGTHEN
OUR ECONOMY AND MOVE FORWARD TO
PROSPERITY AND GROWTH.
AND I WOULD YIELD THE FLOOR.
MR. CARDIN: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MARYLAND IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. CARDIN: THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT, I RISE TODAY TO
EXPRESS MY CONGRATULATIONS TO
ISRAEL ON ITS 6 2nd
ANNIVERSARY OF ITS INDEPENDENCE.
THIS WEEK AMERICA'S CLOSEST ALLY
IN THE MIDDLE EAST, ISRAEL,
COMMEMORATED INDEPENDENCE DAY
ONE DAY AFTER MEMORIAL DAY AND
ONE WEEK AFTER HOLOCAUST
REMBRANCE DAY.
WHILE INDEPENDENT DAY IS ABOUT
CELEBRATION FOR THE PEOPLE OF
ISRAEL, THIS MEMORIAL DAY WAS
MARKED BY SOMBER CEREMONIES AND
NATIONAL GRIEF OVER THE LOSS OF
THEIR SOLDIERS.
NATIONWIDE, SIRENS AND MOMENTS
OF SILENCE EMPHASIZED THE
SACRIFICES ALL ISRAELIS HAVE
MADE LIVING IN THEIR THRIVING,
FREE AND DOCRATIC STATE.
THESE INTENSELY PERSONAL LOSSES
IN SUCH A SMALL COUNTRY
UNDERSCORES THE CONTINUING
THREAT FACED BY ISRAELIS.
THE SCALE OF THEIR EFFORTS, AND
THE IMPORTANCE OF A JEWISH
HOMELAND.
I COMMEMORATED LAST WEEK'S
OBSERVANCE OF YOM MISHOA IN
BALTIMORE WHERE I JOINED FELLOW
MEMBERS IN A MOVIE TO
COMMEMORATE THE 50th
ANNIVERSARY OF ADOLF IKEMAN'S
CAPTURE AND TRIAL.
HE WAS A PREMIER ARCHITECT OF
THE H
RATHER THAN DEALING WITH SUCH A
WAR CRIMINAL THROUGH FORCEFUL
VENGEANCE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN
UNDERSTANDABLE, ISRAEL
PROSECUTED IKEMAN BY FOLLOWING
THE RULE OF LAW AND HIS TRIAL
WAS A MODEL OF TRANSPARENCY AND
JUSTICE.
THIS DISPLAY OF OUR SHARED
VALUES OF LAW, JUSTICE AND
FAIRNESS HELP TO ILLUSTRATE WHY
THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL
CONTINUE TO BUILD UPON OUR
SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP FOR SIX
DECADES.
I OBSERVED ISRAEL INDEPENDENCE
DAY, AN EVENT FOCUSED ON THE
GROWING THREAT OF A NUCLEAR IRAN.
IF IRAN ACQUIRED THIS
CAPABILITY, IT WOULD BE
UNEQUIVOCAL GAME CHANGER IN THE
MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEE
THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
AN UNDENIABLE THREAT TO ISRAEL
AND THE UNITED STATES, A NUCLEAR
IRAN CANNOT BECOME A REALITY.
WE MUST, THEREFORE, DO ALL IN
OUR POWER TO PREVENT IRAN FROM
ACQUIRING NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES.
ONE OF THE FIRST STEPS WE SHOULD
IMMEDIATELY TAKE I ENACTMENT OF
POWERFUL AND EFFECTIVE ECONOMIC
SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN AND THE
FOREIGN COMPANIES THAT DO
BUSINESS WITH THIS ROGUE NATION.
WHILE WE WORK TO MINIMIZE THE
KEY THREATS TO ISRAEL'S
SECURITY, WE MUST ALSO FOCUS ON
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEACE IN THE
MIDDLE EAST.
ISRAEL HAS ALWAYS BEEN PREPARED
TO PURSUE THESE OPPORTUNITIES
AND TO MAKE PEACE WITH ITS
NEIGHBORS.
OVER THE PAST SIX DECADES,
DESPITE DIPLOMATIC GESTURES,
MULTLE ARAB COUNTRIES HAVE
REPEATEDLY ATTACKED ISRAEL.
WE SHOULD NOT FORGET THAT IT WAS
THE PALESTINIAN LEADERS WHO
WALKED AWAY FROM THE NEGOTIATING
TABLES AT CAMP DAVID IN 2000 ON
THE EVE OF WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN
AN HISTORIC BREAKTHROUGH FOR
PEACE.
TODAY IT IS ISRAEL WHO CONTINUES
TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE NECESSARY
FRAMEWORK FOR ANY PEACE
AGREEMENT, A TWO-STATE SOLUTION.
WHILE ISRAEL HAS SHOWN
WILLINGNESS FOR DIRECT
NEGOTIATIONS, THE PALESTINIANS
CONTINUE TO BE UNRELIABLE
PARTNERS IN MOVING FORWARD
TOWARDS PEACE.
HOW COULD ISRAEL MAKE PEACE WITH
A PARTNER WHOSE SO-CALLED
MODERATE FATTAH LEADERS ARE NOT
WILLING TO MEET DIRECTLY WITH
ISRAELI LEADERS AND WHOSE
PARLIAMENT IS CONTROLLED BY
HAMAS AND ORGANIZATIONS STILL
SWORN TO THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL?
I AM PROUD TO HAVE JOINED 75 OF
MY COLLEAGUES IN REACHING OUT TO
SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON IN A
RECENT LETTER WHICH INCLUDED A
REAFFIRMATION OF THIS FACT, AS
WELL AS A REMINDER THAT NOT ONLY
DO THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL
SHARE COMMON VALUES BUT ALSO
COMMON INTERESTS.
TOP AMONG THOSE INTERESTS IS
RESTORING THE PEACE PROCESS AND
PREVENTING IRAN FROM BECOMING A
NUCLEAR STATE.
THIS IS PRECISELY WHY THE ROLE
OF THE UNITED STATES IN THIS
PROCESS MUST BE AN HONEST BROKER.
PRESIDENT OBAMA MUST NOT PLACE
WRONGFUL OR UNREASONABLE
PRESSURE ON ISRAEL OR WORSE TO
PUT FORWARD A PROPOSAL ABOUT
ISRAEL'S CONSENT.
SINCE ISRAEL'S FOUNDING 62 YEARS
AGO, EVERY ARICAN
ADMINISTRATION HAS WORKED TO
STRENGTHEN THE BONDS BETWEEN THE
UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL.
THIS HAS BEEN VITAL FOR ISRAEL
AND THE NATION IS UNDER CONSTANT
THREAT OF MILITARY AND TERRORIST
ATTACKS, ECONOMIC BOYCOTTS, AND
DIPLOMATIC HOSTILITY.
OFTEN, MERELY DUE TO THE FACT OF
ITS VERY EXISTENCE.
AT THIS CRITICAL MOMENT WHEN
IRAN IS MOVING FORWARD WITH ITS
NUCLEAR PROGRAM AND ABSOLUTELY
HEZBOLLAH'S CAPACITY TO ATTACK
ISRAEL, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SAY IN
CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE THAT
WE STAND WITH THE PEOPLE OF
ISRAEL AND WE'LL DO ALL IN OUR
POWER TO PROTECT OUR
VALUES AND NATIONAL BONDS.
AS ISRAEL CELEBRATES ITS
ANNIVERSARY, LET US ALL PROCLAIM
THAT THE UNITED STATES CONTINUES
ITS UNBREAKABLE ALLIANCE WITH
OUR CSEST ALLY IN THE MIDDLE
EAST.
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
WITH THAT, I WOULD YIELD THE
FLOOR AND SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF
A QUORUM.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE
QUORUM CALL:
MR. UDALL: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM NEW M
MR. UDALL: I WOULD ASK TO
VITIATE THE QUORUM CALL.
THE PRESIDG OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, THE SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. UDALL: MR. PRESIDENT, I RISE
TODAY TO PAY TRIBUTE TO A MAN
WHO SERVED NEW MEXICO AND THE
ENTIRE COUNTRY WITH DISTINCTION
FOR MORE THAN THREE DECADES IN
WASHINGTON, A MAN WHO DEDICATED
HIS LIFE TO BEING A CHAMPION FOR
THE LEAST AMONG US.
THAT MAN IS SENATOR DENNIS
CHAVEZ, THE NATION'S LONGEST
SERVING HISPANIC U.S. SENATOR.
THIS MONTH WE MARK THE 122ND
ANNIVERSARY OF HIS BIRTH.
IN EVERYTHING HE DID, SENATOR
CHAVEZ SHOWED HIS CONCERN FOR
THE UNDERDOG.
HE FOUGHT FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION
BECAUSE HE KNEW WHAT IT COULD DO
TO HELP THE CHILDREN OF
STRUGGLING FAMILIES BECOME
SUCCESSFUL ADULTS.
HE SUPPORTED FARMERS BECAUSE HE
KNEW HOW DIFFICULT LIFE CAN BE
IN THE SMALL COMMUNITIES WHERE
THE TRAINS DON'T STOP AND THE
ROADS DON'T GO.
AND HE FOUGHT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
BECAUSE SENATOR CHAVEZ BELIEVED
THAT EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY IS
THE CORE OF THE AMERICAN CREED.
DENNIS CHAVEZ FOUGHT FOR THE
UNDERDOG BECAUSE HE WAS AN
UNDERDOG.
BORN INTO POVERTY IN VALENCIA
COUNTY, NEW MEXICO, CHAVEZ
WALKED A LONG AND DIFFICULT ROAD
TO THE PINNACLE OF POLITICAL POWER.
A CHILD OF AN ISOLATED SMALL
TOWN, HE WOULD SEE THE WORLD AND
HELP TO SHAPE IT.
A HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT, HE EARNED
A LAW DEGREE AND BECAME A LAWMAKER.
A VICTIM OF ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION, HE WTE
LEGISLATION THAT WOULD
EVENTUALLY MAKE EMPLOYMENT
DISCRIMINATION ILLEGAL AND THEN
UNTHINKABLE.
DENNIS CHAVEZ WAS A MAN OF
CONVICTION.
HE ALSO WAS A MAN OF COURAGE.
AT THE HEIGHT OF THE
ANTICOMMUNIST SENTIMENT IN THE
1950'S, SENATOR CHAVEZ WAS ONE
OF THE FIRST TO DENOUNCE THE
ACTIVITIES OF JOSEPH MCCARTHY.
HERE'S WHAT HE SAID ON THE
SENATE FLOOR DURING THE MCCARTHY
HEARINGS IN 1950.
"I SHOULD LIKE TO BE REMBERED
AS A MAN WHO RAISED A VOICE, AND
I DEVOUTLY HOPE NOT A VOICE IN
THE WILDERNESS AT A TIME IN THE
HISTORY OF THIS BODY WHEN WE
SEEM BENNET UPON -- SEEM BENT
UPON PLACING LIMITATIONS ON THE
FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL.
I WOULD CONSIDER ALL OF THE
LEGISLATION WHICH I HAVE
SUPPORTED MEANINGLESS IF I WERE
TO SIT IDLY BY, SILENT DURING A
PERIOD WHICH MAY GO DOWN IN
HISTORY AS AN ERA WHEN WE
PERMITTED THE CURTAILMENT OF OUR
LIBERTIES, A PERIOD WHEN WE
QUIETLY SHACKLED THE GROWTH OF
MAN'S MINDS."
MY FATHER WHO DIED LAST MONTH
SERVED IN THE U.S. CONGRESS WITH
DENNIS CHAVEZ IN THE LATE 1950'S
AND EARLY 1960'S.
HE ALWAYS SAID WHAT HE SAW IN
SENATOR CHAVEZ WAS A VISIONARY
AND A MAN OF COURAGE.
WHEN SENATOR CHAVEZ LEFT THIS
WORLD IN 1962, HE WAS EULOGIZED
BY VICE PRESIDENT LYNDON JOHNSON.
IN THAT EULOGY, VICE PRESIDENT
JOHNSON REMBERED SENATOR
CHAVEZ AS, QUOTE -- "A MAN WHO
RECOGNIZED THAT THERE MUST BE A
CHAMPION FOR THE LEAST AMONG US ."
AND FOUR YEARS LATER, WHEN THE
U.S. CONGRESS PLACED SENATOR
CHAVEZ' STATUE IN STATUARY HALL,
REVEREND JOHN SPENCE SUMMED UP
THE MAN NICELY."
SENATOR CHAVEZ WAS EVER A
CHAMPION OF THE UNDERDOG, THE
POOR, AND THE OPPRESSED."
BUT IT'S THE QUOTE INSCRIBED AT
THE BOTTOM OF THE STATUE THAT
BEST REVEALS THE PBGC LEGACY OF
SENATOR DENNIS CHAVEZ.
WRITTEN IN THREE LANGUAGES,
SPANISH, ENGLISH, AND NAVAJO, IT
READS SIMPLY HE LEFT A MARK THAT
WILL NEVER BE FORGOTTEN IN THE
HOPES THAT OTHERS WILL FOLLOW."
EL SENATOR MAKES ME PROUD TO BE
A NEW MEXICAN AND HUMBLED TO
FOLLOW IN HIS FOOTSTEPS,
REPRESENTING THE GREAT STATEF
NEW MEXICO.
AMERICA IS A BETTER PLACE
BECAUSE OF SENATOR CHAVEZ.
FOR THAT, WE HONOR HIM TODAY.
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, AND I
NOTE THE ABSENCE OF
MR. UDALL: I WOULD VITIATE THE
QUORUM CALL.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. UDALL: I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT RANDY FARM BILLNIT,
A DETAILEE TO SENATOR REID, BE
GRANTED THE PRIVILEGES OF THE
FLOOR FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE 111th CONGRESS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. UDALL: MR. PRESIDENT, I NOTE
THE ABSENCE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICE THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL OF THE
SENATE.
QUORUM CALL:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. DeMINT: I ASK THE QUORUM
CALL BE SUSPENDED.
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, AND
GOOD MORNING.
TODAY I RISE IN OPPOSITION OF
THE PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT
CHAIRMAN DODD IS CALLING
FINANCIAL REFORM.
ALL REPUBLICANS WANT TO REFORM
OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM AND FIX THE
THINGS THAT HAVE CAUSED SO MUCH
FINANCIAL DISTRESS IN OUR
COUNTRY, BUT RATHER THAN ADDRESS
THE UNDERLYING CAUSES OF THE
2008 FINANCIAL CRISIS, THIS BILL
WOULD INSTITUTIONALIZE
GOVERNMENT BAILOUTS FOR THOSE IT
CHOOSES ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL.
IF DEMOCRATS WERE SERIOUS ABOUT
FINANCIAL REFORM, THEY WOULD
WORK WITH REPUBLICANS TO
PERMANENTLY END TOO BIG TO FAIL.
TO CURB THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL
RESERVE AND TO ADDRESS THE
GOVERNMENT DISTORTIONS IN THE
MORTGAGE MARKET THAT LED TO THE
FINANCIAL MELTDOWN.
THIS BILL DOES NONE OF THESE THINGS.
INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON SOLVING
THESE PROBLEMS, THE DEMOCRATS
HAVE EAGERLY CRAFTED ANOTHER
MASSIVE BILL DESIGNED TO
INCREASE CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT
PLANNING, AND THEY ARE VILIFYING
ANYONE WHO DARES TO OPPOSE IT.
WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MORE
ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE GOVERNMENT
ACTORS WHOONTRIBUTED TO THE
CAUSES OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS,
THIS BILL SIMPLY REPRESENTS
ADDITIONAL REGULATION WITHOUT
REAL REFORM.
DESPITE A RECENT POLL STATING
THAT MORE THAN 80% OF AMERICANS
SUPPORT ENDING BAILOUTS, THIS
BILL ENSURES THEY WILL CONTINUE.
THE BILL REQUIRES THE GOVERNMENT
TO KEEP A LIST OF FINANCIAL
COMPANIES IT CONSIDERS TOO BIG
TO FAIL, AND IT PROVIDES THESE
COMPANIES WITH A $50 BILLION
SLUSH FUND TO HELP THEM WHEN
THEY GET IN TROUBLE.
IN ONE RESPECT, THE DEMOCRATS
MAY BE RIGHT IN SAYING THEY
WON'T LET THE BAILOUTS TAKE
PLACE LIKE THEY D IN THE PAST.
IF THEIR BILL PASSES, THE NEXT
TARP BAILOUT WON'T EVEN BE VOTED
ON BY CONGRESS.
THAT'S BECAUSE THIS SLUSH FUND
EMPOWERS THE TREASURY, THE
FEDERAL RESERVE, AND THE FDIC TO
PURPOSE MONEY TO AILING BANKS
WITHOUT ASKING FOR ANY
PERMISSION FROM CONGRESS.
THERE HAVE BEEN RUMORS THIS
SLUSH FUND COULD BE REMOVED, AND
I HOPE IT WILL BE, BUT EVEN IF
THAT IS DONE, THE BILL WILL
STILL PERPETUATE TOO BIG TO FAIL
POLICIES.
ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS IN THE BILL
WILL STILL ALLOW THE FDIC TO
GUARANTEE THE DEBTS OF FINANCIAL
COMPANIES IN TROUBLE, AND THEY
WILL AS WELL ALLOW THE TREASURY
TO STILL SELECTIVELY BAIL OUT
THE CREDITORS OF FAILING
INSTITUTIONS.
THE BILL ALSO FAILS TO STOP THE
FEDERAL RESERVE FROM PROPPING UP
FINANCIAL COMPANIES LIKE IT DID
A.I.G., AND IT ADDITIONALLY
EXPANDS THE FED'S REACH BY
CREATING A NEW CONSUMER
PROTECTION BUREAU INSIDE THE
FEDERAL RESERVE.
WITH ITS EXTENSIVE JURISDICTION
AND ITS UNCHECKED ABILITY TO
MICROMANAGE LENDING, IT REALLY
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED THE
ANTICONSUMER BUREAU.
THIS NEW BUREAU WILL HAVE
SWEEPING AUTHORITY TO REGULATE
ALMOST ANYTHING IT REGARDS AS
FINANCIAL ACTIVITY.
FROM CAR DEALERS TO OTHER
COMPANIES THAT OFFER FINANCING
FOR THEIR PRODUCTS TO SOFTWARE
COMPANIES THAT HELP PEOPLE
MANAGE THEIR MONEY, THIS MASSIVE
NEW BUREAUCRACY IS CERTAIN TO
INCREASE THE REGULATORY BURDENS
ON COMMUNITY BANKS, CREDIT
UNIONS AND MANY OTHERS WHO HAD
NO ROLE WHATSOEVER IN THE
FINANCIAL CRISIS, A WELL AS TO
RAISE CONSUMER COSTS AND KILL
JOBS.
BEFORE WE RUSH TO GIVE THE FEDS
MORE CONTROL OVER OUR ECONOMY,
WE NEED MORE INFORMATION ABOUT
ITS ACTIVITIES SURROUNDING THE
2008 FINANCIAL CRISIS.
EVEN TO THIS DAY, THE FED
REFUSES TO PROVIDE INFORMATION
ABOUT THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY
HAVE USED TAXPAYER MONEY FOR THE
BAILOUTS AND IT'S UNACCEPTABLE
TO KEEP THIS KIND OF SECRECY.
LEGISLATION TO FULLY AUDIT THE
FED CONTINUES TO ENJOY
WIDESPREAD SUPPORT, AND I WILL
CONTINUE TO CHAMPION THIS AUDIT
OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SEE THIS
BILL BRING SOME MUCH-NEEDED
ACCOUNTABILITY TO FANNIE MAE AND
FREDDIE MAC.
THESE ENTITIES WHO DOMINATE THE
MORTGAGE MARKET AND HOLD
HOLD $5 TRILLION IN DEBT WERE
NGLEADERS IN THE CHAIN OF
BUYING, SECURITIZING, AND
SPREADING TOXIC SUBPRIME
MORTGAGES THAT LED TO THE
FINANCIAL COLLAPSE.
SINCE THE GOVERNMENT TOOK THEM
OVER IN 2008, TAXPAYERS HAVE
BEEN FORCED TO GIVE THEM
THEM $127 BILLION SO FAR, AND
THERE IS NO END IN SIGHT.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HANDED
THEM A BLANK CHECK LAST
CHRISTMAS EVE BY LIFTING THE
THE $400 BLION CAP ON
GOVERNMENT AID, ENSURING ENDLESS
BAILOUTS IN THE FUTURE.
REAL REFORM WOULD ADDRESS THE
ONGOING CRISIS THAT FANNIE MAE
AND FREDDIE MAC.
ALTHOUGH THE DEMOCRAT BILL IS
COMPLETELY SILENT ON THIS ISSUE,
I INTEND TO SEE THAT WE FIND A
WAY TO REDUCE THEIR HOLDINGS AND
DIVORCE THEM FROM GOVERNMENT
OWNERSHIP.
WE CANNOT DENY THE FACT THAT
THESE TWO GOVERNMENT ENTITIES
WERE A MAJOR CAUSE OF THE
FINANCIAL CRISIS, YET THEY ARE
NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THIS
SO-CALLED FINANCIAL REFORM.
REFORM WOULDN'T BE COMPLETE
WITHOUT ALSO ADDRESSING THE
UNDERWRITING ISSUES THAT LED TO
THE EXPLOSION OF RISKY LENDING
THAT FUEL THE HOUSING BUBBLE.
THIS BILL LEAVES THE COMMUNITY
REINVESTMENT ACT IN FANNIE MAE
AND FREDDIE MAC'S AFFORDABLE
HOUSING GOALS UNTOUCHED.
EACH REQUIRED SIGNIFICANT
INCREASES IN MORTGAGE LENDING TO
LOWER INCOME BORROWERS WHICH LED
TO A DECREASE IN THE
UNDERWRITING STANDARDS TO MAKE
MORE LOANS TO FOLKS WHO COULDN'T
AFFORD TO PAY THEM BACK, AND
THESE BAD PRACTICES BECAME
CONTAGIOUS IN THE INDUSTRY.
IF WE DON'T DEAL WITH THESE
HOUSING POLICY PROBLEMS THAT LED
TO UNSAFE LENDING AS WELL AS
FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC'S
SIZABLE ABILITY TO SUSTAIN
DEMAND FOR SUCH LOANS BY STILL
BUYING THEM, WE RISK CONTINUING
A BOOM OR BUST HOUSING CYCLE
THAT SADDLES TAXPAYERS WITH THE
CONSEQUENCES OF MORTGAGES GIVEN
TO BORROWERS WHO LIKELY CAN'T
AFFORD TO PAY THEM BACK.
MEANWHILE, FANNIE MAE AND
FREDDIE MAC KEEP GETNG BAILED
OUT BY THE TAXPAYERS.
THAT'S THE KIND OF IMPERVIOUS
BACKING A RECKLESS BANK COULD
ONLY DREAM OF GETTING, AND
THAT'S THE SAME KIND OF DEAL
THAT DEMOCRATS ARE NOW OFFERING
TO THE BIG BANKS THEY PRETEND TO
DESPISE.
DESPITE ALL THE RHETORIC COMING
FROM MY DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES,
THIS BILL DOESN'T CRACK DOWN ON WALL STREET.
IN FACT, WALL STREET LOVES IT. TEST.
IT TURNS THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN WALL STREET AND
WASHINGTON INTO A PROVIDE FREEWAY.
THE BEST WAY TO GET TOUGH ON
WALL STREET WOULD BE TO MAKE
SURE THOSE BANKS HAVE THE SAME
FREEDOM TO FAIL AS THE BANKS WHO
DIDN'T GET BAILED OUT BY THE
GOVERNMENT IN THE LAST FEW YEARS.
RULING OUT SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR
THESE BIG BANKS WOULD BE THE
HARSHEST PUNISHMENT POSSIBLE.
SO INSTEAD OF ENDING
TOO-BIG-TO-FAIL, DEMOCRATS ARE
CONSTANTLY INVENTING NEW WAYS TO
BREAK DOWN BARRIERS BETWEEN
WASHINGTON CONTROL AND WALL STREET.
THAT'S NOT HOW YOU STAND UP TO
BIG BANKS.
THAT'S HOW YOU DEAL THEM IN. MR. PRESIDENT, IT IS IMPORTANT
THAT WE FIX THE PROBLEMS THAT
CAUSED OUR FINANCIAL MELTDOWN.
BU IT'S EVEN MORE IMPORTANT TO
RECOGNIZE THAT THIS POLITICAL
VEHICLE THAT ISEING CALLED??
FINANCIAL REFORM IS JUST A LOT
MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL, A LOT
MORE GOVERNMENT TAKEOVERS, AN
OVERREACH BY THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION WITH VERY LITTLE FINANCIAL REFORM.
THIS INOT FAIR TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
IT PERPETUATES TOO-BIG-TO-FAIL,
IT ESSENTIALLY GUARANTEED FUTURE
BAILOUT, IT DOESN'T FIX THE CORE
CAUSES OF THE PROBLEMS, AND,
AGAIN, EXPANDS BIG-GOVERNMENT
CONTROL OVER THOUSANDS OF
COMMUNITY BANKS, CREDIT UNIONS
AND BUSINESSES THAT HAD NOTHING
TO DO WITH THIS FINANCIAL
CRIS.
I'M AFRAID IT'S JUST ANOTHER
CRIS BEING USED AS AN EXCUSE
TO EXPAND GOVERNMENT WITHOUT
SOLVING REAL PROBLEMS.
REPUBLICANS ARE STANDING BY AND
EAGER TO WORK WITH CHAIRMAN DODD
AND OTHER DEMOCRATS TO FIX THE
PROBLEMS IN THIS BILL SO THAT WE
CAN PRESENT REAL REFORM TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND I URGE MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE TO
STOP TRYING TO STICK ANOTHER
BILL DOWN OUR THROATS AND DOWN
THE THROATS OF THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE AND WORK WITH US TO DO
WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPECT.
WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, I
YIELD BACK AND NOTE THE ABSENCE
OF A QUORUM.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
SENATOR WITHHOLD HIS REQUEST?
MR. DeMINT: YES. A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM WYOMING IS
RECOGNIZED.
A SENATOR: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. BARRASSO: MR. PRESIDENT, I
COME TO THE FLOOR TODAY AS A
PHYSICIAN WHO HAS PRACTICED
ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY IN CASPAR,
WYOMING, FOR 25 YEARS.
AND I COME TO OFFER A SECOND
OPINION ON THE HEALTH CARE BILL
THAT WAS RECENTLY PASSED AND
SIGNED INTO LAW.
AND MY OPINION ON THISILL,
VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I'VE
HEARD FROM THE ADMINISTRATION,
FROM THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE,
FROM THE MAJORITY LEADER,
BECAUSE MY OPINION IS THAT THIS
BILL, NOW LAW, IS GOING TO BE
BAD FOR PATIENTS, BAD FOR THE
PATIENTS ALL AROUND THIS
COUNTRY, BAD FOR HEALTH CARE
PROVIDERS, THE DOCTORS, THE
NURSES, THE FOLKS WHO WORK IN
OUR HOSPITALS, THE THERAPISTS.
AND I BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO BE
BAD FOR PAYERS, THE TAXPAYERS,
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE
LEFT WITH THIS LARGE BILL, TO
PAY FOR A BILL THAT ISN'T TO
SAVE A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM BUT TO
CREATE NEW ENTITLEMENTS AND NEW
OBLIGATIONS.
AND, AS I LOOK AT THI, IT
REALLY STRUCK ME, MR. PRESIDENT,
LAST WEEK WHEN THEY WERE HAVING
THE I DEBATE IN ENGLAND.
THEY'RE HAVING AN ELECTION AND
THE CANDIDATES FOR PRIME
MINISTER WERE HAVING A DEBATE.
IT WAS THE FIRST NATIONALIZED --
NATIONAL TELEVISED DEBATE EVER
IN ENGLAND IN AN ELECTION.
THEY COMPARED IT TO THE
KENNEDY-NIXON DEBATE WHEN PEOPLE
WERE UP THERE DEBATING AND DISCUSSING.
AND THE QUESTION PRESENTED TO
THE PRIME MINISTER OF ENGLAND
WAS, WHAT ABOUT THE NATIONAL
HEALTH SERVICE?
THOSE OF US ON MY SIDE OF THE
AISLE HAVE BEEN VERY CONCERNED,
MR. PRESIDENT, THAT WITH THIS NEW LAW WE ARE GOING TO BE
SEEING A NATIONAL -- A
NATIONALIZATION OF OUR HEALTH
CARE IN A WAY LIKE WE'RE SEEING
IN OTHER COUNTRIES, WHETHER IT'S
CANADA, WHETHER IT'S ENGLAND,
AND A SYSTEM THAT I THINK IS NOT
WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT.
BUT I WANTED TO READ TO YOU FROM
THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE DEBATE,
BECAUSE THEY ASKED THE PRIME
MINISTER, GORDON BROWN, ABOUT
THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE.
AND HE SAID, "MY PRIORITIES FOR
THE HEALTH SERVICE ARE THAT WE
GIVE PEOPLE PERSONAL GUARANTEE
GUARANTEES" -- SO THIS IS WHAT
HE'S PROMISING -- "PERSONAL
GUARANTEES THAT EVERY INDIVIDUAL
PATIENT WILL KNOW THAT THEY WILL
GET A CANCER SPECIALIST SEEN
WITHIN TWO WEEKS, IF NEEDED.
THEY'LL GET DIAGNOSTIC TESTS
WITHIN A WEEK, AND THE RESULTS
TO THEM.
THEY WILL ALSO BE ABLE TO KNOW
THATHEIR OPERATION" -- SO NOW
THEY KNOW THEY HAVE CANCER --
"THAT THEIR OPERATION WILL BE IN
18 WEEKS IF YOU'RE ANY PATIENT
IN NEED OF AN OPERATION."
SO HERE YOU ARE, YOU'VE HAD YOUR
OPPORTUNITY TO SEE A CANCER
DOCTOR, YOU'VE HAD YOUR TEST,
YOU HAVE YOUR DIAGNOSIS, AND
WHAT IS THE BEST THATHE PEOPLE
OF ENGLAND ARE BEING PROMISED BY
THEIR PRIME MINISTER, THE BEST
THAT THEY CAN EXPECT IS TO HAVE
AN OPERATION WITHIN 18 WEEKS.
THE QUESTION HERE IS, HOW MANY
AMERICANS, HOW MANY MEMBERS IN
THIS BODY, HOW MANY PEOPLE
ACROSS THIS COUNTRY ARE GOING TO
SEE THAT AS SATISFACTORY?
BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HEADING WITH THIS HEALTH CARE
BILL THAT'S NOW SIGNED INTO LAW.
HOW MANY PEOPLE WANT THAT?
YOU'LL HAVE YOUR OPERATION IN 18
WEEKS.
SO HERE YOU ARE, IF YOU'RE
DIAGNOSED NEXT WEEK IN THE
UNITED STATES, IF THIS WERE THE
SITUATION THEY HAVE NOW IN
BRITAIN, YOU WOULD BE LOOKING AT
HAVING YOUR OPERATION IN SEPTEMBER.
SEE YOU IN SEPTEMBER, COME BACK
FOR YOUR OPERATION.
NOW, YOU CAN WORRY ABOUT IT, YOU
CAN WORRY ABOUT YOUR DIAGNOSIS
OF CANCER THE REST OF APRIL, ALL
OF MAY, ALL OF JUNE, ALL OF JULY
JULY, ALL OF AUGUST.
THAT'S WHAT THE CANDIDATE FOR
PRIME MINISTER AND THE CURRENT
PRIME MINISTER OF ENGLAND IS
PROMISING THE PEOPLE OF THAT
COUNTRY WITH THEIR NATIONAL
HEALTH SYSTEM, A SYSTEM THAT IS
A MODEL OF MANY ON THE OTHER
SIDE OF THE AISLE OF WHAT THEY
WANT AMERICAN MEDICINE TO BE LIKE.
THIS STORY ONCE AGAIN
DEMONSTRATES THAT COVERAGE DOES
NOT EQUAL CARE, BECAUSE EVERYONE
IN BRITAIN HAS COVERAGE.
BUT THEY
SURE CAN'T GET CARE.
THEN YOU ASK YOURSELF: DOES IT
REALLY MATTER?
DOES 4 1/2 MONTHS, 18 WEEKS OF
WAITING FOR YOUR CANCER SURGERY
REALLY MATTER?
NOT JUST THE EMOTIONAL WORRY OF
IS THAT CANCER SPREADING WITHIN
MY BODY, SHOULD I LEAVE THE
COUNTRY OF ENGLAND AND GO TO THE
UNITED STATES, WHERE I CAN GET
IMMEDIATE CARE?
BUT YOU HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BECAUSE
THE STATISTICS BACK UP THE FACT
THAT THE CARE IN THE UNITED
STATES IS MUCH BETTER THAN IN
THE ENGLAND.
, NOT THAT THE DOCTORS ARE ANY
BETTER HERE THAN THEY ARE IN
ENGLAND.
BUT THE TIMING WHEN YOU CAN
RECEIVE THAT CARE FROM THOSE QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS IS MUCH
BETTER IN THE UNITED STATES.
SO IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE
STATISTICS BEHIND THIS, THE
RESEARCHERS THAT LOOK AT THIS --
AND I'LL JUST GO THROUGH IT,
BECAUSE MY WIFE IS A BREAST
CANCER SURVIVOR.
SHE'S HAD A SERIES OF THREE
OPERATIONS, BEEN THROUGH
CHEMOTHERAPY TWICE, AND SHE IS
NOW SURVING SIX YEARS AFTER HER DIAGNOSIS.
AND I'M GRATEFUL THAT SHE WAS
EATED IN THE UNITED STATES,
WHERE THE DAY AFTER THE DIAGNOSIS WAS MADE, THEY WANTED
TO GET IN IMMEDIATELY TO DO THE OPERATION.
SO LET ME JUST TELL HE,
MR. PRESIDENT, IT SAYS, "TODAY
THE UNITED STATES LEADS THE
WORLD IN READING TO CANCER."
SCIENTIFIC STUDIES.
"WITH BREAST CANCER, FOR
INSTANCE,HE SURVIVAL RATE
AFTER FIVE YEARS AMONG AMERICAN
WOMEN" -- SO A WOMAN DIAGNED
IN THE UNITED STATES WITH BREAST
CANCER AND TREATED -- "83% STILL
ALIVE FIVE YEARS LATER.
FOR WOMEN IN BRITAIN, 69%."
WHERE DO YOU WANT TO GET YOUR CARE?
THE BIGGER QUESTION IS: WHEN DO
YOU WANT TO GET YOUR CARE?
MR. BARRASSO: FOR MEN WITH
PROSTATE CANCER, THE SURVIVAL
RATE, 92% IN THE UNITED STATES,
74% IN FRANCE, 51% IN BRITAIN.
AMERICAN MEN AND WOMEN ARE MORE
THAN 35% MORE LIKELY TO SURVIVE
COLON CANCER THAN THEIR BRITISH COUNTERPARTS.
AND IN AN ARTICLE FROM THE
AUGUST 2008 EDITION OF "LANCE HE
WILL ONCOLOGY," THE CANCER --
"LANCET ONCOLOGY" THE UNITED
STATES ISUMBER ONE AGAIN.
IN ALMOST EVERY CATEGORY,
AMERICANS SURVIVE CANCER A
HIGHER RATES THAN PATIENTS IN
OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES.
AMERICAN CANCER PATIENTS HAVE A
HIGHER SURVIVARATE FOR EVERY
MAJOR FORM OF CANCER THAN
PATIENTS IN CANADA AND IN
BRITAIN.
AMERICAN WOMEN HAVE A 35% BETTER
CHANCE OF SURVING COLON CANCER THAN BRITISH WOMEN.
AMERICAN MEN HAVE AN 80% BETTER
SURVIVAL RATE FOR PROSTATE
CANCER.
AMERICAN SURVIVAL RATES ARE ALSO
BETTER THAN FRANCE.
AND YOU CAN GO ON AND ON WITH
THIS, MR. PRESIDENT, BUT IT IS
IMMINENTLY CLEAR, IMMINENTLY
CLEAR, THAT THE TIMING ON WHEN
ONE GETS THEIR CARE IS CRITICAL.
NOW, IT IS INTERESTING TO ME,
MR. PRESIDENT, THAT JUST THIS
WEEK, JUST THIS VERY WEEK, THE
PRESIDENT HAS MADE HIS
NOMINATION FOR A NEW DIRECTOR OF
THE PORTION OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICE DEPARTMENT THAT DEALS
WITH MEDICARE AND MEDICAID.
THE PRESIDE'S BEEN IN OFFICE
FOR 15 MONTHS.
WE HAVE H A DEBATE AND
DISCUSSION IN THIS BODY FOR
ALMOST ALL OF THAT TIME ON
HEALTH CARE.
THIS BODY, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE
VOTED TO CUT MEDICARE BY $500
BILLION FROM OUR SENIORS, WHO
DESPERATELY DEPEND UPON MEDICARE.
WHY IS IT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS
WAITED 15 MONTHS TO FINALLY
NOMINATE SOMEONE TO BE THE HEAD
OF THE PART OF GOVERNMENT THAT
OVERSEES MEDICARE AND MEDICAID?
THE PRESIDENT HAS PUT 15 MILLION
TO 16 MILLION MORE PEOPLE ON
MEDICAID, HAS CUT MEDICARE, HAS
TOLD US THAT WE CAN TRUST HIM ON
THIS, BUT YET HE WOULD NOT PUT
SOMEBODY UP TO GO THROUGH THE
CONFIRMATION PROCESS TO HEAD
MEDICARE AND MEDICAID. WHY?
WELL, IN MY OPINION, HE DIDN'T
WANT ANYBODY TO ANSWER THE
QUESTIONS BECAUSE THEY'RE TOUGH
QUESTIONS.
WHY WOULDN'T YOU NOMINATE
SOMEBODY FOR ALL OF THAT TIME,
LEAVE THE POST OPEN ESSENTIALLY
AND NOT HAVE SOMEBODY TO COME TO
CONGRESS AND SAY, WHAT ARE THE
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE OF -- OF DUMPING ANOTHER
16 MILLION PEOPLE ON TO
MEDICAID, OF CUTTING $500
BILLION FROM MEDICARE?
WELL, BECAUSE THE PERSON HE PUT
IN HAS A LONG HISTORY OF A LOVE
OF RATIONING OF CARE.
IT'S DR. DONALD BURWICK.
HE HAS A HISTORY OF SUPPORT FOR GOVERNMENT RATIONING OF HEALTH
CARE RESOURCES ON THE GROUNDS OF
COST.
NOT ON THE GROUNDS OF QUALITY,
NOT ON THE GROUNDS OF
SURVIVABILITY BUT ON THE GROUNDS
OF COST.
AND HE HAS SAID, AS RECENTLY AS
LAST JUNE, "THE DECISION IS NOT
WHETHER OR NOT WE WILL RATION
CARE."
HE SAID, "THE DECISION IS
WHETHER WE WILL RATION WITH OUR
EYES OPEN."
SO HERE WE ARE, THE NEWLY
NOMINATED PERSON HAS SAID, I'M
GOING INTO THIS TO RATION CARE. NOW, HE'S A BIG SUPPORTER OF
WHAT THEY HAVE GOING ON IN
BRITAIN RIGHT NOW.
IT'S -- THEY -- IN BRITAIN THEY
CALL IT NICE.
STANDS FOR THE NATIONAL
INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND
CLINICAL EXCELLENCE.
WELL, THIS IS WHAT DR. BURWICK
HAS SAID ABOUT IT.
HE SAID THAT "THOSE
ORGANIZATIONS ARE FUNCTIONING
VERY WELL AND ARE WELL RESPECTED
BY CLINICIANS, AND THEY ARE
MAKING THEIR POPULATIONS
HEALTHIER AND BETTER OFF."
WELL, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT A
LONDON DOCTOR, A COLON CANCER
SPECIALIST, HAD TO SAY.
THIS DOCTOR SAID, "A LOT OF MY
COLLEAGUES ALSO FACE PRESSURE
FROM MANAGERS NOT TO TELL
PATIENTS ABOUT NEW DRUGS."
SAID, "THERE'S NOTHING IN
WRITING, BUT TELLING PATIENTS
OPEN'S UP A PANDORA'S BOX FOR
HEALTH SERVICES TRYING TO
CONTAIN COSTS."
HE FURTHER WENT ON, THIS NOW
AGAIN DR. BURWICK SAY "NICE,"
THITHIS GRITTISH GROUP, "IS
EXTREMELY VALUABLE AND CONSCIENTIOUS, AN IMPORTANT
KNOWLEDGE BUILDING SYSTEM."
WHAT DID THE BBC, THE BRITISH
BROADCASTING GROUP, SAY, THEY
SAY THAT DOCTORS ARE KEEPING
CANCER PATIENTS IN THE DARK
ABOUT EXPENSIVE NEW DRUGS THAT
COULD EXTEND THEIR LIVES.
A QUARTER OF THE SPECIALISTS,
1-4 SPECIALISTS POLLED BY A
JOURNAL ON MELANOMA IN THE
UNITED KINGDOM, SAID THAT THEY
HID FACTS ABOUT TREATMENTS FOR
BONE MARROW CANCER THAT -- THAT
MANY -- THAT MAY BE DIFFICULTO
OBTAIN FROM THE NATIONAL HEALTH
SERVICE.
DOCTORS SAID THEY DID NOT WANT
TO DISTRESS, UPSET OR CONFUSE
PATIENTS IF DRUGS HAD NOT YET
BEEN APPROVED BY THE NATIONAL
HEALTH SERVICE DRUG'S WATCHDOG
CALLED "NICE."
SO YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE
BRITISH HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
18 WEEKS OF A WAIT, WHICH IS THE
PROMISE FROM THE PRIME MINISTER
IN THE DEBATE LAST WEEK, 18
WEEKS FROM WHEN YOU'RE DIAGNOSED
WITH CANCER UNTIL YOU HAVE YOUR
OPERATION.
THAT'S THEIR ATION EXPIRATIONAL
GOAL.
IT MAKES YOU WONDER WHAT IT IS
NOW --
THAT'S THEIR ASPIRATIONAL GOAL.
IT MAKES YOU WONDER WHAT IT IS NOW.
IT HAS TO BE A LOT LONGER THAN
18 WEEKS.
SO, MR. PRESIDENT, IT'S NO
SURPRISE THAT THE LATEST POLLS
THAT ARE OUT THIS MORNING, THE
QUINNIPIAC POLL, A POLL THAT WAS
DONE JUST THIS PAST WEEK, "DO
YOU SUPPORT PASSAGE OF THE
HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL?"
LESS THAN 4 IN 10 AMERICANS,
ONLY 39%, APPROVE WHAT THIS BODY
CRAMMED DOWN THE THROATS OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
WHEREAS OVER HALF OF ALL
AMERICANS DISAPPROVE OF WHAT
THIS ADMINISTRATION, THIS
PRESIDENT, HARRY REID, NANCY
PELOSI AND THIS CONGRESS HAS NOW
FORCED UPON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE GREAT
CAUSE TO WORRY ABOUT WHAT THEY
ARE GOING TO FACE IN THEIR
HEALTH CARE, IN THEIR HEALTH
CARE DECISION, IF THEY ARE GOING
TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THE DOCTOR,
THEIR WIFE SEEN, THOSE ARE THE
QUESTIONS AND THOSE ARE THE
CONCERNS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
AND NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, YOU GET
MY SECOND OPINION ON THE HEALTH
CARE BILL THAT WE WERE TOLD BY
NANCY PELOSI YOU HAVE TO PASS IT
BEFORE YOU GET TO FIND OUT WHAT'S IN IT.
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
MR. CORKER: AN INQUIRY OF TIME.
I KNOW SENATOR HUTCHISON IS
HERE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: T
REPUBLICAN SIDE HAS EIGHT
MINUTES AND 27
MR. CORKER: I NEED MINUTES.
IF YOU WANT TO GO FIRST, THAT'S
FINE.
MRS. HUTCHISON: THEN I WILL
SPLIT THE
IS THERE ANY FURTHER TIME OR
WHAT IS THE ORDER OF BUSINESS
AFTER THE EIGHT MINUTES?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF MORNING BUSINESS,
WE WILL PROCEED TO EXECUTIVE
SESSION.
MR. CORKER: IT IS MY
UNDERSTANDING WE MIGHT EXTEND TO
TEN MORE MINUTES WITH
PERMISSION, IS THAT CORRECT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THAT'S CORRECT.
IF THERE IS UNANIMOUS CONSENT,
THAT'S CORRECT.
MRS. HUTCHISON: MR. PRESIDENT, I
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT WE
EXTEND MORNING BUSINESS FOR TEN
NUTES AND THAT THE REMAINING
REMAINING -- THE ADDED TIME BE
SPLIT BETWEEN SENATOR CORKER AND
MYSELF, AND IF A MEMBER OF THE
MAJORITY COMES FORWARD, WE WILL
CERTAINLY AGREE TO ALLOW THE
EQUAL TIME. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
OBJECTION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MRS. HUTCHISON: THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: TH
SENATOR FROM TEXAS IS
RECOGNIZED.
MRS. HUTCHISON: MR. PRESIDENT,
THEN IF THERE WERE FOUR MINUTES
AND WE ADDED TEN, I WOULD HAVE
NINE MINUTES AND SENATOR CORKER
WOULD HAVE NINE?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR IS CORRECT.
MRS. HUTCHISON: THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
I THANK THE SENATOR FROM
TENNESSEE.
MR. PRESIDENT, I RISE TODAY TO
SPEAK ON FINANCIAL REGULATORY
REFORM.
DURING THE CURRENT ECONOMIC
DOWNTURN, WE HAVE SEEN FAR TOO
MANY AMERICANS LOSE THEIR JOBS,
HOMES, AND THEIR SAVINGS
DISAPPEAR.
TODAY 15 MILLION OF OUR CITIZENS
ARE STILL OUT OF WORK, AND
NATIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT CONTINUES
TO WHOEVER NEAR 10%.
IT IS THIS UNCERTAIN CLIMATE IN
WHICH WE CONSIDER NOW FINANCIAL
REFORM LEGISLATION.
THE CRISIS IS GOING TO REMAIN IN
THE FOREFRONT OF OUR NATIONAL
CONSCIOUSNESS FOR YEARS TO COME,
MAINLY DUE TO THE IMMENSE
GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION THAT WAS
PUSHED THROUGH OVER THE PAST
YEAR AND A HALF, ATTEMPTING TO
STABILIZE OUR FROZEN CREDIT
MARKETS, BUT INSTEAD
ACCUMULATING MASSIVE DEBT THAT
THREATENS TO HARM OUR ECONOMY
MUCH WORSE THAN THE ORIGINAL PROBLEMS.
THE CURRENT LEGISLATION
CONTINUES THE GOVERNMENT'S
FAILED TOO BIG TO FAIL POLICY.
TOO BIG TO FAIL PERVERTS FREE
MARKET CAPITALISM, SUGGESTS THAT
ENTIES CAN PRIVATIZE THEIR
PROFITS, YET SOCIALIZE THEIR
RISKS, AND TAXPAYERS FOOT THE
BILL.
THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER SHOULD NOT
BE FORCED TO PAY THE GAMBLING
DEBTS OF RISKY BETS MADE BY
LARGE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ALIKE
AGREE THAT WE MUST END TOO BIG
TO FAIL, BUT THE BILL THAT IS
BEING PROPOSED DOES NOT DO THAT.
CHAIRMAN DODD'S BILL PROVIDES
BOTH THE FDIC AND THE TREASURY
DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY AUTHORITY
TO PROVIDE BROAD DEBT GUARANTEES
IN TIMES OF ECONOMIC DISTRESS TO
STRUGGLING FIRMS.
AS WRITTEN, IT IS FORESEEABLE
THAT THE FDIC OR TREASURY COULD
STEP IN TO PRO UP A FIRM UNDER
ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, ALL WITHOUT
SEEKING TO RESOLVE AND UNWIND THE FIRM.
THE CHAIRMAN'S BILL AUTHORIZES
CONTINUED EMERGENCY LENDING
AUTHORITY FOR THE FEDERAL
RESERVE BUT CONCEIVABLY ONLY FOR
LARGE BANKS.
UNDER THEODD BILL, THE FEDERAL
RESERVE WOULD RETAIN SUPER
ADVISORY -- SUPERVISORY
AUTHORITY OVER BANK HOLDING
COMPANIES WITH ASSETS OVER OVER $50 MILLION.
THE FEDERAL RESERVE SUPERVISION
ESSENTIALLY PREDESIGNATES THE
FIRMS THAT ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL.
THESE BANKS WOULD HAVE THE
IMPLICIT BACKING OF THE
GOVERNMENT AND THE TAXPAYERS,
AND WITH A COMPETIVE
ADVANTAGE, GIVING IT ACCESS TO
CHEAPER CREDIT FROM LENDERS
EXPECTING TO BE MADE WHOLE.
THIS PUTS OUR NATION'S COMMUNITY
AND INDEPENDENT BANKS AT A
SEVERE COMPETIVE DISADVANTAGE.
I WILL OFFER AN AMENDMENT IF
THIS BILL COMES TO THE FOR TO
PERMIT COMMUNITY BANKS TO REMAIN
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE.
IF THE FED SUPERVISES ONLY THE
LARGEST FIRMS, IT WILL GEAR
MONETARY POLICY TOWARD THESE
LARGE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS,
EFFECTIVELY LEAVING OUT THE
VOICE AND REAL-TIME EXPERIENCE
OF COMMUNITY BANKERS IN MY STATE
AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
WHILE THE LARGE FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS WERE MAKING BAD
BETS ON SUBPRIME MORTGAGE
MARKETS, COMMUNITY BANKS WERE
BANKING HOME AND BUSINESS LOANS
TO LOCAL CUSTOMERS.
LOCAL COMMUNITY BANKS PROVIDE
THE LENDING AND DEPOSIT SERVICES
FOR OUR NATIONS SMALL BUSINESSES
SO THAT THEY CAN OPERATE,
INVEST, CREATE JOBS AND DRIVE
OUR ECONOMY.
IT IS THE BUSINESS LENDING THAT
WILL HELP CREATE JOBS AND GROW
OUR ECONOMY.
TOM HONAN, PRESIDENT OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF KANSAS
CITY, SAID RECENTLY -- "OUR
NATION'S LARGEST BANKS WOULD BE
WELL SERVED TO TAKE LESSONS FROM
OUR COMMUNITY BANKS.
WHY? BECAUSE COMMUNITY BANKS HAVE
BEEN COMMITTED TO PROVIDING THE
CREDIT AND SERVICES NEEDED FOR
SMALL BUSINESS, THEY KNOW
CUSTOMERS, AND THEY CAN MAKE
GOOD, SOLID LOANS THAT ARE SUPPORTABLE."
IN TEXAS, RICHARD FISHER, THE
PRESIDENT OF THE DALLAS FEDERAL
RESERVE BANK, SAID -- "THE
PROVISION IN THE BILL WOULD
LEAVE THE DALLAS JURISDICTION -- FEDERAL RESERVE
JURISDICTION WITH ONLY ONE OR
TWO BANK HOLDING COMPANI, DOWN
FROM 36 MEMBER BANKS OR
OR $74 BILLION IN ASSETS THAT HE
NOW HAS SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY
OVER.
THE FED SHOULD KNOW THE NEEDS
AND THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, NOT JUST
NEW YORK
IT IS PRECISELY THE ABILITY TO
FOSTER BOTTOM-UP GROWTH THROUGH
SMALL BUSINESSES THAT SETS
COMMUNITY BANKS APART FROM OTHER
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
UNLIKE THE BIG FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS, WE SEE IN THE
HEADLINES BAILOUTS AND BONUSES,
COMMUNITY BANKS DON'T HAVE A
SYSTEMIC RISK TO OUR FINANCIAL
SYSTEM, AND THEY ARE NOT
IDENTIFIED AS PRIMARY
CONTRIBUTORS TO OUR LATEST
CRISIS.
HOWEVER, COMMUNITY BANKS WOULD
SOON BE SUBJECTED TO A
CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF NEW COSTS
AND REGULATORY BURDENS AS A
RESULT OF THIS LEGISLATION.
COMMUNITY BANKS ARE ALREADY
REGULATED.
THEY ARE WELL REGULATED.
ADDING ADDITIONAL LAYERS OF
FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY WITH
LIMITLESS AUTHORITY WOULD ONLY
BE A BURDEN THAT WOULD ONLY
SERVE TO HAMPER THE ABILITY OF
COMMUNITY BANKS TO EFFECTIVELY
PROVIDE DEPOSITORY AND LENDING
SERVICES TO AMERICA'S CONSUMERS
AND SMALL BUSINESSES.
COMMUNITY BANKS SHOULD NOT BE
PUNISHED AS A RESULT OF THIS LEGISLATION.
WE SHOULD PRESERVE AND ENHANCE
OUR DUAL BANKING SYSTEM, NOT
IMPOSE ADDITIONAL FEDERAL
REGULATIONS THAT STIFLE THEIR
ABILITY TO SERVE THEIR
COMMUNITIES.
MR. PRESIDENT, I'M ALSO
CONCERNED ABOUT THE DIRECTION OF
THE REGULATION OF OVER THE
COUNTER DERIVATIVES.
INHE WAKE OF THE COLPSE OF
THE MORTGAGE MARKET WHERE THE
USE OF DERIVATIVES AND EVEN
DERIVATIVES OF DERIVATIVES
HELPED CAUSE GREAT LOSSES TO
BANKS AND NEARLY BROUGHT OUR
ECONOMY TO ITS KNEES, IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT FEDERAL
REGULATORS HAVE A GREATER
UNDERSTANDING OF THIS
DERIVATIVES MARKET.
WE HAVE MEMBERS ON BOTH SIDES OF
THE AISLE WHO ARE NEGOTIATING
THESE TERMS.
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS HAVE
THE SAME GOAL.
WE WANT TO END TOO BIG TO FAIL.
WE WANT TO END BAILOUTS.
WE WANT TO ASSURE THAT OUR
COMMUNITY BANKS STILL HAVE THE
CAPABILITY TO SERVE MAIN STREET
CUSTOMERS.
THE BILL BEFORE US THAT IS NOT
BEING BROUGHT TO THE FLOOR
BECAUSE IT DID NOT HAVE ANY
INPUT FROM THE REPUBCAN SIDE
DOES NOT ACHIEVE THOSE GOALS.
SO, MR. PRESIDENT, WE ARE NOW
MEETING IN SMALL GROUPS.
WE ARE MEETING WITH THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY AND
OTHERS IN THE ADMINISTRATION TO
TRY TO COME TO TERMS THAT WOULD
DO THE RIGHT THING AND MEET THE
GOAL THAT WE ALL AGREE IS THE
GOAL.
THAT IS WHAT IS GOING ON RIGHT
NOW IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE.
IT IS MYREAT HOPE -- AND I SEE
MY COLLEAGUE FROM TENNESSEE WHO
IS ALSO ON THE BANKING COMMITTEE
WITH ME, AND HE, TOO, IS A PART
OF THE NEGOTIATIONS THAT WANTS
TO BRING THIS BILL TO THE FLOOR.
WE CAN DO SOMETHING GOOD FOR OUR
ECONOMY.
PASSING THE BILL AND LETTING IT
COME TO THE FLOOR AND ROLL OUT
OF HERE IN ITS PRESENT FORM
WOULD NOT ACHIEVE THAT OBJECTIVE.
SO I WELCOME MY COLLEAGUE FROM
TENNESSEE WHO HAS BEEN A MAJOR
PLAYER IN THIS DEBATE.
HE HAS BEEN A MAJOR REASON THAT
WE ARE COMING TO A POINT AT
WHICH I THINK WE CAN HAVE A
SUCCESSFUL BIPARTISAN BILL.
I WILL SAY THAT OUR CHAIRMAN AND
RANKING MEMBERS CHAIRMAN DODD
AND SENATOR SHELBY HAVE BEEN
MEETING FOR WEEKS TO TRY TO COME
TO THESE TERMS, SO I THINK
EVERYONE IS SINCERE AT THIS
POINT THAT WE WANT A BIPARTISAN BILL.
FINANCIAL REGULATION IS NOT
POLITICAL.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF PASSING A
BAD BILL ARE HUGE FOR OUR
COUNTRY, FOR EVERY AMERICAN.
WE CAN DO THIS.
SO, MR. PRESIDENT, I WELCOME THE
COMMENTS FROM MY COLLEAGUE FROM
TENNESSEE AND LOOK FORWARD TO
HIS LEADERSHIP CONTINUING SO
THAT WE CAN HAVE A BILL THAT
WILL HELP THE CONSUMERS IN OUR
COUNTRY, THAT WILL STABILIZE OUR
ECONOMY AND MOST OF ALL WILL
BRING THAT UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
DOWN FROM 10% SO THAT MORE
AMERICANS CAN GO TO WORK.
THANK YOU,
MR. CORKER: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. CORKER: TYPICALLY WHEN I
COME TO THE FLOOR AND IT'S TIME
TO SPEAK, YOU DON'T LIKE TO WAIT
FOR ANOTHER SENATOR TO SPEAK,
YOU WANT TO SPEAK AND GO BACK,
BUT I'M SO GLAD TODAY TO HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THE
SENATOR FROM TEXAS.
I WANT TO SAY THAT BOTH OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE LEADERS, BOTH IN
KANSAS CITY AND DALLAS, I THINK
HAVE ADDED TREMENDOUSLY TO THIS
DEBATE AND NO ONE HAS BEEN A
MORE -- MORE OF A SUPPORTER --
SUPPORTER FOR COMMUNITY BANKS
THAN THE SENAT FROM TEXAS.
EVERYTHING YOU SAID, SENATOR,
REGARDING THE FED KEEPING
COMMUNITY BANKS, I COULD NOT
AGREE MORE WITH.
MY SENSE IS THAT BY THE TIME THE
BILL COMES TO THE FLOOR, IT WILL
EITHER HAVE THAT IN IT OR LET ME
JUST SAY TO YOU RIGHT NOW I WILL
COSPONSOR THE LEGISLATION OR THE
AMENDMENT THAT YOU BRING FORTH
BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT THAT THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SHOULD KEEP THE
SMALLER
MEMBERS, AND THE FACT IS THAT
THIS REARRANGING THE DECK CHAIRS
SERVES NO PURPOSE.
SO I COULD NOT AGREE WITH YOU MORE.
I ALSO AGREE WITH YOU REGARDING
THE DIVATIVES, WHICH LEADS
IN -- I NOTICE YOU HAVE THE MICROPHONE.
IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT.
I'M GOING TO LEAD INTO COMMENTS
BASED DERIVATIVES.
BUT, MR. PRESIDE, IF IT'S
OKAY, I WOULD LIKE THE SENATOR
FROM TEXAS TO BE ABLE TO
RESPOND.
MRS. HUTCHISON: WELL,
MR. PRESIDENT, I APPRECIATE THE
SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE'S REMARKS
BECAUSE IHINK
COURSE, -- I WELCOME YOUR
COSPONSORSHIP OF THE AMENDMENT.
IT IS ESSENTIAL.
I COULDN'T SUPPORT
IF WE SHOULD THE -- SHUT THE FED
OFF FROM TEXAS AND TENNESSEE AND
CALIFORNIA BY JUST SAYING THAT
THE TOP 50 BANK HOLDING
COMPANIES ARE THEYSTEMIC RISK,
THEN WE MIGHT AS WELL ALL MOVE
TO NEW YORK.
WELL, NEW YORK DOESN'T WANT ANY
MORE PEOPLE, I'M SURE.
THEY ARE WELL POPULATED.
BUT MOST OF ALL, I WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE MAIN STREET
BANKERS AND THE SMALL BUSINESSES
OF ALL OF
TO THE FED, AND
KNOWN TO THE FED, OF COURSE, AS
YOU KNOW IS THAT THEIR LOCAL FED
BANKS KNOW THEIR ISSUES, KNOW
THEIR PROBLEMS, KNOW THEIR NEEDS
BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO
SERVE THOSE BANKS, WHICH IS NOT
ALLOWED IN THE BILL BEFORE US.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP, SENATOR CORKER, AND
I WILL LOOK FORWARD TO COMING
TO, I HOPE, A RESULT THAT WE CAN
ALL BE PROUD TO SUPPORT.
MR. CORKER: WHICH BRINGS ME
RIGHT BACK TO WHERE I WANT TO BE.
THANK YOU, SENATOR.
THE FACT IS THAT THERE IS A LOT
OF PEOPLE COMING DOWTO THE
FLOOR, THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS
BE
FIRST OF ALL, I THINK WE'RE
GOING TO END UP WITH A
BIPARTISAN BILL.
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO END UP
WITH A BIPARTISAN BILL BEFORE
THE ACTUAL VOTE TO NOTICE TO
PROCEED TAKES PLACE.
I BELIEVE THAT'S BEING LED BY
CERTAINLY SENATOR DODD AND
SENATOR SHELBY.
THEY ARE THE POINT PEOPLE.
YOU CAN'T HAVE EIGHT NEGOTIATORS.
BUT I BELIEVE THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HEADED.
SO WHEN I HEAR A LOT OF THE
RHETORIC ON THE FLOOR AND OTHER
PLACES, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S
JUST RHETORIC.
I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY,
WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH
REALLY SOLID BIPARTISAN BILL.
I HOPE IT'S ONE THAT I CAN SUPPORT.
OBVIOUSLY, I'M GIVING INPUT INTO
THAT, BUT THAT'S WHERE I HOPE WE
END UP.
WHICH LEADS ME TO THIS.
THERE HAVE BEEN FOLKS THAT HAVE
COME DOWN TO THE FLOOR TALKING
ABOUT -- ABOUT US SUPPORTING
WALL STREET, REPUBLICANS
SUPPORTING WALL STREET BY NOT
SUPPORTING THE DODD BILL IN ITS
PRESENT FORM.
THAT'S JUST RIDICULOUS.
WHAT'S HAPPENING -- AND SOME
REPORTER I THINK MENTIONED --
MADE COMMENTS YESTERDAY AT LUNCH
TO REPUBLICANS AND SLAMMED THE
DODD BILL.
THAT'S NOT TRUE.
I WAS VERY EMPHATIC ABOUT TWO
THINGS.
NUMBER ONE, REPUBLICANS ARE NOT
REPRESENTING WALL STREET.
CANDIDLY, WHEN I LOOK AT THIS
BILL -- AND I BET MY FRIEND FROM
DELAWARE WILL ACTUALLY AGREE
WITH THIS -- THERE IS NOT MUCH
IN THISILL THAT IS VERY
OFFENSIVE TO WALL STREET, TO BE
CANDID.
I MEAN, THIS BILL, YOU KNOW,
FOCUSES ON THREE TOPICS.
WHAT I HAVE SAID TO MY
COLLEAGUES IS THIS -- IS THAT
WHENEVER WE HAVE REGULATION, THE
BIG GUYS GET BIGGER, RIGHT?
AND THE SMALL GUYS ARE THE ONES
THAT END UP BEARING THE BRUNT OF REGULATION.
WHAT WE ALL ARE TRYING TO DO, AS
SENATOR HUTCHISON JUST LAID OUT
ON OUR SIDE OF THE AISLE, IS TO
MAKE SURE THAT THIS LEGISLATION
DEALS APPROPRIATELY WITH
COMMUNITY BANKERS AND
MANUFACTURERS IN IOWA AND TEXAS
AND OTHER PLACES.
THE FACT IS THAT THERE ARE SOME
ISSUES WITH THIS BILL THAT WE
NEED TO WORK OUT, BUT CANDIDLY
TO SAY THAT REPUBLICANS ARE
REPRESENTING WALL STREET
COULDN'T BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
THERE IS JUST NOT MUCH IN THIS
BILL THAT'S VERY OFFENSIVE TO BE
WALL STREET, TO BE CANDID.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE SHOULD GO
OUT OF OUR WAY TO BE OFFENSIVE,
BUT I THINK ANYBODY LOOKING AT
WHAT THIS BILL SAYS WOULD KNOW
THAT THERE'S NOT MUCH IN THIS
BILL THAT'S THAT OFFENSIVE.
THE FACT IS WE'RE PUTTING
DERIVATIVES ON CLEARINGHOUSES,
WHICH I HOPE HAPPENS.
I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING.
I THINK WE NEED TO GET AS MUCH
OF THAT DONE AS POSSIBLE, WHERE
IF SOMEBODY'S MONEY BAD, THEY
HAVE TO PUT MONEY UP THAT DAY.
IT ALLEVIATES SOME OF THE
SYSTEMIC RISK.
WE -- WE DEAL WITH RESOLVING A
FIRM THAT FAILS.
I THINK THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE THING TO DO.
AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET CONSUMER
PROTECTION BACK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD.
BY THE WAY, THAT'S A SECTION OF
THIS BILL THAT IF IT'S NOT
HANDLED PROPERLY, IT WON'T
AFFECT THE J.P. MORGANS AND THE
CITIGROUPS AND THE BANK OF AMERICAS.
WHAT IT WILL DO IS AFFECT
COMMUNITY BANKERS.
SO ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO ON OUR
SIDE OF THE AISLE -- AND THIS IS
WHAT I WAS VERY EMPHATIC ABOUT
YESTERDAY -- IS WE'RE TRYING TO
MAKE SURE THAT THIS BILL IS IN
BALANCE.
AND I THINK WE CAN DO THAT.
BUT, LOOK, THERE'S NOT MUCH IN
THIS BILL THAT'S PARTICULARLY
OFFENSIVE TO WALL STREET, AND TO
SAY THAT THOSE OF US WHO WANT TO
GET IT RIGHT FOR EVERYBODY ELSE
IN THE COUNTRY ARE DEFENDING
WALL STREET IS JUST WAY OFF THE
MARK.
JUST NOT TRUE.
THE SECOND THING I WOULD SAY IS,
THERE ARE MANY THINGS IN THIS
BILL THAT ARE GOOD.
THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT AREN'T
SO GOOD THAT I THINK ARE BEING
WORKED OUT RIGHT NOW.
AND THAT'S TYPICALLY WHAT
HAPPENS WHEN WE HAVE A BIPARTISAN DISCUSSION.
WE -- YOU KNOW, EACH SIDE BRINGS
THEIR PARTICULAR STRENGTHS TO A BILL, RIGHT?
I MEAN, WE ALL REPRESENT SORT OF
DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW AND
WHEN WE WORK TOGETHER, WE END UP
WITH A GOOD BILL.
BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DOES
TROUBLE ME, AND I WAS VERY
EMPHATIC YESTEAY ABOUT THIS,
IS -- AND AGAIN TODAY AND
TOMORROWND HAVE BEEN FOR A
LONG TIME -- IS THIS BILL
DOESN'T EVEN DEAL WITH
UNDERWRITING.
I MEAN, AT THE END OF THE DAY,
AT THE END OF THE DAY AT THE
BOTTOM OF THIS UPSIDE-DOWN
PYRAMID, THE CRISIS BEGAN
BECAUSE WE HAD A LOT OF
MORTGAGES IN THIS COUNTRY THAT
SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN WRITTEN
IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THAT'S AT THE CORE OF THIS ISSUE.
AND THEN WE HAD FIRMS THAT WERE
WAY OVERLEVERAGED THAT WERE
DOING THAT.
AND THEN WE SPREAD THE PAIN
THROUGH $600 TRILLION IN
NOTIONAL VALUE AROUND THE WORLD.
RIGHT?
BUT IT STARTED WITH THE FACT
THAT A LOT OF LOANS WERE WRITTEN
THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN
WRITTEN, AND I DON'T THINK THIS
BILL EVEN ADDRESSES THAT.
SO I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT
OF AN ISSUE.
AND, YOU KNOW, IF WE COME TO THE
FLOOR WITH A TEMPLATE THAT DEALS
WITH CONSUMER PROTECTION, THAT
DEALS WITH SYSTEMIC RISK, THAT
DEALS WITH DERIVATIVES, I HOPE
THAT MY COLLEAGUES O THE OTHER
SIDE OF THE AISLE WILL JOIN IN
WITH MANY MEMBERS ON THIS SIDE
OF THE AISLE TO CORRECT THAT.
I MEAN, AT THE END OF THE DAY,
IF WE CONTINUE TO WRITE LOANS
THAT SHOULDN'T BE WRITTEN AND WE
CONTINUE TO SECURITIZE THEM AND
IF WE CONTINUE TO SPREAD THEM
AROUND THE WORLD, WE HAVEN'T
DONE MUCH IN THIS LEGISLATION.
SO HAVE I BEEN EMPHATIC ABOUT
THAT AND HAVE I WANTED THESE TWO
PIECES OF THE LEGISLATION IN
BALANCE AS IT RELATES TO THE
REST OF THE COUNTRY AND MAKING
SURE THAT OUR UNDERWRITING IS
DONE APPROPRIATELY?
DO I BELIEVE THAT THOSE ARE
THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT? YES.
DO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO
ADDRESS THOSE?
I HOPE SO ON THE UNDERWRITING. I HOPE SO.
I'M NOT SURE.
I CAN'T TELL IF PEOPLE ARE
REALLY WILLING TO MAKE SURE THAT
AMERICANS ACROSS THIS COUNTRY
HAVE TO LIVE IN A
SEMIDISCIPLINEED WAY AS IT
RELATES TO MORTGAGES. I'M NOT SURE.
I HOPE WE GET SOMEPLACE THERE
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.
I THINK THOUGH, IN CLOSING, LET
ME COME BACK AND SAY IN SPITE OF
ALL THE RHETORIC ABOUT BAILOUTS
AND NOT BAILOUTS AND THIS WALL
STREET AND NOT WALL STREET, I
THINK THAT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN
ROOMS AND OFFICES AROUND THIS --
THIS HILL, I THINK NEGOTIATIONS
ARE TAKING PLACE THAT ARE GOING
TO GET TO US A PLACE WHERE WE AT
LEAST HAVE A TEMPLATE, A PIECE
OF LEGISLATION THAT CAN BE
EMBRACED IN THE BEGINNING IN A BIPARTISAN WAY.
AND THEN WHAT I HOPE WILL
HAPPEN, AND I KNOW MY FRIEND
FROM DELAWARE IS GOING TO BE
HIGHLY ENGAGED IN THIS BECAUSE I
KNOW HE'S BEEN FOCUSED ON THIS
FOR A LONG TIME, WHAT I HOPE
HAPPENS AFTER THAT, AFTER WE GET
THIS BASE TEMPLATE TOGETHER, IS
WE HAVE A VIGOROUS DEBATE ON
THIS FLOOR ABOUT WHERE WE NEED
TO GO FROM THERE.
THERE'S SOME OTHER PIECES, THERE
MAY BE THAT -- I WOULD ACTUALLY
CONSIDER THEM TO BE CENTRAL,
OKAY?
BUT I'M OKAY WITH LEGISLATION
COMING TO THE FLOOR WHERE WE
HAVE A BALANCE BETWEEN
RESOLUTION, DERIVATIVES, AND
CONSUMER PROTECTION, AND THEN
LET'S GO FROM THERE AND LET'S
HAVE -- LET'S HAVE THE KIND OF DEBATE THAT I THINK OUR COUNTRY
WOULD LOVE TO SEE US HAVE IN
PUBLIC, FOCUSED NOT ON RHETORIC,
BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THOSE
ISSUES WHERE WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF
SUBSTANCE, RIGHT?
BUT ON SUBSTANCE.
AND LET'S -- LET'S DO SOMETHING
THAT WILL STAND THE TEST OF TIME.
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT. AS A MATTER OF FACT,
MR. PRESIDENT, I KNOW MY TIME IS
UP, I THINK THAT THI BILL, THIS
BILL HAS THE IN THE NEXT FEW
DAYS, AND ONCE WE BEGIN TO
DEBATE ON THE FLOOR, WHICH I
PE WILL HAPPEN IN A BIPARTISAN
WAY, I THINK THIS BILL IS
POTENTIALLY THE BEGINNING OF US
BEING ABLE TO FUNCTION IN AN
APPROPRIATE WAY IN THIS BODY.
THAT'S WHAT I HOPE HAPPENS.
THAT'S WHY FOR -- FOR WEEKS AND
MONTHS I'VE BEEN SAYING THAT I
THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY,
WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH A
BIPARTISAN BILL.
I HOPE, I HOPE IT HAS SOME
IMPORTANT ELEMENTS IN IT, LIKE
THE ONES I JUST MENTIONED, TT
WILL ALLOW ME TO SUPPORT IT.
WHETHER THAT HAPPENS -- I HOPE
IT HAPPENS.
WHETHER THAT HAPPENS OR NOT, I
HOPE WE HAVE A VIGOROUS DEBATE
AND END UP WITH A GOOD PRODUCT.
MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE
FLOOR. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: MORNING
BUSINESS IS CLOSED.
UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE
SENATE WILL PROCEED TO EXECUTIVE
SESSION TO CONSIDER THE
FOLLOWING NOMINATION, WHICH THE
CLERK WILL REPORT.
THE CLERK: NOMINATION,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
CHRISTOPHER H. SCHROEDER OF
NORTH CAROLINA TO BE ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL.
MR. KAUFMAN: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM
RE
MR. KAUFMAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I
RISE TODAY TO EXPRESS MY SUPPORT FOR CHRIS SCHROEDER'S NOMINATION
TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
FOR THE OFFICE OF LEGAL POLICY
IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
BEFORE I GO ANY FURTHER, I WANT
TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT
CHRIS SCHROEDER IS A LONGTIME
COLLEAGUE AND A GREAT FRIEND OF MINE.
NOT ONLY DID WE WORK TOGETHER
FOR SENATOR BIDEN, BUT FOR THE
PAST 20 YEARS, WE'VE COTAUGHT A
COURSE ON THE CONGRESS AT THE
DUKE LAW
MANY OF THOSE YEARS WAS
COSPONSORED THE LAW SCHOOL
AND THE SANFORD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC
POLICY.
CHRIS IS CURRENTLY THE CHARLES
S. MURPHY PROFESSOR OF LAW AND
PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC POLICY
STUDIES AT DUKE AS WELL AS
DIRECTOR OF THE DUKE'S PROGRAM
IN PUBLIC LAW.
CHRIS WAS BORN IN SPRINGFIELD,
OHIO, RECEIVED HIS B.A. FROM
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY A MASTER'S
IN DIVINITY FROM YALE, AND HIS
J.D. FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY, WHERE HE
WAS EDITOR IN CHIEF OF THE
CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW.
HE'S MARRIED TO THE WONDERFUL
KATHERINE T. BARTLETT, FORMER
DEAN OF THE DUKE LAW SCHOOL, AND
CURRENTLY THE KENNETH -- A.
KENNETH PIE PROFESSOR AT DUKE.
CHRIS AND KATE HAVE THREE
WONDERFUL CHILDREN.
DURING HIS LEGAL CAREER, CHRIS
HAS EXCELLED IN PRIVATE PRACTICE
PRACTICE, GOVERNMENT SERVICE,
AND ACADEMICS.
FOLLOWING HIS GRADUATION FROM
LAW SCHOOL, CHRIS PRACTICED LAW
IN SAN FRANCISCO, GAINING
VALUABLE EXPERIENCE IN A WIDE
VARIETY OF BOTH STATE AND
FEDERAL PRACTICE.
IN 1979, HE BECAME LAW PFESSOR
AT DUKE, WHERE HE HAS BEEN A
RESPECTED AND PROLIFIC SCHOLAR
AND AN INVALUABLE ADMINISTRATOR,
AND A COMMITTED
TEACHER.
HE HAS AUTHORED AND EDITED
SEVERAL BOOKS, INCLUDING A
LEADING CASEBOOK ON
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATION, LAW, SCIENCE AND
POLICY, WHICH NOW IS IN ITS
SIXTH EDITION.
HE ALSO HAS PUBLISHED COUNTLESS
ARTICLES IN LAW REVIEWS AND
JOURNALS ON AN IMPRESSIVE RANGE
OF TOPICS, INCLUDING
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, FEDERALISM,
FEDERAL COURTS, EXECUTIVE AND
LEGISLATIVE POWER, AND NATIONAL
SECURITY.
CHRIS'S TEACHING IS JUST AS
BROAD AND DEEP AS HIS
SCHOLARSHIP.
OVER THE COURSE OF HIS CAREER,
HE HAS TAUGHT ENVIRONMENTAL LAW,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, COMPARATIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CIVIL
LIBERTIES AND NATIONAL SECURITY,
FEDERAL POLICY MAKING, THE
CONGRESS, GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
AND PUBLIC POLICY, AND
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION CLINIC,
TOXIC SUBSTANCE REGULATION, LAND
USE PLANNING, WATER LAW,
PHILOSOPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION, PROPERTY AND CIVIL
PROCEDURE.
CHRIS IS A TRUE RENAISSANCE MAN.
I CAN PERSONALLY ATTEST TO THE
QUALITY OF CHRIS'S TEACHING,
HAVING COTAUGHT WITH HIM FOR 20
YEARS.
HERE IN THIS SENATE, WE HAVE
MANY FORMER STUDENTS DOING
EXCELLENT STAFF WORK ON BOTH
SIDES OF THE AISLE.
CHRIS HAS ALSO CONTRIBUTED HIS
LEGAL AND POLICY EXPERTISE TO
PRACTICAL PROBLEMS AFFECTING THE
HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE
COMMUNITY.
HE SERVED ON THE NATIONAL
ACADEMY OF SCIENCE AND INSTITUTE
OF MEDICINE COMMITTEES TO
EVALUATE THE USE OF HUMAN
INTENTIONAL DOSING STUDIES BY
E.P.A. AND THE ADEQUACY OF THE
U.S. DRUG SAF
DUKE HAS ALSO RECOGNIZED CHRIS'S
CONSIDERABLE ADMINISTRATIVE
SKILLS. IN ADDITION TO SERVING AS
COCHAIR FOR THE CENTER OF THE
STUDY OF THE CONGRESS WITH ME
AND IN THE DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM
AND PUBLIC LAW, CHRIS HAS
CHAIRED THE COMMITTEE'S
APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE, SERVED
ON THE DEAN SELECTION COMMITTEE,
AND SERVED AS A MEMBER OF THE
UNIVERSITY'S JUDICIAL BOARD.
IN THE 1990'S, WHILE AT DUKE, HE
TOOK SEVERAL LEAVES OF ABSENCES
FOR POSITIONS IN PUBLIC SERVICE.
AS A RESULT, HE HAS CONSIDERABLE
EXPERIEN IN GOVERNMENT, WHICH
WILL STAND HIM IN
THE OFFICE OF LEGAL POLICY.
HE SERVED IN SEVERAL CAPACITIES
IN THE SENATE, INCLUDING SPECIAL
NOMINATIONS COUNSEL AND THEN HE
WAS THE NUMBER-ONE STAFFER ON
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AS CHIEF
COUNSEL FOR THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE.
HE HAS ALSO SERVED IN NUMEROUS
POSITIONS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, INCLUDING COUNSELOR TO
THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL,
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL, AND ACTING ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL.
IN SHORT, CHRIS SCHROEDER HAS
THE EXPERIENCE, THE INTELLIGENT
ELECTRICITY, AND THE JUDGMENT --
INTELLECT, AND THE JUDGMENT
NECESSARY TO BE A SUPERB LEADER
OF THE OFFICE OF LEGAL POLICY.
JUST AS IMPORTANT, HE HAS THE
CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY TO HELP
ATTORNEY GENERAL CONTINUE TO
RESTORE THE PUBLIC FAITH IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
THE OFFICE OF LEGAL POLICY,
O.L.P., HAS A WIDE RANGE OF IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITIES
WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT JUSTICE.
LET ME READ FROM THE DESCRIPTION
ON THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WEB
SITE.
QUOTE -- "THE MAJOR FUNCTIONS OF
THE OFFICE OF LEGAL POLICY ARE
TO DEVELOP STRATEGIES AND
PROGRAMS TO IMPLEMENT
LEGISLATIVE, PROGRAMMATIC AND
POLICY INITIATIVES; TO SERVE AS
A LIAISON TO THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND
OTHER AGENCIES ON POLI
MATTERS; TO CONDUCT POLICY
REVIEWS OF LEGISLATION AND OTHER
PROPOSALS; AND SUPPORT AND
COORDINATE DEPARTMENTAL EFFORTS
TO ADVANCE THE ADMINISTRATION'S
LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY AGENDA.
TO ASSURE POLICY CONSISTENCY AND
COORDINATION OF DEPARTMENT
INITIATIVES, BRIEFING MATERIALS
AND POLICY STATEMENTS.
TO PROVIDE SUPPORT AND POLICY
EXPERTISE IN CONJUNCTION WITH
OTHER COMPONENTS TO IMPLEMENT
EFFECTIVELY MAJOR DEPARTMENTAL
AND ADMINISTRATION INITIATIVES
IN THE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL
JUSTICE AREAS.
TO ASSIST THE PRESIDENT AND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN FILLING ALL
ARTICLE 3 AND CERTAIN ARTICLE 1
JUDICIAL VACANCIES.
TO COORDINATE REGULATY
DEVELOPMENT IN THE REVIEW OF ALL
PROPOSED AND FINAL RULES
DEVELOPED BY ALL DEPARTMENT
COMPONENTS.
TO SER AS LIAISON TO THE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
AND OTHER AGENCIES ON REGULATORY
MATTERS.
TO TRACK AND COORDINATE
DEPARTMENTAL AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES
AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
END QUOTE.
IN SUM, O.M.B. IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR DEVELOPING THE HIGH-PRIORITY
RESPONSIBILITY INITIATIVES FOR
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SERVES AS
THE PRIMARY ADVISOR TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL.
O.L.P. IS THE PLACE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT WHERE CRITICAL
LONG-TM PLANNING GETS DONE.
O.L.P. ALSO HANDLES SPECIAL
PROJECTS THAT IMPLICATE THE
INTERESTS OF MULTIPLE DEPARTMENT
COMPONENTS AND COORDINATES THE
REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT AND
REVIEW OF ALL PROPOSED AND FINAL
RULES DEVELOPED BY THE
DEPARTMENT.
FINALLY, O.L.P. ADVISES AND
ASSISTS THE PRESIDENT AND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE
SELECTION AND CONFIRMATION O
FEDERAL JUDGES.
CHRIS' EXTRAORDINARY CAREER AND
EXEMPLARY CHARACTER RENDER HIM
UNIQUELY QUALIFIED TO LEAD
O.L.P.
AS WE SAW FROM HIS CONFIRMATION
HEARINGS IN THE JUDICIARY BACK
IN JUNE, CHRIS HAS EXCELLENT
CREDENTIALS AND BROAD EXPERIENCE
IN LAW AND GOVERNMENT.
HE FULLY UNDERSTANDS, HE FULLY
UNDERSTANDS THE SPECIAL ROLE AT
THE DEPARTMENT OFUSTICE AND IS
DEEPLY COMMITTED TO THE RULE OF
LAW, AND HE HAS BROAD SUPPORT
FROM LAWYERS OF ALL POLITICAL
AND JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHIES.
JUST AS AN EXAMPLE,
A.B.COPAHOUSE, FORMER WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT
REAGAN, GAVE CHRIS A RINGING
ENDORSEMENT, DESCRIBING HIM AS
HAVING -- "THE REQUISITE
MATURITY, EXPERIENCE, AND
CONFIDENCE TO WORK
CONSTRUCTIVELY ACROSS
INSTITUTIONAL, INTEREST GROUP
AND PARTY LINES TO ADVANCE THE
PUBLIC INTEREST."
KEN STARR, SYMPATHY
ENTHUSIASTIC, SAYING -- "CHRIS
HAS A PARTICULARLY KEEN AND
NUANCED SENSE OF WHAT THE
FOUNDING GENERATION WAS SEEK TO
GO ACHIEVE, BALANCED GOVERNMENT."
FROM BOTH CAPITAL EXPERIENCE AND
ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP, HE
UNDERSTANDS DEEPLY THE
COORDINATE ROLE OF THE BRANCHES."
BEFORE I CONCLUDE, I'D LIKE TO
GIVE MY COLLEAGUES A LITTLE
BETTER SENSE OF CHRIS SCHROEDER
OUTSIDE OF HIS PROFESSIONAL LIFE
BECAUSE I THINK HIS MODEL
CHARACTER IS SOMHING WE SHOULD
ALL BEAR IN MIND AS WE CONSIDER
HIS NOMINATION.
CHRIS HAS DEEP ROOTS IN HIS DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA,
COMMUNITY.
HE AND HIS WIFE KATE HAVE BEEN
MEMBERS OF THE PILGRIM UNITED
CHURCH OF CHRIST FOR 30 YEARS.
THIS IS A CHURCH IN WHICH
INDICATE -- IN WHICH KATE AND
CHRIS HAVE RAISED THEIR THREE
CHILDREN AND IT HAS BEEN AN
IMPORTANT PART OF THEIR FAMILY LIFE.
CHRIS HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF EVERY
ELECTORATE BOARD OR COMMITTEE OF THE CHURCH.
HE HAS BEEN THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
FELLOWSHIP COMMITTEE SEVERAL
TIMES, A JOB HE CHERISHES
BECAUSE OF THE SIMPLE PLEASURES
THAT COME FROM PROVIDING GOOD
MEALS AND HOSPITALITY AT CHURCH
EVENTS OF EVERY DESCRIPTION.
CHRIS HAS ALSO TAUGHT SUNDAY
SCHOOL FOR OVER 20 YEARS AT
PILGRIM, MOST OFTEN A BIBLE
STUDY CLASS.
CHRIS HAS ALSO BEEN A MEMBER OF
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEALS ON
WHEELS PROGRAM IN DURHAM WHICH
SUPPLIES LUNCHES TO ELDERLY AND
SHUT-IN MEMBERS OF THE DURHAM
COMMUNITY.
BESIDES HAVING SERVED IN A
LEADERSHIP POSITION FOR MEALS ON
WHEELS, CHRIS AND COLLEAGUES
FROM DUKE UNIVERSITY AND FACULTY
DRIVE ONE OF THE MEALS ON WHEELS
ROUTES EVERY FRIDAY.
THEY HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOR MORE
THAN 20 YEARS.
CHRIS AND HIS CHILDREN HAVE ALSO
BEEN ACTIVE IN THE CROP WALK, AN
ANNUAL EVENT IN
OTHER CITIES AROUND THE COUNTRY
THAT RAISES FUNDS FOR LOCAL AS
WELL AS INTERNATIONAL FOOD
PROGRAMS.
CHRIS IS PROUD OF THE FACT THAT
THE PILGRIM UNITED CHURCH OF
CHRIST IS REGULARLY AMONG THE
LEADERS AMONG CHURCHES ITS SIZE
IN RAISING FUNDS IN THE CROP WALK.
IN SELECTING CHRIS SCHROEDER,
THE PRESIDENT HAS CHOSEN WISELY.
BASED ON OUR LONG ASSOCIATION, I
KNOW HIM TO HAVE A PIERCING
INTELLECT, IMPECCABLE JUDGMENT
AND UNPARALLELED INTEGRITY.
I AM PROUD TO CALL HIM MY
FRIEND, AND I URGE MY COLLEAGUES
TO CONFIRM HIM WITHOUT DELAY.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT ANY
TIME IN A QUORUM CALL DURING THE
DEBATE ON THE SCHROEDER
NOMINATION BE CHARGED EQUALLY TO
BOTH SIDES.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
MR. KAUFMAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT FIVE
MINUTES BE SET ASIDE FOR THE
CHAIRMAN DURING THE DEBATE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
MR. KAUFMAN: MR.
SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
MR. BURRIS: MR. PRESIDENT?
SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.
MR. BURRIS: IEQUEST THAT THE
QUORUM CALL BE VITIATED.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. BURRIS: THANK YOU.
MR. PRESIDENT, MAY I HAVE
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO SPEAK AS IF
IN MORNING BUSINESS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. BURRIS: THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
IN EARLY 1933, JUST AFTER
FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT WAS SWORN IN
AS PRESIDENT, THE GREAT
DEPRESSION WAS AT ITS WORST.
THE AMERICAN ECONOMY HAD BEEN
SHAKEN TO ITS CORE, FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS HAD CLOSED, PEOPLE
LIFE SAVINGS HAD EVAPORATED, AND
NO ONE KNEW WHERE TO TURN.
THAT'S WHEN THE UNTHINKABLE
HAPPENED, MUCH OF THE AMERICAN COMMERCIAL BANKING SYSTEM
COLLAPSED.
PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT AND HIS
COLLEAGUES IN THE HOUSE AND
SENATE SPRANG INTO ACTION.
CONGRESSMAN HENRY SIEGELND
SENATOR CARTER GLASS, BOTH
DEMOCRATS, WORKED PRESIDENT TO
WRITE SWEEPING REFORM
LEGISLATION THAT SET OUT TO GET
THE ECONOMY BACK ON THE ROAD TO
RECOVERY.
THE RESULTING LAW, KNOWN AS THE
GLASS-STEAGALL ACT OF 1933,
HELPED LAY THE FOUNDATION FOR
SENSIBLE BANK REGULATIONS IN
THIS COUNTRY.
IT WOULD COME TO DEFINE
AMERICA'S FINANCIAL LANDSCAPE IN
THE DECADES THAT FOLLOWED THE
DEPRESSION.
MR. PRESIDENT, IT IS IN THIS
SPIRIT THAT I'VE ASKED MY
COLLEAGUES TO JOIN ME TODAY IN
SUPPORTING MAJOR FINANCIAL
REFORM AND MAKING SURE THAT THE
VOLCKER RULES IS INCLUDED IN OUR
FINAL LEGISLATION.
IF WE PASS THAT BILL THAT HAS
BEEN INTRODUCED BY SENATOR DODD,
WE CAN HELP PREVENT ANOTHER
ECONOMIC CRISIS AND REINSTATE
SOME OF THE BASIC PROTECTIONS
INCLUDED IN GLASS-STEAGALL.
ALMOST 80 YEARS AGO, THIS
LEGISLATION ESTABLISHED THE
FDIC, WHICH STILL INSURE BANKS'
DEPOSITS, AND IT DREW A SHARP
DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMMERCIAL
BANKS AND INVESTMENT BANKS.
IN THE WAKE OF THE ECONOMIC
COLLAPSE, CONGRESS RECOGNIZED
THAT THESE DUELING ROLES OFTEN
CAME WITH MASSIVE CONFLICT OF
INTEREST -- INTEREST.
IN SOME CASES, THIS RESULTED IN
RISKY BEHAVIORS AND OTHERS, FRAUD.
SO GLASS-STEAGALL DESIGNED THEIR
BILL TO SET UP A BARRIER BETWEEN
COMMERCIAL BANKS AND INVESTMENT BANKS.
THE LAW PREVENTED THESE TWO
ACTIVES FROM MIXING AND KEPT
FINANCIAL PROFESSIONALS HONES
AND ACCOUNTABLE.
MUCH OF THE NEXT HALF CENTURY,
AS OUR ECONOMY RECOVERED FROM
THE GREAT DEPRESSION AND
PROSPERITY RETURNED TO AMERICA,
THE SYSTEM WORKED JUST AS IT WAS
INTENDED.
AS A FORMER BANKER, I CAN
PERSONALLY SPEAK TO THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
GLASS-STEAGALL ACT IN HELPING TO
KEEP OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM ON AN
EVEN KEEL.
THIS IMPORTANT LAW WAS
ESTABLISHED TO THE STABILITY OF
OUR ECONOMY RIGHT UP TO THE
MOMENT WHEN MY REPUBLICAN
FRIENDS REPEALED IT A LITTLE
MORE THAN A DECADE AGO.
IN 1999, THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS
DECIDED THAT THERE WAS NO LONGER
A NEED TO KEEP COMMERCIAL AND
INVESTMENT BANKS SEPARATED SO
THEY PASSED A BILL THAT ROLLED
BACK KEY PORTIONS OF
GLASS-STEAGALL ACT.
UNFORTUNATELY, PRESIDENT CLINTON
SIGNED IT INTO LAW, AND WITH THE
STROKE OF A PEN, THE WALLS
BETWEEN COMMERCIAL BANKS AND
INVESTMENT BANKS WAS TORN DOWN.
ALMO
INSTITUTIONS STARTED TO MOVE
INTO THIS FRESH TERRITORY.
THEY STARTED TO UNDERITE
C.D.O.'S AND MORTGAGE-BACKED
SECURITIES.
THEN THEY BEGAN TO TRADE THEM.
MR. PRESIDENT, COMMERCIAL
LENDERS EVEN CREATED NEW
INVESTMENT VEHICLES WHICH
BROUGHT THESE VERY -- WHICH
BROUGHT THESE VERY SAME SECURITIES.
WITHOUT THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT,
IT WAS A FREE-FOR-ALL, AND AS
SOON AS THE REGULATIONS WERE
REMOVED, BIG BANKS SWOOPED IN
WITHOUT REGARD TO RESPONSIBLE
LENDING PRACTICES.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST SPRANG UP
EVERYWHERE, FRAUD WAS ALLEGEDLY
COMMITTED BY SOME OF OUR LARGEST
AND MOST RESPECTED INSTITUTIONS.
AND THEN TWO YEARS AGO, OUR
ECONOMY WENT INTO A MASSIVE
DOWNWARD SPIRAL, AND A GREAT
RECESSION FROM WHICH WE'RE STILL
TRYING TO MR. PRESIDENT.
THE REPEAL OF GLASS-STEAGALL
CERTAINLY DID NOT CAUSE THIS
FINANCIAL CRISIS ON ITS OWN BUT MANY BELIEVED IT WAS A
CONTRIBUTING FACTOR.
AND UNLESS WE CAN TAKE ACTION TO
CLOSE THIS REGULATORY GAP, THE
ABSENCE OF GLASS-STEAGALL WOULD
EXPOSE OUR ECONOMY TO MAJOR
SYSTEMATIC RISK IN THE FUTURE.
SOODAY, AS THE SENATE STANDS
ON THE VERGE OF CONSIDERING
MAJOR FINANCIAL REFORM, I WOULD
URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO REINSTATE
SOME OF THESE PROTECTIONS.
WE MUST PREVENT BIG BANKS FROM
ENGAGING IN THESE IRRESPONSIBLE
PRACTICES EVER AGAIN.
THAT IS WHY I'M PROUD TO SUPPORT
THE VOLCKER RULE WHICH MY
FRIEND, SENATOR DODD, HAS
INCLUDED IN HIS FINANCIAL REFORM
BILL.
THIS PROVISION WILL PREVENT
TRADITIONAL BANKSROM MAKING
PRIVATE EQUITY INVESTMENTS.
IT WILL STOP THEM FROM RUNNING
HEDGE FUNDS.
IT WILL HELP KEEP THEM FROM
PLACING BETS ON THE MARKET.
MR. PRESIDENT, AS A KEY PART OF
SENATOR DODD'S BILL, THE VOLCKER
RULE WOULD ESSENTIALLY SERVE AS
A MODERNIZED VERSION OF THE
GLASS-STEAGALL ACT, AND IT WOULD
STOP SHORT OF REINSTATING THE
OLD LAW OF
HELP TO PREVENT FRAUD,
DISCOURAGE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
INTEREST, AND KEEP LARGE BANKS
FROM ENGAGING IN RECKLESS
BEHAVIOR.
IT WOULD ALSO ALLOW US TO
REGULATE MERGERS AMONG OUR
BIGGEST BANKS SO THAT WE CAN
PREVENT THE MARKET FROM BECOMING
TOO CONCENTRATED OR INCURRING
SYSTEMIC RISK.
MR. PRESIDENT, I BELIEVE THES
THESE -- I BELIEVE EACH OF THESE
KEY COMPONENTS IS A NECESSARY
PART OF ANY FINANCIAL REFORM BILL.
THAT'S WHY I'M PROUD TO JOIN
SENATOR DODD AS WELL AS
PRESIDENT OBAMA IN SUPPORTING
THE VOLCKER RULE.
COLLEAGUES, LET US LEARN FROM
THE EVENTS OF HISTORY.
LET US IMPOSE FAIR AND
REASONABLE REGULATIONS SO THAT A
HANDFUL OF BANKS WON'T BE ABLE
TO UNDERMINE THE AMERICAN
ECONOMY WITH A FEW FOOLISH DECISIONS.
LET US PASS FINANCIAL REFORM
BILL THAT INCLUDES THE VOLCKER RULE.
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
I YIELD THE FLOOR AND SUGGEST
TH
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM C
MR. BURRIS: MR. PRESIDENT, I
REQUEST THAT THE QUORUM CALL BE VITIATED.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. BURRIS: MR. PRESINT,
HAVE CON
FLOOR HERE.
I HAVE NINE UNANIMOUS CONSENT
REQUESTS FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
DURING TODAY'S SESSION OF THE SENATE.
THEY HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE
MAJORITY AND MINORITY LEADERS.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT
THESE REQUESTS BE AGREED TO AND
THAT THESE REQUESTS BE PRINTED
IN THE RECORD.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
JECTION.
MR. BURRIS: THANK YOU,
MR
I SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
MR. FEINGOLD: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS NOT
FRR WISCONSIN IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. FEINGOLD: ARE WE IN A
QUOR
OFFICER WE'RE, SENATOR.
MR. FEINGOLD: I ASK THAT
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS UER THE
QUORUM CALL BE DISPENSED WITH.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. FEINGOLD: MR. PRESIDENT --
MR. PRESIDENT, I COME TO THE
FLOOR TO RECOGNIZE THE 40th
ANNIVERSARY OF EARTH DAY AND T
REMEMBER THE MAN WHO FOUNDED
EARTH DAY, THE LATE-WISCONSIN
GOVERNOR AND SENATOR GAYLORD NELSON.
BEFORE HE WAS THE FOUNDER OF
EARTH DAY AND ONE OF THE
NATION'S GREATEST
CONSERVATIONIST, AVENUES SON OF
WHICH IS WISSMENTS AVENUES YOUNG
BOY GROWING UP IN THE TOWN OF
CLEAR LAKE, WISCONSIN AMID THE
GREAT NATURAL BEAUTY OF OUR
STATE.
WHEN ASKED HOW HE DEVELOPED HIS
LIFELONG INTEREST AND DEDICATION
TO THE ENVIRONMENT, NELSON WOULD
SAY, "BY OSMOSIS" WHILE GROWING
UP IN CLEAR LAKE, WHICH IS WHICH.
HE REFLECTED THE VERY BEST OF
OUR STATE FROM THE BEGINNING,
BUILDING ON WISCONSIN'S LONG
TRADITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION.
OUR STATE PASSED LANDMARK FOREST
AND WATER POWER CONSERVATION ACT
ACTS DURING THE PROGRESSIVE ERA
AND LAYS CLAIM NOT ONLY TO
GAYLORD NELSON BUT TO OTHER
GIANTS OF THE CONSERVATION
MOVEMENT LIKE ALDO LEOPOLD.
ALL WERE INSPIRED, AS NELSON
WAS, BY THE BEAUTIFUL WISCONSIN
WILDERNESS, THE NATURAL BEAUTY
OF OUR STATE CHARTED THE COURSE
OF NELSOS LIFE FROM THE SHORES
OF CLEAR LAKE TO THE BANKS OF
THE POTOMAC WHERE HE CHANGED THE
WAY WE THINK ABOUT OUR PLANET
AND CHANGED THE LAW TO PROTECT
THE WATER WE DRINK AND THE AIR
WE BREATHE.
THERE ARE FEW MEMBERS OF THIS
BODY, PAST OR PRESENT, WHO HAVE
LEFT SUCH A VALUABLE LEGACY.
SO TODAY I'M PROUD TO HELP
CELEBRATE THAT LEGAC WITH A
RESOLUTION IN THE HOUSE AND
SENATE CELEBRATING THE 40th
ANNIVERSARY OF EARTH DAY AND ITS FOUNDER.
AS WE LOOK AHEAD TO THE MANY
CHALLENGES WE FACE, WE CAN DRAW
STRENGTH FROM THE EXAMPLE
GAYLORD SET FORS ALL.
HE DROVE TREMENDOUS CHANGE AND
WITH EARTH DAY CREATED A NEW
MOMENTUM THAT HAS BEEN CRITICAL
TO SO MANY EFFORTS TO PROTECT
THE HEALTH OF OUR ENVIRONMENT.
GAYLORD ALSO UNDERSTOOD THE
CONNECTION BETWEEN FISCAL
RESPONSIBILITY AND CONSERVATION.
TOO OFTEN A FEDERAL PROGRAM THAT
IS WASTING TAXPAYER DOLLARS IS
ALSO LAYING WASTE TO OUR AIR, OR
WATER OR OUR PUBLIC LAND.
THE NATION'S OUTDATED MINING
LAWS ARE A PERFECT EXAMPLE.
THESE LAWS ALLOW MINING
COMPANIES TO ON OUR PUBLIC
LANDS
FOR NEXT TO NOTHING AND LEAVE
BEHIND AN ENVIRONMENTAL MESS FOR
TAXPAYERS TO CLEAN UP.
GAYLORD FOUGHT TO CHANGE THOSE LAWS
AND WHEN I WAS ELECTS TO THE
SENATE HE ASKED ME TO TAKE UP
THIS FIGHT, AND I HAVE.
I MADE IT PART OF MY CONTROL
SPENDING NOW ACT, LEGISLATION TO
CUT THE DEFICIT BY ABOUT $500
BILLION OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS.
MR. PRESIDENT, IF WE SCRAP THESE
OUTDATED MINING LAWS, WE COULD
SAVE TAXPAYERS HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND PROTECT
THE PUBLIC LANDS THAT BELONG TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THEY DON'T BELONG TO THE MINING COMPANIES.
I'M ALSO WOGGING ON ANOTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE THAT HAS A
SPECIAL CONNECTION TO GAYLORD
NELSON, AND THAT'S CLEAN WATER.
THE MAN FROM CLEAR LAKE DID SO
MUCH FOR CLEAR, CLEAN WATER
EVERYWHERE, INCLUDING BEING A
CHAMPION OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT.
TODAY THE CLEAN WATER ACT IS
UNDER THREAT BECAUSE TWO RECENT
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS HAVE JEOPARDIZED IT.
THOSE DECISIONS PUT A NEARLY 20
MILLION ACRES OF WETLANDS
HABITAT AND MORE THAN 50% OF OUR
EXTREME MILES IN THE LOWER 48
STATES AT RISK.
THESE WATERS COULD NOW BECOME
POLLUTED OR WIPED OFF ALTOGETHER
UNLESS CONGRESS TAKES ACTION.
I'M WORKING TO SEE THAT CONGRESS
STAND UP TO THE SPECIAL
INTERESTS THAT WANT TO ROLL BACK
THE CLEAN WATER ACT'S PROTECTION
AND ENSURE THAT THESE BODIES OF
WATER CAN CONTINUE TO PROVIDE
DRINKING WATER, WILDLIFE
HABITAT, RECREATION, AND SUPPORT
FOR INDUSTRY AND AGRICULTURE FOR
GENERATIONS OF WISCONSINITES TO
COME.
SO I'VE JOINED WITH MINNESOTA
REPRESENTATIVE JIM OBERSTAR TO
INTRODUCE THE CLEAN WATER
RESTORATION ACT THIS.
BILL IS DESIGNED TO ACCOMPLISH
ONE BASIC AND IMPORTANT GOAL:
ENSURE THAT THE CLEAN WATER ACT
OF 1972 STAYS IN PLACE.
THERE ARE NO NEW REGULATIONS IN
OUR LEGISLATION.
ONLY A RETURN TO THE ORIGINAL
INTENT OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT,
WHICH HAS PROTECTED OUR WATERS
FOR MORE THAN 35 YEARS.
GAYLORD NELSON AND OTHERS HAVE
DONE SO MUCH TO PROTECT THE
HEALTH OF OUR WATERS, AND WE OWE
IT TO THEM AND OURSELVES TO
CARRY THAT LEGACY FORWARD.
THAT'S WHAT I SEEK TO DO IN THE
SENATE WITH THE CLEAN WATER
RESTORATION ACT.
NOW WE FACE MANY CHALLENGES --
OTHER CHALLENGES AS WELL.
OF COURSE CLIMATE CHANGE LOOMS
LARGEST OF ALL.
WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE SERIOUS
PROBLEM OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND DO
SO WITHOUT UNFAIRLY HURTING
WISCONSIN, WHICH RELIES ON COAL
FOR MUCH OF ITS ENEY NEEDS.
IF WE DO THIS RIGHT, WE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PASS LEGISLATION
THAT WILL REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS AND CREATE ENERGY JOBS
IN WISCONSIN.
WE CAN HELP AMERICAN BUSINESSES
GAIN A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
DEVELOPING NEW RENEWABLE ENERGY
AND ENERGY-EFFICIENCY
TECHNOLOGIES.
THE DESIRE TO PROTECT OUR AIR,
OUR WATER, AND OUR PLANET WILL
BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER TOMORROW
ALL AROUND THE WORLD.
IT WILL TALK ABOUT GLOBAL ISSUES
WE FACE AND THE LOCAL
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN THEIR
COMMUNITIES THAT THEY WANT TO
ADDRESS.
THEY WILL ORGANIZE, MOBILIZE,
AND GVANIZE NEW MOMENTUM FOR CHANGE.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT GAYLORD
NELSON INTENDED.
HE KNEW THE POWER OF PEOPLE
COMING TOGETHER AND WHAT THAT
COULD MEAN FOR THE AIR WE
BREATHE.
THE WATER WE DRINK AND THE
NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
WE ALL CHERISH.
HE KNEW THAT THESE NATURAL
RESOURCES CONNECT US ALL AND
THAT EAR DAY WOULD BRING US
TOGETH TO PROTECT THEM.
I AM SO GRATEFUL TO HAVE KNOWN
GAYLORD NELSON, AND I'M PROUD OF
THE LEGACY HE LEFT BEHIND.
THE 40th ANNIVERSARY OF EARTH
DAY, WE REMEMBER THE MAN FROM
CLEAR LAKE W CAME TO THIS BODY
INSPIRED BY THE BEAUTIFUL
WISCONSIN LANDSCAPE OF HIS
CHILDHOOD AND IN THE END MAD A
BETTER WORLD FOR US ALL.
MADAM CHAIR, I YIELD THE
A SENATOR:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROMG? VERMONT.
MR. LEAHY: MADAM PREDENT,
FIRST, I WOULD SAY TO MY
DISTINGUISHED FRIEND FROM
WISCONSIN, I WAS DELIGHTED TO
HEAR THOSE WORDS ABOUT GAYLORD NELSON.
I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING
FOR A TERM WITH SENATOR NELSON.
DOWN TO EARTH, RESPECTED BY ALL
IN THIS BODY, BUT A COMMITMENT
TO THE ENVIRONMENT RARELY EVER
MATCHED.
THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN HAS
SAID IT FAR MORE ELOQUENTLY THAN
I COULD, BUT I THINK HOW
FORTUNATE WE ARE THAT WE HAVE
THE, THIS THE SENATOR FROM
WISCONSIN WHO HAS CARRIED OUT
THAT COMMITMENT TO THE
ENVIRONMENT, THAT COMMITMENT TO
THE BEST IDEALS OF OUR GOVERNMENT.
AND I KNOW THAT OUR DEAR FRIEND,
DEPARTED FRIEND, GAYLORD NELSON
WOULD BE SO PROUD TO HAVE YOU
HERE IN THE SENATE REPRESENTING WISCONSIN.
MR. FEINGOLD: I THANK THE
SENATOR FROM VERMONT FOR THOSE
KIND WORDS, FOR HIS REMBERING
GAYLORD NELSON, AND OF COURSE
FOR HIS INCREDIBLE LEGACY OF HIS
OWN WITH REGARD TO THE
ENVIRONMENT, COMING FROM ONE OF
THE MOST BEAUTIFUL STATES IN
THIS COUNTRY: VERMONT.
I THANK YOU.
MR. LEAHY: THANK YOU.
MADAM PRESIDENT, TODAY THE
SENATE WILL FINALLY, FINALLY
CONFIRM SCHROEDER.
I SAY FINALLY BECAUSE HE WAS
NOMINATED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA
NEARLY 11 MONTHS AGO.
HE APPEARED BEFORE THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE LAST JUNE.
HE WAS REPORTED FAVORABLY LAST
JULY A YEAR AGO WITH NO DISSENT.
ALL DEMOCRATS, ALL REPUBLICANS
COMMITTEE, NO DISSENT.
BUT THEN HE SAT ON THE EXECUTIVE
CALENDAR FOR FIVE MONTHS BLOCKED
BY MYSTERIOUSOLDS FROM THE
REPUBLICAN SIDE.
THEN, MADAM PRESIDENT, AS THE
LAST SESSION DREW TO A CLOSE,
REPUBLICAN SENATORSBJECTED AND
CARRIED OVER PROFESSOR SCHROEDER'S NOMINATION.
THE PRESIDENT HAD TO RENOMINATE
HIM.
THE PRESIDENT DID THAT, TO HIS CREDIT.
HIS NOMINATION WAS
REPORTED FAVORABLY BY THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AGAIN, A
ROLL CALL VOTE, A MAJORITY OF
THE REPUBLICANS VOTED FOR HIM.
AND FOR THREE MONTHS IT'S BEEN
BLOCKED ON THIS FLOOR AGAIN.
PROFESSOR SCHROEDER IS A SCHOLAR
AND PUBLIC SERVANT WHO HAS
SERVED WITH DISTINCTION ON THE
STAFF OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE AND IN THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT AND HAS SUPPORT
ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM.
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
RECEIVED -- AND I WILL ASK
CONSENT TO INCLUDE IN THE
RECORD -- LETTERS OF SUPPORT
FROM PROFESSOR SCHROEDER'S
NOMINATION FROM ARREST THEY ARE
ARE -- FROM ARTHUR
KEN STARR, FORMER SOLICITOR
GENERAL UNDER PRESIDENT GEORGE
H.W. BUSH, 11 HIGH-RANKING
DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS AND DEAN
LEVY OF DUKE LAW SCHOOL.
I ASK CONSENT TO INCLUDE THOSE
LETTERS IN THE
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. LEAHY: CHRIS SCHROEDER IS
WELL KNOWN TO MANY OF US IN THE SENATE.
HE SERVED IN MANY POSITIONS,
INCLUDING CHIEF COUNSEL FOR THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WHEN THE
CHAIRMAN WAS THEN-SENATOR JOE
BIDEN.
HE SPENT YEARS IN PRIVATE
PRACTICE AS A PROFESSOR,
INCLUDING FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS
AS DIRECTOR FOR THE PROGRAM
PUBLIC LAW AT DUKE UNIVERSITY
LAW SCHOOL.
HE'S EXTRAORDINARILY WELL
PREPARED FOR THE POSITION HE'S
BEEN NOMINATED TO.
IN FACT, IN MY NEARLY 36 YEARS
HERE, IT'S HARD TO THINK OF
SOMEBODY MORE WELL QUALIFIED.
HE GRADUATED -- HE SERVED A
NUMBER OF HIGH RANKING POSITIONS
AT THE JUSTICE.
HE GRADUATED FROM PRINCETON
UNIVERSITY, RECEIVED HIS MASTER
OF DIVINITY FROM YALE DEFINITIVE
SCHOOL BEFORE EARNING HIS LAW
DEGREE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA BERKELEY IN 1974.
THERE'S NO QUESTION HE'S WELL
QUALIFIED TO RUN THE OFFICE OF
LEGAL POLICY.
AND IT
SOMEBODY WHO'S
CONFIRMED EASILY, IT SHOULDN'T
BE NECESSARY FOR THE MAJORITY
LEADER TO HAVE TO FILE CLOTURE
IN ORDER TO END THE REPUBLICAN
FILIBUSTER AND FOR THE SENATE TO
AT LAST HAVE AN UP-OR-DOWN VOTE
ON PROFESSOR SCHROEDER'S NOMINATION.
WHAT HAS THIS PLACE COME TO,
MADAM PRESIDENT, WHEN WE HAVE
FILIBUSTERS ON ROUTINE
NOMINATIONS LIKE THIS?
WE NEVER HAD ANYTHING LIKE THIS BEFORE.
I REMBER WHEN I FIRST CAME
HERE, PROBABLY THE BIGGEST
NOMINATION WE HAD BEFORE A
HEAVILY DEMOCRATIC-CONTROLLED
SENATE WAS THE NOMINATION OF A
CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN
PRESIDENT -- GERALD FORD -- FOR
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT,
NOMINATING A REPUBLICAN FROM
CHICAGO, WELL-RESPECTED BUT A
REPUBLICAN FROM CHICAGO, SEEN AS
CONSERVATIVE, JOHN PAUL STEVENS.
WE TOOK THAT NOMINATION TO THE
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.
TWO AND A HALF WEEKS AFTER THAT
NOMINATION ARRIVED HERE, WE ALL
VOTED FOR JOHN PAUL STEVE FOR
THE SUPREME COURT.
I WAS ONE OF THOSE -- IN FACT
ONLY ONE OF THREE SENATORS STILL
HERE WHO VOTED.
SENATOR INOUYE AND SENATOR BYRD
ARE THE OTHER TWO.
NOW WHAT HAVE WE COME TO WHEN WE
HAVE A NOMINATION WHO IS AS
EXTRAORDINARILY WELL QUALIFIED
AS PROFESSOR SCHROEDER, WHO IS
GOING TO BE CONFIRMED BUT H HAS
TO GET PAST A REPUBLICAN FILIBUSTER?
THIS IS A FAR CRY, INCIDENTALLY,
FROM THE WAY THE DEMOCRATS
TREATED THE LAST PRESIDENT,
PRESIDENT BUSH'S NOMINATION TO
RUN THE OFFICE OF LEGAL POLICY.
A DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY CONFIRMED
PRESIDENT BUSH'S FIRST NOMINEE
TO HEAD THAT DIVISION BY A VOTE
OF 96-1 ONLY ONE MONTH AFTER HE
WAS NOMINATED AND ONLY ONE WEEK
AFTER HIS NOMINATION WAS
REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE.
THE THE THREE NOMINEES IN THAT
OFFICE WHO PRECEDED MR. DIN,
DANIEL BRYANT, ARE A WHICH HE
WILL BRANCH, ELIZABETH COOKS
WERE NOMINATED IN A SHORTER TIME.
NONE OF THESE NOMINATIONS WERE
RETURNED TO THE PRESIDENT
WITHOUT EXPLANATION.
NONE OF THEM REQUIRED CLOTURE TO
BE FILED BEFORE BEING CONSIDERED.
WHAT IS GOING ON THAT WHEN A
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT IS TREATED
WITH FAIRNESS BUT A DEMOCRATIC
PRESIDENT -- PRESIDENT OBAMA --
IS TREATED THIS WAY?
IT MAKES ME THINK OF WHEN THE
LEADERS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
SAID LAST YEAR "I WANT THIS
PRESIDENT TO FAIL."
WELL, MADAM PRE
OBJECTIONS TO A NOMINATION, VOTE
AGAINST IT.
BUT NONE
WHOEVER IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, TO FAIL.
BECAUSE IF THE PRESIDENT FAI
AMERICA FAILS.
AND WE ALL SUFFER, REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT ALIKE.
WE HAVE TO GET OUT OF THIS
MIND-SET TAT -- MIND-SET THAT IF
PRESIDENT OBAMA IS FOR
SOMETHING, EVERYONE HAS TO FIND
WAYS TO BLOCK.
I AGREE WITH THE OBSERVATION
EARLIER THISEEK CONCERNING THE
SCHROEDER NOMINATION, THE REMARK
THAT PERHAPS REPUBLICANS WERE
BLOCKING THIS NOMINATION BECAUSE
PROFESSOR SCHROEDER HAS BEEN
NOMINATED TO LEAD THE OFFICE,
THE BEST POTENTIAL JUDICIAL
MINEES.
WELL, HE'S RIGHT, JUST AS
SENATOR KAUFMAN SPOKE SO
ELOQUENTLY ON BEHALF OF
PROFSOR SCHROEDER TODAY.
IT SEEMS THAT TO DEFLECT
CRITICISM FOR THE REPLICAN
DELAYS ON OBSTRUCTION TO
JUDICIAL NOMINATIO HAS LEFT 25
JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS LANGUISHING
ON THE SENATE CALENDAR.
SENATE REPUBLICANS HAVE TRIED TO
PLACE THE BLAME BY SENDING TOO
FEW NOMINEES TO THE
BY MAKING A LOSE-LOSE
PROPOSITION, THE SAME
REPUBLICANS WHO HELD UP THE
NOMINATION TO LEAD -- IN OTHER
WORDS, THEY STOPPED THE
WHO IS SUPPOSED TO DOHE
INITIAL REVIEW ON JUDICIAL
NOMINATIONS, AND THEN THEY SAY,
OH, MY GOODNESS, PRESIDENT
OBAMA'S NOT SENDING UP ENOUGH
NOMINATIONS.
COME ON.
THIS IS -- THIS IS LIKE A
BURGLAR SAYING "I SHOULD BE
EXCUSED FOR BURGLARIZING THIS
WAREHOUSE BECAUSE
NICE THINGS IN
IT'S YOUR FAULT FOR HAVING SUCH
NICE THINGS TO STEAL.
HOW CAN YOU BLAME ME FOR
STLI
WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS IT'S
PRESIDENT OBAMA FAULT FOR NOT
MOVING THROUGH JUDGES WHO HAVE
TO BE VETTED SOMEBODY FROM VETTING THEM.
I KNOW THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WOULD BE GRATEFUL TO HAVE
PROFESSOR SCHROEDER TO HELP
PREPARE JUDICIAL
AS HE EMPHASIZED IN RESPONSE TO
A QUESTION FROM SENATOR
SESSIONS, ANY INTERPRETATION OF
THE CONSTITUTION MUST BEGIN WITH
DOCUMENTS, TEXT, HISTORY,
STRUCTURE AND PURPOSE AS WELL AS
JUDICIAL PRECEDENT.
A FUNDAMENTAL QUALIFICATION FOR
ANYONE BEING CONSIDERED FOR A
JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT IS THAT HE
OR SHE UNDERSTAND THE
CONSTITUTION HAS BINDING FORCE
AND MUST BE APPLIEDAITHFULLY
IN CASES THAT COME BEFORE ANY
COURT INDEPENDENT OF HIS OR HER
OWN POLICY OR PREFERENCES.
AGAIN I THANK SENATOR KAUFMAN.
HE'S ONE OF THE MOST VALUED
MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, SOMEBODY I AM GOING
TO MISS SORELY WHEN HE RETIRES
THIS YEAR, FOR HIS DOGGED
EFFORTS IN SUPPORT OF PROFESSOR
SCHROEDER'S NOMINATION AND FOR
HIS ASSTANCE IN MANAGING THE
DEBATES SO WELL TODAY.
I CONGRATULATE PROFESSOR
SCHROEDER AND HIS FAMILY ON HIS CONFIRMATION.
I HAVE EVERY CONFIDENCE HE WILL
BE AN EQUITYIVE, DEVOTED -- HE
WILL BE AN EFFECTIVE, DEVOTED
PUBLIC SERVANT.
I MIGHT NOTE -- I THINK OF THIS
AS I SEE THE DISTINGUISHED
PROFESSOR WHO IS PRESIDING OVER
THE SENATE TODAY, THE SENATOR
FROM NORTH CAROLINA.
AMONG THE 25 JUDICIAL NOMINEES
STALLED BEFORE A FINAL SENATE
VOTE, TWO K COURT OF APPEALS
NOMINEES FROM NORTH CAROLINA.
I KNOW THAT THE DISTINGUISHED
PRESIDING OFFICER TOOK A TOTALLY
NONPARTISAN ATTITUDE TOWARD
RECOMMENDING THESE JUDGES AND
WORKED EXTRAORDINARILY HARD, AND
I HOPE JUDGE WYNN AND JUDGE DIAZ
WILL SOON BE ALLOWED BY SENATE
REPUBLICANS TO BE CONSIDERED AND
VOTED ON.
THEY'RE SUPPORTED BY BOTH THE
DISTINGUISHED PRESIDING OFFICER,
SENATOR HAGAN, AND THE
DISTINGUISHED OTHER SENATOR FROM
NORTH CAROLINA, SENATOR BURR;
SUPPORTED BY A DEMOCRAT AND
REPUBLICAN.
INCIDENTALLY, JUDGE WYNN WAS
REPORTED OUT OF THE COMMITTEE 18-1.
MOST OF US WOULD LOVE TO WIN
ELECTIONS BY THAT KIND OF A MARGIN.
JUDGE DIAZ WAS REPORTED
UNANIMOUSLY THREE MONTHS AGO.
SO LET'S STOP THE -- LET'S
THIS UNPRECEDENTED KIND OF
STALLING, CLEAR THESE, THE
BACKLOG OF THESE 25 JUDICIAL
NOMINEES.
IN FACT THERE ARE 100 NOMINEES
OVERALL.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I SEE NOBODY
ELSE SEEKING RECOGNITION.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT,
MADAM PRESIDENT, THAT AT
2:15 P.M. TODAY THE SENATE
PROCEED TO VOTE ON CONFIRMATION
OF THE NOMINATION OF CHRISTOPHER
SCHROEDER WITH THE TIME UNTIL
THEN EQUALLY DIVIDED AND
CONTROLLED AS PREVIOUSLY ORDER.
FURTHER, ANY OTHER PROVISION OF
THE PREVIOUS ORDER WITH RESPECT
TO THE NOMINATION REMAINING IN EFFECT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. LEAHY: MADAM
YIELD THE FLOOR.
QUORUM CALL:
MR. LeMIEUX: MADAM PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM FLORIDA.
MR. LeMIEUX: I ASK THAT THE
QUORUM CALL BE DISPENSED WITH
AND SPEAK AS IF BUSINE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION. MR. LeMIEUX: MADAM PRESIDENT,
I COME TO THE FLOOR OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE TODAY --
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM FLORIDA IS
RECOGNIZED. MR. LeMIEUX: THANK YOU.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I COME TO THE
FLOOR OF THE UNITED STATES
SENATE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT THE
ISSUE OF FINANCIAL REGULATORY
REFORM, AN ISSUE THAT IS
CONSUMING THE GOOD EFFORTS AND
TIME OF MANY OF OUR COLLEAGUES
HERE IN THE SENATE.
AND IT'S AN ISSUE THAT'S VERY
IMPORTANT TO THE FUTURE ECONOMIC
HEALTH AN VIABILITY OF THIS COUNTRY.
YOU KNOW, AS WE GO ABOUT OUR
LIVES, EVEN IN THIS DIFFICULT
ECONOMY, I THINK IT'S EASY TO
FORGET HOW BAD THINGS WERE JUST
A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.
HOW BAD THINGS WERE IN T
OF 2008.
AND IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO
REMEMBER THE SITUATION THAT WE
WERE PUT IN WHERE OUR STOCK
MARKET FELL PRECIPITOUSLY, WHERE
OUR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WERE
ON THE VERGE OF COLLAPSE, WHERE
THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS WAS
FORCED TO STEP IN TO GIVE
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF
MONEY TO SAVE THE FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS,
PERCEIVED AT THE
WHICH HAD HAPPENED IN THE LATE
1920'S WHEN THE GREAT DEPRESSION
STARTED.
IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO
REMEMBER THAT TERRIBLE AND
CHALLENGING TIME AS WE
WHAT WE SHOULD DO NOW TO PREVENT
THAT TIME FROM
AND WE SHOULD BE LOOKING BACK TO
THE CAUSES OF THAT CRISIS IN
ORDER TO FIGURE OUT THE
SOLUTIONS THAT WE SULD
TODAY.
NOW, THERE HAS BEEN GOOD WORK
THAT HAS BEEN DONE BETWEEN
MEMBERS OF BOTH SIDES OF THE
AISLE, SENATOR DODD, SENATOR
SHELBY, SENATOR CORK HE AND
OTHERS, ON THE BANKING AN
FINANCE COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN
WORKING OVERTIME TO COME FORWARD
WITH PIECE OF LEGISLATION
WILL HELP PUT US IN A SITUATION
WHERE WE WILL NO LONGER HAVE
COMPANIES TOO BIG TO FAIL,
COULD PUT US CK TO THE
AMERICAN TAXPAYER, ASKING THE
AMERICAN TAXPAYER TO BAIL OUT
WALL STREET TO SAVE OUR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
WE SHOULD NEVER BE PUT IN THIS
POSITION AGAIN.
SO I COMMEND THE WORK THAT'S BEING DONE.
I AM HOPEFUL THAT WE WILL HAVE A
BIPARTISAN PRODUCT.
THERE ARE PIECES
LEGISLATION THAT'S
CONSTRUCTED WHICH GIVE CONCERN.
THE CAUSE OF A BAILOUT TO AGAIN
BE A SITUATION THAT THE UNITED
STATES CGRESS HAS TO ADDRESS
GIVES ME GREAT CONCERN.
THERE IS PARTICULAR LEGISLATION,
AS PART OF THIS PACKAGE, WHICH
WOULD SETUP
OF $50 B
COMPANIES DESIGNATED AS TOO BIG
TO FAIL.
I THINK THAT'S THE WRONG STRATEGY.
I THINK, THEREFORE, YOU'RE
GUARANTEEING FUTURE BAILOUTS.
YOU ARE SAYING TO THESE
COMPANIES, YOU ARE TOO BIG TO
FAIL, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS
GIVING YOU ITS BANK OF APPROVAL,
WE WILL COME IN AND RESCUE YOU
WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS OR
SHAREHOLDER DOLLARS, IN THAT CASE.
I THINK IT SENDS THE WRONG
INSENTIVE AND
BEHAVIOR AND IT
UNFAIR PLAYING FIELD FOR THOSE
INSTITUTIONS WHICH HAVE PLAYED
BY THE RULES, WHICH HAVE HAD
SOUND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT.
WE SHOULD
DEBATE AND DISCUSSION THAT THE
WAY BUSINESS IS SUPPOSED TO WORK
IN THIS COUNTRY IS YOU PUT
TOGETHER A VENTURE TO SELL A
PRODUCT OR A SERVICE.
IF YOU SUCCEED, YOU HAVE A PROFIT.
IF YOU FAIL, YOU GO OUT OF
BUSINESS.
THE FAILURES OF THE AMERICAN
ECONOMIC SYSTEM ARE, IN MANY
WAYS, JUST A IMPORTANT AS THE SUCCESSES.
WHERE WE
PROVED
SUBSIDIZED AND PREVENTED BETTER
TECHNOLOGIES FROM COMING FORWARD
IN THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE
FOR CONSUMERS.
IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE FOR
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT
BUSINESSES CAN FAIL IF THEY
DON'T SUCCEED.
WE'VE GOT A SYSTEM OF
IN THIS
TAKES COMPANIES INTO ITS
PROCEDURES THAT ORGANIZES THEM
OR LIQUIDATES THEM.
THAT IS HOW IT SHOULD WORK.
WE DO NOT WANT TO SUPPORT BAD
BUSINESSES WITH BAD PRACTICES
AND BAD IDEAS.
WE WANT THE GOOD BUSINESSES TO
SUCCEED AND WE CERTAINLY DON'T
WANT TO CREATE A PLAYING FIELD
WHERE THE GOO
RUN THEIR BUSINESSES THE RIGHT
WAY ARE AT A
SO I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THAT
PORTION OF T
AND THERE ARE OTHER PORTIONS OF
THE BILL THAT I HAVE TROUBLE WITH.
CERTAINLY WE SHOULD NOT BE IN A
SITUATION OF MORE TAXPAYER
BAILOUTS OR SHAREHOLDER BA
TODAY ABOUT THE CAUSES OF THE
PRIOR CRISIS AND WHAT THIS BILL
NEEDS TO DO TO MAKE SURE THAT
THAT CRISIS DOESN'T HAPPEN
AGAIN.
IF WE GO BACK
WEAN SEE NOW IN HINDSIGHT WHAT
LED TO THIS FINANCIAL MELTDOWN.
IN A STATE LIKE MINE FROM
FLORIDA, WE HAVE BEEN
PARTICULARLY IMPACTED FROM THE
MELTDOWN THAT OCCURRED.
BECAUSE THE BASIS OF THIS
MELTDOWN WAS RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY AND THE MORTGAGES THAT
WENT ALONG WITH THAT PROPERTY.
NOW IN A STATE LIKE MINE IN
FL
FORTUNATE OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS
OR SO, BECAUSE AS WE'VE HAD SLOWDOWNS IN OUR REAL ESTATE
ECONOMY, WHICH IS A
OF THE ECONOMY IN FRI,
CONSTRUCTION AND REAL ESTATE,
OTHER PARTS OF THE MARKET HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO STEP IN AND SUCCEED
WHEN REAL ESTATE CONSTRUCTION
FELL BACK.
NEVER BEFORE UNTIL THIS MOST
RECENT CRISIS WAS THE FINANCIAL
MARKET WHETTED TOGETHER WITH THE
REAL ESTATE
SO LET'S LOOK BACK AT THE
CIRC
SOMETIME DURING THE
2000'S, A PROCESS STARTED WHERE
BY BANKS AND LENDING
INSTITUTIONS WOULD GIVE
MORTGAGES TO PEOPLE WHO DID NOT
HAVE THE ABILITY IN ALL HONESTY,
TO AFFORD THE HOME THAT THEY
WERE PURCHASING.
THERE'S A TYPE
FLORIDA, AND I'M SURE IN OTHER
PARTS OF THE COUNTRY, CALLED THE
NINJA LOAN, NO INCOME, NO JOB.
NOW, WHY
INSTITUTION GIVE YOU A LOAN IF
YOU WERE NOT CREDIT WORTHY IN
ORDER TO OBTAIN THAT LOAN?
I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PURCHASE MY FIRST HOUSEACK IN
1995, AND WHEN I DID, I CAN ONLY
PUT DOWN 15%.
MY BANK REQUIRED
PURCHASE -- TO GET MORTGAGE
INSURANCE IN ORDER TO MAKE IT TO
THE 20% DEPOSIT REQUIREMENT.
THAT WAS THE WAY IT WAS IN THIS COUNTRY.
THERE WAS A TIME WHEN YOU TRIED
TO OBTAIN A MORTGAGE OR THE BANK
WAS VERY VESTED IN YOU BEING
ABLE TO PAY BECAUSE THEY WERE
HOLDING THE NOTE.
WELL, SOMETIME IN THE
2000'S, THE PROCESS STARTED
WHEREBY MORTGAGE BROKERS AND
BANKS COULD SELL OFF YOUR
MORTGAGE INTO THE
BECAUSE WE STARTED TO SECURITIZE MORTGAGES.
MAKE MORTGAGES TRADING INSTRUMENTS.
AND WHEN THAT HAPPENED, AND WHEN
NOW THE MORTGAGE BROKER OR THE
BANK
THE WRITING OF MORTGAGE OF
ITSELF, CAN TAKE THAT MORTGAGE
AND SEND IT OFF AND SELL IT OFF
TO SOMEBODY ELSE, WE CREATED A
BAD INCENTIVE.
THE BAD INCENTIVE
CARE ABOUT THE CREDIT WORTHINESS
OF THE PERSON I'M LOANING THE
MONEY TO, BECAUSE I NO
HAVE TO HOLD T MORTGAGE.
SO THE CREATION OF THESE
INSTRUMENTS TO TRADE MORTGAGES
CREATED THAT BAD
-- INCENTIVE.
ALL OF A SUDDEN MORTGAGES WERE
BEING WRITTEN TO PEOPLE WHO
OTHERWISE DIDN'T HAVE THE CREDIT
AND DIDN'T HAVE THE LIKELIHOOD
OF REPAYING THEM.
WELL, WHAT DID THAT DO?
EASIER MONEY MEANT PRICES BECAME INFLATED.
MOST FOLKS IN FLORIDA, AND ALL
AROUND THIS COUNTRY, DON'T LOOK
AT THE PRICE OF THE HOME THEY'RE
PURCHASING, THEY LOOK AT THEIR MONTHLY PAYMENT.
INTEREST RATES ARE EXTREMELY
LOW, MONEY WAS EASY TO GET, A
DOWNPAYMENT WAS NO LONGER REQUIRED.
THIS HELPED THE BILLING
BUSINESS, THE HOME CONSTRUCTION
BUSINESS, TO TAKE OFF.
MORE HOM, MORE MORTGAGES.
WELL, THE FINANCIAL MARKETS
WALL STREET FOUND
TOGETHER THESE MORTGAGE-BACKED
SECURITIES,
INSTRUMENTS WITH THOUSANDS --
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MORTGAGES
WAS VERY PROFITABLE FOR THEM.
THEY COULD TRADE THESE BACK AND
FORTH AND THEY TOO COULD RECEIVE
A COMMISSION ON THE SALE OF
THESE PRODUCTS.
THAT MADE THEM MONEY.
AND, GUESS WHAT, THE
RESPONSIBLE IF THEY WENT UNDER
EITHER.
NOW, IN ORDER FOR ALL OF THIS TO
WORK, SOMEONE HAD TO VOUCH FOR
THE WORTHINESS OF THESE LARGE
MORTGAGE-B
THESE TRADING INSTRUMENTS OF
MORTGAGES.
AND WALL STREET LOOKED, AS IT
ALWAYS HAS LOOKED, TO THESE
RATING FITCH.
THEY CAME ALONG AND ALLEGEDLY
LOOKED AT THESE PRODUCTS AND
STAMPED THEM AS BEING TRIPLE A,
THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF CREDIT
WORTHINESS, VERY UNLIKELY TO
HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THEM
WHERE THE PERSON
SOME KIND OF INSTRUMENT ON THERE
WOULD NOT GET PAID LET ALONE
LOSE THEIR INVESTMENT.
THE CHALLENGE WAS IS THAT THE
RATING AGENCIES DIDN'T
UNDERSTAND THE MORTGAGES THAT
WERE IN THESE PRODUCTS.
THEY DIDN'T DO THE DUE DILIGENCE
AND WE PROTECT THEM BY FEDERAL
LAW FOR ANY RECOURSE AGAINST
THEM FOR THE MOST PART.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY
GAME EITHER.
NOW YOU HAVE THE BORROWER WITH
NO SKIN IN THE GAME BECAUSE THEY
DIDN'T HAVE TO PUT ANYTHING DOWN
ON THEIR HOUSE.
THEY'RE BASICALLY
HAVE THE BANK AND THE MORTGAGE
OKER WITH NO SKIN IN THE GAME
BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO HOLD
THE MORTGAGE
YOU HAVE THE FINANCIAL FIRMS
WITH NO SKIN IN THE GAME BECAUSE
THEY'RE JUST TRADING THESE LARGE
SECURITIZED INSTRUMENTS AND,
WORSE STILL, THEY CREATE WHAT
THEY CALL SYNTHETIC INGREDIENTS
WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE TO HOLD ANY
OF THIS -- THESE MORTGAGES
YOURSELF, YOU'RE CREATING A
SHADOW INSTRUMENT THAT TRADES
THE SAME U
BUT, IN FACT, DOES NOT HOLD
THEM.
IT'S SORT OF LICK ME BETTING
THAT -- LIKE ME BETTING THAT
YOUR
WITHOUT ME HAVING ANY INTERES
IN YOUR HOUSE.
AND WE CREATED THIS LONG CHAIN
OF PEOPLE IN THIS MARKETPLACE
FROM THE BORROWER TO THE
MORTGAGE BROKER BANK TO THE
RATING AGENCY WHO HAD NO SKIN IN
THE GAME ON THESE TRANSACTIONS.
AND THE SALE OF THESE
MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES AND
LATER THE CREDIT DEFAULT SWA
WHICH WAS THE INSURANCE POLICIES
AGAINST THEM, CREATED HE FEES
AND WE DID FOR THE FIRST TIME IN
THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY
SOMETHING THAT WE HAD NEVER DONE BEFORE.
WE PUT THE PRIME ASSET OF MOST
AMERICANS, THEIR HOME, IN PLAY
ON WALL STREET.
AND YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER
THE DEMAND FOR THESE MORTGAGES
DROVE THE EXCESS.
MORE AND MORE AND POORER AND
POORER MORTGAGES WRITTEN TO FEED
THE BEAST ON WALL STREET.
AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE
HOUSING MARKET COULDN'T SUSTAIN
ITSELF AND WHEN THE MORTGAGES
STARTED TO FAIL -- WHEN PEOPLE
STARTED TO NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE
INCREASE IN PROPERTY PRICES
COULD N INCREASE ANYMORE
BECAUSE GRAVITY AFFECTS
EVERYTHING AFTER
WHOLE SYSTEM IN 2007 AND THEN
2008 BEGAN TO FALL APART.
AND WEEP FOUND OUT -- AND WE
FOUND OUT THAT COMPANIES LIKE
A.I.G. WERE ALL ENTANGLED IN
BUYING AND SELLING INSURANCE
PRODUCTS ON THESE PRODUCTS.
THAT THEY HAD
THAT WALL STREET BANKS HA
HAD $5 BILLION, $10 BILLION, $15 HAD $5 BILLION, $10 BILLION, $15
BILLION OR MORE IN THESE
INSTITUTIONS AND SOMEF THESE
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FAILED.
FIRST BOUGHT UP BY OTHER
BAILED OUT BY YOU, THE TAXPAYER.
I GO THROUGH THIS HISTORY, MADAM
PRESIDENT, AND EXPLAIN IT IN THE
BEST WAY THAT I KNOW HOW.
IT IS A VERY COMPLICATED
-- BECAUSE WHAT WE DO IN THIS
REFORM BILL HAS TO ADDRESS THE
SKIN IN THE GAME PROBLEM.
SO I HAVE MADE TO MY FRIENDS,
SENATOR CORKER, SENATOR WARNER
AND OTHERS WHO ARE IN THE MIDST
OF NEGOTIATING THE BILL THAT
WILL COME TO
HAVE MADE THREE SUGGESTIONS AS
TO
SURE THAT WE DO REPLICATE THIS
PROBLEM AGAIN.
FIRST OF ALL, THESE RATING
AGENCIES WHO ARE CAPTIVE TO THE
INVESTMENT BANKS WHOSE PRODUCTS
THEY RATE CAN NO
HARMLESS TO NOT DO THE DUE
DILIGENCEEQUIRED AND STAMP
TRIPLE-A ON PRODUCTS THAT THEY
DO NOT INVESTIGATE AND DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
BUT FOR THESE RATING AGENCIES,
THIS CRISIS PROBABLY WOULD NOT
HAVE HAPPENED.
BUT FOR
TRIPLE-A STAMP, PEOPLE WOULD NOT
HAVE SLEPT WELL AT NIGHT BUYING
A PRODUCT THEY DID NOT
UNDERSTAND.
IT IS LIKE CONSUMER REPORTS.
CONSUMER REPORTS SAYS, THIS IS A
GREAT CAR, IT'S SAFE.
YOU AS A CONSUMER DON'T
UNDERSTAND THE MODERN WORKINGS
OF A CAR WITH ALL ITS COMPUTER
TECHNOLOGY, BUT YOU BUY
"CONSUMER REPORTS "REQUESTS AND
YOU READ IT.
IT TELLS YOU THAT THIS IS THE
SAFEST CAR IN AMERICA, S SO YOU
FEEL SAFE PUTTING YOUR WIFE AND
KIDS IN THAT CAR.
BUT YOU DIDN'T KNOW UNDERSTAND
THIS CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE VERY
RATING AGENCS WHO WE RATING
THESE
DUE DILIGENCE AND WERE BEING
PAID BY THE INVESTMENT BANKS
WHOSE PRODUCTS WHICH THEY WERE
RATING.
THAT'S GOT TO CHANGE.
SUGGESTION NUMBER TWO:
IN TERMSF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE
UNDERWRITING, IN A BROKER OR
BANK IS GOING TO WTE SOME
EXOTIC-TYPE MORTGAGE WHERE THERE
IS LITTLEO NOTHING DOWN, THEN
THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO
MAINTAIN A PORTION OF THOSE
MORTGAGEDS ON THEIR BOOKS.
LET THEM BEAR THE RISK.
DON'T LET THE BANK SHIFT IT O
SO THAT IT CAN BECOME
SECURITIZED IN THE MARKETPLACE
AND TANGLE ALL OF OUR FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS AND PUT US, THE
TAXPAYER, AT RISK.
IF WE MAKE THOSE BANKS HOLD SOME
OF THOSE NONTRADITIONAL
MORTGAGES, I GUARANTEE YOU THEY
WILL DO A BETTER JOB OF MAKING
SURE THAT THE PEOPLE THEY'RE
LENDING MONEY TO ARE GOOD
CREDIT-WORTHY INVESTMENTS FOR
THEM.
THE THIRDUGGESTION IS THIS:
THESE ISSUERS OF
SECURITIZATIONS, INCLUDING THE
SYNTHETIC -- WHICH REALLY
BASICALLY MEANS MANUFACTURED,
NOT REAL -- COLLATERALIZED DEBT
OBLIGATIONS, THEY ALSO, TOO,
SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A
SUBSTANTIAL STAKE OF THE
INSTRUMENTS THEY MARKET.
THEY HAVE TO HAVE SKIN IN THE
GAME AS WELL, SO THAT IF THOSE
INSTRUMENTS FAIL, THEY ARE GOING
TO LOSE
WE HAVE GOT TO HAVE NOT ONLY IN
THIS DISCUSSION BUT THROUGHOUT
THE PROBLE
MADAM PRESIDENT, WE HAVE GOT TO
UNDERSTAND THE INCENTIVES WE'RE
CREATING.
WE CANNOT HAVE A FINANCIAL
MARKET SYSTEM WHEREBY THERE IS
NO EXPOSURE TO ME
THE EQUATION BECAUSE THAT'S
GOING TO ENCOURAGE BAD BEHAVIOR.
IT IS THE SAME REASON WE GOT IT
WRONG ON HEALTH CARE REFORM,
BECAUSE AS LONG AS WE HAVE
THIRD-PARTY PAYERS, MEDICARE,
MEDICAID INSURANCE COMPANIES,
WE, THE CONSUMER, HAVE LITTLE
INTEREST IN THE COST OF WHAT
WE'RE PAYING FOR.
THEREFORE, COSTS DON'T GO DOWN.
IT'S THE SAME BREWING PROBLEM
THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE WHEN A
RECENT STATISTIC SAYS THAT 47%
OF AMERICANS DON'T PAY TAXES.
IF 47% OF AMERICANS DON'T PAY
TAXES, DO THEY ACTUALLY CARE IF
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
DOES A GOOD JOB OF SPENDING
MONEY EFFTIVELY AND
EFFICIENTLY?
THE INCENTIVE IS FOR THEM NOT TO
CARE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT THEIR
MONEY.
WE'VE GOT TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE
TODAY IN THE FINANCIAL MARKETS
AND TOMORROW IN ALL OF THE
LEGISLATIO WE PASS.
AMERICANS, BANKS, CONSUMERS IN
ALL FORMERS --
HEALTH CARE SERVICES OR
FINANCIAL PRODUCTS, WHETHER
BUYING A HOME OR TRADING ON WALL
STREET, WE HAVE TO HAVE SKIN IN
THE GAME.
WHERE WE CREATE BAD INCENTIVE --
OR WE CREATE
HARM OUR COUNTRY.
WITH THAT, MADAM PRESIDENT, I
CONCLUDE MY REMARKS AND SUGGEST
THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE PRES
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL: MR. BROWN: MADAM PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM OHIO.
MR. BROWN: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO DISPENSE WIT QUORUM.
TH OBJECTION.
MR. BROWN: AND, MADAM
PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO SPEAK FOR UP TO FIVE
MINUTES. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. BROWN: I THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT.
AND IF A REPUBLICAN -- I KNOW
THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE A BIT
SHORTER THAN THAT ON TIME.
IF A REPUBLICAN COMES TO THE
FLOOR, I WILL YIELD THE FLOOR
MORE QUICKLY, IF THEY SCVMENT I
HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANT
TO SAIVMENT I JUST CAME EARLIER
FROM THE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE
MEETING WHERE WE PASSED
LEGISLATION, BIPARTISANLY, ON --
TO REGULATE DERIVATIVES.
IT WAS A MAJOR STEP IN FINANCIAL REFORM.
IT
DISCUSSION W
DISCUSSION WAS NOT REALLY
CONTENTIOUS BUT THERE WAS A GOOD
BIT OF DISAGREEMENT.
IN THE END, THE COMMITTEE VOTED
BIPARTISANLY FOR STRONGER
DERIVATIVE LEGISLATION.
ITS IT WILL PROVIDE FINANCIAL
STABILITY BY REQUIRE BANKS
PUT CAPITAL BEHIND THEIR TRADES.
IT WILL USE TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY TO PREVENT WALL
STREET BANKS FROM TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF THEIR BUSINESS
CUSTOMERS.
AND IT'LL REDUCE SPECULATION
THAT FUELS BUBBLES IN
LIKE NATURAL GASES AND
MORTGAGES.
WE NEED THAT DERIVATIVES CAN BE
USED RESPONSIBLY BY BUSINESSES
TO HEDGE COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES MAKE UP A
RELATIVELY SMALL PART OF THE
DERIVATIVES BUSINESS.
THEY USED TO MAKE UP A MUCH,
MUCH LARGER PART.
BUT BECAUSE OF A LOT OF THE
SYNTHETIC C.D.O.'S AND OTHER
DERIVATIVES THAT HAVE BECOME WAY
AND WAY MORE COMMONPLACE AND,
PARENTHETICALLY BUT IMPORTANTLY,
PUT US IN THE POSITION THAT
WE'RE IN AS A NATION AND OUR
ECONOMY.
I NO HE THAT WALL STREET
EXCESSES -- THE REASON THAT THIS
BILL WAS SO IMPORTANT AND I
COMMEND SENATOR
ADVOCACY AND LEADERSHIP IN
VOTING OUT A STRONG
REGULATION, THE REASO
SO IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE WE KNOW
WHAT HAPPENED BECAUSE OF WALL
STREET EXCESS.
WHAT HAPPENED IS HOMEOWNERS IN
BRYAN, OHIO, SOME
HOMES.
WE KNOW THAT RETIREES IN RAVENA,
OHIO, LOST BIT OF THEIR WEALTH.
THAT'S REPEATED IN CHARLOTTE AND
RALEIGH AND ASHVILLE,
CAROLINA, AS IT IS TRUE IN
CLEVELAND AND BEDFORD, OHIO,
BECAUSE OF WALL STREET EXCESSES
TOO MANY PEOPLE LOST THEIR
HOMES, LOST THEIR WEALTH, LOST
THEIR RETIREMENT, LOST THEIR
JOBS OF THE AND THIS LEGISLATION
TODAY, COUPLED WITH SENATOR
DODD'S LEGISLATION COMING OUT OF
BANKING, THIS LEGISLATION WAS
BIPARTISANLY PASSED, IT WILL
MOVE US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION,
IT
COMPROMISE WITH WALL STREEVMENT
WHEN BIPARTISAN MEANS BRING WALL
STREET TO THE TABLE
LEGISLATION, THAT'S NOT WHAT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT.
WHEN BIPARTISANSHIP MEANS THAT
OUR COMMITTEE WRITES STRONG
LANGUAGE AND REPUBLICANS AND
DEMOCRATS -- AT LEAST ONE
REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATS COME
TOGETHER, THAT'S WHAT WE OUGHT
TO DO.
THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE SHOULD
GO --
SHOULD GO AND THAT'S WHAT
RESPONSIBLE GOVERN SOMETHING
ABOU I YIELD THE FLOOR AND SUGGEST
THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
CLERK WILL CALL THE
QUORUM CALL:
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM WYOMING IS
RECOGNIZED. A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK
THAT THE QUORUM CALL BE
VITIATED. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
THE QUESTION IS ON EXECUTIVE
CA
MAKE OF CHRIS -- THE MOM --
NOMINATION OF CHRISTOPHER
SCHROEDER.
IS THERE A SUFFICIENT SECOND?
THERE APPEARS TO
THERE IS.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
VOTE
VOTE:
ANY
WISH TO VOTE OR TO CHANGE A
VOTE?
IF NOT, THE YEAS ARE 71, THE
NAYS 25, AND THE NOMINATION IS
CONFIRMED.
UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE
MOTION TO RECONSIDER IS
CONSIDERED MADE AND LAI
THE TABLE.
THE PRESIDENT WILL IMMEDIATELY
BE NOTIFIED OF THE SENATE'S ACTION.
THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE NEXT
NOMINATION.
THE CLERK: JUDICIARY, THOMAS I.
VANASKIE OF PENNSYLVANIA TO BE
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR
THE THIRD CIRCUIT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: UNDER THE
PREVIOUS ORDER, THERE ARE THREE
HOURS OF DEBATE ON THIS
QUESTION, WITH THEM EQUALLY DIVIDED.
WHO YIELDS TIME?
A SENATOR: MADAM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA IS
RECOGNIZED.
MRS. HAGAN: I WOULD LIKE TO ASK
FOR FIVE MINUTES OF SENATOR
LEAHY'S TIME.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WILL THE
SENATE COME TO ORDER?
WILL SENATORS PLEASE TAKE THEIR
CONVERSATIONS FROM THE WELL?
THE SENATOR FROM NORTH
CAROLINA -- WILL SENATORS PLEASE TAKE THEIR CONVERSATIONS FROM
THE WELL?
THE SENATOR F
IS RECOGNIZED.
MRS. HAGAN: THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
THERE ARE TWO JUDICIAL NOMINEES
ON THE CALENDAR FROM NORTH
CAROLINA WHOM
CONFIRMED BY THIS BODY OVERWHELMINGLY.
JUDGES JIM WYNN AND AL DIAZ,
NOMINEES FOR THE FOURT
COURT OF APPEALS WERE BOTH
APPROVED BY THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE IN JANUARY.
JUDGE DIAZ HAD THE VOTE OF EVERY
SINGLE MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE
AND JUST ONE SENATOR OPPOSED
JUDGE WYNN.
THE REALITY OF THIS SITUATION,
THOUGH, IS THAT NORTH CAROLINA
HAS BEEN WAITING FOR ONE OF
THESE JUDGES SINCE 1994.
THAT'S 1994.
SINCE THEN, THERE HAS BEEN ONLY
ONE JUDGE FROM NORTH CAROLINA ON
THE 15-JUDGE PANEL OF
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, EVEN
THOUGH NORTH CAROLINA IS THE
LARGEST AND FASTEST GROWING OF
THE FIVE STATES IN THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT.
PARTISAN BICKERING HAS
CONTINUALLY BLOCKED QUALIFIED
NORTH CAROLINIANS FROM
CONFIRMATION SINCE THE COURT'S
ESTABLISHMENT BACK IN 1891.
BUT IN CONSULTATION WITH BOTH ME
AND SENATOR BURR, THE PRESIDENT
HAS APPOINTED TWO HIGHLY
QUALIFIED, EXPERIENCED AND
FAIR-MINDED NORTH CAROLINA
JUDGES -- AL DIAZ AND JIM WYNN.
JUDGE DIAZ OF CHARLOTTE IS A
BUSINESS COURT JUDGE AND HANDLES
EXTREMELY COMPLEX BUSINESS CASES.
BEFORE THAT, HE WAS A STATE
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE.
JUDGE WYNN OF CARY IS A 19-YEAR
VETERAOF THE NORTH CAROLINA
COURT OF APPEALS AND FORMALLY
SERVED ON THE
SUPREME COURT.
THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION HAS
GIVEN BOTH OF THEM ITS HIGHEST
POSSIBLE RATING.
THEY BOTH HAVE SERVED OUR
COUNTRY IN THE MILITARY.
THEY HAVE THE SUPPORT OF
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS,
INCLUDING MY NORTH CAROLINA
SENATE COLLEAGUE SENATOR RICHARD BURR.
THEY HAVE NO REAL OPPOSITION
THAT I AM AWARE OF.
FINALLY, WE HAVE NOT ONE BUT TWO
QUALIFIED AND BIPARTISAN
TO SERVE NORTH CAROLINA AND OUR
COUNTRY ON THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.
I AM HOPEFUL THAT WE ARE CLOSE,
CLOSE TO CONFIRMING THESE TWO
OUTSTANDING NOMINEES FOR THE
FOURTH CIRCUIT.
I WILL CONTINUE WORKING WITH MY
COLLEAGUES TO ENSURE THAT THEY
ARE CONFIRMED AS SWIFTLY AS
POSSIBLE.
MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE
FLOOR.
MR. CASEY:R. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. CASEY: MR. PRESIDENT, I RISE
TODAY TO SPEAK ABOUT THE
NOMINATION THAT WE'RE
CONSIDERING IN THE NEXT FEW
HOURS, AND THAT'S THE NOMINATION
OF JUDGE THOMAS I. VANASKIE.
I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW PROUD I AM
TO TALK ABOUT HIS NOMINATION.
I HAVE KNOWN HIM FOR A LONG,
LONG TIME, AND I THINK IT GOES
WITHOUT SAYING THAT I JOIN A LOT
OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT
HIM ALREADY AND KNOW H, THAT
WE STRONGLY SUPPORT HIS
NOMINATION AND CONFIRMATION FOR
A SEAT ON THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT.
TOM VANASKIE IS A LEGAL SCHOLAR,
HE'S FAIR-MINDED, HE HAS
UNQUESTIONED INTEGRITY AND
ABILITY, HE'S AN EXPERIENCED
FEDERAL JUDGE SINCE HIS
APPOINTMENT IN 1994, AND ON TOP
OF ALL THAT, HE'S A DECENT,
COMPASSIONATE MAN.
TH STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE
FEDERAL JUDICIARY OF THE
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION HAS
UNANIMOUSLY RATED JUDGE VANASKIE
WELL QUALIFIED TO SERVE AS A
JUDGE ON THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE THI CIRCUIT.
JUDGE VANASKIE'S BIOGRAPHY
HIGHLIGHTS BOTH HIS SCHOLARLY
AND PROFESSIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
AND THE HIGH ESTEEM IN WHICH
HE'S HELD BY HIS COLLEAGUES IN
THEEGAL PROFESSION.
HE GRADUATED MAGNA CUM LAUDE
FROM WILLIAMSPORT COLLEGE IN
PENNSYLVANIA, WHERE HE WAS ALSO
AN HONORABLE MENTION FOOTBALL
PLAYER AND A FIRST-TEAM ACADEC
ALL AMERICAN.
HE WAS AN OUTSTANDING MALE
STUDENT ATHLETE AND THE
RECIPIENT OF A HIGHEST AWARD
GIVEN TO A GRADUATING STUDENT.
THEN WENT TO LAW SCHOOL AT
DICKINSON SCHOOL OF LAW IN
PENNSYLVANIA, FROM WHICH HE
GRADUATED CUM LAUDE IN 1978.
JUDGE VANASKIE SERVED AS EDITOR
OF THE LAW REVIEW AND RECEIVED
THE M. VOSTIE BURR AWARD, A
SCHOLARSHIP GIVEN BY THE FULTY
TO THE STUDENT DEEMED --
QUOTE -- "MOST DESERVING."
AFTER GRADUATING FROM LAW
SCHOOL, JUDGE VANASKIE SERVED AS
A LAW CLERK FOR JUDGE WILLIAM
J.NEALON, CHIEFUDGE AT THE
TIME OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
JUDGE VANASKIE PRACTICED LAW FOR
TWO HIGHLY REGARDED PENNSYLVANIA
LAW FIRMS BEFORE HIS APPOINTMENT
TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC
COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICTF
PENNSYLVANIA IN 1994.
HE BECAME THE MIDDLE DISTRICT'S
CHIEF JUDGE JUST FIVE YEARS
LATER, IN 1999, AND COMPLETED
HIS SEVEN-YEAR TERM IN THAT
CAPACITY IN 2006.
HE WAS APPOINTED BY CHIEF
JUSTICE REHNQUIST TO THE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF
THE UNITED STATES, WHERE HE
SERVED AS CHAIRMAN FOR THREE
YEARS, AND HE ALSO PARTICIPATED
IN SEVERAL WORKING GROUPS OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF UNITED
STATES COURTS, MOST RECTLY ON
THE FUTURE OF DISTRICT CMECF
WORKING GROUP TASKED WITH
DETERMINING THE DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEXT
GENERATION OF THE FEDERAL
JUDICIARY'S ELECTRONIC CASE
FILING PROGRAM.
AND FINALLY, HE'S AN ADJUNCT
PROFESSOR AT DICKI INSON SCHOOL
OF LAW AND IS ACTIVE IN CIVIC
AND CHARITABLE ENDEAVORS IN
NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA.
LIKE ME, A NORTHEASTERN
PENNSYLVANIA NATIVE AND RESIDENT.
JUST A FEW ACCOLADES ABOUT HIS
SERVICE FROM A WIDE VARIETY OF PEOPLE.
WE COULD READ A NUMBER OF THESE.
I'LL JUST HIGHLIGHT A FEW.
LAWYERS WHO'VE APPEARED BEFORE
JUDGE VANASKIE HAVE EXPRESSED
TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR HIS
INTELLECTUAL RIGOR AND THE
DISCIPLINED ATTENTION HE BRINGS
TO MATTERS BEFORE HIM.
ONE ATTORNEY WHO HAS TRIED OVER
A DOZEN CASES BEFORE JUDGE
VANASKIE HAS DESCRIBED HIM AS --
QUOTE -- "OBJECTIVE, FAIR,
ANALYTICAL, DISPASSIONATE,
EXTRAORDINARILY CAREFUL AND VERY
RESPECTFUL OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY."
THIS SAME LAWYER, THIS SAME
PRACTITIONER SAID THAT HE HAD
NOT ALWAYS AGREED WITH JUDGE
ADVANCE I ASK'S DECISIONS BUT --
VANASKIE'S DECISIONS BUT HE ALSO
FELT THAT HIS RATINGS -- I'M
SORRY, HIS RULINGS, REFLECTED
WHAT THE JUDGE CONSIDERED TO BE
THE MOST APPROPRIATE RESULT AND
THE RESULT THAT HE WAS OBLIGATED
TO IMPOSE UNDER THE LAW.
JUDGE NEALON, U.S. DISTRICT
COURT JUDGE WILLIAM J. NEALON,
FOR WHOM JUDGE VANASKIE CLERKED,
HAS DESCRIBED HIM AS FOLLOWS --
QUOTE -- "SUPERBLY QUALIFIED,
HE'S OUT STAND, HE'S BRILLIANT, HE'S --
HE'S OUTSTANDING, HE'S
BRILLIANT, HE'S OBJECTIVE, AND
HE IS TIRELESS."
JUDGE VANASKIE RECOGNIZES THAT
FOR MANY CITIZENS, HIS DECISIONS
WILL BE THE FINAL WORD ON THEIR
CLAIMS BEFORE THE COURT.
HE TREATS PEOPLE WITH RESPECT
AND HONORS THEIR RIGHT TO BE
HEARD.
HIS DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF AND
RESPECT FOR THE RULE OF LAW WILL
SERVE HIM WELL IN RULINGS ON
CASES AND AUTHORING OPINIONS
THAT WILL BE INFLUENTIAL IN THE
THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AND BEYOND.
SO FOR ALL THESE REASONS AND
MANY OTHERS, I'M PROUD TO -- TO
STAND TO SUPPORT JUDGE VANASKIE
AND URGE HIS CONFIRMATION TODAY.
AND WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, I
WOULD YIELD THE FLOOR AND NOTE
THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
MR. CASEY: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. CASEY: I WOULD ASK THAT THE
QUORUM CALL BE VITIATED.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
MR. CASEY: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT ALL QUORUM CALLS
DURING THE CONTROLLED TIME ON
THE VANASKIE NOMINATION BE
EQUALLY DIVIDED.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. CASEY:ND I WOULD SUGGEST
THE AB
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
MR. CASEY: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. CASEY: MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD ASK THAT THE QUORUM CALL
BE VITIATED.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. CASEY: T MR. PRESIDENT.
I WOULD A CONSENT THAT I BE
PERMITTED TO SPEAK AS IF IN
MORNING BUSINESS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. CASEY: MR. PRESIDENT, I RISE
TODAY TO TALK ABOUT A MAJOR
ISSUE THAT'S BEFORE THE SENATE
OR I SHOULD SAY WILL BE BEFORE
E SENATE VERY SHORTLY AND THAT
WE SPENT SOME TIME ON IN THE
AGRICULTURE AND ENFORCEMENT
COMMITTEE OVER MANY WEEKS AND
MANY DAYS, BUT MOST RECENTLY
TODAY IN A MARKUP AND I'LL TALK
MORE ABOUT THAT IN A COUPLE OF MOMENTS.
BUT IT'S NOW TIME THAT THE
SENATE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF
DAYS AND WEEKS, REALLY, FOCUS ON
PASSING COMPREHENSIVE REFORM
MEASURES THAT WILL PUT AN END TO
WALL STREET'S RECKLESS
ENDANGERMENT OF OUR ECONOMIC SYSTEM.
FOR TOO LONG, IN FACT, FOR MANY
YEARS NOW, WE'VE ALLOWED THIS
SYSTEM TO BE IN PLACE WHERE
HIGH-RISK DEALS WERE CUT ON WALL STREET.
SOME PEOPLE MADE A LOT OF MONEY
BUT OUR ECONOMY WENT INTO THE
DITCH BECAUSE OF IT.
AND IT WN'T ALWAYS LIKE THAT,
BECAUSE FOR DECADES FOLLOWING
THE GREAT DEPRESSION, WE ENJOYED
A FINANCIAL SYSTEM THAT WORKED,
THAT WORKED FOR AMERICAN
FAMILIES AND SMALL BUSINESSE.
IT WAS PRETTY SIMPLE WHEN YOU
THINK ABOUT IT AND SUCCESSFUL AT
THE SAME TIME.
LOCAL BANKS OPERATING IN
COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE NATION
TOOK DEPOSITS, MADE LOANS FOR
HOMES AND CARS AND BUSINESSES.
PEOPLE KNEW THEIR BANKERS AND
THEIR BANKERS KNEW THEM.
AND EACH PARTY WAS INVESTED IN
THE SUCCESS OF THE OTHER.
DURING THIS TIME, OUR ECONOMY
THRIVED, IT EXPERIENCED
PROLONGED GROWTH AND INNOVATION,
AND THESE BENEFITS WERE FELT
ACROSS THE BOARD BY PEOPLE
ACROSS OUR ECONOMY, ACROSS OUR
COUNTRY.
LET'S CONTRAST THAT PERIOD OF
GROWTH AND SHARED PROSPERITY
WITH WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE LAST
FEW YEARS BUT EVEN LONGER, OVER
THE LAST 30 YEARS.
THIS MORE RECENT PERIOD CAN BE
CHARACTERIZED BY MASSIVE GROWTH
OF THE FINANCIAL SECTOR.
IN 1978, COMMERCIAL BANKS HELD
$1.2 TRILLION IN ASSETS,
EQUIVALENT TO 53% OF GROSS
DOMESTIC PRODUCT.
BY THE END OF 2007, THAT SAME
MEASUREMENT, COMMERCIAL BANKS
HELD -- WHAT THEY HELD IN
ASSETS, THAT HAD GROWN TO
$11.8 TRILLION IN ASSETS, OR 84%
OF GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT.
SO THE PERCENTAGE WENT FROM 53%
TO 84% AND THE NUMBER WENT FROM
$1.2 TRILLION TO $11.8 TRILLION
IN ASSETS.
UNLIKE THE PRECEDING PERIOD,
IS GROWTH WAS NOT SPREAD
ACROSS THE REAL ECONOMY TO
HOUSEHOLDS AND BUSESSES.
INSTEAD, IT WAS EXPLICITLY
SHIFTED AWAY FROM FAMILIES AND
COMMUNITIES AND CONCENTRATED ON
WALL STREET.
THE IMPACT OF THIS CONCENTRATION
HAS BEEN ACUTE.
WHEREAS PEOPLE USED TO RELY ON
LOCAL INSTITUTIONS, THEY NOW
FACE A FINANCIAL SERVICE
MARKETPLACE DOMINATED BY A FEW
BANKS WITH RETAIL OUTPOSTS
SPRINKLED ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
INSTEAD OF SUPPORTING THE SMALL
BUSINESSES OR LITTLE LEAGUE
TEAMS OR FAMILIES, LIKE THEIR
LOCAL PREDECESSORS, THESE
MEGABANKS GATHER DEPOSITS FROM
MAIN STREET THEN SLICE AND DICE
THEM AND THEN LEVERAGE THEM TO
THE HILT AND USE THE HARD-EARNED
WAGES AND SAVINGS OF AMERICANS
TO MAKE A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE
VERY, VERY RICH.
AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT,
THE MEGABANKS HAVE PROFITED
TREMENDOUSLY FROM THIS NEW MODEL.
OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS, PROFITS
AND COMPENSATION IN THE BANKING
INDUSTRY HAVE SKYROCKETED.
FROM 1948-1979, THE AVERAGE
COMPENSATION IN THE BANKING
SECTOR WAS MORE OR LESS THE SAME
AS ANY OTHER JOB IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
TODAY, BANKERS EARN ON AVERAGE
TWO TIMES WHAT OTHER PRIVATE-SECTOR EMPLOYEES TAKE
HOME.
SIMPLY STATED, AMERICAN FAMILIE
AND SMALL BUSINESSES ARE NO
LONGER THE CUSTOMER IN THIS
BROKEN SYSTEM.
INSTEAD, THESE INSTITUTIONS
FUNCTION TO MAKE WEALTH FOR
THEMSELVES AND THEIR
STOCKHOLDERS.
CLEAR EXAMPLE OF THIS POINT
CAN BE FOUND IN THE RECENT NEWS STORIES DETAILING RECORD PROFITS
OF THESE MEGABANKS.
RECORD PROFITS AT A TIME OF
HISTORICALLY HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT
AND A BAD ECONOMY.
THESE PROFITS WERE NOT MADE
THROUGH SAVVY LENDING TO THEIR CUSTOMERS.
IN FACT, IN THE CASE OF J.P.
MORGAN CHASE, CITIGROUP, AND
BANK OF AMERICA, THREE OF OUR
LARGEST MEGABANKS, THEY HAVE CUT
LENDING, THEY HAVE CUT LENDING
THROUGH A KEY SMALL BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION LENDING PROGRAM
BY BETWEEN 85% AND 90% FROM ONE
YEAR TO THE NEXT.
THESE MULTIBILLION-DOLLAR
PROFITS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH
HIGH-RISK TRADING OPERATIONS
WITH MON DEPOSITED BY FAMILIES
AND BUSINESSES.
THE BANKS ARE EXPECTING PEOPLE
IN OUR COMMUNITIES TO SHOULDER
ALL THE RISK WHILE GETTING NONE
OF THE UPSIDE.
SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE IN THIS SITUATION.
THESE MEGABANKS, THESE BIG
COMPANIES ARE ENTITLED TO MAKE
PROFITS BUT WE WILL NO LONGER
ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE TO USE
THE FEDERALLY INSURED DEPOSITS
OF WORKING PEOPLE AS CAPITAL FOR
THEIR MONEY-MAKING SCHEMES.
WE NEED COMMONSENSE RULES THAT
SEPARATE CONVENTIONAL COMMERCIAL
BANKING OPERATIONS FROM
HI-RISK FINANCIAL GAMBLES.
IN NO AREA IS THIS NEED FOR
REFORM MORE APPARENT THAN IN THE
SO-CALLED DERIVATIVES MARKET.
A DERIVATIVE IS A HIGH-RISK BET
THAT THE VALUE OF ANOTHER
FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT OR
COMMODITY OR OTHER PRODUCT WILL
GO UP OR DOWN.
IT'S A BET.
FOR YEARS, WALL STREET FOUGHT
AND WON THE BATTLE TO KEEP
DERIVATIVES UNREGULATED.
IN THIS HIGHLY UNREGULATED
MARKET, WALL STREET COULD PLACE
BET ON BETS WITHOUT BACKING THEM UP.
THEREFORE, WHEN THE UNDERLYING
WEAKNESS OF ASSETS BECAME
APPARENT, THE DERIVATIVES MARKET
WENT BUST.
AND ALONG WITH IT, THE WALL
STREET BANKS WHO WERE PLAYING IN
THE MARKET, CAUSING THE NEED FOR
MASSIVE BAILOUT OF THESE
INSTITUTIONS.
TO PREVENT ANOTHER CATASTROPHE,
WE NEED A STRONG REGULATION OF
THE DERIVATIVE -- DERIVATIVES
MARKET.
TODAY, THE SENATE COMMITTEE OF
WHICH I'M A MEMBER, THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION AND FORESTRY, HAD A MARKUP SESSION.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MARKUPS,
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE VOTING ON -- ON
AMENDMENTS AND THEN VOTING FOR
FINAL PASSAGE OF THE BILL OUT OF
COMMITTEE.
THAT'S WHAT WE MEAN BY MARKUP.
BUT WE HAD THAT MARKUP SESSION
TODAY ON THE WALL STREET
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
ACT OF 2010.
I WANT TO APPLAUD OUR
CHAIRWOMAN, SENATOR LINCOLN, FOR
HER WORK FOR PUTTING FORTH A
BILL THAT CRACKS DOWN ON THE
RECKLESS ACTIVITIES OF WALL
STREET.
I ALSO WANT TO COMMEND HER AND
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
FOR REPORTING IT OUT OF
COMMITTEE SO WE CAN INCORPORATE
IT INTO THE BANKING COMMITTEE
BILL THAT WILL WE'LL BE
CONSIDERING ON THE FLOOR VERY SOON.
THE WALL STREET TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2010 WILL
ADD THOSE TWO IMPORTANT WORDS TO
OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM, BOTH
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
AND IN PARTICULAR, WE'LL ADD IT
TO THE -- OR IMPOSE IT, I SHOULD
SAY, ON THE DERIVATIVES MARKET.
NUMBER ONE, BY REQUIRING THAT
DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS, MOST OF
THEM, BE CLEARED THROUGH A
CENTRAL CLEARINGHOUSE.
AND, SECOND, REQUIRE REALTIME
REPORTING SIMILAR T THE STOCK
EXCHANGE OF TRANSACTIONS THAT
PARTIES ARE ENTERING INTO.
BESIDES A MORE TRANSPARENT
MARKET, THE MOST IMPORTANT
PROVISION IN THIS BILL IS THE
REQUIREMENT THAT COMMERCIAL
BANKS THAT HAVE FDIC-INSURED
ACCOUNTS CAN NO LONGER TRADE ON
THE DERIVATIVES MARKET.
THIS PROVISION WILL FORCE
COMMERCIAL BANKS TO REFOCUS ON
WHAT SHOULD BE -- WHAT SHOULD BE
-- THEIR NUMBER-ONE PRIORITY:
THE CUSTOMER INSTEAD OF JUST
PROFITS AND THEIR OWN
STOCKHOLDERS.
OUR CURRENT FINANCIAL SYSTEM,
MR. PRESIDENT, IS BROKEN AND NO
LONGER WORKS FOR FAMILIES AND
SMALL BUSINESSES SMS WH.
WHEN I TRAVEL ACROSS THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, I
OFTEN HEAR ABOUT THE FINANCIAL
DIFFICULTIES PEOPLE ARE EXPERIENCING.
WE HAVE CLOSE TO RECORD-HIGH
UNEMPLOYMENT, 582,000 PEOPLE OUT OF WORK.
A LOT OF PEOPLE LOST THEIR JOB
OR THEIR HOMES OR BOTH AND IN SO
MANY WAYS THEIR HOPES AND THEIR
DREAMS.
THEN THEY READ ABOUT IN THE
PAPER EVERY DAY, IT SEEMS, THEY
READ ABOUT RECORD PROFITS OF
THESE BIG MEGABANKS AND THEY
THINK, WHAT ABOUT ME AND MY FAMILY?
WHY CAN'T I GET A LN, THEY
WILL ASK PEOPLE LIKE ME.
WHY IS THE INTEREST RATE BEING
RAISED ON MY CREDIT CARD?
QUESTIONS LIKE THAT HAVE
PERSISTED FOR SO LONG NOW.
DIDN'T WE BAIL OUT THESE
MEGABANKS ON WALL STREET ALREADY
SO THEY COULD CONTINUE TO LEND
PEOPLE TMONEY TO PEOPLE LIKE ME?
THAT'S THE QUESTIONS I GET.
THE ANSWER TO EACH OF THESE IS
THE SAME:
THESE INSTITUTIONS HAVE FAILED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
REALLY, IT'S THAT SIMPLE.
AND BY EXTENSION, THEY'VE HELPED
TO COLLAPSE OUR COMMITMENT OF
THANK GOODNESS WE'RE STARTING TO
TURN, SEEING SOME JOB GROWTH IN
OUR ECONOMY.
BUT WE NEED FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS THAT FOCUS ON THE
NEEDS OF OUR FAMILIES AND OUR
SMALL BUSINESSES ONCE AGAIN.
SENATOR LINCOLN'S BILL IS A STEP
IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
WE'RE NOT THERE YET, BUT WITH
THAT BILL, WITH THE WORK WE'LL
DO ON THE BANKING COMMITTEE
BILL, WE CAN BEGIN TO RESTORE
NOT ONLY TRANSRENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUNLIGHT, BUT
I BELIEVE WE CAN RESTORE SOME
MEASURE OF CONFIDENCE IN OUR
FINANCIAL SYSTEM, MAKE IT WORK
BETTER FOR REAL PEOPLE, FOR
FAMILIES, AND FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES AND ALSO TO
STRENGTHEN OUR ECONOMY.
WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, I
WOULD YIELD THE FLOOR AND NOTE
THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM CONNECTUT.
MR. DODD: I
CONSENT THAT THE CALL OF THE QUORUM BE RESCINDED.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WOWFNLINGS.
MR. DODD: I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE
A FEW MINUTES TO DISCUSS FURTHER
THE EFFORTS IN FINANCIAL
REGULATORY REFORM AND I'D BE
REMISS, MR. PRESIDENT, IF I
DIDN'T NOTE THE CONTRIBUTION OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER TO THIS
EFFORT.
I WANT TO THANK HIM PERSONALLY
ONCE AGAIN AS A MEMBER OF THE
BANKING COMMITTEE.
HE HAS EXPRESSED
ASPECTS OF THIS.
I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS
BILL ON THE FLOOR EVERY DAY OF
THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS, DEALING
TH ISSUES OF THE SO-CALLED TOO
BIG TO FAIL, WHICH WE ADDRESSED
VERY AGGRESSIVELY IN OUR LEGISLATION.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT T EFFORTS
THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO TRY AND
FORGE A COMPREHENSIVE BILL, A
STRONG BILL WHICH WE'VE INVOLVED
-- INVITED VIRTUALLY EVERYONE WHO WAS INTERESTED TO
PARTICIPATE IN A PRODUCT AND TO
WHICH I'M PROUD TO SAY MANY DID
OFFER THEIR I
AS WE TRIED TO DEVELOP A
PROPOSAL THAT WAS NOT ONLY
STRONG AND BROAD-BASED BUT
ATTRACTED, AGAIN, A STRONG GROUP
OF OUR COLLEAGUES, BOTH
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, TO
THIS EFFORT.
TODAY -- OVER THE DAYS WE'VE
SPENT A LOT OF TIME DISCUSS, OF
COURSE, THE IMPACT OF WALL
STREET ON LARGE FINANCIAL FIRMS
AND BIG BANKS, THE INVESTMENT
BANKS, THE NONBANKS AND OTHERS,
CORPORATE EXECUTIVES, FEDERAL
REGULATORS, AND OTHER POWER
PLAYERS IN THE FINANCIAL SECTOR.
THAT'S BEEN THE SUBJECT AFTER
GREAT DEAL OF ATTENTION AND THE
COMPLICATED SUBJECT OF
DERIVATIVES AND HOW THEY WOSH
AND HOW THEY APPLY AND SHADOW
ECONOMIES AND BLACK POOLS AND
SYSTEMIC RISK AND ALL OF THIS
LANGUAGE AND DISCUSSION THAT
SOMETIMES CAN LEAVE THE AVERAGES
CITIZEN FEELING AS THOUGH
THEY'RE TALKING IN A FOREIGN
LANGUAGE ABOUT THESE MATTERS.
AND THE QUESTION THEY ASK IS,
HOW DOES THIS AFFECT ME?
I'M GLAD YOU'RE GOING TO TRY TO
CLEAN THIS UP, BUT WHAT IS
HAPPENING WITH ALL OF THIS THAT
HAS SOME POSITIVE IMPACT ON MY
LIFE AS A TAXPAYER, AS A WORKING AMERICAN?
I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT'S BEING
DONE HERE TO SEE TO IT THAT
INTERESTS ARE GOING TO BE
CONSIDERED IF YOU'RE TRYING TO
RESOLVE ALL OF THESE LARGER
QUESTIONS THAT SOMEHOW SEEM VERY
DISTANT TO MY CONCERNS EVERY DAY.
SO TODAY I'D LIKE TO TAKE A FEW
MINUTES TO TALK ABOUT THEMPACT
OF THIS LEGISLATION ON MILLIONS
AND MILLIONS OF OUR FELLOW
CITIZENS WHO AREN'T FINANCIAL
WIZAS, WOULD BE THE FIRST TO
TELL YOU SO, THEY'RE NOT BIGWIGS
ON WALL STREET, MAJOR PLAYERS IN
LARGE BANKS OR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
THEY'RE PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST
TRYING TO BUILD A NEST EGG FOR
THEIR FAMILY, INVEST IN THEIR
FUTURES, MAYBE TAKE A LOAN OUT
TO BUY AN AUTOMOBILE, A HOME,
SEND A CHILD TO COLLEGE BECAUSE
THAT CHILD HAS DONE EVERYTHING
THEY'VE ASKED THEM TO DO OVER
THE YEARS AND NOW WANT TO GO ON TO THAT EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
AND NEED THE RESOURCES TO DO SO.
THE STORIES ARE MYRIAD.
THERE ARE MANY.
THE DEMANDS AND THE NEEDS ARE
OBVIOUSLY CLEAR.
UNFORTUNATELY, AS WE KNOW, AND
AS MANY AMERICANS HAVE FOD
OUT, OVER THE HARD WAY
PARTICULARLY IN THESE LAST
YEARS, OUR CURRENT FINANCIAL
SYSTEM LEAVES CONSUMERS TOO
OFTEN, MR. PRESIDENT, VULNERABLE
TO BEING DECEIVED INTO
PURCHASING RISKY FINANCIAL
PRODUCTS IF NOT OUTRIGHT RIPPED
OFF BY GREY WALL STREET FIRMS
AND OTHERS.
AFTER ALL, AT THE HEART OF THE
FINANCIAL CRISIS THAT HAS COST
OUR NATION SO DEARLY WERE THE
SUBPRIME MORTGAGES SOLD BY
UNSCRUPULOUS LENDERS TO
AMERICANS WHO DIDN'T UNDERSTAND
THEIR TERMS AND WHO NEVER, EVER,
EVER COULD HAVE AFFORDED THEM
AND THE LENDERS KNEW IT.
THEY KNEW IT GOING INTO IT, AND
YET THEY LURED THEM INTO THOSE
ARPGHTSES, WITH GREAT DAGE
DONE TO INDIVIDUALS AND THE
ECONOMY AS A WHOLE.
WALL STREET'S UNQUENCHABLE
THIRST FOR PROFITS AND UTTER
DISREGARD FOR ORDINARY CONSUMERS
LED TO A PATTERN OF GREED AND
RECKLESSNESS THAT DARN NEAR LEAD
TO A COMPLETE COLLAPSE OF OUR FINANCIAL ECONOMY.
MILLIONS OF THE AMERICANS LOST
THEIR JOBS WHILE MORE THAN 8.5
MILLION -- HOMES, SEVEN MILLION
HAVE GONE INTO FORECLOSURE.
MAYBE MORE IMPORTANTLY THAN ALL
OF THIS, IF
YOUR JOB, YOUR RETIERNTLE
THEY'VE LOST THEIR FAITH AND
THEIR SENSE OF OPTIMISM AND DMFD
OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM IN THIS
COUNTRY.
AND THAT LOSS OF CONFIDENCE,
THAT LOSS OF OPTIMISM, THAT LOSS
OF B
MAKE A BAD BET ON A STOCK, THAT
THE SYSTEM WAS SOUND AND FAIR
AND WOULD TREAT YOU FAIRLY, THAT
YOU WEREN'T GOING TO GET HURT
BECAUSE WE HAD A GOOD SYSTEM IN
PLACE. THAT CONFIDENCE, THAT
FAITH HAS BEEN LOST.
AND THAT MAY BE MORE IMPORTANT
THAN EVERYTHING ELSE I MENTIONED
IN TERMS OF THE FUTURE STRGTH
OF OUR ECONOMY AND THE COUNTRY.
TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY, THOSE
SAME AMERICANS THEN SAW THOSE
SAME FIRMS COLLECTING $1 BILLION
BAILOUTS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE
TAXPAYER, PAYING $1 MILLION
BONUSES TO THE SAME EXECUTIVES
WHOSE BAD DECISIONS PUT US IN
THE MESS IN THE FIRST MAKERS WHO
WOULD HAVE BEEN -- IN THE FIRST
MAKERS WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN O UT
OUT OF A JOB HAD A BAILOUT NOT
OCCURRED.
AND THEN TURN AROUND AND THEIR
EXPRESSION OF GRATITUDE WAS TO
WRITE THEMSELVES A HUGE BONUS
CHECK, AND ONLY COULD DO SO
BECAUSE IN THIS CHAMBER WE VOTED
75-24 TO STABILIZE OUR
SYSTEM, A DECISION,
MR. PRESIDENT, I BELIEVE WAS THE RIGHT ONE
I THINK WE MADE THE RIGHT
IN DOING IT, AS DIFFICULT AS IT WAS.
BUT AT THE END OF ALL
YOU HAVE MAJOR EXECUTIVES IN
THESE COMPANIES THEN REWARD
THEMSELVES AS THE HEAD OF THESE
INSTITUTIONS BECAUSE WE AND THE
TAXPAYER -- MOSTLY THE TAXPAYER,
BY THE WAY -- HAD COME UP WITH
THE RESOURCES TO MAKE IT
POSSIBLEOR THOSE INSTITUTIONS
TO SURVIVE. MR. PRESIDENT,HE AMERICAN
PEOPLE ARE ANGRY AND WITH GOOD
REASON.
BUT THEY ARE ALSO WONDERING
WHO'S LOOKING OUT FOR US?
WHO'S JOB IS IT TO MAKE SURE
THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN?
WHILE OUR CURRENT SYSTEM PAYS
LIP SERVICE TO CONSUMER
PROTECTION, THOSE
RESPONSIBILITIES ARE DIVIDED
AMONG SOME SEVEN DIFFERENT
REGULATORS FOR WHOM CONSUMER
PROTECTION IS JUST AN
AFTERTHOUGHT IN TOO MANY CASES
TO THE PRIMARY SAFETY AND
SOUNDNESS MISSIONS THEY ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR AS WELL.
THE RESULT IS THAT REGULATORS
PUT THE INTEREST OF BANKS, LARGE
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN TOO
MANY CASE, BEFORE THE INTEREST
OF THE CONSUMERS WHO RELY ON
THOSE INSTITUTIONS FOR THEIR
LONG-TERM ECONOMIC SECURITY.
IF THIS SOUNDS LIKE A RECIPE FOR
FAILURE, THAT'S BECAUSE IT IS.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
TREASURY MICHAEL BARR TESTIFIED
BEFORE OUR BANKING COMMITTEE NOT
LONG AGO, AND LET ME QUOTE HIM.
HE SAID TODAY'S CONSUMER
PROTECTION REGIME JUST
EXPERIENCED MASSIVE FAILURE.
IT COULD NOT EVEN STEM A PLAGUE
OF ABUSIVE AND UNAFFORDABLE
MORTGAGES DESPITE CLEAR WARNING SIGNS.
IT COST MILLIONS OF RESPONSIBLE
CONSUMERS THEIR HOMES, THEIR
SAVINGS AND THEIR DIGNITY, AND
IT CONTRIBUTED TO THE NEAR
COLLAPSE OF OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
WE DID NOT HAVE JUST A FINANCIAL CRISIS.
WE HAD A CONSUMER CRISIS.
END OF QUOTE.
MR. PRESIDENT, THAT MASSIVE
FAILURE COULD HAPPEN AGAIN.
TODAY WE'RE IN NO DIFFERENT
POSITION THAN WE WERE IN 2007,
2008 AND 2009.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
AND YET, WE ARE ON THE BRINK OF
CREATING CHANGE THAT COULD MAKE
A DIFFERENCE IN THIS VERY AREA.
TODAY THOSE MASSIVE FAILURES ARE
STILL LURKING OUT THERE, AND THE
SAME CONSUMERS WHO
HOMES, LOST THEIR JOBS, LOST
THEIR RETIREMENT, LOST
HEALTH CARE ARE IN NO DIFFERENT
SITION TODAY SHOULD ANOTHER
CRIS HAPPEN TONIGHT OR TOMORROW.
IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME SYSTEM,
EXACTLY T SAME STRUCTURE,
EXACTLY THE SAME SO-CALLED
REGULATORS OUT THERE CHARGED
WITH PROTECTING CONSUMERS FROM
THE KIND OF PROBLEMS THAT LED US
TO THE DIFFICULTIES WE'RE IN TODAY.
WALL STREET, AGAIN, THE
FINANCIAL PRODUCTS AND PRACTICES
ARE BEING DEVISED ON WALL STREET
EVEN AS WE SPEAK HERE TODAY,
THAT WILL EVEN MAKE IT MORE
DIFFICULT IN MANY WAYS.
ARE THEY SAFE?
ARE THEY EXPLOITIVE?
TPWHAO EF IDEA.
NEITHER DO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
BECAUSE NO ONE IS LOOKING OUT
FOR THEM AT THIS JUNCTURE.
OUR LEGISLATION ANSWERS THE
QUESTIONS WHO IS LOOKING OUT FOR ORDINARY AMERICANS.
THE BILL THAT WE'LL PRESENT HERE
IN A MATTER OF
COLLEAGUES IN THIS CHAMBER
CREATES AN INDEPENDENT CONSUMER
FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, A
WATCHDOG WITBARK AND WITH BITE.
THIS NEW BUREAU WON'T HAVE ANY
JOB MORE IMPORTANT THAN HELPING
AMERICAN CONSUMERS MAKE SMART
FINANCIAL DECISIONS BECAUSE
PROTECTING, EDUCATING AND
EMPOWERING AMERICAN CONSUMERS
WILL BE THEIR ONLY JOB.
IT WILL HAVE AN INDEPENDENT
DIRECTOR APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
AND CONFIRMED BY THE UNITED STATES SENATE.
IT WILL HAVE A DEDICATED
INDEPENDENT BUDGET PAID BY THE
FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD.
IT WILL BE EMPOWERED TO WRITE
CONSUMER PROTECTION RULES
GOVERNING ANY INSTITUTION,
WHETHER IT'S A BANK OR A PAYDAY
LENDER THAT OFFERS CONSUMER
FINANCIAL SERVICES OR PRODUCTS.
IT WILL HAVE A NEW OFFICE OF
FINANCIAL LITERACY TO ENSUR
THAT CONSUMERS ARE ABLE TO
UNDERSTAND THE PRODUCTS AND
SERVICES THAT ARE BEING OFFERED,
AND A NATIONAL TOLL-FREE
CONSUMER COMPLAINT LINE SO THAT
FOR THE FST TIME AMERICANS
HAVE SOMEWHERE TO GO WHEN THEY
NEED TO REPORT A PROBLEM.
MR. PRESIDENT, WHEN I TALK TO
PEOPLE BACK IN MY HOME STATE,
THEY UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SMART
DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR FAMILY
FINANCES, AND NOTHING IN OUR
BILL SUGGESTS OTHERWISE.
THAT'S THE FIRST LINE OF
DEFENSE.
SO WE
LEARN MORE, PAY ATTENTION, AND
UNDERSTAND THE FINANCIAL
ARRANGEMENTS WE'RE GETTING INTO.
WE'RE NOT SAYING ANYTHING DIFFERENT.
UNLIKE WALL STREET, THEY'RE NOT
LOOKING TO SHIRK THAT
RESPONSIBILITY.
THEY WELCOME THE RESPONSIBILITY.
THEY WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IT
BETTER.
WHAT THEY NEED IS CLEAR,
ACCURATE INFORMATION SO THAT
THEY CAN MAKE THOSE GOOD
DECISIONS
TO STOP ABUSIVE PRACTICES WHEN
THEY OCCUR.
THAT IS WHAT OUR LEGISLATION
DOES.
IT FINALLY PUTS CONSUMERS IN
CONTROL OF THEIR FINANCIAL LIVES
BY REQUIRING LARGE FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS AND CREDIT CARD
COMPANIES TO TELL YOU WHAT
THEY'RE SELLING YOU IN PLAIN ENGLISH.
YOU DON'T NEED A MASTER'S IN
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION TO UNDERSTAND.
AND IT WILL FINALLY PUT AN END
TO THE PRACTICES THAT HAVE
BECOME ALMOST STANDARD OPETING
PROCEDURE: SKYROCKETING CREDIT
CARD INTEREST RATES, THE
EXPLOSION OF OVERDRAFT TPAOERBGS
PREDATORY -- FEES, PREDATORY
LENDING BY MORTGAGE FIRMS AND MORE.
THIS CONGRESS HAS TAKEN STEPS TO
PASSING THE CREDIT CARD ACT
AUTHORED BY THE MEMBERS OF OUR COMMITTEE -- I THANK THE
PRESIDING OFFICER FOR HAVING
BEEN A PART OF THAT -- FORCING
LARGE BANKS TO CHANGE THEIR
OVERDRAFT FEE POLICIES.
CREDIT CARD BANKS CONTINUE TO
LOOK FOR A WAY AROUND THE NEW
RULES.
HISTORY SHOWS THEM TO BE PRETTY
GOOD AT GETTING AWAY WITH IT AS
WELL.
BETWEEN 1997-2007, CREDIT CARD
COMPANIES ENGAGED IN A WIDE
VARIETY OF, FRANKLY, UNETHICAL
PRACTICES, SO-CALLED
DOUBLE-CYCLE BILLING, UNIVERSAL
DEFAULT, RETROACTIVE AND ASH
ARBITRARY TR-T HEIGHTS.
IN THAT ENTIRE DECADE, A DECADE
IN WHICH MILLIONS OF OUR FELLOW
CITIZENS WERE OVERCHARGED OR
OUTRIGHT RIPPED OFF BY THESE
BANKS, THERE WERE JUST NINE
FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE SEVEN REGULATORS IN OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
LET ME REPEAT IT: IN THA
DECADE NOT A SINGLE CITIZEN IN
THIS COUNTRY COULD NOT TELL YOU
ABOUT ONE HORROR STORY IN THIS
COUNTRY, EVERY GIMMICK AND TRICK
WAS USED TO SQUEEZE EVERY LAST
NICKEL OUT OF A CONSUMER'S
POCKETBOOK THERE WERE ONLY NINE
FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE REGULATORS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL.
THEN THERE WAS THE STORY FROM
MARIO VIERA IN CONNECTICUT, A
HOME BUILDER WHO
OVERDREW HIS ACCOUNT BY $25.
MARIO, 75 YEARS OLD, A SMALL BUSINESS CONTRACTOR.
HE OVERDREW HIS ACCOUNT BY $2
AND WAS CHARGED $35.
THE BANK TOOK SEVERAL DAYS TO
NOTIFY HIM THAT THE ACCOUNT WAS OVERDRAWN.
IN THE MEANTIME, OF COURSE, HIS
ADDITIONAL MINOR PURPOSES
YIELDED THREE ADDITIONAL $35
FEES, A TOTAL OF $140 THAT MARIO
LIVIERI WAS CHARGED BECAUSE HE
WAS $2 OVERDRAWN IN HIS BANKING ACCOUNT.
UNFORTUNATELY THAT STORY BY THIS
INDIVIDUAL IN MY STATE CAN BE
REPEATED MILLIONS OF TIME ACROSS
THE COUNTRY.
A $2 BY A CONSCIENTIOUS
INDIVIDUAL THAT HE WAS MADE
PURCHASE HE MADE, AN ADDITIONAL
$35 WAS THROWN ON HIS ACCOUNT TO
THE POINT WHERE HE HAD A BILL
BEFORE HE DISCOVERED IT OF $140
BECAUSE OF $2 OVERDRAWN.
THAT WENT ON ALL THE TIME, AND
IN TOOFTEN CASES IT STILL
DOES.
MARIO PROTESTED, THE BANK WAIVED
ONE OF THE FOUR $35 CHARGES, BUT
THEY TOLD HIM HE COULD DO TO
FIGHT THE FEES BECAUSE THE
PRACTICE WAS PERFECTLY LEGAL.
AND THEN THERE ARE THE AUTO
DEALERS WHO HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF MILITARY
SERVICEEMBERS, THE SHADY
PAYDAY LENDERS WHO PREY ON
MINORITY COMMUNITIES AND THE
WIDE RANGE OF OTHER MALICIOUS
ACTORS WHO TOOK ADVANTAGE OF
AMERICAN CONSUMERS.
THIS BILL THAT WILL BE BEFORE
THIS BODY THAT PASSED OUT OF OUR
COMMITTEE PUTS AN END TO THOSE
ABUSES, AND THAT'S WHY IT'S
SUPPORTED BY THE MILITARY
COALITION, CIVIL RIGHTS
ORGANIZATIONS, CONSUMER RIGHTS
GROUPS, AND MORE.
IT'S ALS
LARGE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
WHOSE BUSINESS STRATEGIES ARE
BASED TOO OFTEN ON TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF THEIR VERY OWN CUSTOMERS.
LET ME TAKE A MOMENT TO PUT AN
END TO SOME OF THE MALARKEY
WE'VE BEEN HEARING FROM THE WALL
STREET CROWD.
THE LARGE BANKS ARE PAYING FOR
ADS NOW CLAIMING THAT THIS
LEGISLATION WILL IMPOSE NEW
RESTRICTIONS ON DENTISTS AND
BUTCHERS AND OTHER MAIN STREET MERCHANTS.
THAT'S NOT TRUE, MR. PRESIDENT.
YOU AND I KNOW THIS.
THAT KIND OF FALSEHOOD, IT GOES
OUT ACROSS THE COUNT HERE, IS
EXACTLY THE KIND OF
PROPAGANDIZING THAT THEY ARE
DETERMINED TO ENGAGE IN TO
UNDERMINE THIS LEGISLATION.
THESE RULES THAT WE CRAFTED
APPLY ONLY TO FIRMS ENGAGED IN
OFFERING CONSUMER FINANCIAL
SERVICES OR PRODUCTS, NOT THE
BUTCHER, NOT THE LAWN DID A
MAT -- LAUNDROMAT, NOT THE
DENTIST HERE AT ALL.
YOU HAVE TO BE ENGAGED IN
FINANCIAL SERVICES OR PRODUCTS.
JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE A BUTCHER
DOESN'T MEAN THESE NEW RULES
APPHRAOEUFPLT MOREOVER, THIS
LEGISLATION -- APPLY.
MOREOVER THIS LEGISLATION
DOESN'T SEEK TO STRANGLE
INNOVATION.
QUITE THE OPPOSITE.
WE'RE NOT DICTATING WHAT
PRODUCTS CAN BE OFFERED ANYMORE
THAN THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION DIRECTS WHAT TOY
MAKERS CAN INVENT.
BUT JUST AS THE CONSUMER PRODUCT
SAFETY COMMISSION WATCHES OUT
FOR TOYS THAT COULD HURT YOUR
CHILDREN, THE INDEPENDENT
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION
BUREAU WILL WATCH OUT FOR
PRODUCTS THAT CAN HURT YOUR
FINANCES SO THAT CUSTOMERS AND
CONSUMERS CAN MAKE SMART
DECISIONS.
THE LARGE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
THAT TRIED TO PUSH THIS NOTION
THAT THIS LEGISLATION CREATES AN
ENORMOUS BURDEN ON SMALL
COMMUNITY BANKS, LET ME ADDRESS THAT
HOW NICE OF THEM TO LOOK OUT FOR
THEIR COMPETITORS, THE ONES THEY
HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DRUM OUT OF
BUSINESS FOR DECADES.
THE FACT IS THE SMALL COMMUNITY
BANKS WITH $10 BILLION OR LESS
IN ASSETS, WON'T SEE ANY REGULATORY CHANGES.
THEY WON'T BE CHARGED ANY FEES
OR ASSESSMENTS.
THEY'LL FOLLOW THE SAME RULES
THAT THEY FOLLOW TODAY.
AND EVEN BETTER, THE SMALL
COMMUNITY BANKS WILL BE ABLE TO
OPERATE ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
WITHOUT THE UNFAIR COMPETION
FROM THE UNDERREGULATED OR
UNREGULATED SHADOW BANKS THAT
DON'T OPERATE WITH ANY RULES
MR. PRESIDENT, THIS LEGISLATION
HAS MANY IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES:
PREVENTING TAXPAYER BAILOUTS,
ESTABLISHING AN EARLY WARNING
SYSTEM SO FUTURE FINANCIAL
CRISES CAN BE NIPPED AT THE BUD
BEFORE THEY THREATEN OUR ENTIRE ECONOMIC SYSTEM.
BUT FOR MILLIONS OF AMERICANS
WHO DON'T PAY MUCH ATTENTION TO
WHAT GOESN ON WALL STREET
EXCEPT WHEN THEY HAVE TO WRITE A
CHECK TO BAIL OUT THE FIRMS THAT
LIVE THERE, PERHAPS NOTHING IN
THIS BILL WILL IMPACT THEIR
LIVES MORE DIRECTLY THIS BE THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION BUREAU.
FINALLY THERE WILL BE A COP ON
THE BEAT WATCHING OUT FOR THEM.
SAFETY AND SOUNDNESS OF OUR
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IS
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT.
I'M ALL.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE
CONSIDERATION.
AS THIS REAL ESTATE BUBBLE WAS
BUILDING UP, WE WERE TOLD OVER
AND OVER AGAIN THAT THE SYSTEM
WAS SAFE AND SOUND. WHY?
BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE MAKING MONEY.
IT WAS GROWING IN PROFITS.
WHAT WE FAILED TO LOOK AT AND
UNDERSTAND WAS IT MAY HAVE BEEN
SAFE AND SOUND FROM THAT NARROW
PERSPECTIVE, BUT FOR CONSUMERS
RELYING ON THESE FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS, FOYER THEIR
ECONOMIC -- FOR THEIR ECONOMIC
SECURITY IT WAS ANYTHING BUT SAFE AND
WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
DIVISION, OR THIS BUREAU, WE
WILL BE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN
THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY
SAYING THAT FINANCIAL PRODUCTS
OUGHT TO BE NO DIFFERENT THAN
ANY OTHER PRODUCT THAT CONSUMERS BUY.
YOU OUGHT TO HAVE A PLACE YOU
CAN GO WHEN YOU'VE BEEN DECEIVES
OR DEFRAUDED IN THE USE OF THESE
FINANCIAL PRODUCTS.
IF YOUR LAWN MOWER BREAKS, YOUR
CARALFUNCTIONS, WE GET ALL
SORTS OF REPORTS, AS RECEN
WE'VE SEEN W-RBGS RECALLS OF
PRODUCTS -- WITH RECALLS OF
PRODUCTS BECAUSE THEY'RE UNSAFE
FOR THAT CONSUMER TO USE THEM.
WHY SHOULDN'T THAT ALSO EXIST IF
YOU'RE OUT THERE PURCHASING A
FINANCIAL PRODUCT THAT CAN PUT
YOU IN GREAT DANGER, IN FACT
BANKRUPT YOU AND RUIN YOUR LIFE
BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN DRAWN INT
FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT BECAUSE IT
WAS A QUICK PROFIT-MAKING
SITUATION FOR THE LENDER BUT PUT
YOU AT GREAT RISK AND CAUSED THE
ULTIMATE FINANCIAL RUIN OF
FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES.
THUS, WE HAVE ESTABLISHED A
PARITY BETWEEN PHYSICAL PRODUCTS
YOU CAN BUY AND FINANCIAL PRUCTS.
AMERICANS WILL BE AE TO RELY
ON CLEAR AND ACCURATE
INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR FAMIL
FINANCES.
LOOKING OUT FOR THEM, MR. PRESIDENT.
THERE IS NO BETT
RESTORE FAITH.
AGAIN, THE LOSS OF HOMES, THE
LOSS OF JOBS, THE LOSS OF
RETIREMENT, ALL OF WHICH HAVE
OCCURRED, BUT MAYBE THE GREATEST
TRAGEDY OF ALL IS THE LOSS OF
FAITH IN OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM,
AND WE NEED TO RESTORE THAT.
THE ABSENCE OF THAT WON'T MAKE
THIS GET BETTER.
EVERY OTHER SINGLE THING WE DO
WILL NOT ACHIEVE ITS GOAL IF
AMERICANS DON'T HAVE CONFIDENCE
IN OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, THE
FAITH THAT IT'S THERE, IT'S SAFE
THAT THEY CAN BE SECURE IN THE
KNOWLEDGE THAT WHEN THEY DEPOSIT
A HARD-EARNED PAYCHECK, WHEN
THEY BUY AN INSURANCE POLICY,
WHEN THEY BUY A STOCK, WHEN
ENGAGE IN A FINANCIAL ACTIVITY,
THE STRUCTURE, THE SYSTEM THERE
IS NOT UNFAIR.
NOT OUT THERE TO DECEIVE THEM,
DEFRAUD THEM, TO TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF THEM, BUT TO SEE TO IT THAT
THEY'RE PROTECTED.
THAT'S OUR GOAL IN THIS BILL.
MY HOPE IS THAT OUR COLLEAGUES
WILL ALLOW US TO GET TO THIS
DEBATE.
IF YOU HAVE
TO THIS, LET'S HAVE THAT DEBATE
THAT'S BEEN THE HISTORY OF THIS
CHAMBER ON IMPORTANT MATTERS
THAT HAVE COME BEFORE IT IN THE
PAST.
WE OUGHT NOT BE DENIED THAT
OPPORTUNITY AGAIN ON THIS BILL.
BUT I WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT
AND TALK ABOUT THE CONSUMER PROTECTION EFFORTS OF THIS
LEGISLATION AND, AGAIN, I
COMPLIMENT MY COLLEAGUE IN THE
PRESIDING CHAIR.
I SAY TO MY COLLEAGUE BECAUSE HE
HAS BEEN A CHAMPION IN OUR SHORT
SERVICE TOGETHER IN THIS
COMMITTEE ON THE VERY ISSUES I ADDRESSED TODAY.
I WANT TO PUBLICLY THANK HIM FOR
HIS EFFORTS, HIS COMMITMENT AND
PASSION FOR THOSE ISSUES.
WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, I
ARIZONA AND SO I WON'T NOTE THE
ABSENCE OF A QUORUM. MR. KYL: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR
MR. KYL: MR. PRESIDENT, I --
BEFORE I AGAIN TALKING
THIS BILL,
COMPLIMENT CHAIRMAN DODD FOR THE
HARD WORK HE'S PUT INTO THIS MATTER.
I BELIEVE IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US
TO REACH A BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS
AND THAT MANY OF THE THINGS THAT
WERE JUST DISCUSSED ARE MATTERS
ON WHICH WE CAN REACH CONSENSUS.
THAT IS THE GOAL O REPUBLICANS.
I AM CONCERNED, I MUST SAY,
THERE HAS BEEN SOME A LITTL POLITIZATION
OF THIS ISSUE BY MANY OF THE
OTHER SIDE AND, FRANKLY, SOME IN
THE ADMINISTRATION.
I KNOW THAT SENATOR CHAMBLISS, A
REPUBLICAN, AND SENATOR LINK
ONG, A DEMOCRAT WORKED --
LINCOLN, A DEMOCRAT, WORKED
TOGETHER AND WERE TOLD BY THE
WHITE HOUSE THAT IT WAS NOT
ACCEPTABLE AND THIS CHAIRMAN
LINCOLN NEED TO GO BACK AND REDO
IT THE WAY THAT THEY WANTED IT DONE.
AS A RESULT, THE BILL WAS PASSED
OUT OF THE BANKING COMMITTEE ON
AN ALMOST PARTISAN -- PARTISAN LINE.
AND THE SAME THING WAS TRUE OF
THE LEGISLATION THAT CAME OUT OF
THE BANKING COMMITTEE.
NOW, WHILE CHAIRMAN DODD IS
HERE, LET ME MAKE
HE SUGGESTED THIS MORNING THAT
THERE ARE REPUBLICANS WHO
SUPPORT THIS BILL HE KNOWS, BUT
THEY'RE BEING TOLD BY REPUBLICAN
LEADERSHIP THAT THEY CAN'T
SUPPORT IT.
NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, I WANT TO
MAKE IT CLEAR THAT OUR
LEADERSHIP DOES NOT DO IT THAT
WAY.
ONE OF THE REASONS IS I AM ONE
OF OUR LEADERSHIP.
OUR MEMBERS OF THE REPUBLICAN
CAUCUS THINK FOR THEMSELVES AND
WE CAME TO CONCLUSION
UNANIMOUSLY IN THE REPUBLICAN
CONFERENCE THAT THE PARTISAN
BILL THAT CAME OUT OF THE
BANKING COMMITTEE, AND IT WAS PARTISAN.
IT WAS WRITTEN BY DEMOCRATS, NOT
ON PARTY LINE VOTE,
BILL WAS NOT WAIT TO MOVE FORWARD.
IT WAS PARTISAN, IT WAS FLAWED.
AND, AMONG OTHER THINGS, IT
WOULD PROVIDE FOR PER PEPTAL
BAILOUTS AND THEREFORE DIDN'T
ACHIEVE THE FIRST GOAL OF THE
LEGISLATION WHICH WAS TO FINALLY
END THE
AND SO ALL 41 OF US WROTE TO THE
LEADER AND SAID WE WILL NOT VOTE
TO PROCEED TO THAT BILL BECAUSE
IT'S A PARTISAN BILL.
IT WOULD BE BETTER IF WE COULD
WORK TOGETHER IN A BIPARTISAN
WAY TO BRING THE BILL
FLOOR OF THE SENATE THAT
REPRESENTED NOT JUST REPUBLICAN
IDEAS, BUT A COMBINATION OF
DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN IDEAS
THAT HAD BEEN NEGOTIATED BY THE
MEMBERS OF THE BANKING
COMMITTEE, MEMBERS OF THE
AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE, AND
OTHERS.
THAT WOULD ORDINARILY BE THE WAY
THAT WE WOULD TAKE UP A BILL
HERE ON THE SENATE FLOOR.
HAVING SAID THAT, I AM STILL
CONFIDENT, BASED UPON WHAT
SENATOR SHELBY AND OTHER
REPUBLICANS ON THE BANKING
COMMITTEE HAVE SAID, THAT IT IS
POSSIBLE TO REACH A BIPARTISAN
CONSENSUS HERE.
I KNOW THAT SENATOR DODD AND
SENATOR SHELBY HAVE BEEN
HARD EVERY DAY ON VARIOUS
ASPECTS OF THE BILL TO TRY TO
REACH A CONCLUSION.
THE SECOND POINT I WANT TO MAKE
HERE IS THAT ONE SHOULD NOT
DESCRIBE THE BILL THAT
OUT OF THE
THE END OF THE STORY AS A
SUCCESSFUL BILL THAT'S GOING TO
SOLVE ALL OF THESE
I DON'T THINK IT WILL.
IT DOESN'T END TAXPAYER
BAILOUTS, FORO? EXAMPLE.
AND AT A MINIMUM, IT SEEMS TO
ME, IT OUGHT TO DO THAT.
SO IN JUST A FEW MINUTES HERE,
I'D LIKE TO DESCRIBE SOME OF THE
THINGS THAT I THINK THE BILL
SHOULD ADDRESS AND THAT I HOPE
ARE BEING ADDRESSED IN THE
BIPARTISAN NEGOTIATIONS.
I'M SURE IT'S OBVIOUS THAT IT'S
VERY DIFFICULT ONCE A BILL COMES
TO THE FLOOR AND YOU HAVE A
CHAIRMAN AND LEADER SUPPORTING
THE BILL WITH 59 SENATORS ON
THEIR SIDE OF THE AISLE, IT'S
VERY HARD TO AMEND THAT BILL.
AND THAT'S ONE REASON
REPUBLICANS WOULD LIKE TO SEE A
BILL BROUGHT TO THE FLOOR THAT
ALREADY HAS BIPARTISAN
AND THEN, YES, WE CAN WORK OUR
WILL ON THE BILL AND MAYBE AMEND
IT, MAYBE NO.
BUT AT LEAST WE KNOW THAT IT'S
NOT GOING TO BE A PURELY
PARTISAN PROPO
THERE'S BEEN MUCH ATTENTION PAID
TO THE $50 BILLION FUND THAT'S
CREATED BY THIS BILL.
AND WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THE
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, OF
COURSE, PAY FOR THE MONEY THAT
GOES -- OR SUPPLY THE MONEY THAT
GOES INTO THAT FUND, WE ALL KNOW
WHERE THE MONEY EVENTUALLY IS --
IS PAID.
THE COSTS ARE PASSED ON TO THE CONSUMERS.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE REAL PROBLEM HERE.
BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER FUNDS IN
WHICH, LIKE THE FDIC FUND, FOR
EXAMPLE, WHICH THE BANKS
OBVIOUSLY PASS ON TO THEIR
CONSUMERS IN ORDER TO HAVE AN
ABILITY TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR
EXPENSES TO CREDITORS SHOULD
THEY NOT BE ABLE TO DO SO.
BUT WHA
JUST CREATE THIS $50 BILLION
FUND, BUT CONTINUING GOVERNMENT
OBLIGATIONS BEYOND THAT AND IT
PROVIDES NOT AN ORDERLY
BANKRUPTCY TYPE OF PROCEDURE FOR
THE RESOLUTION OF A FAILED
COMPANY, BUT RATHER AN AD HOC
PROCEDURE DETERMINED BY
BUREAUATS WHO ARE NOT
ACCOUNTABLE TO ANYBODY AND WHO
CAN APPLY PRETTY MUCH ANY RULE
THEY WANT TO THE WINDINGOWN OF THE INSTITUTION.
NOW, W
TODAY, AND FRANKLY IT'S BEEN
THIS WAY FOR TWO CENTURIES, WE
HAVE A SERIES OF LAWS THAT
DICTATE WHAT HAPPENS IN THE
EVENT OF THE FAILURE OF A
COMPANY.
PRIMARILY THESE ARE OUR
BANKRUPTCY LAWS.
AND YOU KNOW IN ADVANCE WHAT
HAPPENS.
IF YOU ARE A COMPANY THAT CAN'T
MAKE IT AND YOU GO BANKRUPT,
THERE ARE TWO BASIC WAYS THAT
YOU CAN
ONE WHERE YOU LIQUIDATE AND THE
OTHER WHERE YOU REORGANIZE.
IN THOSE TWO
THRIVES WHAT HAPPENS TO YOUR CREDITORS.
BANKRUPTCYY DEFINITION MEANS
YOU CAN'T PAY ALL YOUR DEBTS.
ALL
SO WHO GETS PD AND WHO DOESN'T
AND HOW MUCH DO
AND IN WHAT ORDER?
ALL THAT IS RESOLVED BY THE
BANKRUPTCY LAWS AND BY THE BODY
OF LAWS THAT BUILT UP AS
PRECEDENT IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURTS.
THAT'S WHY YOU KNOW
EITHER LEND MONEY TO AN
INSTITUTION OR YOU INVEST IN
IN EQUIT INVESTMENTS, YOU HAVE
AN IDEA OF WHERE YOU STAND,
LOAN OR INVESTMENT EQUITY STANDS
IN YOUR LOAN IF THE ENTITY
FAILS.
FOR EXAM, A
WOULD BE HIGH ON THE LIST. SECURITY MEANS YOU HAVE
SOMETHING TO FALL BACK ON TO
TAKE FROM THE COMPANY IF THEY
CAN'T PAY THEIR DEBT TO YOU.
AS A RESULT, YOU CAN
MONEY AT A LOWER RATE BECSE
YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR
THAT RISK WHEN YOU LEND THE
MONEY.
IT'S A GOOD WAY FOR COMPANIES TO
BORROW MONEY.
NOW, GRANTED THEY -- THEY HAVE
TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT BACKS IT UP.
SOMETIMES IT'S EVEN A PERSONAL
GUARANTEE OF THE C.E.O. OF COMPANY.
BUT YOU GET AT PRETTY CHEAP LOAN
THAT WAY BECAUSE THE LDER
KNOWS THAT HE OR IT IS GOING TO
GET HIS MONEY BACK.
BY THE SAME
MONEY PRETTY BADLY AND YOU DON'T
HAVE ANYMORE SECURITY, YOU MIGHT
WANT TO ASK PEOPLE TO INVEST IN
YOUR COMPANY OR TO BORROW MONEY
ON AN UNSECURED BASIS, WELL,
YOU'RE GOING TO GET CHARGED A
HIGHER RATE OF INTEREST ON THAT
BECAUSE THERE'S MORE RISK TO THE
INVESTOR OR TO THE LENDER.
WHERE THEY STAND IN THE EVENT
THAT YOU CAN'T MAKE IT OR YOU FOLD.
WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS TO
SUBSTITUTE AN UNKNOWN,
PROCESS FOR THE TRIED AND TRUE
NOW, NOBODY IS SUGGESTING THAT
THERE COULDN'T BE SOME
MODIFICATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY
PROCESS OR RULES THAT MIGHT
GOVERN THESE PARTICULAR INSTITUTIONS.
THEY ARE UNIQUE INSTITUTIONS
SOME RESPECTS AND TO THE EXTENT
THAT THE RULES SHOULD BE
TAILERRED IN ORDER TO FIT THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THEY COULD BE.
THIS LEGISLATION.
INSTEAD NEW ENTITIES ARE
CREATED.
BUREAUCRATS ARE ALLOWED TO
DECI
DESTABILIZE THE MARKETS AND,
THEREFORE, DECIDE WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT.
AND THEIR RANGE OF
ESSENTIALLY, UNLIMITED.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT
TAXPAYERS COULD BE ON THE HOOK
FOR THE BAILOUT.
THAT'S TRUE WITH THE FDIC.
IT'S TRUE WITH THE FED AND THIS
BILL HAS SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN I
THAT PROVIDES FOR T
THERE ARE THOSE WHO SAY WHY NOT
GET RID OF THE $50 BILLION FUND
AND THE PROBLEM WILL GO AWAY.
NO, THE PROBLEM DOESN'T GO AWAY
NOTICE YOU CORRECT THAT OTHER
LANGUAGE AS WELL.
I WILL NOT TRY TO SUBSTITUTE MY
JUDG
WE NEED THE $50 BILLION FUND.
I WILL SAY THAT FUND -- THAT,
E, WL
INSTABILITY IN THE MARKET.
HAVE AN IMPLICIT GUARANTEE FROM
THE FUND ARE MORE LIKELY TO
RECEIVE CREDIT,
A LOWER RATE BECAUSE THERE'S
MORE OF AN INSURANCE THAT THE
LENDER OR EQUITY INVESTOR WILL
GET MONEY BACK.
THERE ARE DOWNSIDES TO THIS FUND.
BUT LEAVE THOSE ASIDE IF YOU
WANT TO DO AWAY WITH THE FUND, OK.
IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THE FUND, OK.
BUT WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T DO IS
PROVIDE THAT BEYOND THAT THE
TAXP
HERE'S THE PROBLEM, LEHMAN
BROTHERS I'M TOLD IS WELL OVER
00 BILLION IN -- $600 BILLION IN
LIABILITIES AND
FUND DOES NOT GO A LONG WAY
TOWARD RESOLVING A $600 BILLION LIABILITY.
IN THE CASE OF FANNIE MAE AND
FREDDIE MAC WHO AREN'T EVEN
DEALT WITH IN THIS LEGISLATION,
EN THOUGH THEY WERE THE PRIME
CAUSES OF THIS PROBLEM -- BY THE
WAY THAT'S A DEFICIENCY IN THE
LAW THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED.
I HOPE THESE NEGOTIATIONS WILL
REGARD.
BUT THEY HAVE NOW CREATED -- IT
IS ABOUT $6.3 TRILLION IN
OBLIGATIONS.
AND GUESS WHO IS ON THE HOOK FOR
THOSE OBLIGATIONINGS?
CONGRESS NEVER PASSED A LAW TO
SAY THAT TAXPAYERS WOULD BE ON
THE HOOK.
BUT THAT'S THE RESULT OF THE
ACTION TAKEN BY THE BUREAUCRATS
WHO DECIDE THESE MATTERS NOW.
I DON'T WANT TO CREATE A
PERPETUAL SITUATION WHERE NOT
CONGRESS, NOT THE COURTS, BUT
BUREAUCRATS -- AND, BY THE WAY,
I DON'T USE THAT TERM
PEJORATIVELY. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
LET'S USE THAT
GOVERNMENT OFF
GIVE THE POWER TO, SIMPLY
DECIDES WHO GETS BAILED OUT,
WHEN, UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES
WHO GETS PAID BACK AND WHO
DOESN'T GET PAID AND
MUCH IT WILL COST THE TAXPAYERS.
THAT IS PROVIDED FOR I LEGISLATION.
SO WHEN THEY SAY THAT THIS BILL
NEEDS TO PASS BECAUSE IT ENDS
TOO BIG TO FAIL, IT DOESN'T.
THE TAXPAYERS ARE STILL ON THE
HOOK.
IF THOSE -- IF THAT IS FIXED, MY
CRITICISMS IN THAT RESPECT GOES AWAY.
WE HAVE NOT HEARD THAT THAT'S WHAT'S BEING DONE.
I TOLD MY COLLEAGUES DON'T COME
TO THE FLOOR THAT SAYS THIS IS A
GREAT BILL, IT ENDS TOO BIG TO
FAIL, AND THAT THERE'SOTHING
WRONG WITH IT.
THERE ARE THINGS WRONG WITH IT
THAT NEED TO BE FIXED.
I WOULD ASSUME ON A BIPARTISAN
BASIS IF YOU ASK THE ABSTRACT
QUESTION OF EVERY 100 OF THE
SENATORS, DO YOU THINK WE OUGHT
TO END TOO BIG TO FAIL.
YES WOULD BE THE ANSWER.
ASK OUR -- THE ANSWER WOULD BE YES.
WHAT ABOUT THE LANGUAGE IN THE
BILL -- QUOTE --"THE FDIC WILL
GUARANTEE THE OBLIGATION OF
BANKS UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES.
THAT'S LANGUAGE THAT HAS GOT TO
BE CAREFULLY EITHER DEFINED,
LIMITED, OR ELIMINATED OR WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE TAXPAYERS CONTINUE
TO BE ON -- ON THE HOOK FOR
THESE OBLIGATIONS.
LIKE I SAID, WE HAVEN'T DONE
ANYTHING TO F
IN THE LEGISLATION AND THAT IS
GOING TO MEAN A CONTINUING
TAXPAYER OBLIGATION AS WELL.
AS I
FIRMS, THE ONES DEEMED TOO BIG
TO FAIL, HAVE A -- AN ADVANTAGE
OVER THE SMALLER BANKS, THE
COMMUNITY BANKS.
MY COLLEAGUE JUST MENTIONED
THOSE A MOMENT AGO.
WE MET WITH THE COMMUNITY BANK
REPRESENTATIVES IN ARIZONA, AND
THEY FEAR THAT THIS KIND OF
PROVISION WILL MAKE TM
UNCOMPETITIVE VIS-A-VIS THE BIG
BOYS AND WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS WE
WILL END UP WITH A FEW REALLY
BIG BANKS AND SOME
OF A MEDIUM-SIZED OPERATION AND
ALMOST ALL OF THE SMALLER BANKS
HAVING TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS
BECAUSE OF THIS
ANTICOMPETITIVENESS THAT WILL
RESULT FROM THE LEGISLATION.
NOW, ONE OF THE OTHER WAYS IN
WHICH WHAT I'VE BEEN
ABOUT OCC
113, THE SO-CALLED FINANCIAL
STABILITY OVERSIGHT COUNCIL.
THIS IS ONE OF THESE ENTITIES
THAT ALLOWS FOR BAILOUT.
GIVES THE AUTHORITY OF THIS
NEW --
DEEMS TO BE A THREAT
STABILITY IN OUR ECONOMY.
THIS IS A BOARD BASED IN WASHINGTON.
IT DECIDES WHICH INSTITUTIONS
GETS SPECIAL TREATMENT.
IT GIVES THESE BUREAUCRATS
TREMENDOUS LATITUDE TO PICK
WINNERS AND LOSERS, AGAIN
RESULTING IN A COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE AND DISADVANTAGE.
WHAT DETERMINES WHETHER A
NONBANK IS A THREAT TO
STAIBILITIY?
WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA.
AND I QUOTE -- "ANY OTHER
FACTORS THAT THE COUNCIL DEEMS
APPROPRIATE."
THAT'S PRETTY MUCH AN OPEN BOOK.
"ANY OTHER FACTORS THAT THE
COUNCIL DEEMS APPROPRIATE."
I WOULD THINK THAT IF THE
CONGRESS
THIS VERY COMPLEX AND DIFFICULT
AREA, WE WOULD TRY TO GIVE VERY
SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO THE
FEDERAL AUTHORITIES TO
GIVE GREAT POWER AS TO HOW WE
WANT IT EXERCISED.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS IT.
TAKE TOWFT BUILT.
LET'SAVE A BIPARTISAN
NEGOTIATION TO DO THAT.
IF SOMEBODY CAN DEMONSTRATE WHY
THAT HAS TO BE LEFT IN, THEN
GREAT.
THESE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS
THAT LEAD ME TO THE CONCLUSION
THAT, NO, WE SHOULD NOT AGREE TO
CONSIDER THE BILL THAT CAME OUT
OF THE BANKING COMMITTEE ON A
PURELY PARTISAN BASIS BECAUSE
THERE ARE PROBLEMS IN IN IT.
THTHE WALL STREET JOURNAL SAY
THAT'S THE DODD BILL ALLOWS TOO
MUCH DISCRETION TO ALLOW
REGULATORS TO DETERMINE WHICH
FIRMS TO REGULATE AND HOW AND
WHICH CREDITORS TO REWARD AND
HOW.
EXACTLY WHAT y
-- WHAT I WAS JUST SAYING,
MR. PRESIDENT.
IT GOES ON TO CON CLOUD -- "THE
DODD BILL SUBJECT TO OTHER
EXECUTIVE APPROVAL, BEYOND
DEPOSIT-TANG INSTITUTIONS, TO
ANY FINANCIAL COMPANY DEEMED TO
BE SYSTEMICCALLY IMPORTANT, AND
IT GIVES THE FDIC THE DISCRETION
TO DISCRIMINATE AMONG CREDITORS
AS IT JUDGES WHO GETS?? PAID WHAT
AS A PART OF A RESOLUTION.
RECALL, THE GENERAL SAYS, HOW
THE WHITE HOUSE EXPLOITED ITS
AUTHORITY UNDER TARP TO TRASH
CHRYSLER'S CREDITORS AND GIVE
UNIONS A BETTER DEAL."
END OF QUOTE.
NOW, THAT'S NOT THE ONLY
SECTION.
SECTION 1155 OF THE BILL IS
ENTITLED "EMERGENCY FINANCIAL
STABILIZATION."
THIS IS ANOTHER WAY IN WHICH THE
BILL GUARANTEES BAILOUTS AND
PUTS THEM INTO THE LAW AND
LEAVES THE TAXPAYERS ON THE
HOOK.
UNDER THIS SECTION, THE FDIC
WOULD BE ALLOWED TO CREATE A NEW
PROGRAM OF UNLIMITED SIZE TO
GUARANTEE THE OBLIGATIONS OF
DEPOSITORIES AND HOLDING
COMPANIES WITH DEPOSITORIES.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
SINCE THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT
THAT A COMPANY THAT RECEIVES
GUARANTEES AND DEFAULTS ON ITS
OBLIGATIONS BE TAKEN INTO AN
FDIC RECEIVERSHIP, BANKRUPTCY OR
RESOLUTION, THE FDIC AND
TREASURY CAN PROP UP WHATEVER
COMPANY IT CHOOSES.
THIS AUTHORITY CAN BE EXERCISED
WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.
IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I
HAVE SAID I THINK THERE NEEDS TO
BE SOME -- SOME ELEMENT OF
BANKRUPTCY OR OTHER PROCESS
PRIOR TO THE INSTIGATION OF THIS
PARTICULAR KIND OF AUTHORITY.
YOU CAN'T SAY THAT THIS BILL
ENDS TAXPAYER BAILOUTS AS LONG
AS YOU HAVE GOT ALL OF THESE
SECTIONS IN IT.
NOW, FINALLY, THERE IS MUCH SAID
ABOUT CONSUMER P
DOES ANYBODY KNOW ANYBODY THAT
DOESN'T FAVOR CONSUMER
OTECTION?
I THINK WE ALL DO.
THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW TO
INTELL
YOU CAN CREATE A LOT MORE COST
TO CONSUMERS IF YOU MAKE THE
REGULATIONS SO COSTLY AND
INEFFICIENT THAT THEY END UP
PAYING MORE MONEY THAN THEY
WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE, AND THAT
IS I FEAR WHAT COULD HPEN HERE.
IT HAPPENED WITH THE CREDIT CARD
LEGISLATION WE PASSED.
IT'S PREDICTED I THINK THAT IT
CAN HAPPEN HERE AS
IT COULD EASILY HAPPEN WITH
BUSINESSES THAT WE DON'T EVEN
INTEND TO COVER.
I KNOW I HAVE HEARD FROM DENTAL
OFFICES AND CAR DEALERSHIPS.
WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WALL STREET
BAILOUTS, YOU DON'T THINK ABOUT
YOUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR WHO
SELLS CARS OR MAYBE YOUR
NEIGHBOR WHO IS A DENTIST, BUT
IF THEY HAVE AN INSTALLMENT PLAN
WHERE IT TAKES FOUR MONTHS --
WHERE YOU CAN GET UP TO FOUR
MONTHS TO PAY YOUR BILL TO THEM,
BOOM,
PROVISIONS HERE.
AND THEN ALL OF THE CONSUMER
PROTECTIONS APPLY AND SO ON.
LET'S BE CAREFUL THA IN AN
EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THAT WALL
STREET HANDLES ITS AFFAIRS
PROPERLY, THAT WE DON'T IMPOSE
CONDITIONS ON MAIN STREET, THE
FOLKS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE
THRIVE, PARTICULARLY IN TIMES OF
RECESSION HERE, IN A WAY THAT
WOULD END UP EITHER
MORE EXPENSES OR AT WORST EVEN
MAKING THEM UNCOMPETIVE WITH
THESE SO-CALLED BIGGER GUYS.
RESTRAING CREDIT IS A BIG WAY
TO DO THIS, REQUIRING THAT THEY
HAVE TO APPLY CAPITAL N TO
BUILDING THEIR BUSINESSES BUT
SOMEHOW BACKING UP
THEIR CREDIT ISSUANCE EVEN
THOUGH THAT IS NOT THE MAIN PART
OF THEIR BUSINESS.
JUST QUOTING BRIEFLY HERE FROM
THE "NEW YORK POST"."
NEW RESTRICTION CREDIT ARE
LIKELY TO COST OUR ECONOMY TENS
OF T
REDUCTIONS IN CREDIT WHICH WOULD
RESULT HERE MEANS DECLINES IN
JOB C
A LOT OF SMALL BUSINESSES USE --
IN FACT, START-UPS USE HOME
EQUITY DEBT OR CREDIT CARDS AS
THEIR SOURCE OF FUNDING.
THERE IS NOT A LOT OF HOME
EQUITY DEBT TO BE HAD THESE DAYS.
A LOT OF OUR HOMES ARE NOT
MORTGAGEABLE AT THE PRESENT
TIME, SO CREDIT CARDS ARE MAXED
OUT AND SO ON.
THAT'S A DIFFICULT WAY TO DO IT,
BUT YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE IF
SMALL BUSINESSES ARE DOING THIS,
THAT THE CREDIT FLOWS ARE NOT
STOPPED BECAUSE OF PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL.
IN AN OP-ED IN THE "NEW YORK
POST" TODAY, MARK CALLABRIA
POINTED OUT -- "THE BURSTING OF
THE HOUSING BUBBLE LARGELY
ELIMINATED THE FIRST OPTION."
THAT'S THE MORTGAGING OF YOUR
HOME TO GET ADDITIONAL CREDIT.
"NOW WASHINGTON IS TRYING ITS
BEST TO KILL THE SECOND.
THE DODD BILL'S PROPOSED
CONSUMER PROTECTIONS WOULD REACH
BEYOND CREDIT CARDS AND RESTRICT
THE AVAILABILITY
CREDIT WHILE RAISING COSTS."
END OF QUOTE.
NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, NOBODY
INTENDS THIS RESULT.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IN THIS
BODY WANTS TO IMPOSE ADDITIONAL
COSTS, ESPECIALLY ON SMALLER
BUSINESSES OR ON STARTER
BUSINESSES.
IT'S SIMPLY AN INEVITABLE RESULT
OF A POLICY THAT'S WRITTEN TOO BROADLY.
WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL HOW WE DO IT.
WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT WE DON'T
WRITE IT SO BROADLY THAT FRIENDS
WE WANT TO PROTECT HERE ARE NOT
ADVERSELY IMPACTED.
THEY HAVE BEEN COMING TO MY
OFFICE, FOLKS THAT YOU NEVER
DREAMED OF WOULD BE COVERED BY
THIS ACT OR COMING IN SAYING
HERE IS HOW THIS BILL COULD AFFECT ME.
PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT IT
DOESN'T.
ALL I
OTHER SIDE
TAKE THESE CONCERNS ON BOARD.
THEY ARE NOT PARTISAN CONCERNS.
AND MAKE SURE THAT WHEN THESE
NEGOTIATIONS FIGURE OUT HOW TO
AMEND THE BILL, THAT WE TAKE
INTO CONSIDERATION THE THINGS
THAT WE'RE RAISING HERE.
THEY
THEY ARE CONCERNS OF EVERYDAY
AMERICANS, AND WE OWE IT TO OURO?
CONSTITUENTS TO THINK THESE
THINGS THROUGH AND IF NEED BE
CHANGE THE BILL.
I'M SURE EVEN SENATOR DOD
SAY THE BILL IS NOT PERFECT.
IF THERE ARE THINGS WE NEED TO
THAT.
AND THE LAST POINT HAS TO DO
WITH ANOTHER ELEMENT OF CON PROTECTION.
A LOT OF FOLKS DO BUSINESS IN
MORE THAN ONE STATE.
IN FACT, SOME OF THE LARGER
COMPANIES DO BUSINESS IN ALL
STATES.
IT IS COST-EFFECTIVE FOR THEM IF
THERE IS ONE RULE, IF THERE IS
ONE REGULATOR.
SO THEY DON'T HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE,
TO FIGURE OUT WHAT EVERY SINGLE
STATE REQUIRES DIFFERENT CONSUMER PROTECTION OR
NOTICE OR WHATEVER IT M??HT BE
AND THEN HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL
50 STATES, SOME OF WHICH MIGHT
BE CONTRADICTORY AS WELL AS A
FEDERAL REGULATOR.
SO UP TO NOW, WE HAVE PRETTY
MUCH HAD A FEDERAL REGIME THAT
HAS PREEMPTED THE STATE
JURISDICTION IN SOME OF THESE
AREAS.
WELL, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE
LEGISLATION DOES AWAY WITH A
SIGNIFICANT COMPONENT OF THAT
AND WOULD ALLOW THE STATE
REGULATORS TO IMPOSE INDIVIDUAL
REQUIREMENTS ON THESE COMPANIES
TH
THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.
SO YOU COULD HAVE THE ANO
SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE LOTS OF
DIFFERENT REQREMENTS.
SOME OF YOU HAVE SEEN ADS ON TV,
AND IT SAYS CALL NOW TO GET YOUR
FREE -- YOUR FREE -- WELL, TO
GET YOUR
IF Y CALL RIGHT NOW, YOU WILL
GET ANOTHER
ME.
THE LAST TEN SECONDS OF THE AD
HAS SOME GUY READING VERY FAST
LANGUAGE, OFFER NOT VALID IN W
MEXICO, NEW YORK, ARIZONA,
TENNESSEE, OREGON AND SO ON AND
SO ON, AND YOU CAN'T EVEN
WHAT HE IS SAYING.
BUT THE REALITY IS THERE ARE A
LOT OF DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS.
AND SO WHAT WE
TO DO IS HAVE THINGS BE AS
UNIFORM AS POSSIBL
COSTS DOWN BECAUSE THE GREATER
THE COSTS, THE MORE COST TO THE
CONSUMER.
UNFORTUNATELY, AS I SAID,
HOWEVER, THIS BILL CREATES A
PATCHWORK OF REGULATORY REGIMES
THATXPAND THE NUMBER OF
REGULATORS BY 50 IN CERTAIN AREAS.
AS A RESULT, IT'S GOING TO BE
MUCH MORE -- A MUCH MORE
DIFFICULT THING TO COMPLY WITH
AND MUCH MORE COSTLY.
IF WE BELIEVE THAT WE UNDERSTAND
WHAT'S NECESSARY IN CONSUMER
PROTECTIONS, THEN LET'S PROVIDE
FOR IT.
IF WE THINK WE DON'T, THAT WE
NEED TO LEAVE THIS TO A LOT OF
OTHER REGULATORS, THEN LET'S
DON'T MAKE THE RULES OURSELVES,
JUST LET THEM DO IT.
BUT YOU SHOULDN'T DO BOTH.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE
CHAIRMAN TALKED ABOUT SAFETY A SOUNDNESS.
THIS IS A TECHNICAL TERM THAT
ESSENTIALLY HASEGULATORS
REQUIRING BANKS AND OTHER
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO CARRY
A CERTAIN AMOO?T OF RESERVES SO
THAT IF PEOPLE WANT THEIR MONEY
BACK OUT OF THE BANK, THE BANK
HAS ENOUGH MONEY TO GIVE TO
THEM.
NO BANK BELIEVES THAT
HUNDRED% OF ITS DEPOSITS ARE
GOING TO BE CALLED BACK BY ITS DEPOSITORS.
BUT THEY HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN
PERCENTAGE OF THOSE FUN
DEPOSIT SO IF YOU GO SAY I WANT
MY MONEY OUT OF THE BANK, THEY
HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO GIVE IT TO
YOU.
THEY HAVE ENOUGH TO CARRY THOSE
LOANS AND SO ON.
THAT'S WHAT THE SAFETY AND
SOUNDNESS REQUIREMENTS OF THE
REGULATORS DO, AND IT'S A GOOD
THING.
SEWS SAME PEOPLE CAN ALSO
PROVIDE FOR CONSUMER PROTECTIONS.
AND TO SAY LOOK, WE KNOW THAT
THE
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY, AND WE
ALSO KNOW CONSISTENT WITH THAT
THAT THEY NEED TO ENSURE THE
PROTECTION OF THEIR CONSUMERS IN
A CERTAIN WAY
WHAT'S DIFFICULT IS WHEN YOU
SEPARATE THESE TWO FUNCTIONS AS
THIS LEGISLATION DOES SO YOU
HAVE ONE GROUP SAYING TO THE
BANK HERE'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO
FOR SAFETY
PURPOSES AND YOU HAVE ANOTHER
TOTALLY INDEPENDENT GROUPAYING
WE DON'T CARE ANYTHING ABOUT
THAT, BUT HERE'S
GOT TO DO FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION.
YOU CAN END UP WITH DUPLICATIVE
OVERLAPPING, COSTLY AND
SOMETIMES EVEN
INCONSISTENT REQUIREMENTS, ALL
OF WHICH MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT
FOR THESE INSTITUTIONS TO GIVE
YOU A CHEAPER PRODUCT, A BETTER
LOAN,
INTEREST AND WHATEVER IT MIGHT
BE.
AND
EVERYONE IS FOR CONSUMER
PROTECTION, EVERYBODY IS FOR
SAFETY AND SOUNDNESS.
LET'S TRY TO DO THIS IN A WAY
THAT
SUCH GREAT BURDENS, ESPECIALLY
ON THE SMALLER
ARE NOT ABLE TO BE COMPETIVE
AND PROVIDE THEIR CONSUMERS
AFTER ALL WE SHOULD BE MOSTLY
CONCERNED ABOUT
CHEAPEST PRODUCT THAT IS BACKED
BY THE SAFETY AND SOUNDNESS OF
THE INSTITUTIONS.
INCIDENTALLY, ON THIS LAST
MORE CYNICAL HAVE SAID WELL,
MAYBE THIS IS BEING DONE FOR A
MORE
IF EVERY SINGLE ATTORNEY GENERAL
IN THE COUNTRY CAN GO OUTND
HIRE TRIAL LAWYERS ON A
CONTRACT TO BRING CLASS ACTION
LAWSUITS BECAUSE OF VIOLATION OF
STATE LAWS,HEN YOU HAVE A
BRAND-NEW CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
THE TRIAL LAWYERS TO
BETTER THAN THEY HAVE DONE IN
THE
I'M NOT GOING TO SUGGEST THAT'S
THE MOTIVATION, BUT I AM GOING
TO SUGGEST I SEE NOTHING IN THE
BILL THAT WOULD PREVENT THAT.
AS LONG AS THAT IS A POTENTIAL,
THEN KATIE, BAR THE DOOR.
SO, AGAIN, THERE ARE MANY THINGS
IN THIS LEGISLATION THAT ARE NOT
PARTAN IN TERMS OF WE ALL WANT
TO PROTECT THE SAME FOLKS, BUT
QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED
THAT NEED TO BE DEALT
AND I THINK IT WOULD BE FAR
BETTER TO TAKE THE TIME TO HAVE
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS
SITTING DOWN AND GOING THROUGH
ALL OF THESE ISSUES
BRIEG UP A BILL THEY CAN AGREE
ON, BRING THAT BILL TO THE FLOOR
SO THE REST OF US CAN LOOK AT
IT, AND HOPEFULLY WE WOULD ALL
SAY GEE, THAT'S A LOT BETTER
PRODUCT THAN WE THOUGHT.
IT'S NOT EXACTLY AS I WOULD HAVE DONE IT.
IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE SOME
COMPROMISES IN THERE, BUT AFTER
ALL, THAT'S WHAT THE PROCESS IS
WHEN YOU HAVE
HALF THE BODY IS ONE PARTY AND
LESS THAN HALF IS THE OTHER BODY.
THAT'S HOW YOU GET THINGS DONE.
I CAN JUST ASSURE YOU THIS,
MR. PRESIDENT, AND ASSURE MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE,
REPUBLICANS WANT TO WORK
OUR DEMOCRATIC FRIENDS TO GET A
GOOD BILL THAT ALL OF US CAN
SUPPORT AND THAT WILL BE GOOD
FOR OUR COUNTRY, AND I THINK IF
WE CAN WORK IN GOOD FAITH TOWARD
THAT END, WE'LL BE MUCHAPPIER
WITH THE RESULT THAN IF
THE RESULT OF A PARTISAN OR
NEAR-PARTISAN VOTE
AND LIKEWISE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MR. PRESIDENT, I THANK MY
COLLEAGUES F THEIR
AND I'M HAP
FLOOR.
MR. BROWN: M
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM OHIO. MR. BROWN: MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ENG
COLLOQUY WITH SENATOR KAUFMAN
FOR
TO 30 MINUTES AS IF IN MORNING BUSINESS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
AN OBJECTION?
HEARING
MR. BROWN: THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
I -- I WANT TO BELIEVE WHAT I
JUST HEARD, AND I DO.
I BELIEVE THAT THE GENUINESS
AND THE SCERITY OF THE WORDS
OF MY COLLEAGUE FROM
I
WITH HIM, THERE ARE THINGS WE
NEED TO FIX IN THIS BILL.
THERE ALWAYS ARE, AND WE CAN
WORK TO IMPROVE IT.
I MET ONLY TWO HOURS AGO A DOZEN
MANUFACTURERS FROM OHIO, MOSTLY
METAL-WORKING COMPANIES,
STAMPING, BENDING METAL, ALL OF
THAT CAME TO SEE ME TO TALK
ABOUT CREDIT.
THEIR FRUSTRATION WITH THE
BANKING SYSTEM AND WITH WALL
STREET IS -- IS PRETTY DEEP AND
PRETTY INTENSE.
ANGER,
SPEAK FOR THEM TO BE SURE, BUT
IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT WALL
STREET HASN'T SERVED THEM WELL,
HASN'T SERVED THIS COUNTRY WELL.
AS I SAID, I KNOW WE NEED TO FIX
SOME THINGS ABOUT THIS BILL, BUT
I ALSO WATCH -- A GUY YEARS AGO
TOLD ME DON'T TELL ME WHAT YOU
BELIEVE.
SHOW ME WHAT YOU
YOU WHAT YOU BELIEVE.
WHEN I LISTEN TO LEADERSHIP ON
THE OTHER SIDE, ESPECIALLY TO
OUR COLLEAGUE FROM KENTUCKY, I
REALLY DO WATCH WHAT HE DOES,
NOT JUST WHAT HE SAYS.
I KNOW HE SAYS THIS BILL DOESN'T
WORK BECAUSE IT WILL MEAN MORE BAILOUTS.
THAT'S BATTLE TESTED, FOCUS
GROUP TESTED, POLL TESTED.
THAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO SAY TO
SAY YOU'RE AGAINST THE BILL.
BUT MORE THAN THAT, I WATCH WHAT
HE DOES AND I WATCH WHAT
REPUBLICANS HAVE DONE ON THIS BILL.
BACK IN DECEMBER, 100 BANK
LOBBYISTS MET WITH REPUBLICAN
LEADERSHIP IN THE HOUSE TO TALK
ABOUT HOW TO DEFEAT ANY KIND OF
WALL STREET REFORM.
EARLIER THIS MONTH, SENATOR
McCONNELL AND SENATOR
CORNYN -- SENATOR McCONNELL IS
THE REPUBLICAN LEADER.
SENATOR CORNYN IS HEAD OF THE
REPUBLICAN SENATE CAMPAIGN
COMMITTEE -- WENT TO NEW YORK
AND MET WITH 25 HEDGE FUND AND
OTHER WALL STREET EXECUTIVES TO
FIGURE OUT HOW TO DEFEAT THE
BILL AND TO DO WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT.
THE BEST WAY TO DEFEAT THI
IS TO ELECT MORE REPUBLICANS, WE
NEED HELP, ALL OF THAT.
WHEN I HEAR THEM TALK ABOUT
BIPARTISAN, THEY WANT A
BIPARTISAN BILL, WHAT THEY
REALLY MEAN, MR. PRESIDENT --
AND I KNOW SENATOR KAUFMAN AND I
HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS.
WHAT THEY REALLY MEAN IS WE WANT
WALL STREET TO COME TO THE TABLE
AND HELP US WRITE THE BILL.
THE SAME WAY THE BIPARTISAN IN
THE HEALTH CARE BILL OF THE LAST
YEAR WAS WE WANT TO INVITE
INSURANCE COMPANIES TO THE TABLE
TO HAVE BILL.
THE PUBLIC WANTS BIPARTISAN.
THEY WANT US TO WORK TOGETHER.
THEY WANT US TO COOPERATE.
WE DO THAT IN A LOT OF THINGS.
BUT IN A BIG BILL LIKE THIS, THE
PUBLIC DOESN'T WANT BIPARTISAN
IF IT MEANS LET'S GET THE --
LET'S GET WALL STREET AND THE
FIVE BIGGEST BANKS IN THE
COUNTRY TO WRITE THIS BILL AND
THEN WE CAN ALL BE HAPPY AND
LET'S GET ALONG AND LET'S HAVE
LEGISLATION THAT
I MEA IT -- AND THEN I
I HEAR OVER AND OVER SENATOR
McCONNELL, YOU KNOW, KIND OF
GETTING A LITTLE BIT -- THE
LEADER GETS A LITTLE UPSET WHEN
WHEN -- WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT THIS BILL.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT LIKE,
MR. PRESIDENT, WHEN YOU THROW A
ROCK AT A PACK OF DOGS, THE DOG
THAT YELPS IS T
THAT'S KIND
OF WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAR TOO
MANY SENATORS AND WALL STREET.
WHAT GOT US INTO THIS MESS IS
FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS, THE
DEREGULATION THAT THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION DOES THE PEOPLE
THAT THEY APPOINTED TO WATCH --
JUST LIKE THE HEAD OF MINE
SAFETY IN THE BUSH YEARS WAS A
MINING EXECUTIVE.
WE PAY THE PRICE FOR NAVMENT
PEOPLE IN MY STATE, PEOPLE OF
WEST VIRGINIA TOO OFTEN FAMILIES
PAY THE PRICE FOR A GOVERNMENT
NOT AGGRESSIVE ENOUGH TO
REGULATE MINE SAFETY.
WE PAY THE PRICE IN THIS COUNTRY
BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A
GOVERNMENT AGGRESSIVE ENOUGH TO
MAKE THE BANKS AND WALL STREET
BEHAVE.
THAT'S WHY THEY WERE ABLE TO OVERREACH.
THAT'S WHY THE LEGISLATION THAT
SENATOR KAUFMAN AND I ARE
INTRODUCING WITH SENATORS CASEY
AND WHITEHOUSE AND MERKL
SEVERAL OTHERS WILL ADDRESS THE
ISSUE OF TOO BIG TO FAIL BECAUSE
TOO BIG TO FAIL ALWAYS -- NOT
WHAT DO YOU IF THESE BANKS ARE
IN TROUBLE, HOW YOU PULL THEM
APART AND THEY'RE ABOUT TO FAIL
AND YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY
DON'T -- WE DON'T SPEND TAXPAYER
DOLLARS TO PAIL THEM OUT AND WE
MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T HURT THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
TOO BIG TO FAIL MEANS DON'T LET
THEM GET TOO BIG.
EVEN ALAN GREENSPAN, WHO'S
HARDLY BEEN AN ALLY -- WHO'S
HARDLY DONE THE RIGHT THING IN
REGULATING THE BANKING SYSTEM,
HE SAYS EVEN, TOO BIG TO FAIL
MEANS TOO BIG.
THAT'S WHAT SENATOR KAUFMAN AND
I ARE ADDRESSING.
LET ME GIVE YOU SOME NUMBERS.
15 YEARS AGO THE SIX LARGEST
U.S. BANKS HAD ASSETS EQUAL TO
17%, 1-7.
15 YEAR, THE SIX LARGEST BANKS
HAD ASSETS EQUAL TO 17% OF OUR
OVERALL G.D.P.
TODAY THESE -- THE SIX LARGEST
BANKS, 63% TOTAL ASSETS --
ASSETS ARE 63% OF OVERALL G.D.P.
THREE OF THESE MEGABANKS HAVE
CLOSE TO $2 TRILLION OF ASETTEDS
ON THEIR BALANCE SHEET SHEETS.
THAT MEANS WE'RE SETTING
OURSELVES UP FOR ONE MORE ROUND
OF SERIOUS, SERIOUS PROBLEMS.
THAT'S WHY HOMEOWNERS IN
YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO, LOST THEIR HOMES.
THAT'S WHY RETIREES IN SYDNEY,
OHIO, LOST A LOT OF THEIR WEALTH.
THAT'S WHY WORKERS IN NEWARK,
OHIO, LOST THEIR JOBS -- BECAUSE
WE -- BECAUSE WE HAD A BANKING
SYSTEM THAT WAS OVERREESMG, THAT
WAS EXCESSIVE, THAT GOT TOO
GREEDY AND WE DIDN'T DO ENOUGH ABOUT IT.
AND HERE'S WHAT'S HAPPENING.
THESE MANUFACTURERS I TALKED TO
THIS MORNING -- EARLY THIS
AFTERNOON FROM OHIO THAT ARE
LOOKING TO TRY TO -- THEY WANT
TO GROW, THEY WANT TO HIRE
PEOPLE, THEY'VE GOT ORDERS,
CAPACITY, THEY JUST CAN'T GET
LOANS TO DO THIS.
THREE OF THE LARGEST BANKS
SLASHED THEIR S.B.A. LENDING BY
86% OVER THE LAST YEAR.
S.B.A. LOANS WENT FROM 4,2 IN
2007 IN OHIO ALONE TO 2,100.
AT THE SAME TIME, BANKS HAVE
INCREAD
TRADING BY 23%.
SOMETHING WAS WRONG IN THE LAST TEN YEARS.
WE PAID THE PRICE THE LAST TWO
YEARS BUT SOMETHING'S STILL
WRONG WHEN THE BANKS GET BIGGER
AND BIGGER, THEY TRADE MORE AND
MORE AND THEY LEND TO MAIN
STREET LESS AND LESS.
THAT'S WHY THE LEGISLATION I'M
TURNING TO SENATOR KAUFMAN --
THE LEGISLATION IN A H THAT HE AND
I INTRODUCED WITH SEVERAL OTHER
SENATORS TODAY SPEAKS TO THIS.
THAT WE NEED BANKS TO
COUNTRY.
AND ULTIMATELY IT IS WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?
ARE YOU GOING IT SIDE WITH WALL
STREET OR ARE YOU GOING TO SIDE
WITWITH MAIN STREET?
TODAY WE HAD REPUBLICANS AND
DEMOCRATS TOGETHER PASS
LEGI
TO REGULATE DERIVATIVES.
IT IS A GOOD BIPARTISAN STEP
WHERE SENATOR GRASSLEY JOINED
ALL OF US ON THE COMMITTEE TO
PASS A STRONG BILL, INTO THE
BILL THAT WALL STREET HELPED TO
WRITE BUT A BILL THATS FOR THATS -- THAT
WORKS FOR AMERICAN CONSUMERS AND
BUSINESS AND HOMEOWNERS.
MR. KAUFMAN: OBVIOUSLY, I
AGREE WITH WHAT SENATOR BROWN IS SAYI.
YOU KNOW, THIS A VERY, VERY COMPLEX BILL.
IT IS A VERY COMPLEX AREA, BUT
IT'S REALLY -- WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT IS A VERY SIMPLE
PROPOSITION.
WE CAN EITHER LIMIT THE SIZE AND
LEVERAGE OF TOO-BIG-TO-FAIL
FINANCE INSTITUTIONS, SAWCHTS
BILL WHICH SENATOR BROWN AND I
ARE OFFERING, NOW, OR I WILL
TELL YOU WE WILL SUFFER THE
ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCESF THEIR
POTENTIAL FAILURE LATER.
I BELIE PERSONALLY
BELIEVE BREAK APART
TOO-BIG-TO-FAIL BANKS IS THE
FIRST STEP IN PREVENT AGO
NOSHING PSYCHE OF BOOM, BUST,
AND BAILOUT.
EVEN IF WE DO THAT THIS BILL IS
REQUIRED IF WE'RE GOING TO DEAL
WITH TOO BIG TO FAIL.
THIS DEBATE IS TEST OF WHETHER
THE POWER THAT HAVE IDEA CAN
SPREAD AND GAIN SUPPORT.
IT IS CLEARLY THE SAFEST WAY TO
AVOID ANOTHER FINANCIAL CRISIS.
THIS IDEA, AS SENATOR BROWN
SAID, MUST OVERCOME TREMENDOUS
RESISTANCE FROM WALL STREET
BANKS AND THEIR POLITICALLY
POWERFUL CAMPAIGNS AGAINST ANY
KIND OF STRUCTURAL FINANCIAL
REFORM.
MOREOVER, THE IDEA MUST OVERCOME
THE INERTIA AND THE CAUTION IN A
CONGRESS DRAWN TO EASIER IDEAS
THAN THEY WERE.
BUT HOW MUCH SHOULD WE GAMBLE
THAT THEY WILL WORK?
LIMITING SIZE AND LEVERAGE ARE
FAIL-SAFE PROVISIONS TO PREVENT
A DANGEROUS OUTCOME.
SENATOR BROWN AND I ARE
PROPOSING A COMPLEMENTARY IDEA:
TO LIMIT THE SIZE AND LEVERAGE,
NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR BREAKING
THE BANKS APAMPLET THE CURRENT
BANKING BILL HAS MANY IMPORTANT
PROVISIONS THAT WE SUPPORT, BUT
UNDER ITS APPROACH, WE MUST HOPE
THE FINANCIAL STABILITY
OVERSIGHT COUNCIL CAN IDENTIFY
SYSTEMIC RISKS BEFORE IT'S TOO
LATE.
WE MUST HOPE THAT REGULATORS
WILL BE EMBOLDENED TO ACT IN A
TIMELY MANNER WHEN BEFORE AND IN
THE RECENT PAST THEY FAILED TO
ACT.
WE MUST HOPE BETTER TRANSPARENCY
IN FINANCIAL DATA WILL PRODUCE
EARLY WARNING SIGNALS OF
SYSTEMIC DANGER SO CLEAR THAT A
COUNCIL AND PANEL OF JUDGES WILL AGREE.
WE MUST HOPE THAT CAPITAL
REQUIREMENTS WILL BE SET
PROPERLY IN RELATION TO RISKS
THAT A ALL TOO OFTEN HIDDEN FROM VIEW.
WE MUST HOPE THE RESOLUTION
AUTHORITY WILL WORK WHEN WE KNOW
IT HAS NO CROSS-BORDER AUTHORITY
TO RESOLVE GLOBAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
UNDER THE CURRENT BILL WE MUST
HOPE ALL FUTURE PRESIDENTS WILL
REGULATORS AS DETERMINED
TO CARRY OUT THE SAME STRICT
MEASURES PREACHED A BY TODAY'S
REGULATORS WHO HAVE BEEN
CONVERTED BY THE TRAUMATIC FAILURES.
ALL RULES TO RESTRICT EXCESSIVE
RISK TAKING IN BANKING HAVE A
HALF LIFETIME THAT IS BECAUSE
THE FINANCIAL SECTOR IS FU OF
VERY, VERY, VERY SMART PEOPLE
WITH AN INCENTIVE TO FIND THEIR
WAY AROUND THE RULES,
PARTICULARLY TO LOAD UP ON RISK,
AS THIS IS WHAT PROVIDES THEM
THEIR EXCESSIVE PROFITS AND
THEIR GIGANTIC BONUSES.
I WOULD RATHER NOT PIN THE
FUTURE OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY
ON SO MUCH HOPE.
I WOULD RATHER CONGRESS ACT NOW
DEFINITIVELY AND RESPOON CIVIL
TO END TOO BIG TO FAIL.
THE CHANGES AND REGULATIONS
ENVOITION -- ENVISIONED TODAY IN
THE BILL THAT WE'RE PROPOSING
WOULD HELP INITIALLY,
PARTICULARLY IN THE NEXT --ING
IN -- PARTICULARLY THE NEXT
CANED WHO AINTERPOZ REGULATORS
WHO ONLY BELIEVE IN SELF-RETLE.
THIS BILL PUTS HARD LINES.
ONE OF THE GREATEST THINGS IS
GOOD FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS.
THIS BUILDS THE FENCES.
THEN WE LET THE REGULATORS DO IT
AND WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT
THE PRESIDENT PICKING THE RIGHT
REGULATORS.
OUR BILL WOULD PROVIDE A
LEGISLATIVE SIZE AND LEVERAGES
RESTRICTION THAT WOULD LAST MORE
LONGER THAN THE HALF-LIFE OF WHO
IS APPOINTED TO BE REGULATOR.
WE WANT THITO OPERATE FOR A
GENERATION.
IN 1933 OUR FOREBEARERS CAME
DOWN AND MADE HARD RULES.
THEY PASSED GLASS-STEAGALL, THEY
SET UP THE FDIC, THEY SET RULES
AGAINST MARGINS, THEY SET THE
UPTICK RULE.
WEERVED DO NO LESS.
-- WE SHOULD DO NO LESS.
WHEN THEY PASSED THOSE BILLS IN
1933, THEY HELPED US AVOID A
FINANCIAL CRISIS FOR ALMOST 50
YEARS.
SOME WILL ARGUE THAT WE NEED
MASSIVE BANKS.
BUT RECENT STUDIES SHOW THAT
OVER $100 BILLION IN ASSETS AND
BY THE WAY THESE -- WE HAVE
BANKS, AS SENATOR BROWN SAID,
WITH OVER $2 TRILLION WORTH OF ASSETS.
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS NO LONGER
ACHIEVE ADDITIONAL ECONOMIES OF
SCALE ABOVE $100 BILLION.
THEY SIMPLY BECOME DANGEROUS
CONCENTRATIONS OF FINANCIAL
POWER THAT BENEFIT FROM AN
IMPLICIT GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE
THEY WILL BE SAVED IF THEY FAIL.
WITH THIS IMPLICIT GUARANTEE
THESE FIRMS WILL CONTINUE TO
HAVE EVERY INCENTIVE TO USE
MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF SHORT-TERM
DEBT TO FINANCE THE PURCHASE OF
RISKY ASSETS.
THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL WOULD DEAL.
IT WOULD DEAL WITH THEIR ABILITY
TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT AND WOULD
STOP IT.
THEY WOULD GO ON AND DO THIS WITHOUT US.
THEY'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST AND
THERE'S NO REASON TO THINK THE
WON'T DO IT IN THE FUTURE.
UNTIL THEY CAUSE THE NEXT CRISIS
AND THE TAXPAYERS MUST BAIL THEM
OUT AGAIN.
WHILE THE $100 BILLION BANKS
WOULD BE SMALLER, THEY ARE NOT
SMALL BANKS.
AND SUCH BANKS WOULD HAVE NO
TROUBLE COMPETING AROUND THE
WORLD.
AND UNDER THIS BILL, WE WOULD
STILL HAVE BANKS FAR BIGGER THAN
EVEN THAT SIZE.
JUST BECAUSE -- AND PEOPLE SAY
TO ME, WELL, LOOK AT THE OTHER
COUNTRIES.
LOOK WHAT THER IN A DOING.
JUST BECAUSE OTHER LOOK WHAT THE
THEY'RE DOING.
JUST BECAUSE OTHER COUNTRIES
HAVE BANKS THAT COULD SEND THEIR
COUNTRY INTO A FINANCIAL CRISIS,
DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD DO THE
SAME. EVERYONE AGREES THE MOST
IMPORTANT THING IS TOO BIG TO FAIL.
HOW MUCH CAN WE RISK THAT, BY
DOING WHAT OTHER COUNTRIES ARE
DOING WHEN THEY'RE CREATING
BANKS THAT ARE CLEARLY TOO BIG
TO FAIL?
MOST PEOPLE IN THE OIL INDUSTRY
DID WELL NDERS THE BREAK -- DID
WELL UNDER THE BREAKUP OF
STANDARD OIL?
AND THE BREAKUP OF AT&T HELPED
THE TELECOM INDUSTRY BECOME MORE
COMPETITIVE AND PROFITABLE.
THE BILL CONTAINS MANY IMPORTANT
PROVISIONS THAT ADDRESS THE
CAUSES OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS
BUT WHY RISK LEAVING OVERSIZE
INSTITUTIONS IN PLACE WHERE THEY
POTENTIALLY ARE TOO BIG TO FL?
INSTEAD, WE SHOULD MEET THE
CHALLENGE OF THE MOMENT AND THE
COURAGE TO ACT, AS IN THIS BILL,
TO LIMIT THE SIZE AND PRACTICES
OF THESE LITERALLY COLOSSAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, THE
STABILITY OF WHICH IS AHREAT
TO OUR ECONOMY.
THIS BILL IS THE BEST HOPE TO
ENSURE FUTURE DECADES OF
FINANCIAL STABILITY AND THE
LIVELIHOODS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THIS BILL WOULD PUT THE DAYS OF
TOO BIG TO FAIL FOREVER BEHIND
US.
MR. BROWN: SENATOR, YOU KNOW,
THIS IS -- THIS IS -- SOME
PEOPLE THINK ABOUT THIS AS --
IT'S A PRETTY BIG STEP TO
DECIDE, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO
LIMIT THE SIZE OF BAIFNTLE IT'S
NOT SOMETHING WE LIKE TO DO.
WE DON'T WANT TO DO MORE
REGULATION THAN WE HAVE TO.
WE DON'T WANT TO TELL SUCCESSFUL
COMPANIES NOT TO GROW.
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT -- WHEN YOU
LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE
PAST, YOU LOOK AT WHAT SENATOR
KAUFMAN SAID, THAT WE DID THIS
RIGHT IN THE 1930'S AND IT
PROTECTED OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM,
WITH A FEW HICKUPS BUT WITH NO
SERIOUS, SERIOUS PROBLEMS UNTIL
THE END OF THIS LAST DECADE WHEN
PRESIDENT BUSH AND THE CONGRESS
-- STARTING WITH PRESIDENT
CLINTON
ACCELERATED IT, WEAKENED
REGULATION, REPEALED REGULATION
AND WHEN THERE WAS REGULATION
APPOINTED, YOU MIGHT USE THE
TERM "LAP DOGS" -- THAT MIGHT
NOT BE A SENATORIAL WORD.
MR. KAUFMAN: PEOPLE WHO
SELF-REGULATION WILL WORK.
ALAN GREENSPAN WAS ALSO QUOTED
AS SAYING THAT WE SHOULD BREAK
THE BANKS UP.
AT THE TIME HE SAID, AFTER IT
WAS OVER, A YEAR LATER HE GAVE A
PEACH AND HE SAID, LOOK, YOU
KNOWREALLY THOUG
SELF-REGULATION WOULD WORK AND
I'LL DISMAYED THAT IT DIDN'T.
AND THE WAY I PUT IT, IT WAS
LIKE THERE WAS A WHOLE GROUP OF
FOLKS -- NOT JUST
FINANCIAL REGULATORY, BUT ALL
OVER THE GOVERNMENT -- WHO
BASICALLY BELIEVED THE MARKETS ARE GREAT.
I AM A BIG BELIEVER IN MARKETS
BUT I ALSO LIKE FOOTBALL.
AND THE IDEA THAT SOMEBODY WOULD
SAY, FOOTBALL IS REALLY GREAT
BUT THE REFEREES KEEP BLOWING
THEIR DAMN
LET'S GET THE REFEREES OFF THE
FIELD SO FOOTBALL PLAYERS CAN BE FOOTBALL PLAYERS.
THAT'S WHAT WE ESSENTIALLY SAID.
WE KNEW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU
PULLED ALL THE REFEREES OFF THE FIELD.
I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE IN THE PILE.
WE SAID 'RE GOING TO PULL THE
REFEREES OFF THE FIELD AND SEE
WHAT HAPPENS.
THESE WERE GOOD PEOPLE.
THEY JUST DIDN'T BIEVE THAT
THEY HAD TO REGULATE.
WE'RE NOW SEEING THE RESULTS.
AND SENATOR T, SENATOR BROWN,
PEOPLE SAY TO US, WHEN WE
PROPOSE THESE THINGS -- I'M SURE
YOU GET THE SAME
, LOOK, WHY DON'T WE JUST LEAVE
IT UP TO THE REGULATORS?
THEY CAN SET THESE NUMBERS.
WE SHOULDN'T SET THESE NUMBERS.
LET ME READ FROM A COUPLE OF
THINGS.
THE 1970 BANK HOLDING COMPANY
ACT AMOUN AMENDMENTS GAVE THE FED THE
POWER TO TERMINATE A CPS
AUTHORITY TO ENGAGE IN
NONBANKING ACTIVITIES, BASICALLY
DOING WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
DOING, IF IT FIND SUCH ACTIONS
NECESSARY TO PREVENT UNDUE
CONCENTRATION OF RESOURCES.
I WONDER IF THAT WENT ON
RECENTLY?
-- DRESSED OR UAIR COMPETION
-- ADDRESSED OR UNFAIR
COMPETITION -- DECREASED OR
UNFAIR COMPETION, CONFLICTS OF
INTERE, OR UNSOUND BANKING PRACTICES.
THEY HAD -- THE FED HAD THE
POWER TO DO THIS.
THEY DID NOT DO THIS.
THE FINANCIAL REFORM RECOVERY
ACT ALSO GAVE THEM THE POWER TO
RESTRICT AN INSTITUTION'S SIZE.
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW IS
GIVING THE REGULATORS
ESSENTIALLY WHAT THEY ALREADY
HAVE IN THE PRESENT BILL.
WHAT SENATOR BROWN ANDRY SAYING
AND THE OTHER COSPONSORS ARE
SAYING IS, LOOK, THE BUCK STOPS HERE.
WE SHOULD TELL THE REGULATORS
WHAT THESE PERCENTAGES ARE GOING
TO BE BECAUSE IF YOU LEAVE IT UP
-- THIS IS VERY DIFFICULT.
AS SENATOR BROWN SAID, THESE ARE
VERY POWERFUL PEOPLE AND VERY
POWERFUL INSTITUTIONS.
AND THEY HIRE THE VERY BEST
PEOPLE TO COME AND MAKE THEIR
ARGUMENTS.
SO IF YOU'RE SIGNATURE THERE
RUNNING A REGULATORY AGENCY AND
YOU'RE SAY, OH, MY GOD, I DON'T
WANT TO DO
SHRINK THESE THINGS DOWNES.
AND REMBER ONE OTHER THING,
TOO.
AS BAD AS THINGS WERE IN THIS
LATEST CRISIS, THINK ABOUT
WHAT'S HAPPENED DURING THIS
CRIS.
THEY'VE ALL EXPLODED.
WHAT DID WE HAVE HAPPEN?
J.P. MORGAN CHASE, THEY NOW
INCLUDE WASHINGTON MUTUAL, ADS
400 BILLION BANK.
BANK OF THE AMERICA NOW INCLUDES
MERRILL LITHUANIA.
BANK OF
AMERICA NOW INCLUDES MERRILL LYNCH.
WELLS FARGO NOW
THESE WERE WERE BIG.
WE PUT THE REGULATION N WE
CHANGED THE LAWS.
NOW THEY ARE BIGGER.
AS HE SAYS, 63% -- THEIR ASSETS
ARE 63% OF THE GROSS DOMESTIC
PRODUCT OF THIS COUNTRY.
15 YEARS AGO THEY WERE 17% OF
GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT.
WHAT DO WE HAVE D.O.D. H. TO DO
BEFORE SOMEONE SENDS THE MESSAGE
THAT THESE THINGS ARE TOO BIG
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS CONGRESS,
NOT PASS THE BUCK TO THE
REGULATORS WHO DIDN'T DO THE JOB
IN THE PAST AND LET ME JUST SAY
THIS.
I THINK THE WORLD OF OUR REGULATORS NOW.
I DON'T THINK THEY'RE PEOPLE
REGULATING NOW THAT WHO BAIIVE
BASICALLY BELIEVE WE SHOULDN'T REGULATE.
WE MADE A DISHAITION HELPED US
THROUGH THREE GENERATION.
WHAT DO WE DO WITH SENATORS ON
THE FLOOR PASSING LEGISLATION
BASED ON THE FACT I TRUST MY REGULATORS NOW.
WHY AREN'T WE PASSING
LEGISLATION THAT WILL WORK OVER
THE NEXT TWO OR THREE
GENERATIONS?
SOMETHING THAT WILL WORK WHETHER
WE GET A PRESIDENT THAT
WE SHOULD HAVE MARKET OR NOT,
WHETHER WE HAVE A
GOOD REGULATOR OR NOT.
WHY SHOULDN'T THE UNITED STATES
DO ITS JOB AND BASICALLY
RESTRICTIONS OF THE KIND THAT
ARE IN THIS BILL SO THAT THE
REGULATO HAVE? THEN THEY CAN ENFORCE IT.
THEY CAN DO THE ENFORCEMENT,
WHICH IS THEIR JOB.
BUT WE JUST SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE
TO PEOPLE THAT THIS IS WHAT WE
HAVE TO DO.
MR. BROWN: EXACTLY.
SENATOR KAUFMAN MADE A POINT
MAYBE FIVE MINUTES AGO THAT --
THAT SOME OF THE SMARTEST PEOPLE
IN THE COUNTRY ARE WORKING ON
WALL STREET, AND THERE IS --
THERE IS HUGE INCENTIVE FOR
SMART PEOPLE TO GO TO WALL
STREET AND BE CREATIVE AND --
AND INVENT NEW INSTRUMENTS AND
NEW FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS AND
SAY IN MANY WAYS A STEP -- STAY
ASTEP AHEAD OF THE REGULATORS,
IN SOME SENSE A STEP AHEAD OF
THE SHERIFF, IF YOU WILL.
AND THOSE REGULATORS, WHO ARE
PAID PROBABLY 1/10th
1/100th -- THE REGULATORS ARE
PAID DECENT MIDDLE-CLASS
SALARIES THAT MOST AMERICANS
WOULD BE VERY HAPPY WITH BUT
SOME OF THESE VERY SMART PEOPLE
ON WALL STREET ARE PAID A
HUNDRED TIME, A THOUSAND TIMES,
TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND
THERE IS HUGE INCENTIVE FOR THEM
TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO STAY AHEAD
OF THE REGULATORS.
THAT'S WHY SO IT'S SO IMPORTANT
THAT WE -- WE HAVE STRONG
REGULATORS, WE HAVE -- WE ALWAYS WORK TO DO THAT.
AND WE HAVE GOOD
BUT -- AND IT'S IMPORTANT THAT A PRESIDENT APPOINT PEOPLE WHO
HAVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN
MIND, WHEN PRESIDENTS HAVEN'T
ALWAYS DONE IN THE LAST DECADE,
AND IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE WRITE
DIFFERENT RULES, AND THAT'S
EXACTLY WHAT -- WHAT WE WANT TO
DO TO
AND WE HAD PROBLEMS WITH RATING
AGENCIES WHO GAMED THE SYSTEM.
WE HAD PROBLEMS WITH MORTGAGE BROKERS.
WE HAD PROBLEMS WITH WALL STREET.
WE HAD PROBLEMS WITH PEOPLE
CREATING THESE NEW C.D.O.'S AND
OTHER FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS,
PARTICULARLY THE SO-CALLED
SYNTHETIC ONES THAT HAD NO REAL
BASIS IN ANY -- ANY WEALTH
CREATION FOR SOCIETY, ONLY
WEALTH CREATION FOR EAC OTHER.
AND THAT SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK FOR
FOR -- ULTIMATELY IT DOESN'T WORK FOR WALL STREET.
IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T WORK FOR
OUR COUNTRY.
SO IN
WILL -
WE'RE INTRODUCING IT TODAY, FIVE
OR SIX OF US WILL OFFER IT AS AN
AMENDMENT SOMETIME IN T NEXT WEEK OR TWO.
WE ASK OUR COLLEAGUES SUPPORT IT.
IF WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH
TOO-BIG-TO-FAIL, WE SURELY TO
WANT DEAL WITH IT ON THE END IF
THERE ARE BANKS THAT ARE ABOUT
TO FAIL, BUT WE NEED TO
SORT OF AHEAD OF TIME,
ANTICIPATION DEAL WITH IT BY NOT
LETTING THESE BANKS WHO, NO
MATTER HOW GOOD THE REGULATORS
ARE, NOT LETTING THESE BANKS GET
TOO BIG.
REGULATORS THE TOOLS THEY NEED
TO DO THEIR JOB AND THE -- AND
THE GUIDELINES BECAUSE WE KNOW
WHAT THESE GUIDELINES ARE.
THESE ARE NOT REALLY
TE
THEY'RE JUST THE ABILITY TO STOP
WHAT'S GOING ON NOW, TO GET
BANKS BACK TO THE SIZE THEY CAN
BE MANAGED.
AS SENATOR BROWN SAID, THEY --
THESE BANKS HAVE A COMPETIVE
ADVANTAGE BECAUSE WHEN THEY'RE
TOO BIG TO FAIL, NOT ONLY DO WE
HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BAILING THEM
OUT, BUT THEY GET ALL THEIR
INTEREST RE CHARGES ARE LOW.
AND WE KNOW THAT.
THE INTEREST RATE CHARGES ON
C.D.'S ON THESE MAJOR BANKS,
THEY GET HIGHER INTEREST RATE
THAN OTHER BANKS. AND IT'S UNFAIR COMPETION TO
ALL THE OTHER SMALL BANKS AROUND THE COUNTRY.
SO THIS IS NOT -- AS I SAID IN
THE BEGINNING OF MY REMARKS,
THIS IS A VERY SPLE
PROPOSITION, IS THE SENATE GOING
TO DO ITS JOB TO MAKE SURE THA
THAT -- THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE
THE ABILITY TO KEEP THESE BANKS
FROM BEING TOO BIG TO FAIL AND
SPROPG WE NEVER HAVE TO --
GET TO THE RESOLUTION AUTHORITY.
MR. BROWN: AS
SAID, IF WE DO THIS RIGHT,
MR. PRESIDENT, IT WILL BE -- IT
WILL TAKE CARE OF THIS PROBLEM
SO IT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN THE NEXT
TWO O THREE GENERATIONS THE WAY
PEOPLE IN THE 1930'S DA, OR IF
WE DON'T -- DID, OR IF WE DON'T
DO THIS BACK, WE'RE BACK AT IT
IN 10 OR 15 YEARS.
MR. KAUFMAN: BY THE WAY, LET ME
SAY O
BUT CAN YOU IMAGINE IF WE HAVE
ANOTHER PROBLEM, WHAT THE
REGULATION WOULD BE LIKE THEN? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE PROPOSALS
WOULD BE ON THIS FLOOR, IF IN
FACT, WE HAVE ANOTHER PROBLEM
1234 IT WOULD BE DRACONIAN.
AND THE THING THAT'S IMPORTANT
IS, WE WANT TO -- IT'S IMPORTANT
FOR ALL OF US.
WE ALL CARE ABOUT OUR CAPITAL MARKETS.
IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
DRIVES THIS COUNTRY, MAKES US
GREAT, IS THE CAPITAL MARKETS.
AND WE WANT TO BE CREDIBLE, WE
WANT TO BE FAIR AND WE WANT THEM
TO WORK.
SO WHAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IS
WE DON'T GET FACED WITH THIS,
AND I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT
SENATOR BROWN AND I ARE TRYING TO DO.
WE'RE TRYING TO DO A LITTLE BIT
OF PREVENTION HERE SO WE NEVER GET TO THAT END OF THE ROAD
WHERE WE HAVE TO GO TO THE RESOLUTION AUTHORITY.
MR. BROWN: AND
WELL FOR MANY YEARS AREN'T
OR SMALL BUSINESSES TODAY.
I THANK SENATOR KAUFMAN AND
YIELD THE FLOOR,
AND I SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK
QUORUM CALL:
MR. SPECTER: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA.
MR. SPECTER: MR. PRESIDENT, I
ASK CONSENT THAT FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS UNDE THE QUORUM
CALL WITH TERMINATED.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. SPECTER: I HAVE SOUGHT
RECOGNITION TO VIGOROUSLY,
ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORT THE
NOMINATION OF UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE THOMAS I.
VANASKIE FOR THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.
JUDGE VANASKIE
TO ME PERSONALLY FOR THE BETTER
PART OF TWO, PERHAPS EVEN THREE
DECADES AS A PRACTICING LAWYER
IN PENNSYLVANIA, AS A JUDGE ON
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT COURT.
I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF
RECOMMENDING HIM TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE UNITED -- FOR
THE COURT OF APPEALS TOO BUT
ORIGINALLY FOR THE DISTRICT
COURT DURING THE CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION.
AND HAVE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF
JOINING WITH SENATOR CASEY IN
RECOMMENDING HIM TO PRESIDENT
OBAMA FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.
JUDGE VANASKIE HAS A SPECTACULAR RECORD.
A GRADUATE OF LYCOMIE COLLEGE,
1975, B.A. DEGREE CUM LAUDE,
DICKINSON LAW SCHOOL, 1978,
MAGNA CUM LAUDE, WAS LAW CLERK
TO JUDGE WILLIAM NEALON FROM
1978-1980.
FOR THOSE WHO KNOW JUDGE NEALON,
A MASTERFUL JUDGE, A PARAGON, A
GREAT PERSON TO LEARN FROM.
AND PRIVATE PRACTICE IN SCRANTON
FROM
AND HE WAS CONFIRMED TO THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA ON FEBRUARY 10 OF
1994.
JUDGE VANASKIE HAS BEEN A
CONFIRMATION FOR SOME TIME NOW.
HE HAS HAD HIS HEARING, WAS
REPORTED OUT OF THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE BY A VOTE OF 16-3.
A REALLY OUTSTANDING JURIST.
DURING THE COURSE OF THE
DISCUSSIONS ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WHERE I HAVE SERVED
DURING ALL OF MY TENURE IN T
SENATE, THERE WAS NOTHING REALLY
SAID IN ANY WAY WHICH WAS
SUBSTANTIVE IN OPPOSITION.
CONTENTION WAS RAISED THAT HE
HAS CITED FOREIGN LAW, THE LAW
OF OTHER COUNTRIES, BUT THAT IS
IN KEEPING WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES WHICH HAVE CITED FOREIGN
LEGAL PRECEDENT.
NOT THAT THEY ARE BINDING.
THEY ARE NOT THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
THEY ARE NOT THE DECISIONS IN
THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL
JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
BUT THEY HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED BY
THE SUPREME COURT AS WORTHY O
SOME C
IT IS
VANASKIE HAS BEEN CAUGHT UP IN
THE PARTISAN BATTLE IN THE
UNITED STATES SENATE.
THIS IS PART OF A BROADER
PICTURE OF GRIDLOCK OF THE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES AS
WE HAVE SEEN THE POPULARITY AND
APPROVAL RATING OF MEMBERS OF
THE HOUSE AND SENATE FALL
PRECIPITOUSLY BECAUSE OF WHAT
AMERICA IS SEEING GOING ON IN
THE -- IN THIS BODY AND ACROSS
THE ROTUNDA IN THE HOUSE O
REPRESENTATIVES.
WE SEE A STIMULUS PACKAGE WHERE
THERE IS VERY LITTLE WILLINGNESS
ON THE PART OF PEOPLE ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE TO NEGOTIATE WITH PEOPLE ON THIS
SIDE OF THE AISLE.
WE HAVE SEEN A HEALTH CARE
PACKAGE ENACTED INTO LAW WITHOUT
A SINGLE VOTE IN THE UNITED
STATES SENATE
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
176 REPUBLICANS SAID NO AND ONE
SAID YES.
ON RECONCILIATION, ALL 177 SAID
NO AND ALL 41 IN THE UNITED
STATES SENATE SAID NO.
THERE HAS BEEN A POINT REACHED
WHERE THERE'S REALLY AN ISSUE OF
WHETHER THERE COULD BE
GOVERNANCE AT ALL WITH AN
OBSTRUCTIVE MAJORITY STANDING
FAST.
WE HAVE SEEN A SLIGHT BREAK IN
RANKS WHEN THE ISSUE CAME UP ON
THE VACATION FOR THE PAYROLL TAX
TAX, ONE REPUBLICAN STOOD UP AND
VOTED WITH DEMOCRATS AND THAT
LED A FEW OTHERS TO -- TO JOIN.
AND ON UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, AGAIN ONE
REPUBLICAN TOOK THE LEAD AND A
FEW OTHERS JOINED.
AND IT IS I THINK REALISTIC TO
CONCLUDE THAT IT'S THE PRESSURE
FROM BACK HOME.
THERE ARE SOME ON THE OTHER SIDE
OF THE AISLE WHO MAY SENSIBLY
CALCULATE -- I DON'T FAULT THEM
FOR THE CALCULATION -- THAT THEY
HAVE TO HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY IF
THEY WANT RETURN TO THIS BODY.
WE HAVE
HAD CONCERNS ON WALL STREET
WHICH ARE OVERWHELMING WITH WHAT
HAS GONE ON IN THE ECONOMY.
THE PRECIPITOUS GREAT RECESSION
WHICH HAS ENGULFE AMERICA AND
HAS ENGULFE THE WORLD, AND FOR
A LENGTHY PERIOD OF TIME THERE
HAS BEEN RESISTANCE TO ANY REAL
NEGOTIATION BY THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE.
AND FINALLY WITHIN THE LAST DAY
OR TWO THERE HAS BEEN SOME
WILLINGNESS TO CONSIDER
LEGISLATION, ALTHOUGH WALL
STREET ISSUED.
AND I THINK THAT HAS COME ABOUT
AS A RESULT OF PUBLIC PRESSURE.
IT'S SIMPLY STATED IN POLITIC TO
BE AGAINST REFORM IN WALL STREET
CONSIDERING WHAT HAS GONE ON.
BUT IT WOULD BE MY HOPE THAT
THESE CRACKS IN THE DYE WOULD
LEAD TO SOME SUBSTANTIAL SHIFT
IN POSITION SO THAT WE COULD
RETURN TO A BIPARTISANSHIP WHIC
WAS PRESENT IN THIS BODY WHEN I
WAS ELECTED IN 1980.
AT THAT TIME WE HAD A SENATOR IN
MARYLAND WILLING TO CROSS THE
AISLE AND MARK HATFIELD IN
OREGON SIMILARLY AND LOWELL
WEIKER IN CONNECTICUT AND BOB
STAFFORD IN VERMONT AND JOHN
HEINZ IN PENNSYLVANIA AND JOHN
CHAFEE IN RHODE ISLAND AND BILL
COHEN IN MAINE.
SO THAT WHEN WE HAD THE
SO-CALLED WEDNESDAY CLUB, IT WAS
FULL.
AND THAT HAS DWINDLED SO THAT
THE MODERATES CAN MEET IN A
TELEPHONE BOOTH TODAY.
AND WE REALLY OUGHT TO GO BACK
TO THE DAYS OF JUST A LITTLE BIPARTISANSHIP.
WE HAD AN ENORMOUS PROBLEM IN
2005 WHEN THE SHOE WAS ON THE
OTHER FOOT, AND THE
FILIBUSTERING WAS BEING DONE ON
THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE.
FORTUNATELY WE WERE ABLE TO WORK
THROUGH THAT PROBLEM.
THERE WAS FLIRTATION WITH THE
NUCLEAR, SO-CALLED
CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION WHICH
WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE RULES ON FILIBUSTER.
WE PRESERVED THE PROCEDURE OF
THE SENATE, THE TRADITION OF THE
SENATE TO BE THE SAUCER WHICH
COOLS THE TEA, AS THE EXPRESSION
WAS USED DURING THE COLONIAL DAYS.
AND I THINK VERY IMPORTANTLY TO
MAINTAIN THAT TRADITION AND THAT
PROCEDURE.
IT WAS THE COOLNESS OF THE
SENATE WHICH SAVED THE
INDEPENDENCE OF THE FEDERAL
JUDICIARY IN THE IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDING OF SUPREME COURT
JUSTICE CHASE IN 1805 THAT
PRESERVED THE INDEPENDENCE OF
THE PRESIDENCY AND THE ACQUITTAL
ON THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING OF
ANDREW JOHNSON, WHEN A
CONTROVERSY AROSE WITH THE CLAIM
BEING MADE THAT THERE HAD TO BE
CONGRESSIONAL OR SENATORIAL
APPROVAL TO FIRE A STANDING
SECRETARY OF WAR BARRICADED
HIMSELF IN THE OFFICE.
PRESIDENT JOHNSON REFUSED,
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WERE
FILED AND HE WAS SAVED BY THE
VOTE OF A SENATOR
GROWING UP IN KANSAS, THERE WAS
GREAT PRIDE IN THE STATE ABOUT
THAT COURAGEOUS SENATOR WHO
STOOD UP AND LATER WAS DEFEATED.
MAYBE THAT'S -- I WON'T MAKE ANY
PREDICTIONS THERE -- THE COST OF
STANDING UP.
BUT IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN THE
TRADITIONS OF THIS BODY.
BUT WE HAVE TO DO IT IN THE
CONTEXT OF CAPACITY TO THE
GOVERNMENT.
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE JACKSON IN
A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT CONTEXT
SAID THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A
SUICIDE PACT.
WHATEVER RULES WE HAVE ARE NOT
SUBSTITUTE FOR OUR CAPACITY TO GOVERN.
WE HAVE SEEN THIS PATTERN
ILLUSTRATED BY THE NOMINATION OF
BARBARA KEENAN OF VIRGINIA.
JUDGE KEENAN'S NOMINATION WAS
STALLED FOR FOUR MONTHS.
AFTER THE TIME-CONSUMING PROCESS
OF CLOTURE, HER NOMINATION WAS
APPROVED 99-0.
WELL, IF SHE CAN BE APPROVED
99-0, WHY REQUIRE THE FILING OF
A CLOTURE PETITION?
WHY TIE UP THIS SENATE FOR THE
BETTER PART OF TWO DAYS?
MAY THE RECORD SHOW THAT THE
DISTINGUISHED PRESIDING OFFICER,
THE JUNIOR SENATOR FROM
MINNESOTA, IS NODDING IN
REEMENT WITH MY STATEMENT
THAT'S A PROCEDURE WE LAWYERS
USED TO PERFECT THE RECORD.
BUT THAT HAS BEEN THE POLICY.
TYING UP THIS BODY, GOING TO
CLOTURE, THE DELAY, AND THEN
OVERWHELMING CONFIRMATIONS, NOT
ONLY UNANIMOUS, BUT VERY, VERY SUBSTANTIAL.
AND I PREDICT THAT IS WHAT WILL
HAPPEN WITH JUDGE VANASKIE HERE
TODAY WHEN THE ROLL IS CALLED A
LITTLE LATER THIS AFTERNOON.
ONE ADDITIONAL NOTE, TEETH
PROCEED -- THESE PROCEEDINGS
TAKE A VERY HEAVY TOLL ON THE NOMINEE.
JUDGE VANASKIE IS A MAN DEVOTED
TO PUBLIC SERVICE.
WHEN HE WAS PRACTICING LAW IN
SCRANTON, HIS PAYCHECK WAS A
GREAT DEAL BIGGER THAN WHEN HE
BECAME A FEDERAL JUDGE.
AND WHEN HE COMES IN TO THE
PROCESS OF NOMINATING PROCEDURE
AND HE IS QUESTIONED AND HIS
WRITINGS ARE IMPUGNED BECAUSE HE
FOLLOWS THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, IT'S A JOLT, AND
IT'S HARD ON THE VANASKIE FAMILY
AND IT'S HARD ON THE COMMUNITY.
I'VE HAD MANY CALLS FROM THE
PEOPLE IN JUDGE VANASKIE'S
COMMUNITY SAYING WHAT'S GOING ON
IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE?
WHAT IS GOING ON?
WHAT IS HAPPENING?
REPEATED CALLS.
SO FINALLY I DECIDED TO WRITE A
COLUMN FOR "THE SCRANTON TIMES TRIBUNE" EXPLAING WHAT HAPPENS
IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE AS
TO WHY THE DELAY HAS OCCURRED.
SO I AM GD TO SEE THIS BROUGHT
A CLOSE.
I HOPE THAT WE WILL MOVE THE
APPOINTMENTS OF THE PRESIDENT.
CONSIDERATION IS BEING GIVEN TO
LIMITING THE FILIBUSTER, NOT
HAVING IT APPLY TO MEMBERS OF
THE ADMINISTRATION.
WE ALL CONCEDE IT IS A
GOVERNMENTAL DOCTRINE THAT THE
PRESIDENT OUGHT TO HAVE THE
RIGHT TO NAME HIS OWN TEAM.
MAINTAIN THE FILIBUSTER FOR
JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS WHERE
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS.
BUT THIS IS A GOOD AND TRUE MAN,
AND HE'S BEEN SUBJECTED TO A
PROCESS WHICH IS FUNDAMENTALLY
UNFA.
AND I'M GLAD TO SEE IT BROUGHT
TO AN END THIS AFTERNOON.
I ASK CONSENT THAT THE COPY OF
THE ARTICLE WHICH I WROTE FOR
"THE SCRANTON TIMES TRIBUNE"
DATED FEBRUARY 26, 2010, BE
INCLUDED IN THE RECORD.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. SPECTER: I THANK THE CHAIR
AND YIELD THE
MR. SPECTER: I SUGGEST THE
ABSENCE OF A
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. SPECTER: I
PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE QUORUM BE TERMINATED.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. SPECTER: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT THE VOTE ON
CONFIRMATION OF THE NOMINATION
OF JUDGE THOMAS VANASKIE OCCUR
AT 5:30 P.M. TODAY WITH THEIME
UNTIL THEN DIVIDED AS PREVIOUSLY
ORDERED, AND THE REMAINING
PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER
GOVERNING CONSIDERATION OF THIS
NOMINATION STILL IN EFFT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
MR. SPECTER: IN THE ABSENCE OF
ANY SENATOR
I SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE PRESIDING
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
MR. SESSIONS: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM ALABAMA.
MR. SESSIONS: I WOULD ASK THAT
THE QUORUM CALL BE DISPENSED WITH.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. SESSIONS: MR. PRESIDENT, I
WOULD BRIEFLY WANT TO SHARE A
FEW THOUGHTS ABOUT JUDGE THOMAS
VANASKIE, WHO'S BEEN NOMINATED
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF
POSITION.
HE CURRENTLY SERVES ON THE
DISTRICT COURT OF THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND I
DO INTEND TO SUPPORT HIS
NOMINATION, GIVE DEFERENCE TO
THE PRESIDENT.
I'D JUST LIKE TO SHARE A THOUGHT
OR TWO ABOUT HIS TESTIMONY
BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
HE DID SAY HE BELIEVED THAT
AMERICAN COURTS SHOULD NOT USE
FOREIGN LAW IN INTERPRETING THE
CONSTITUTION BUT HE DID BELIEVE
THAT THE SUPREME COURT PROPEY
USED FOREIGN LAW IN CASES LIKE
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, AND I THINK
THAT'S A BIT CONTRADICTORY.
AND IN ROPER v. SIMMONS, THE
SUPREME COURT ALSO CONCLUDED
THAT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE
OF -- QUOTE -- "EVOLVING
STANDARDS OF DECENCY" WOULD NOW
PROHIBIT STATES FROM IMPOSING A
DEATH PENALTY ON JUVENILES WHO
COMMIT MURDER.
I THINK THAT IS A LEGITIMATE
PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE TO DISCUSS,
BUT THE QUESTION IS, DOES THE
CONSTITUTION SAY THAT A STATE IS
NOT ABLE TO DECIDEHAT AGE
PEOPLE ARE ECUTED -- ARE TO BE
EXECUTED.
HE SAID ANOTHER POINT, THAT
FOREIGN LAW WAS RELEVANT TO
DETERMING FUNDAMENTAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
WELL, OUR DOCUMENT, OUR
CONSTITUTION IS THE ONE THAT WE
HAVE AND JUDGES, IF THEY'RE
FAITHFUL TO OUR OATH, WILL
ENFORCE THIS CONSTITUTION, OUR
CONSTITUTION, THE ONE THAT WE
HAVE.
IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME TO
COMPREHEND HOW SOMEBODY COULD
CONCLUDE THAT A LEGAL ACTION IN
THE EUROPEAN UNION WOULD PROVIDE
ILLUMINATION TO A JUDGE ON HOW
TO INTERPRET OUR CONSTITUTION
AND WHAT IT MEANT BY THE PEOPLE
WHO PASSED I
BY THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE
WORDS.
SO I THINK THIS IS A BAD
PHILOSOPHY.
IT'S A -- EVIDENCED A
DETACHMENT -- EVIDENCES A
DETACHMENT FROM THE
FROM THE LIMITED ROLE THEY'RE GIVEN.
WE HAVE LIMITED POWERS, THE
PRESIDENT HAS LIMITED POWERS,
THE COURTS HAVE LIMITED POWERS.
COURTS ARE NOT EMPOWERED TO
REINTERPRET OUR LAWS AND OUR
CONSTITUTION BASED ON SOME
BETTER IDEA THEY THINK THEY MAY
FIND IN FRANCE.
THEY JUST ARE NOT.
THIS IS NOT A LITTLE-BITTY MATTER.
BUT IT'S A TREND THAT'S OCCURRED
IN OUR COURTS AND I'M
DISAPPOINTED THAT SEVERAL OF THE
PRESIDENT'S NOMINEES SEEM TO BE
SEDUCED BY THESE IDEAS,
INCLUDING SPEECHES MADE BY
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR ON THE SUPREME COURT.
SHE TALKED ABOUT HOW SHE FAVOR
JUSTICE GINSBUR
ABOUT THAT.
SO I WANT TO GIVE THIS JUDGE
A -- THE BENEFIT OF THE.
HE DID SAY THAT HE DIDN'T FOLLOW
THIS DOCTRINE TO THE FULL EXTENT
OF IT, AND I'LL GIVE HIM THE
BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.
BUT ALSO, SOME OF HIS STATEMENTS
INDICATE THAT HE MAY YET BE
SEDUCED BY THIS IDEA.
HE HAD DIFFICULTY ARTICULATING
ANY LIMIT ON THE COMMERCE POWER.
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE SAYS
CONGRESS CAN REGATE COMMERCE.
DOES THAT MEAN EVERYTHING?
COMMERCE MEAN THAT YOU CAN
DOWN INTO OKLAHOMA AND TELL AN
INDIVIDUAL FARMER YOU HAVE TO
HAVE INSURANCE?
THAT RAISES A SERIOUS QUESTION
OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWER.
AND DOES THAT
COMMERCE?
WELL, YOU COULD THEORETICALLY
CONJURE UP A WAY THAT IT COULD.
BUT I WANT TO KNOW THAT A UNDERSTANDS THERE ARE -- THERE
IS SOME LIMIT TO THE AMOUNT OF
REACH THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT CAN HAVE.
NOW, WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF
PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT THE
PROCESS OF CONFIRMATION AND THAT
JUDGES ARE BEING -- ARE LANGUISH
LANGUISHING BEFORE THE SENATE N.
PARTICULAR, MY FRIEND, SENATOR
WHITEHOUSE, NOTED THE NOMINATION
OF JUDGE JAMES WINN, JUDGE
ALBERT DIAZ TO THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT.
SENATOR WHITEHOUSE HASN'T BEEN
HERE SINCE -- BUT SINCE 2006, SO
HE ISN'T FAMILIAR WITH SOME OF
THE PROCEDURES THAT HAVE GONE ON
IN OUR CONGRESS.
WYNN AND DIAZ' NOMINATIONS HAVE
BEEN PENDING IN THE SENATE FOR
ONLY 167 DAYS.
THAT'S HALF THE TIME -- HALF THE
TIME -- THAT PRESIDENT BUSH'S
CIRCUIT COURT NOMINEES WAITED. 350 DAYS.
IN FACT, FOUR OF PRESIDENT
BUSH'S NOMINEES TO THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT NEVER RECEIVED ANY
HEARING, AND THEY WERE HIGHLY
QUALIFIED NOMINEES.
THOSE NOMINEES, MR. STEVE
MATTHEWS, CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT
CONRAD, JUDGE GLENN CONRAD, AND
FORMER MARYLAND UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, ROB ROWENSTEIN WERE
WELL QUALIFIED, HAD BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT OF THEIR HOME STATE
SENATORS, YET THEY WERE BLOCKED
STEADFASTLY FROM EVER MOVING
FORWARD
PRESIDENT BUSH NOMINATED STEVE
MATTHEWS IN SEPTEER OF 2007 TO
THE SAME SEAT ON THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT FOR WHICH JUDGE DIAZ HAS
NOW BEEN NOMINATED AND EXPECTS
TO BE CONFIRMED AND WILL BE
CONFIRMED, I'M SURE.
BUT FOR THEM -- TO HEAR WHINING
ABOUT HOW LONG IT TAKES JUDGE
DIAZ TO MOVE ALONG IN A FAIRLY
STEADFAST WAY, IN LIGHTF WHAT
WAS DONE TO MR. MATTHEWS, IS A
BIT MUCH, TO ME.
I JUST HAVE TO TELL YOU.
WE ALL KNOW -- YOU KNOW, THIS IS
A ROBUST BODY.
WE DON'T MIND SPEAKING OUR MINDS.
BUT MR. MATTHEWS HAD THE SUPPORT
OF HIS HOME STATE SENATORS AND
RECEIVED AN A.B.A. RATING
QUALIFIED.
HE WAS A GRADUATE OF YALE LAW
SCHOOL, HAD A DISTINGUISHED
CAREER IN PRIVATE PRACTICE AND
WAS -- WAITED -- HE WAITED 485
DAYS FOR A HEARING AND NEVER
GONE -- NEVER GOT ONE.
SO HIS NOMINATION WAS RETURNED,
EXPIRED IN JANUARY OF 2009. ANOTHER OF PRESIDENT BUSH'S
, CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT
CONRAD WAS NOMINATED TO THE SEAT
FOR WHICH JUDGE WYNN IS NOW
NOMINATED.
HE IS WANT SUPPORT OF HIS HOME
STATE SENATORS, RECEIVED AN
A.B.A. RATING OF UNANIMOUSLY
WELL QUALIFIED, THE HIGHEST YOU
CAN GET.
JUDGE CONRAD MET CHAIRMAN
LEAHY'S STANDARD FOR
NONCONTROVERSIAL, CONSENSUS NOMINEE.
HE HAD RECEIVED BIPARTISAN
APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE WHEN
HE WAS CONFIRMED BY A VOICE VOTE
TO BE A UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
AND LATER DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH
CAROLINA.
HE WAS THEN CHIEF JUDGE.
SENATOR BURR AND DOLE SENT
LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF THAT
CONFIRMATION AND HE WAS BLOCKED.
I KNOW HE
BECAUSE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, I
USED TO SAY HE WAS THE POINT
GUARD FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF
NORTH CAROLINA BASKETBALL TEAM.
I THINK THAT WAS INCORRECT.
I THINK IT WAS POINT GUARD AT
CLEMSON.
REGARDLESS, ANYBODY THAT CAN
PLAY POINT GUARD IN THE ACC CAN
MAKE DECISIONS.
HE WAS CHOSEN OUT OF ALL THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO TO
CONDUCT A VERY SENSITIVE
INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT
CLINTON WHEN HEAS ACCUSED OF
SOME WRONGDOING.
HE CONDUCTED THAT, CONCLUDED NO
CHARGES OUGHT TO BE BROUGHT.
THIS WAS A HIGHLY QUALIFIED
PERSON
SO, MR. PRESIDENT,UR TIME IS
OUT BUT I KNOW THAT -- THAT
EVERY NOMINEE DOESN'T GET TO BE
BROUGHT UP IMMEDIATELY WHEN
THEY'RE -- THEY ARE CALLED -- WHEN THEY'RE -- SOME PEOPLE
WOULD WANT TO CALL THEIR NOMINATION UP.
IT REQUIRES UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
BRING UP A NOMINEE AND
IMMEDIATELY GET A VOTE AND
UNANIMOUS CONSENT ISN'T ALWAYS
GIVEN, SO IT SLOWS DOWN PEOPLE.
BUT I -- AND I DO BELIEVE WE
OUGHT NOT TO UNNECESSARILY DELAY
PERSONS, BUT I WOULD WANT TO SAY
TH ALACRITY BY WHICH
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S NOMINATIONS
ARE MOVING FAR SURPASSES
ANYTHI LIKE THE DIFFICULTIES
THAT PRESIDENT BUSH'S NOMINEES HAD.
I'VE BEEN HERE, I'VE SEEN IT, I
KNOW THAT TO BE A FACT, AND I
HOPE THAT WE CAN CREATE A
CLIMATE WHERE JUDGES HAVE A
REASONABLE TIME ON THE DOCKET,
THEY ARE -- HAVE HEARINGS IN
JUDICIARY,PPORTUNITIES ARE --
TO RAISE OBJECTIONS ARE MADE,
THE NOMINEE COMES TO THE FLOOR
AND EVENTUALLY THEY CAN BE
BROUGHT UP FOR A NOMINATION AND
A -- AND A FINAL CONFIRMATION
VOTE.
THAT WOULD BE MY REQUEST, AND I
SEE IT'S TIME FOR THE
AND I WOULD YIELD THE FLOOR.
THE PRESIDING OFFICE
IS ON THE CONFIRMATION OF THE
NOMINATION OF THOMAS VANASKIE.
THE SENATOR -- IS THERE A
SUFFICIENT SECOND?
THERE APPEARS TO BE.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
VOTE:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS
THERE ANY SENATOR WHO CARES TO
TE OR CHANGE HIS OR HER@h VOTE?
GUESS NOT, SO THE -- THE VOTES
ARE 77 AYES, 20 NOES, AND THE
CONFIRTION -- AND
NOMINATION
UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE
TION TO CONSIDER IS CONSIDERED
MADE AND LAID UPON THE TABLE,
AND THE PRESIDENT WILL BE
IMMEDIATEL
SENATE'S ACTION.
THE SENATOR FROM IOWA.
MR. GRASSLEY: I WOULD ASK --
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT WE
RETURN TO LEGISLATIVE SESSION. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SETOR FROM
MR. GRASSLEY: COULD I HAVE 10
OR 12 MINUTES IN MORNING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. GRASSLEY: MR. PRESIDENT, I
WANT TO ADDRESS --
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: PLEASE,
ORDER IN THE CHAMBER, PLEASE,
FOR THE SENATOR FROM IA.
THE SENATOR FROM IOWA.
MR. GRASSLEY: MR. PRESIDENT, I
HAVEN'T LISTENED TO EVERY
ON THE FLOOR IN THE LAST WEEK OR
SO, WHETHER IT'S BEEN A LOT OF
TALKS ABOUT SECRET HOLDS AND
EVERYTHING.
BUT SINCE I HAVE BEEN IN THE
SENATEORKING WITH SENATOR
BIDEN OVER A COURSE OF MAYBE A
DECADE IN A BIPARTISAN WAY, NOT
TO DO AWAY WITHHOLDS BUT TO HAVE
A TRANSPARENCY OF HOLDS, AND
SEEING THOSE THINGS
AND THEN PARTICULARLY TO SEE
EXCEPTION TAKEN TO WHAT'S
HAPPENED WHEN THIS SIDE OF THE
AISLE HAS PUT HOLDS ON, AND THEN
CONSIDERING WHEN WE -- WHEN
SENATOR WYDEN AND I DID TRY TO
DO SOMETHING THA
PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
AISLE, I'D APPRECIATE IT IF DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THE SENATE
WOULD LISTEN WHILE I EXPLORE
SOME OF THE HISTORY SO THAT THEY
KNOW THAT THIS BIPARTISAN
EFFORT, THAT IF IT HAD BEEN DONE
THE WAY SENATOR WYDEN AND I DID
IT BEFORE IT WAS GUTTED, THAT WE
WOULDN'T HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS
TODAY THAT WE HAVE.
SO I WANT TO GO INTO MY REMARKS,
BUT I WANT TO PREFACE IT BY
SAYING WHAT I JUS SAID.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK
RECENTLY ON THE SENATE FLOOR
ABOUT SECRET HOLDS.
R A PRACTICE WITH SO MUCH
BIPARTISAN GUILT TO GO AROUND,
IT IS INTERESTING THAT THE
DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN ON A
PARTISAN TONE.
REPUBLICANS ARE BEING ACCUSED OF
BEING PARTICULARLY EGREGIOUS
OFFENDERS WHEN IT COMES TO
CIRCUMVENTING DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS.
LET ME JUSTAY THAT IF ANY OF
MY COLLEAGUES HAVE HOLDS ON
EITHER SIDE OFHE AISLE, THEY
OUGHT TO HAVE THE GUTS TO GO
PUBLIC ANDING TO PUBLIC -- AND
TO GO PUBLIC THE MINUTE THEY PUT
THE HOLD ON IT.
NOT LIKE THIS MYSTERIOUS WAY
THAT IT'S DONE NOW, WHIC REALLY
AMOUNTS TO NOTHING.
IT HAS BEEN MY POLICY FOR YEARS
TO PLACE A BRIEF STATEMENT IN
THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD EACH
TIME I PLACED A HOLD WITH A
SHORT EXPLANATION OF WHY I
PLACED THE HOLD.
AND I DID THAT BEFORE THERE WAS
ANY GRASSLEY-BIDEN -- I SHOULD
SAY GRASSLEY WYDEN OR
WYDEN-GRASSLEY PROPOSALS.
THE CURRENT DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS FOR SECRET HOLDS
HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED QUITE A BIT
LATELY, AS HAS MY WORK IN A
BIPARTISAN WAY WITH SENATOR
WYDEN TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.
SO I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT
I GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND ABOUT
HOW WE GOT WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
AFTER MANY ATTEMPTS TO WORK WITH
VARIOUS LEADERS OVER THE YEARS
ON POLICY TO MAKE ALL HOL PUBLIC, SENATOR WYDEN AND I
DECIDED THAT THE ONLY WAY TO
SETTLE THIS MATTER ONCE AND FOR
ALL IS FOR A FULL SENATE TO
ADOPT A VERY CLEAR POLICY.
SO IN THE 109th CONGRESS
SENATOR WYDEN AND I WERE
SUCCESSFUL IN PASSING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE ETHICS REFORM
BILL BY A VERY WIDE VOTE OF
84-13 TO REQUIRE PUBLIC
DISCLOSURES OF HOLDS.
THAT BILL WAS NEVER ENACTED, BUT
THE IDENTICAL PROVISION WAS
INCLUDED IN THE ETHICS BILL
PASSED BY THE FL SENATE AT THE
VERY BEGINNING OF THE 110th
CONGRESS.
YOU MAY RECALL THAT THE
DEMOCRATS HAD JUST SECURED A
MAJORITY IN BOTH HOUSES OF
CONGRESS.
THEN IN A PROCESS THAT HAS
BECOME ALL-TOO FAMILIAR UNDER
THE PAST TWO DEMOCRATIC
CONGRESSES, THERE WAS NO
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.
INSTEAD IN A TWIST OF IRONY, THE
SO-CALLED HONEST LEADERSHIP AND
OPEN GOVERNMENT ACT WAS
REWRITTEN BEHIND CLOSED DOORS BY
THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP.
LO AND BEHOLD THE PUBLIC
DISCLORE PROVISION SENATOR
WYDEN AND I HAD WORKED SO HARD
ON AND WHICH THE SENATE HAD
OVERWHELMINGLY ADOPTED ON THAT
84-13 VOTE, HAD BEEN ALTERED,
AND ALTERED VERY SIGNIFICANTLY.
NOW, KEEP IN MIND THAT UNDER
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 5 OF THE
CONSTITUTION, EACH HOUSE MAY
DETERMINE THE RULES OF ITS PROCEEDINGS.
THAT MEANS THAT THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES HAS NO SAY
WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE SENATE
RULES.
WHEN THE FULL SENATE SPEAKS ON A
MATTER OF SENATE PROCEDURE, THAT
SHOULD BE THE FINAL WORD.
AND PARTICULARLY IF IT'S 84-13.
SO I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT
THE CURRENT WEAK DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS THAT WE NOW HAVE
ARE NOT THE ONES ORIGINALLY
PROPOSED BY SENATOR WYDEN AND
THIS SENATOR.
IN FACT, AT THE TIME I CAME TO
THE FLOOR AND CRITICIZED THE
SPECIFIC CHANGES BECAUSE I SAW
THAT THEY WOULD BE INEFFECTIVE
AND INEECTIVE THEY ARE.
SO LET ME REITERATE SOME OF
THOSE CRITICISMS THAT I
INITIALLY AIRED TO THE SENATE ON
TWO OCCASIONS, AUGUST 2, 2007,
AND SEPTEMBER 19, 2007.
IN THE FIRST -- IN THE VERSION
THE SENATE ORIGINALLY PASSED, WE
ALLOWED THREE DAYS OF SENATORS
TO SUBMIT A SIMPLE PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE FORM FOR THE RECORD
JUST LIKE ADDING YOURSELF AS A
COSPONSOR TO A BILL.
THIS WAS INTENDED SIMPLY TO GIVE
TIME TO PERFORM ADMINISTRATIVE
FUNCTIONS OF GETTING THE
DISCLOSURE FORM TO THE SENATE FLOOR.
NOT TO LEGITIMATIZE SECRECY FOR
THAT PERIOD OF THREE DAYS.
THE REWRITTEN PROVISION GIVES
SENATORS SIX SESSION DAYS.
NOW, THAT MIGHT NOT SOUND SO
BAD, BUT JUST WAIT TO SEE HOW
THAT ACTUALLY WORKS OUT IN
PRACTICE.
FIRST OF ALL, IT DOESN'T TAKE A
WEEK TO SEND AN INTERN DOWN TO
THE SENATE FLOOR WITH A SIMPLE
FORM SAYING THAT YOU'RE PUTTING
A HOLD ON A BILL.
THE CHANGE THAT I FIND MOST
TROUBLING IS THE SIX DAYS UNTIL
THE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT IS
TRIGGERED IN BEGINS ONLY
AFTER -- ONLY AFTER A UNANIMOUS
CONSENT REQUEST
OBJECTED TO ON THE SENATE FLOOR.
AND THAT'S TOO LATE.
BECAUSE I'MOING TO TELL YOU
HOW THAT IS INEFFECTIVE.
BY THAT POINT A HOLD COULD HAVE
EXISTED FOR QUITE SOME TIME,
PERHAPS WITHOUT THE SPONSOR OF
THE BILL EVEN REALIZING.
IN FACT, MOST HOLDS NEVER GET TO
POINT WHERE AN OBJECTION IS MADE
ON THE FLOOR BECAUSE THE THREAT
OF A HOLD PREVENTS A UNANIMOUS
CONSENT REQUEST FRC MADE IN
THE -- FROM BEING MADE IN THE
FIRST PLACE.
SO MAYBE THE SIX DAYS IS NEVER
EVEN TRIGGERED IN.
THE ORIGINAL WYDEN-GRASSLEY
PROVISION REQUIRED DISCLOSURE AT
THE TIME THE HOLD WAS PLACED.
AND THAT'S WHERE IT OUGHT TO BE
TODAY.
WE'VE HEARD LATELY ABOUT HOW MY
PARTY, THE MINORITY PARTY IN THE
SENATE, HAS USED THE WEAK
DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS TO AVOID
MAKING HOLDS PUBLIC.
HOWEVER, THIS CHANGE MADE IT FAR
LESS LIKELY THAT THE MAJORITY
PARTY HOLDS WOULD EVER, IN FACT,
EVEN BECOME PUBLIC.
SINCE THEAJORITY LEADER
COROLS THE SENATE SCHEDULE, HE
WOULD HARDLY OBJECT TO HIS OWN
REQUEST TO BRING UP A NOMINEE.
HE WOULD SIMPLY NOT BRING UP A
BILL OR NOMINEE BEING HELD UP BY
A MEMBER OF HIS OWN PARTY AND WE
MIGHT NEVER KNOW THAT ERE WAS
A HOLD ON IT AT ALL.
SO WHY WERE THESE PROVISIONS
CHANGED?
WELL, SIMPLY I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T KNOW WHO DOES KNOW
BECAUSE I CAN'T BE SURE WHO IT
WAS THAT REWROTE THESE
PROVISIONS IN SECRECY BEHD
CLOSED DOORS.
I WILL SAY THAT THE MAJORITY
PARTY SHOULD BE CAREFUL NOW, AS
THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT REPUBLICANS
EXPLOITING LOOPHOLES IN THE
DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR
HOLDS.
BOTH PARTIES ARE GUILTY OF USING
SECRET HOLDS.
BUT YOU CAN'T BLAME REPUBLICANS
FOR THE FACT THAT THE CURRENT
DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS ARE WEAK
AND INEFFECTIVE.
AGAIN, THERE'S PLENTY OF BLAME
TO GO AROUND WHEN IT COMES TO
USING SECRET HOLDS.
BUT I'M HOPEFUL THAT THIS RECENT
ATTENTION TO THE PROBLEM CAN
RESULT IN BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS
TO END SECRET HOLDS ONCE AND FOR
L, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
WE HOPE -- SENATOR WYDEN AND I
HOPE THAT OTHER PEOPLE WILL TALK
TO US ABOUT.
WE'D LIKE TO MOVE IN THIS DIRECTION.
AND I, FOR ONE, AM HAPPY TO WORK
WITH ANYONE ON EITHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE TO THAT END.
BUT IT SHOULD BE STRESSED THAT
THIS HAS BEEN A BIPARTISAN EFFORT.
EVERYBODY IN THIS BODY TALKS
ABOUT BIPARTISANSHIP.
BUT WHEN THIS THING WAS WATERED
DOWN, IT WASN'T WATERED DOWN IN
AN ENVIRONMENT THAT I KNOW ABOUT
WHERE ANY REPUBLICANS WERE PRESENT.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
MR. WYDEN: WOULD THE SENATOR
YIELD FOR A QUEST
YIELDS THE FLOOR?
THE ESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM OREGON.
WIDE WYE FIRST, LET ME --
MR. WYDEN: FIRST, LET ME TELL
HAVE ENJOYED WORKING WITH HIM ON THIS.
WE HAVE, AS INCREDIBLE AS IT
SOUNDS, A 10-YEAR CAMPAIGN TO
TRY TO END SECRECY IN THE SENATE.
JUST SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW A
LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT -- BECAUSE I
ALWAYS THINK WHEN PEOPLE HEAR
ABOUT A HOLD IN THE UNITED
STATES SENATE, THEY PROBABLY
THINK IT'S A HAIR SPRAY OR A
WRESTLING MOVE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SENATOR
CORRECT THAT A HOLD, THE ABILITY
TO BLOCK A NOMINATION OR A PIECE
OF LEGISLATION IS ONE OF THE
MOST POWERFUL TOOLS THAT A
MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES
SENATE HAS TODAY TO INFLUENCE
POLICY?
SENATOR WYDEN IS ABSOLUTELY
RIGHT.
IT IS A VERY POWFUL TOOL.
MR. WYDEN: AND WITH RESPECT TO
TRANSPARENCY, WHAT I THINK YOU
AND I HAVE FOCUSED ON ALL THESE
YOU'RE TRYING TO ABOLISH THE HOLD.
AND I THINK YOU AND I HAVE
LOOK, WE BELIEVE SENATORS OUGHT
TO HAVE A RIGHT TO WEIGH IN ON
SOMETHING IMPORTANT, BUT AT A
TIME WHEN THE PUBLIC WANTS
TRANSPARENCY, AN OPENNESS, AN
ACCOUNTABILITY,
WANTS TO USE WHAT YOU HAVE JUST
SAID IS AN EXTRAORDINARY POWER,
THE REAL PUBLIC
SATISFIED BY THAT SENATOR HAVING
TO DISCLOSE PROMPTLY THAT THEY
ARE IMPOSING A HOLD.
IS THAT A CORRECT --
MR. GRASSLEY: MR. PRESIDENT,
SENATOR WYDEN IS CORRECT.
AND I WOULD ADD, SENATO WYDEN,
THIS POINT, THAT NOT ONLY IS IT
TRANSPARENCY THAT IS ESSENTIAL
AND IT HAPPENS THAT WAY, BUT
ALSO A LOT OF TIMES HOPED ARE
PUT ON -- A LOT OF TIMES HOLDS
ARE PUT ON BECAUSE PEOPLE --
THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG.
WELL, YOU'VE GOT TO KNOW -- WHO
IT IS THAT THINKS SOMETHING'S
WRONG IF YOU'RE GOING TO WORK
OUT SOME SORT OF A COMPRISE.
MR. WYDEN: FOR ONE ADDITIONAL
POINT.
SENATOR GRASSLEY, IS IT YOUR
SENSE -- BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT
THIS OFT
WATCHING THIS SPECTACLE IN THE
LAST FEW WEEKS OF ALL THESE
SECRET HOLDS, THAT THE CENTRAL
PROBLEM IS
AND IT TAKES TOO LONG TO KICK IN.
IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT OF WHAT
REALLY NEEDS TO BE CHANGED?
WE NEED TO GET THE OPENNESS EARLIER.
IT NEEDS TOE TRIGGERED EARLIER
AND IT NEEDS TO GET I
PUBLIC DOMAIN EARLIER.
IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. GRASSLEY: MR. PRESIDENT, THE
SENATOR IS CORRECT THAT THE
PRESENT RULES ARE NOT MUCH
BETTER THAN WHAT WE'VE ALWAYS
OPERATED UNDER.
SO THERE ISN'T TRANSPARENCY AND
IT ISN'T DONE SOON ENOUGH.
MR. WYDEN: I -- I JUST WANT TO
HIM.
YOU AND I HAVE PURSUED A LOT OF
ISSUES IN THE PAST AND VERY
OFTEN THOSE
TELEVISION, NEWS DEBATES AND THE
LIKE.
AND, OBVIOUSLY, THE SECRET HOLD
WOULD NOT BE SOMETHING ON MAIN
STREET IN DES MOINES OR PORTLAND
THAT PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT.
BUT I THINK THIS IS THE TIME TO
GET THIS RIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL.
WE SOUGHT TO
A DECADE.
A NUMBER OF MAJORITY LEADERS,
DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY LEADERS,
REPUBLIC
SAID THAT THEY WANTED TO GET
THIS DONE.
YET AS OF THIS DAY I PERSONALLY
BELIEVE THAT IT CONTINUES TO BE
ABUSED AND
AND AT A TIME WHEN THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE ARE LOOKING
CHALLENGING ECONOMIC
CIRCUMSTANCES, THEY DESERVE A
TRULY ACCOUNTABLE, AND TRULY TRANSPARENT.
AND THAT HAS BEEN WHA
OUR BIPARTISAN EFFORTS OVER THIS
LAST DECADE AND I REALLY
APPRECIATE YOU COMING TO THE
FLOOR THIS EVENING.
THERE AREN'T THAT MANY
OPPORTUNITIES TO ADVANCE A TRULY
BIPARTISAN AGENDA
YOU'VE GIVEN US THE OPPORTUNITY
TO DOHAT TONIGHT.
AND IF THE SENATOR YIELDS BACK
HIS TIME, I'M GOING TO
MR. GRASSLEY: I WOULD YIELD THE FLOO
MR. WYDEN: AND I THANK MY
COLLEAGUE AND LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH HIM TO ONCE AND FOR
ALL GET SECRET HOLDS ABO
MR. PRESIDENT, I KNOW A NUMBER
OF COLLEAGUES, SENATOR
WHITEHOUSE, WHO HAS A GREAT
INTEREST IN THIS TOPIC, IS HERE AS WELL.
I WOULD JUST ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME
FOR UP TO 10 MINUTES.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. WYDEN: MR. PRESIDENT, TO
JUST CONTINUE THIS TOPIC, I
THINK WE NEED TO KIND OF PUT
INTO PERSPECTIVE A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT WHY THIS SECRET HOLD HAS
BECOME SUCH A DETRIMENTAL PRACTICE.
WHEN WILLIE SUTTON WAS ASKED WHY
HE ROBBED THE BANK, HE SAID
THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY IS.
WELL, SECRET HOLDS ARE WHERE THE
POWER IS.
AND SENATOR GRASSLEY AND I HAVE
JUST OUTLINED THE ENORMOUS
EFFECT THAT A SECRET
HAVE ON A PIECE OF LEGISLATION,
BUT, FRANKLY, ONE OF THE OTHER
POINTS THAT NEEDS TO BE
MENTIONED IS I HAVE LONG FELT
THAT A SECRET HOLD IS A VERY
POWERFUL WEAPON THAT'S AVAILABLE
TO A LOBBYIST.
I EXPECT
SENATOR'S GOTTEN A REQUEST FROM
A LOBBYIST ASKING IF A SENATOR
WOULD PUT A SECRET HOLD ON A
NOMINEE, AND WITHOUT THE
LOBBYIST'S FINGERPRINTS
APPEARING ANYWHERE.
IF YOU CAN GET A UNITED STATES
SENATOR PUT A HOLD ON A BILL,
IT'S LIKE HITTING THE LOBBYIST
JACKPOT.
NOT ONLY IS THE SENATOR
PROTECTED BY ANONYMITY, BUT SO
IS THE
AND A L
SIDES OF THE A VOTE STREET AND
GET -- OF THE STREET.
AND
WHERE I'VE HEARD OF LOBBYISTS
ASKINGOR SECRET HOLDS, I'M OF
THE VIEW, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT
SECRET HOLDS ARE A STRELTSDZ
EXTENSION -- STEALTH
OF THE LOBBYING WORLD.
THERE
WOULD BE THE HEIGHT OF IRONY IF
THE SENATE WERE TO ADOPT A
VARIETY OF CHANGES TO CURTAIL
LOBBYING AS WE'VE DONE IN THE
PAST WITHOUT DOING AWAY WITH
WHAT, I
MOST POWERFUL TOOLS THAT CAN BE
AVAILABLE TO LOBBYISTS.
THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF OUR
CITIZENS SAY IN EVERY CORNER OF
THE LANDS, BE IT ALASKA OR
OREGON OR RHODE ISLAND, THAT
THEY WANT PUBLIC BUSINESS DONE
IN PUBLIC.
AND IF YOU WALK DOWN THE STREETS
OF THIS COUNTRY, I DON'T THINK
YOU COULD FIND 1 OUT OF 100
PEOPLE WHO'D HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT
A HOLD IS OR WHAT A SECRET HOLD
IS ALL
BUT THE FACT IS THAT THESE SECRET HOLDS HERE IN THE UNITED
STATES SENATE CAN DRAMATICALLY
AFFECT AND CHANGE THE LIVES OF
OUR CIT
NOT EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT.
THE HOLD, THE ABILITY TO BLOCK A
PIECE OF LEGISLATION, BLOCK A
NOMINATION CAN'T EVEN IN A
NUMBER OF INSTANCES END UP BEING
DISCUSSED ON THE FLOOR OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE.
LITERALLY, THE UNITED STATES
SENATE WON'T EVEN GET A PEEK,
WON'T EVEN GET THE BRIEFEST LOOK
AT A PARTICULAR ISSUE THAT MAY
INVOLVE MILLIONS OF OUR CITIZENS
CITIZENS, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
AND AFFECT THE CALL OF LIFE --
THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF CITIZENS
IN EVERY CORNER OF THE LAND.
SO WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT
SENATOR GRASSLEY AND I HAVE BEEN
RKING FOR LO THIS PAST DECADE,
SENATOR WHITEHOUSE HAS SPOKEN
ELOQUENTLY ABOUT IS WE BELIEVE
NOW IS THE TIME ONCE AND FOR ALL
TO PERMANENTLY WIPE THE SECRET
HOLD
UNITED
IT'S ONE THING IF
UNITED STATES SENATOR EXERCISES
THE EXTRAORDINARY POWER THAT A
HOLD
IT'S QUITE ANOTHER WHEN THEY
CAN'
BECAUSE THEY EXERCISE THIS POWER
IN SECRET.
MAY NOT KNOW WHAT A SECRET HOLD
IS, BUT I'M VERY, VERY CERTAIN
THEY
SENATE TO DO ITS BUSINESS PUBLIC.
SO I WANT TO EXPECT MY
APPRECIATION TO SENATOR
GRASSLEY, WHO HAS LEFT THE
FLOOR, FOR WORKING WITH ME OVER
THIS PAST DECADE TO END WHAT I
THINK IS A
DENIAL OF THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW.
THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ESSENTIALLY
ABOUT. THIS IS A DENIAL OF THE PUBLIC'S
RIGHT TO KNOW.
AND WITH COLLEAGUES ON BOTH
SIDES OF THE AISLE, I'M
DETERMINED TO THIS TIME GET THIS
CHANGED, TO SHORTEN THE PERIOD,
TO MAKE IT EASIER TO TRIGGER THE
REQUIREMENTS OF PUBLIC
DISC
I KNOW MY COLLEAGUE FROM RHODE
ISLAND IS INTERESTED IN GETTING
IN IT ISSUE.
MR. PRESIDENT, I LOOK FORWARD TO
HIS COMMENTS AND YIELD
FLOOR.
MR. WHITEHOUSE: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE MR. WHITEHOUSE: MR. PRESIDENT,
MAY I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
ENGAGE FOR FIVE OR TEN MINUTES
IN A COLLOQUY WITH THE
DISTINGUISHED SENATOR FROM OREGON.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. WHITEHOUSE: I, FIRST O ALL,
WANT TO SALUTE SENATOR WYDEN OF
OREGON FOR HIS LONG WORK ON
THIS.
HE HAS BEEN WORKING ON THIS
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 IN THIS
BODY.
AT PRESENT, WE ARE LOOKING AT
PROBABLY A LITTLE LESS THAN
80 -- , 80 -- SECRET HOLDS BY
REPUBLICANS OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S NOMINEES.
SOME EXECUTIVE -- MO
EXECUTIVE, SOME JUDGES.
AND 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 THAT THEY
GO FORWARD.
IN ONE CASE, A NOMINEE WAS A
JUDGE WHO WAS SUPPORTED BY BOTH
A DEMOCRAT AND A REPUBLICAN
SENATOR FROM HIS HOME STATE, HAD
PASSED OUT OF THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF
19-0, A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 19-0, AND THEY HAVE BEEN HELD FOR
MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS.
AND THE DISTINGUISHED SENATOR
FROM ARIZONA, SENATOR 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 FOR A JUDGE WHO HE'D
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.
AND WE WENT THROUGH A GREAT DEAL
OF THESE.
I WANT TO SALUTE SENATOR McCASKILL.
SHE CARRIED THE GREATER PART OF THE BURDEN.
I ONLY MOVED A FEW.
I THINK SHE MOVED OVER 70 BY THE
TIME THE DAY WAS DONE,ND I
REALLY WANT TO EXTEND MY
APPRECIATION TO HER FOR THAT.
SENATOR WYDEN, AS I UNDERSTAND
IT, THE RULE IS THAT NOW THAT
THESE UNANIMOUS CONSENTS HAVE
BEEN MADE, THERE IS A SIX-DAY OF
SESSION PERIOD IN HAS NOW BEGUN
TO RUN, AND AT THE END OF THAT
SIX DAYS, OUR REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES WILL BE OBLIGED TO
DISCLOSE PUBLICLY THEIR HOLDS:
WHO'S HOLDING IT AND WHAT THEIR
REASON IS.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A
POTENTIAL LOOPHOLE WHICH IS THAT
THEY COULD PULL THE OLD
SWITCHEROO, AND THAT AT THE END
OF THAT SIX-DAY PERIOD, THE
SENATOR OR SENATORS WITH THAT
HOLD COULD ALL RELEASE THEIR
HOLD SO AT THE END OF THE SIX
HOOF DAY PERIOD, THEY HAVE NO
HOLD -- SIX-DAY PERIOD, THAT
THEY HAVE NO HOLD TO DISCLOSE,
BUT THEY COULD CONNIVE WITH
ANOTHER COLLEAGUE TO PUT IN A
HOLD SINCE THE U.C., THE
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST, SO
THEY CAN START THE PROCESS ALL
OVER AND HIDE THEIR
ACCOUNTABILITY.
BUT IT STRIKES ME THAT THOSE ARE
REALLY THE ONLY TWO CHOICES THAT
OUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE.
THEY EITHER HAVE TO DIVULGE OR
THEY HAVE TO ENGAGE IN A GAME OF
SWITCHSPUR OO CONNIVANCE, TO TRY
TO DUCK OUT OF THIS RULE, WHICH
I THINK HAD 92 -- NOT UNANIMOUS
BUT VERY STRONG BIPARTIN SUPPORT.
AND I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR THAT
UNDERSTANDINWITH YOU, SENATOR
WYDEN, SINCE YOU'RE EXPERT ON
THIS, THAT THE CLOCK IS RUNNING,
THAT THEY HAVE SIX DAYS TO COME
CLEAN ABOUT THIS, AND THAT THE
ONLY TWO WAYS OUT ARE EITHER TO
DIVULGE OR CONNIVE
SENATOR TO ENGAGE IN A LITTLE
SWITCHEROO.
MR.
MIGHT BE A THIRD OPTION, OF
COURSE, WHICH WOULD BE TO LIF
THE HOLD.
BUT THE SENATOR HAS DONE A VERY
CAREFUL AND THOUGHTFUL ANALYSIS
OF
PARTICULARLY THE SITUATION OF
WHAT SENATOR GRASSLEY AND I CAME
TO HOLD THE ROTATING, YOU KNOW,
HOLD, SIMPLY SHIFTING FROM
PERSON
DONE OFTEN, YOU KNOW, OVER THE
YEARS BY DEMOCRATS AND -- AND
REPUBLICANS, AND I THINK NOW IS
THE TIME TO GET THIS CHANGED.
I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS IN
THE HISTORY --ND BY THE WAY,
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ON THE
BIPARTISAN NATURE OF THE RULE CHANGE.
THE VOTE WAS 84-13.
THERE WAS OVERWHELMING
PARTISANUPPORT FOR IT.
THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ACTUALLY
HAS PUT TOGETHER A VERY
THOUGHTFUL HISTORICAL ANALYSIS
FEATURING DISCUSSION OF THINGS
SUCH AS THE MAY WEST HOLD, WHICH
CAME TO BE KNOWN AS
LOOK ME OVER HOLD" WHICH I
GATHER WASN'T A FULL-FLED
HOLD BUT IT MIGHT ACTUALLY BLOSSOM INTO ONE.
SO THE SENATOR IS ABSOL
RIGHT ABOUT WHAT THEHOICES ARE.
AND THAT'S WHY IT IS TIME ONCE
AND FOR ALL TO GET THIS C
AND I SO APPRECIATE THE SENATOR
AND ALSO SENATOR McCASKILL
FROM MISSOURI COMING AND
HIGHLIGHTING THE FACT THAT THIS
IS -- THAT THIS HAS, AGAIN,
GOTTEN OUT OF CONTROL.
THE HISTORICAL ANALYSIS O
HAS BEEN THAT THE HOLD WAS
SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE USED RARELY.
THE HOLD WAS SOMETHING OF GREAT
CONSEQUENCE, AND YET NOW IT
SEEMS THAT WE HAVE THESE SECRET
HOLDS THAT ARE SIMPLY THROWN OUT
FOR NOMINATIONS AND PIECES OF
LEGISLATION BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS
SOME MODEST INTEREST OR IS
CARRYING OUT A DIFFERENT AGENDA
AND I THINK THAT'S WHY THE
SECRECY IS SO UNFORTUNATE.
AND I APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUE.
MR. WHITEHOUSE: SO TO HAVE 80
SECRET HOLDS BY ONE
ONCE PENDING IN THE SENATE IS
NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORY
OF THE USE OF THIS PROCEDURAL
TACTIC IN THIS BODY?
IS THAT MY UNDERSTAND -- IS MY
UNDERSTANDING CORRECT?
MR. WYDEN: THE SENATOR IS
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT THE FACT
THAT 80 SECRET HOLDS IS CLEARLY
NOT WHAT SENATOR GRASSLEY AND I
AND REFORMERS THOUGHT WOULD
HAPPEN.
AND GIVEN ALL THESE SECRET HOLDS
HOLDS, YOU WOULD THINK THAT THE
BACK OF THE EXECUTIVE CALENDAR,
WHICH IS PAGE 19, IT'S ENTITLED
"NOTICE OF INTENT TO OBJECT TO PROCEEDING."
GIVEN WHAT THE DISTINGUISHED
SENATOR FROM RHODE
POINTED OUT, ONE WOULD THINK
THAT PAGE 19, "NOTICE OF INTENT
TO OBJECT TO PROCEEDING," WOULD
BE FILLED WITH THESE, YOU KNOW,
NAMES IF THE RULE WAS BEING
HONORED, AND BOTH YOU ANDRY
HOLDING UP THESE PAGE 19'S WITH
NARY A WORD ON THEM.
MR. WHITEHOUSE: LOOKING AT AN
EMPTY PAGE.
SO JUST TO SUMMARIZE, THE CLOCK
HAS RUN AS A RESULT OF THIS
SERIES OF UNANIMOUS CONSENTS
THAT SENATOR McCASKILL AND I
HAVE PUT FORWARD.
THE SIX DAYS HAVE BEGUN.
BY THE END OF THAT, ONE OF THREE
THINGS, AS YOU'VE 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'RE HOLDING AND WHY, OR
THEY CAN ENGAGE IN THIS RATHER
OBSCURE, SHALL WE SAY, GAME OF
ROTATING HOLDS, WHAT I CALLED
SWITCHEROO, DUCKING OUT BEFORE
THE TIME RUNS AND GETNG
SOMEBODY ELSE TO ACTUALLY HAVE
YOUR HOLD FOR YOU, BUT GET A
PROXY IN.
GIVEN THAT THIS WAS A RULE THAT
WAS ADOPTED WITH VERY, VERY
STRONG VOTE, 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 THAT THAT'S BEING USED
AT THE END OF THE SIX DAYS AND
DOES THAT -- WOULD THAT SPUR THE
NEED FOR REFORM OF THIS RULE?
MR. WYDEN: IT SURELY WOULD, AND
I AM GRATEFUL TO THE SENATOR
FROM RHODE ISLAND FOR
PROSECUTING THE REFORM CASE.
I'VE TALKED WITH SENATOR
GRASSLEY ABOUT IT AND WITH
SENATOR McCASKILL AND YOU, AND
I THINK THIS IS THE TIME.
THERE ARE TWO POINTS WITH
RESPECT TO THE SECRET HOLD.
ONE AS IT RELATES TO THE
INSTITUTION, ONE AS IT RELATES
TO AN INDIVIDUAL SENATOR.
WITH RESPECT TO THE INSTITUTION
AND THIS EXAMPLE YOU'VE GIVEN OF
SCORES OF THESE SECRET HOLDS, I
THINK THIS SERVES TO UNDERMINE
THE CREDIBILITY OF
INSTITUTION AT A CRUCIAL TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY.
IT IS NO SECRET THAT AMERICANS
ARE DIVIDED ON A HOST OF ISSUES.
WELL, IF THE UNITED STATES
SENATE INSISTS ON DOING SO MUCH
IMPORTANT BUSINESS IN SECRET,
WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU
HONOR THESE SECRET HOLDS, I
THINK THAT JUST UNDERMINES THE
INSTITUTION.
SO I THINK FIRST AND FOREMOST,
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT TO ZERO
IN RIGHT NOW WHERE WE HAVE ALL
THESE SECRET HOLDS.
SECO, WITH RESPECT TO AN
INDIVIDUAL SENATOR, WHAT SEEMS
PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT, THE
SENATOR AND I SHARE AN INTEREST
IN HEALTH CAREND A VARIETY OF
ECONOMIC ISSUES.
SUPPOSING AN INDIVIDUAL SENATOR
WORKS FOR YEARS AND YEARS TO TRY
TO BUILD A BIPARTISAN COALITION
ON AN ISSUE A THEN IS DONE IN
BY AN UNKNOWN OR SECRET
OPPONENT, AN UNKNOWN, UNSEEN
OPPONENT WHO HAS BEEN ABLE, IN
EFFECT, TO BLOCK ALL THAT WORK,
BIPARTISAN WORK, IN SECRET?
SO I WANT THE SENATOR TO KNOW
THAT I AM FOURSQUARE BEHIND HIS
EFFORTS TO GET THIS CHANGED.
SENATOR GRASSLEY AND I HAVE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT IT.
I THINK THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY
TO MAKE THIS BIPARTISAN.
I WILL ALSO SAY, IN CLOSING --
AND YOU'VE BEEN KIND TO GIVE ME
L THIS TIME -- I DON'T THINK
THE SECRET HOLD PASSES THE S
TEST OF OPENNESS IN AMERICAN
GOVERNMENT.
IT'S TIME TO CHANGE IT.
I LOOK FORWARD WORKING WITH MY
COLLEAGUE TO FINALLY, AFTER ALL
OF THESE YEARS, TO GET THIS DONE
AND SEND THE SECRET HOLD OFF
INTO THE DUST BIN OF HISTORY.
MR. WHITEHOUSE: WELL, THE
SENATORSENATOR FROM OREGON'S LEGACY ON
THIS OF TEN YEARS OF WORK IS
VERY, VERY IMPRESSIVE TO THIS
NEWER SENATOR AND I APPRECIATE
SO MUCH WHAT HE AND SENATOR
GRASSLEY HAVE DONE OVER THE
YEARS TO BEGIN TO PUT AN TONED
THIS PRACTICE -- 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.
AND IT HAS COME TO THE POINT
WHERE THE PRESIDENT I THINK
FAIRLY BELIEVES THAT HIS ABILITY
TO STAFF HIS OWN ADMINISTRATION
IS BEING COMPROMISED BY PEOPLE
WHO WON'T STAND UP AND BE
COUNTED AND BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR
THE REASON FOR THEIR OPPOSITION.
IT'S BEING DONE IN THE DARK,
SECRETLY AND WITHOUT ANY
ACCOUNTABILITY.?
AND I AGREE THAT NEEDS TO BE PUT
TO AN END.
SO I URGE PEOPLE WHO ARE
WATCHING THIS THE SIXTH DAY HAS
BEGUN -- SIX DAYS OF SESSION.
AT THE END, WE WILL KNOW.
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;
AND 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, CLEAR IMPORT OF THE
RULE THAT YOU AND SENATOR
GRASSLEY WORKED ON ON A
BIPARTISAN BASIS TO PUT INTO
EFFECT IN THIS BODY AND WHICH
WAS APPROVED BY AN ENORMOUS
MAJORITY IN THIS BODY.
SO THE CLOCK IS RUNNING, AND WE WILL SEE.
WE WILL LEARN A LOT ABOUT THIS
INSTITUTION AND OUR COLLEAGUES
IN SIX DAYS.
AND I THANK THE SENATOR FOR HIS
INTENSE LEADERSHIP ON THIS
ISSUE.
I
I SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A
QUORUM.
QUORUM CALL:
MR. WHITEHOUSE: MR. PREDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND.
MR. WHITEHOUSE: MAY I ASK THAT
THE PENDING QUORUM CALL BE LIFTED. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. WHITEHOUSE: MR. PRESIDENT,
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE SENATE BROAD TO A PERIOD OF
MORNING BUSINESS WITH SENATORS
PERMITTED TO SPEAK FOR UP TO 10
MINUTES EACH.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
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.
THE PRESIDIN
CL
THE CLERK: H. CON. RES. 222,
RECOGNIZE BEING THE LEADERSHIP
AND HISTORICAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF
DR. HECTOR GARCIA TO THE
HISPANIC COMMUNITY AND HIS
REMARKABLE EFFORTS TO COMBAT
RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION
IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, THE COMMITTEE IS
DISCHARGED AND THE SENATE WILL
PROCEED TO CONSIDERATION OF THE
MEASURE.
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 ON THE TABLE WITH NO
INTERVENING ACTION OR DEBATE,
AND ANY STATEMENTS RELATED TO
THE MEASURE BE PLACED IN THE
RECORD AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE
AS IF READ.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. WHITEHOUSE: MR. PRESIDENT,
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THA THE
FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE BE
DISCHARGED FROM FURTHER
CONSIDERATION AND THE SENATE NOW
PROCEED TO S. RES. 483.
THE PRESIDING OFF
OBJECTION, THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
THE CLERK: S. RES. 483,
CONGRATULATING THE REPUBLIC OF
SERBIA'S APPLICATION FOR
EUROPEAN UNION MEMBERSHIP AND
RECOGNIZING SERBIA'S ACTIVE
EFFORTS TO INTEGRATE INTO EUROPE
AND THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY.
OBJECTION, THE COMMITTEE IS DISCHARGED.
THE SENATE WILL FR
MR. WHITEHOUSE: MR. PRESIDENT,
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
RESOLUTION BE AGREED TO, THE
PREAMBLE BE AGREED
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
THE TABLE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICE WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. WHITEHOUSE: MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
APPOINTMENT AT THE DESK APPEAR
SEPARATELY IN THE RECORD AS IF MADE BY THE CHAIR.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THE CHAIR SUBMITS TO THE SENATE
FOR PRINTING IN THE SENATE
JOURNAL AND THE "CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD" THE APPLICATION
ERRATA TO THE ANSWER OF JUDGE
THOMAS POR PORTEOUS JR. TO THE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST
JUDGE PORTEOUS PURSUANT TO S.
RESOLUTION 4511 WITH APPLICATION
WAS RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF
THE SENATE ON APRIL 21, 2010.
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, 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 THERE
PERIOD OF MORNING BUSINESS
FOR ONE HOUR WITH SENATORS
ALLOWED TO SPEAK UP TO 10
MINUTES EACH, WITH REPUBLICANS
CHROMING THE FIRST 30
MINUTESAGED 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 UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT AS
PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE PREVIOUS
OR
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. WHITEHOUSE: MR.RESIDENT,
THERE WILL BE UP TO ONE HOUR FOR
DEBATE PRIOR TO A VOTEN
CONFIRMATION OF THE CHIN
NOMINATION.
SENATORS WILL BE NOTIFIED WHEN
THE ROTE IS SCHEDULED. IF NESS NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO
COME BEFORE THE SENATE, I ASK
THAT IT ADJOURN UNDER THE
PREVIOUS ORDER.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATE WILL STAND ADJURED UNTIL