quorum call:

mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i would first ask unanimous consent that -- the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mr. casey: -- that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i rise tonight for two purposes. one is to talk about the state of our economy and both the challenges we face but also the obligation we have to address those challenges and, second-degreely, to speak -- and secondly, to speak for a couple minutes tonight about our brothers and sisters in haiti and in particular children in haiti. let me start with our economy here at home. we just got word today in

pennsylvania -- this is as of -- this is a news story, an a.p. story at 3:52 p.m. the headline on this very brief story from the wire service is as follows. i know it can't be read from that distance. but it says, and i quote the headline, "pennsylvania jobless rate up. jobs at most scarce in a decade. " it says a new report says that jobs in pennsylvania were harder to find in pennsylvania than they have been if a decade. it goes ton talk about the unemployment rate up to 8.9%. that's disturbing in a lot of ways. first of all, not just the rate because sometimes whreek at the unemployment -- we look at the unemployment rate it doesn't tell the whole story. sometimes it undercounts the people who are not looking for work and sometimes the numbers don't make sense. what it means in real terms in

numerical terms, i should say, real people, it means that in pennsylvania there are more than -- well more than a half million people out of work. and i can't even imagine what those numbers look like proportionately when you have states where the unemployment rate is 10%, 11%, 12%, and even higher in some states. so it's bad enough in a state like ours when you have 8.9% what that translates into in terms of real lives, real families, and the horrific impact of this recession. and i cite that number -- several of those numbers for a very basic reason. a lost folks around here are looking for -- a lot of folks around here are looking for messages from the recent election in mama or they're -- in massachusetts or their looking for messages from the election this past november. i don't think you need to go very far to know that one of the

central and i think overarching messages that i've heard in pennsylvania -- and i'm others have as well -- understan messa the american people want us to focus on job creation right now. they don't want to hear about some long-term plan, a multiyear plan to create jobs. they want us to put on the table, to enact into law, strategic short-term and effective job creation strategies that will have the effect of incentivizing small business to hire more employees. the idea that i have and others in the senate is a job-creation tax credit, that if you're a small business -- in this case we drew the line at 100 or less -- i know that's not often the dividing line -- 100 or less employees, if they callify, get a tax credit. higher than 100 employees, a 15%

tax credit. that kind of targeted and specific strategy, for one year -- its a a one-year bill that we're about to introduce -- will have the effect. it is one of several things we have to do on job creation. we have to have strategies, for example, that have as their intended target the positive impact on small businesses. yoall across pennsylvania, and i think this is true across the country, it is not just the question of the unemployment rate goes up and joblessness increasing; it's small business owners -- i don't care where they're from -- coming to us and telling us, please help us with obtaining access to credit. there's no way that a small business can grow if they can't borrow. our whole system is predicated on borrowing money, so you can invest in new plant and equipment. borrow money so you can hire another employee or two or three or more.

and if they don't have access to credit, this economy can't create jobs and grow jobs at a fast enough pace. so that has to be our focus, and we also have to understand, as best we can, from the distance of washington and the security really that we feel here. most people in the federal government and certainly individual members of the senate don't have to worry about health care. they have it. they don't have to worry about a paycheck. they're getting that. but even this those secure circumstances, we have to understand what real people are up against, what they're up against every day when they wake up in the morning. and even if they have a job, sometimes the costs that are impinging upon and comebacking their budget, the cost of paying for health care, the cough of higher education, the cost just to make ends meet in their daily lives has never been more

tested, never been more of a severe challenge. but part of it is enacting job creation strategies. but that's not enough. part of it also is speaking directly to the needs and the concerns and the anxiety and the sense really, think, of insecurity that a lot of americans feel. that's our number-one obligation here. i think in addition to that we should pass health care legislation. we don't know how that will happen in light of the new -- in light of the new political realities here in washington. but i think we need to do that as well. but no matter what happened in the elections and no matter what happens on the issue of health care, job creation has to be the number-one priority. second to none in terms of the work that we do here in washington. so i will submit for the record with consent, mr. president, this very brief wire service story about the unemployment rate in pennsylvania.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you. and let me just conclude this part of my remarks by speaking for a couple of minutes about what we have done this past year, the recovery and reinvestment act known by that -- as many things are -- by the acronym arra, the american refer and reinvestment act. the word "recovery" and the word "reinvestment." because that's the intended purpose of that legislation. it was at the right time at the early months of 2009. but there are a lot of americans who believe it is not being implemented fast enough. the jump-starting feblght of the spending, whether it is on infrastructure or energy efficiency or investments in education, investments in health care, tax cut for 95% of the american people, which was in the recovery bill, that all of that is not moving fast enough.

so one of the jobs we have in addition to new strategies on job creation is to implement at a faster pace, at a faster rate the recovery bill. and i also believe that we should remind ourselves that the recovery bill wasn't a 10-month bill or in about the tenth -- we are 00 in about the tenth month right now. but the spending that will create the jump-starting and positive economic effect is supposed to take place over two and three years, depending on the program. depending upon the initiative. so one of the things we have to do is push the recovery bill aggressively to make sure that that -- those investments, whether they are recovery, getting our economy out of the ditch, so to speak pands moving down the road, or whether they're expenditures that relate to reinvestment, reinvestment in people's skills, reinvestment in their opportunities to have higher education, reinvestment or investment in some cases in

people's ability to recover from this recession. unemployment insurance, cobra -- health insurance extensions, food stamps ... all of those are critically important to our recovery. for those who say i don't like when we, as amended, money on unemployment -- when we spend money on unemployment insurance, they get those criticisms once in a while, they should understand that there's no comparison -- at least according to the economist mark zandi -- there's no comparison to tax cuts for folks and food stamps, other strategies in terms of their positive impact on the economy. by one measurement that mark zandi pointed to, bang for the bush. you spend a buck on unemployment insurance, or a buck on food stamps shall you get as high as

$1.60, $1.70 in return. you can't say that according to his analysis with regard to some of the tax cut policy we've seen here. so investments in vulnerable americans who are trying to recover from the recession, food stamps, unemployment insurance being the two best examples, those investments actually have a return to the taxpayer as well. so what do we need to do? we have to focus on job creation, and when we focus on that legislation it should have a couple of component parts or elements. first of all, stabilizing that safe net for vulnerable americans i just spoke of. secondly, supporting small business in a very direct and targeted way. investing in -- investing more in infrastructure, including broadband infrastructure, which is another kind of knowledge infrastructure. and finally, building a clean energy economy. we continue to do that, we'll

create jobs, we'll keep our environment clean, we'll reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and literally make us more secure from a national security standpoint. i think a major part of job creation in the short term has to be a job creation tax credit. so, mr. president, let me just move to the second part of my remarks, and i'll be brief. and what i will do is ask consent that my full -- the written version of my remarks, as it relates to haiti, being submitted for the record. the presiding officer: without objection, it is soared. mr. casey: thank you. let me make a few comment about it. first of all, like a lot of merntion i'm not surprised but heartened and proud by the response of the american people. a tremendous outpouring of generosity. people in america from all walks of life recognized immediately that the people of haiti in the

depths of an incalculable, indescribable horror and tragedy, in the depths of that the american people showed their generosity, they showed that they understand that our haitian brothers and sisters are just that; they're part of the family, the human family, and they are our brothers and sisters. the most vulnerable member of that family in most instances, maybe not in every instance in every family, but most of the time will be a child. and we're seeing unforgettable imagery in film -- video, i should say, of young children being rescued in heavmen haiti. surviving for days at a time in the rubble and in the horror that they've been living through. and thank goodness so many people have invested in ways to save those children. but what we've -- but what we still have to do a better job on

is making sure that if a haitian child is in the adoption process, is in that -- in the pathway, so to speak, to being adopted, we have to do everything possible in addition to the obvious safeguarding to provide that child with security, physical security, and food and water and medicine and medical treatment, that in addition to that, that we provide as expeditiously as possible a process for their adoption and ways to make it possible for them to be adopted so that the adoptive parents or guardians can have that assurance but also so that that child can be well on their way to being adopted. we don't quite have that yet in terms of what the federal government can do and should do. i just had a call late this afternoon with secretary of state clinton who should be

commended for her work in a broadway with regard to the response to the tragedy in haiti, but in particular, her concern and her actions that she has taken to make sure that these young children, these orphans are taken care of. i won't go into all the details now, but let me just cite in a summary fashion that a number of my colleagues in the senate and i have called upon the state department and usaid to set up safe havens for orphans which will provide food, water and protection for all orphans as well as time to ensure that these orphans in haiti who are eligible for what is called humanitarian parole -- part of this process of being those who are on the way to being adopted, that they're processed. that those who are eligible for that process, humanitarian parole, are indeed evacuated and

processed in a timely manner. this is just one idea, one way to help. but in the absence of an alternative plan, more and more children will continue to show up at the american embassy. so it's vitally important that that. but i want to -- that that happen. i want to commend the work of our government at various levels in terms of what they have been doing to respond to the challenge proposed by these orphans and their circumstances. i know that in our home state of pennsylvania, governor rendell and congressman altmire worked very hard to bring some of these children back to pennsylvania. i want to commend them for the effort they put forth in doing that. so for all these reasons, there is plenty of evidence to show that the american people understand that these individuals, these families and

especially these children in haiti are god's children. and we've got to be cognizant of that as we go forward with sound policies in the days ahead. so, mr. president, with that, i will yield tloor and note ab quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota is recognized. mr. dorgan: i askse waived. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. dorgan: mr. president, first let me say to my colleague, senator casey, his comments about the nearly unspeakable tragedy that has occurred in the country of haiti, i think strike all of us in a very poignant way. i've been to the country of haiti. it is -- it is one of the poorest regions in the world. we have people in haiti living in unbelievable poverty. near the airport is an area called cite soleil i believe it's called. it's a slum of nearly a half a million people living in desperate conditions. the entire country of haiti has suffered such immense difficulties for so long; the

people of haiti are wonderful people. and to be visited now by this great, great tragedy with an unbelievable loss of life that will exceed 200,000 people just is heartbreaking to me and i know to all americans who watch this tragedy play out on television as volunteers are digging through rubble and in some cases finding people still alive and most other cases finding a lot of people who have lost their lives in this tragedy. i want to say again the american people are a people full of great generosity, and that expression of generosity now in the form of contributions to organizations that are there helping these people is something that is very, very important, and all of us can be proud of the generosity of this country and what is now happening in the outpouring of support. mr. president, i wanted to briefly explain today why i am going to vote against the

nomination of mr. ben bernanke as chairman of the federal reserve board. mr. bernanke has been serving as chairman of the federal reserve board -- and i'll be the first to say that i think there are things that mr. bernanke has done that are very important to this country. he steered our country in a very difficult circumstance. there was a time when our economy could have near completely collapsed, which would have been devastating. it was teetering on the precipice of that. mr. bernanke and others made decisions, some of which i thought were very good decisions. it is the case that mr. bernanke worked for the previous administration that in many ways created circumstances that took us to that cliff, or near the cliff, with economic policies. i'll talk about that for just a moment. but when mr. bernanke became chairman of the federal reserve board, i understood his background that fit fairly well with what we were going there. as i said, i think he did some

things that should be commended and should be supported, and i support that. i've told him that i support a number of these actions that were very important. one of those actions was to open for the first time in history the window at the federal reserve board to extend credit directly from the federal reserve board to the biggest investment banks in the country. the first time in the history of the country. it has always been the case that f.d.i.-insured banks, the commercial banks, would have a window at the fed to go get direct loans from the fed. but it has never been the case that the investment banks were able to do that. during this great crisis fed chairman bernanke and the board of governors opened that window for direct lending from the federal reserve board to the investment banks. well, i wasn't critical at that moment. i didn't come to the floor of the senate and express

criticism. i don't know exactly what they saw that persuaded them to do that. but some months later i sent, along with eight others of my colleagues who signed the letter that i drafted, i sent a letter july 31 to chairman bernanke and said the tpefrb board took -- be federal reserve board took tobgs allow all the major investment banks in the u.s. to directly access lending from the federal reserve board for the the first time in history. down in the letter i say "we now urge to you release the names of financial institutions that received the emergency assistance and how much each has received. the american taxpayers' funds were put at risk, and we believe the american people deserve information about the federal reserve board's bailout activities to determine how much and what kind of funds were used and so on." we received a letter back from the treasury secretary -- excuse me -- from the chairman of the federal reserve board, i should say, and he said publicly

releasing the information on the names of borrowers and amounts borrowed could seriously undermine our liquidity programs. and he essentially said i don't intend to tell you. i don't intend that the congress know and i don't intend that the american people know. it's interesting to me that a federal judge early last year ordered the fed to release the names of the institutions that received the emergency financial assistance from the tpefrb board and the amount of the -- from the federal reserve board and the amount. a federal judge said to the federal reserve board you must release that information to the american people. the skwroeupblg in this case which is a foia case found the federal reserve had -- quote -- "improperly withheld agency records." the judge said when the fed argued borrowers would be hurt when their names were released was -- quote -- "conjecture without evidence of imminent

harm." the fed went ahead to appeal the judge's rules, and therefore it's been stayed. and the american people are now in a situation where their federal reserve board said for the first time in history we're going to give the biggest investment banking institutions direct access to loan money from the federal reserve board, get loans from the federal reserve board, and we don't intend to tell anybody who got it, how much they got, what the concessions or prices were. we don't intend to give anybody any of that information. i find that completely untenable, and i just am not going to vote for the nomination of the chairman of the federal reserve board who says to the congress and the american people, yes, we open that window, decided to do direct lending to the biggest investment banks which, by the way, steered this country right into a huge wreck. you take a look at what caused and who caused this financial wreck that caused this

economy -- cost this economy $15 trillion in wealth. american families have lost $15 trillion in wealth, and the federal government had either spent or lent or committed $12 trillion to bail out particularly wall street and the biggest firms on wall street. and all of those biggest firms on wall street, i believe, and even those that are now the most, the healthiest firms that are expressing record profits and are preparing to pay out record bonuses of somewhere $120 billion to $140 billion, i'm told, those firms would not have survived. they would have gone under were it not for the help of the american people through their government. the question, it seems to me, for the federal reserve board from the congress and the american people is: what did you do here? how much did you do? under what conditions? we need to know. the chairman of the federal reserve board said he supports

transparency. if that's the case, show us a little transparency. now, how is it that someone can possibly argue that telling us now that they gave $200 billion here or $1 trillion there to firms that are now showing record profits and preparing to pay the biggest bonuses, how can that possibly injure those firms? in fact, many of them have apparently paid the tarp funds back, let alone the direct loans from the federal reserve board. my only point is simple. i don't have a grief against ben bernanke. i kind of like him. i think he steered us through some tough times and probably made some good decisions at the right time. i also have differences with him on economic policy and monetary policy. but i have a very big difference on this question, and this question is controlling for me. if the federal reserve board believes it has unlimited

capability to decide tonight we're going to change the rules on everything, open a direct lending window and give it to the biggest investment houses in the country, and we don't intend to ever tell any of you what we did or why or how. we don't intend to disclose any of it, that is not what i call open government, and that is not something that is written in the constitution of the united states and is not something that this congress should tolerate. this congress should say to mr. bernanke, your nomination is here in front of the united states senate, and we will act on it as soon as you provide the information the senators have requested of you. and, by the way, the information that a federal judge, one federal judge has already ordered that you disclose. as soon as you comply with that, then your nomination shall have a vote in the united states senate. well, mr. president, i wanted to explain in more detail my response to people today who had asked me what i was going to do on that nomination. that, i think, gives adequate explanation. i also wanted to just comment

briefly that the president today said something quite extraordinary, and i want to compliment him for it. i know that he's walking into a thicket of trouble here, because a whole lot of big interests are going to gang up on this, these proposals. but let me tell you the two proposals the president offered that make a lot of sense. number one, he says that big financial institutions in this country that are too big to fail are too big. well, that's pretty simple. if you are too big to fail, you're just flat-out too big, and we ought to stop this concentration, because too big to fail means no-fault capitalism. you run yourself into trouble, the taxpayer picks up the tab, the taxpayer pwaeuls you out. that's what too big to fail