quorum call:

mr. baucus: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: madam president, i' aurther proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: madam president, i ask what's the pending business. the presiding officer: the question is on the coburn amendment number 3726. mr. baucus: madam president, i move to table the coburn amendment, and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. thclerwill call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? seeing none, the motion to table the coburn amendment number 3726, the yeas are 50, the nays are 48. the motion to table is agreed to. the senator from montana. mr. baucus: madam president, i might ask my friend -- well, i think we're willing to both yield back time, so i yield back

my time. i think the senator from oklahoma wants to yield back his time, so week go straight to the vote. i move to table the second coburn amendment. i ask for the yeas and nays. mr. coburn: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? seeing none, the motion to table coburn amendment number 3727, the ayes are 53. the nays are 45.

the motion to table is agreed to. mr. baucus: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: i move to reconsider that vote and i move to lay that motion on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: madam preside, for the information of all senators, i'm aware of only one more amendment on this bill the senator from arizona has an amendment on the value-added tax. i'm hopeful the senate will consider that amendment at about 1:30 or so this afternoon and perhaps a vote on that amendmen shortly thereafter. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: i would ask unanimous consent to speak for ten minutes in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. chambliss: last month the senate put out a bill to overhaul the financial regulatory system in this country, a bill designed to invite republican opposition from members as evidenced by the

party-line vote in reporting it out. at that time i felt some sympathy for my financial committee colleagues who wanted to play a role but were shut out of the process. we have a history of producing bipartisan legislation. we always respect each other and seek to forge compromise in the name of advancing good public policy. the chairman of the committee on agriculture, senator lincoln, is always more interested in getting the policy right than in engaging in partisan debates. so i held out hope that the ag committee could consider our contribution to the financial regulatory reform legislation in a more productive environment than my colleagues on the banking committee faced. the issues involved in financial regulatory reform are complex, very important, and involve both the jurisdiction of the banking committee and the committee on agriculture. the agriculture committee has a responsibility to ensure that the commodities futures trading

commission continues to effectively carry out its duties, including any new authorities and responsibilities to regulate derivatives that congress requires. before we make a big policy change, we need to ask ourselves whether the solutions that have been proposed by the administration and which are largely reflected in banking committee chairman dodd's bill will even address the underlying problem. why take a chance in these uncertain times to make legislative and regulatory changes that could possibly make things worse, potentially drive capital, force the cost of doing business higher and ultimately even drive these markets overseas? let me be clear, i am not proposing a do-nothing approach. in fact, i believe there are a number of ways in which we can more appropriately regulate derivatives, and it is congress's job to write this legislation.

we seek input from the administration and our regulatory agencies, but it is our responsibility to consider their suggestions, take into consideration the opinions of the american public and put forward that which will become law. many businesses that use derivatives and swaps to manage risks in their everyday course of business are concerned that as congress tries to reduce overall systemic risk in our financial markets, including regulation of over-the- counter derivatives, that congress might actually limit the risk-management options. i'm not talking about large financial institutions. i am not talking about wall street financial institutions. i am talking about businesses that provide goods and services and employment opportunities in each of our states. these companies are concerned about aspects of the administration's proposal that would require them to clear

standardized transactions and execute their transactions on the trading facility. many of them have told me that this would add considerable costs that would be passed along to customers or consumers or perhaps prevent their businesses from using swaps and derivatives as a risk-management tool altogether. these companies are not antiregulation. they are supportingive of increased transparency to the regulator and this they are willing -- and they are willing to endure any additional burdens that will along with that. clearly the bsz. recent past has taught us that the regulator needs more data in order to review and release the entire marketplace, but i am not sure the lesson of the recent market meltdown warrants increased costs to businesses that had little, if anything, to do with creating this financial crisis. beyond requiring more transparent market data for the regulators, the agriculture

committee has been exploring how most effectively to apply greater regulation to swap transactions. if congress is truly interested in addressing the problem as opposed to politicizing the solution, we can no longer ignore the complexities of this market. we must devote time to understanding these instruments and their applications. we must seek to understand the legitimate purposes these complex instruments serve for large and small businesses in each of our states. chairman lincoln and i have devoted a great deal of time to understanding the over-the-counter market -- derivatives market, its complexities and its unique and legitimate utility. this is our job as senators on the committee of jurisdiction. unfortunately, our bipartisan negotiations have now been halted due to political influence from the administration.

if seemit seems that the adminin fears a deal on any aspect of financial reform legislation. as the banking committee members move towards a bipartisan deal, the administration launched an attack on such efforts, and as chairman lincoln and i were just about to conclude our negotiations and release a bipartisan draft on derivatives reform, the administration stepped in once again to shut down the process. the american public should be aware of what's really going on here. republicans on the committee of jurisdiction -- committees of jurisdiction have been more than willing to constructively participate in the development of new regulations aimed at addressing what went wrong with our financial system. but the current administration seems more interested in political gain than in really addressing this critical issue. it seems that instead of seeking meaningful reform that both democrats and republicans can support, the administration is

more interested in trying to divert attention away from health care by changing the subject as we head into the election season. the administration seems intent on going far beyond finding bipartisan solutions to address what caused the financial meltdown and instead is pursuing reckless policies that could be dangerous for our markets and ultimately our consumers who depend on these markets. however, it seems to me that the american public is well aware of the financial meltdown because they live with it every single day. the last thing they want is for congress to spend months talking about it some more. i want to be very clear. a week ago i was prepared to support a bipartisan compromise on reforming our derivatives market, a compromise that i believe an overwhelming majority of the united states senate, republicans and democrats, could have supported and one that

would have been implemented quickly to provide much-needed regulation, and then the white house stepped in and basically said a bill with republican support is not worth advancing. they want an issue, not a solution, and want to drag this issue into the november elections in hopes that voters will be focused on reforming the financial system and forget how angry they are about passage of the recent health care legislation. finally, let me say one more thing about the regulation of derivatives for folks to keep in mind as this process moves forward, which is that republicans and democrats generally agree on the major issues relating to derivatives regulation. we all generallily agree that there needs to be greater transparency, registration, more clearing and compliance with a whole host of business conduct and efficient market

regulations. and this is important because it is a 180-degree shift away from current law, where today, over-the-counter swaps are essentially unregulated. within this general agreement that swaps need to go from unregulated to fully regulated, we have some significant areas of disagreement about whether everyone needs to clear in all instances and how best to require swaps to be transacted and reported. and these disagreements are significant because they involve real burdens and duties which will result in real cost to businesses and consumers. as republicans, we want to make sure our new regulations serve a useful purpose. so as we begin the debate on derivatives regulation and republicans start to get painted, as we've already seen, as the party of wall street and against reform, i want folks to know and understand this is

disingenuous. republicans believe that there is a need to regulate the currently unregulated swaps market and we support doing so in a way that is responsible and that meets the risk management needs of main street. and, mr. president, i remain very hopeful that at the end of the day, we can strike a bipartisan agreement not just on the title that refers to swaps and derivatives but also on the titles to the financial regulatory reform that deal with regulation as well as the consumer protection finance agency. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. and if there is nolse speak, mr. president, i would ask again unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. chambliss: mr. president, i rise today to honor the life and selfless commitment of first

lieutenant robert collins to the united states army and to our nation. while many other young americans his age were headed back to school from spring break, lieutenant collins died on april 7 when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle on the streets of mosul, iraq. he was 24 years old. it's time the american people know a bit more about this young man who sacrificed for his country, his life, his family and all his potential, giving up all that he had and all that he was going to be. lieutenant collins was both a native georgian and was based at fort stewart, georgia. he hailed from the small town of tyrone in fayette county, where he played football under the friday night lights at sandy creek high school, where he became a standout student that would take him to the halls of west point and where he attended

hopewell united methodist church with his family on sunday mornings. later, he became a member of the local american legion post 105 in fayetteville, georgia. for me, the death of lieutenant collins is particularly sobering. robert was one of my nominees to the united states military academy at west point in the fall of 2003 and he was offered an appointment there the following spring, and he graduated from west point in the class of 2008. he became one of the stalwarts of b company, 1st battalion, 3 armament regiment, 3rd infantry division based at fort stewart, georgia. he deploye deployed to iraq in e autumn of 2009. lieutenant collins served as hi platoon's commander. while in iraq, his unit was charged with improving security and the quality of life for the people of iraq. he and his men also provided

security for the recent successful iraqi elections. they were dedicated to the goal of a peaceful, democratic iraq and sought to help its people lead normal, safe lives. it is said that the measure of a man can be taken by what those who knew him say when he is gone. robert's friends have described him as a man of great compassi compassion, a leader with an excellent personality and an infectious laugh. they say he was always there for friends and family for when they needed him. they say they are better people for having known him. lieutenant collins found his voice in the honor and patriotism of the army. with both his mother and his father retired army officers, he was a man with the military in his blood. they both survive him, as does his fiancee, nicole, who was robert's high school sweetheart. i extend my deepest sympathies to lieutenant collins' family

and friends and ask that my colleagues and all georgians keep them in their prayers during this time of sadness. robert performed his duty courageously, devotedly, without hesitation, without reservatio reservations. he was, after all, a soldier. the world may be occupied with other things on this beautiful spring day and the media with other stories, but one of those should surely be the procession that will bring lieutenant robert collins' body home today. winding its way from falcon field in peachtree city through downtown tyrone. it should also be about the americans who knew him who will line the roads to welcome him home a final time, recalling the words of a.e. houseman, "today, the road all runners come. shoulder high we bring you home and set you at your threshold down. townsmen of a stellar town."

mr. president, i yield the floor. and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator snr delaware is recognized. mr. carper: i ask unanimous consent that engage in a colloquy -- the presiding officer: the senate is? a quorum call. mr. carper: i ask that the quorum call being vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. carper: i ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with senator ensign and senator scott brown. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. carper: thank you, mr. president. last week was the second of two weeks of the easter recess, and a number of us took that opportunity to travel to places around the world where our nation is involved and has great interests. senator ensign, senator scott

brown, senator tom udall, and a congressman from virginia, first congressional district of virginia named rob whitman together visited -- spent several days in afghanistan and a couple of days in pakistan as well, places i suspect the presiding officer has been or will be visiting. and i led a similar congressional delegation almost 10 months ago to both countries, both afghanistan and pakistan, and i'd gone there right after the president had laid out his strategy, if you will, for making progress in afghanistan to restore the rule of law, to make sure that the taliban did not come back into power and provide a sanctuary for al qaeda to launch attacks against us any other nation. the president at the time, you may recall, said we're going to

do a couple of things of he suggested a year ago that we launch a military owe fen sirvetion almost like a military surge on a modest basis, and we do the same thing with the civilian offensive. what he called for a year ago was to commit an additional 10,000 marines, commit 7,000 army troops, to commit 4,000 u.s. trainers to train the afghan national army and afghan national police, and to also send over about 150 additional blackhawk helicopters. and that would be matched by a civilian surge as well, to complement the military -- increase in resources. and when we were coming ou out f afghanistan, one of the reporters asked me the question, what is our exit strategy in afghanistan, and i replied, i think our exit strategy to imloament well the strategy that the -- to implement well the strategy that the president had

outlined in april of last year. that was additional marines, additional army troops, additional train,additional blackhawk helicopters and the civilian surge to help us with the afghans, to help them raise the kind of agriculture commodities that they used to raise to feed themselves. a lot of people in that part of the world, we want to help them diversify their economy with respect to the mining and minerals industry. we want to make sure that the oil and gas reserves, three times of what we envision add couple of years ago -- and at the same time we're send over folks to work with the afghans one cleaning upruption corruption, which is rampant in most levels of afghanistan. and to help them develop

governmental institutions, provide services to actually serve the people of that country. that was what was laid out a year ago. we were joined by senator ensign -- we're joined by senator ensign. i will dwreel yield to him in ja moment. i thought it was a smart strategy and the key is to implement it and i said to implement it wevment we're back again -- we were back again this last week and had an opportunity to see what we're doing well and what we're not doing is well. the key in almost any endeavor that i've ever been part of is leadership. we had an opportunity to spend some time with general mcchrystal, our top military leaderment, to spend time with the u.s. ambassador to afghanistan. president karzai, we met with a lot of his civilian leadership and with the civilian leadership of the united states. came home not hopeless, not umoreic but more hopeful than

not that we had the right strategy, we're beginning to implement it well. we have some 40 other nagses that are involved with us in this endeavor, and we're committing the resources to be able to make this strategy potentially successful. that's sort of my take on it. i wanted to yield at this time to the senator from nevada, senator ensign, and i've also ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy. i won't ask that again, but this is what it is about. it is not a monologue for me but a great conversation. very much enjoyed the time we spent on the road, especially my colleague from nevada, was happy to be his partner and to led the delegation. mr. ensign: well, thank you, senator carper. i appreciate you and wendy for -- the presiding officer: the senator from nevada is recognized. mr. ensign: thank you, mr.

president. i appreciate you and your staff. wendy was just absolutely terrific on setting up the trip and all of the various briefings and the places that we traveled around both afghanistan and pakistan, and i thought we had a great team put together, between yourself, myself, and senator brown and senator udall and congressman from the first district -- the first district of america he'd like to say -- but the first district of virginia, congressman whitman, who i did not know before the trip but was very impressed with. i came away -- my general impressions of what's going on in afghanistan, and i was very skeptical when i went over there. i thought we got an honest assessment. i thought they talked about the positives, the negatives, the challenges ahead. i agree with you that i i was vy impressed with the leadership, both civilian and military, that

we have in the country; impressed with the plan that they put in place; and the keys to the plan, very similar to what we had in iraq, where you have to clear -- basically provide security. and you have to hold that security, not just go and clear and leave. you have to clear and then hold it. then you have to build -- you have to get people opportunities for, you know, they're not just -- they have economic opportunities, some reason to hope. and once you build, then you need to transfer the authority to the -- in this case -- the afghan people, the afghan government. the first parts that are a lot of our responsibility, although a lot of the clearing, the holding, everything is in combination with the afghan army. as a matter of fact, that was -- i don't think a lot of americans realize there have been more afghan soldiers killed in afghanistan than american soldiers or coalition soldiers.

but the challenge really is going to be in the transfer. we saw that the afghan army is being built up, being built up and trained fairly well. one of the big problems, two big areas of concern are the afghan police -- it's taken a lot longer to train them. we experienced some of the same problems in iraq, but it definitely -- they are not even close to trained, and there's a lot of corruption in the police, and there's lot of challenges to come over there. but they are challenges that, given the right plan, given the right amount of time and resources, they can be overcome. but another huge problem is that afghanistan really is, you know -- it doesn't -- you know, it's been described as the 18th century or 19th century country. you know, you could describe it as a 2nd century country.

there are many parts of it where it's just -- literally, people just living in mud structures and with no electricity, with no running water, with no -- you know, any of the modern things that we think about. well, in those areas, and in the vast majority of the country, there is no governmental infrastructure. there is no rule of law. there is nothing to build on there. and that literally has to be built from the ground up, and there's not a lot of resources and experience in afghanistan to be able to do that. so that's maybe the major problem going forward in this transfer that i think that both of us learned -- or, all of us learned while we were over there, and why we question, you know, when we come back here -- we have the right strategy with the best chance of being successful, but none of us know whether it's actually going to be successful in the future.

it's worth doing. it's in our vital national interest to do it. then we have to pray that the -- that it is successful in the future. i think all of us came away with the american part of it the international coalition part of it. we're think we're going to be successful. what we don't know will be successful is the transfer part of it at the end of the is that the same impression that the senator from delaware had? mr. carper: mr. president, if i could respond -- the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: -- it sums it up, i think, very nicely. mr. president, one of the things that senator ensign and i and our colleagues discussed with president karzai, with the military leadership of that country, their civilian leadership of afghanistan, with our own folks over there was the nature of the economy of afghanistan. we heard a lot about corruption. we heard a lot about their agricultural economy, which is largely dependent on raising

poppies, with feeds the opium trade, with provides a lot of money to the taliban and to other insurgent groups. the question that senator ensign and i have gone bac back and foh with our folks is what is the approach we should take to get the -- the addiction of the afghan farmers to raising poppies? they have the ability to raise plenty of wheat and cotton and all sorts of fruits and nuts. they make a fair amount of money on poppies but the real problem is one in which the trade -- i will list i think a bogus way to base your economy on it. but also the corruption of the whole system over there. and we're trying to figure out -- and this is probably an important issue going forward -- how do we help wean the farmers off of the ana an illicit progr.

we need to provide sees, fertilize,advice, technical assistance on how to raise the kind of commodities that they used to raise. somebody told news -- somebody told us in one of our meetings, in india, not that far away from afghanistan, the people in india would consume every pomegranate the folks in afghanistan would raise. plenty of hungry people there to buy those commodities. the question is do we eradicate all the poppies like next week, go through the fields? or do we allow the poppies to be harvested, but make it clear that's it. and the next year we'll help folks plant a different kind of crop. but we're not going to be standing by next year and allowing them to harvest it. it's an issue that i think can

be resolved, takes a tough-love approach. if we want to get rid of corruption in the government, in the the country, we can't ignore the widespread dependence on poppies. mr. ensign: if the senator would yield? mr. carper: yes. mr. ensign: mr. president, my observation was very similar. first of all, when we were flying over the kandahar province in the south part of afghanistan, we were flying in these -- in blackhawk helicopters visiting a few of the forward operating bases, one for training, the other one for trying to provide stability for the region. as we were flying over, there were, kind of surprising how many agricultural fields there were in that part of the country, very fertile area, it seemed to me. just gross estimate from the air -- and it was pretty easy to

see them because the poppies were in bloom -- i would say 80% to 90% of the crops that i saw from the air were poppies. and they were everywhere, including right next to our bases, because we stopped the eradication program. it's been a change in policy that it was the one policy that i really disagree with over there. and i think that we do need to reevaluate, as the senator from delaware talked about, this more of a tough-love approach i do think is the way to go because you do have to have the positive incentives in there to grow other crops. but i don't believe that you can do that without the negative consequences if you do decide the grow the poppies. in other words, if the positives are not strong enough, we're going to grow poppies anyway. a couple of problems with the poppies. one is that the taliban wants them to grow, and it helps fund

the taliban. two is poppies are very drought-resistant crop. and afghanistan has been in a drought for about eight years. so it's a stable source of income. the other thing that you mentioned about other countries in the area would love to have their produce. the problem is getting that produce to market. they don't have anywhere to store the produce. poppies, they have a guaranteed market there. the transportation, the taliban is not going to attack their transport. there is very much of a difficult situation, but it isn't a situation that is, i believe without a solution. i believe we can come to a solution on this, and that's why i think that we need to reevaluate what we're doing there, not including the eradication as part of the process, because when we talk about the police, this was another place where we talked about this.

i see senator brown has joined us, one of our colleagues on the trip. they talked about the corruption in the police, the police force. every country in the world that has a serious drug problem leads to corruption of the police, leads to corruption of any kind of judicial system, of officials in the government and on and on and on. i would be curious to hear from our colleague from -- our newest senator who is a real joy to be with on the trip, the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: thank you, senator. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. first of all, i would like to begin and thank our leader on the trip, senator carper from delaware. really a joy to be on a trip with people that had different experiences, not only life experiences but military experiences, and take that experience and work it together in such a short period of time to form such a powerful team. and if this is how every codel

is going to be, i'm excited to be part of that experience. because what he it enabled me to do, mr. president, is to, now that the campaign is over, to learn and make sure that we were talking about then is accurate. if it's so, then how do we take that and use it in a productive way to give the troops the tools and resources they need, number one, to be safe. number two, to finish the job. our analysis is the general mcchrystal's effort to do just that, the new combined effort with working with the afghan police and afghan national army as well as the the local tribal leaders and our coalition forces and the military has enabled us to, i think, in all sincerity, have the best chance to do just that. keep our troops safe until we finish the job. and what is finishing the job? finishing the job to me and to general mcchrystal and others is to make sure we provide that safety and security around the citizenry in afghanistan to protect them, to allow them to

flourish and start to grow and weed out the corruption and not rely so much on the poppy fields and ensure that they can bring their produce to market or keep their government entities safe and secure so they can start to be more and more self-sufficient. by doing that and working with our coalition partners and president karzai and oh i think that gives us the best chance of success. and i want to thank the team members for their patience. it was a long haul, long flights, 12- 15-hour flights. we weren't partying there, mr. president, i can assure you. we were there up at the crack of dawn and going to bed late at night working with the ambassadors, presidents, foreign ministers of every country we visited. what it made me feel, mr. president, is first of all, proud to be an american and thankful i'm an american because recognizing the true challenges that other parts of the world

face, it made me, especially when we went -- i know the leader of our team will talk briefly about the refugee camp we saw in pakistan with 150,000 people and kids from three years old up to 18 years old in school, and the smiles on these faces, the hope and the excitement that they were learning for the first time in their lives. it made all of us just look at each other and say, gee, can we come back during august and kind of help out because it was so rewarding, intellectually rewarding. it made me and i know the other members just so excited to be there and see the hope. and what does education do in countries like afghanistan and pakistan? it gives them the tool to make sure they know how to deal with taliban and other entities trying to come in and try to influence their lives. it gives them the knowledge to say no. it's health care like the "dare" -- it's almost like the

dare program we have in massachusetts. they give you the tools to not sub succomb to peer pressure and take drugs and make bad choices. my feeling was when i left that refugee camp was to say there's hope here. i will defer, mr. president, to our leader and continue on this conversation. thank you, mr. president. mr. carper: mr. president, i see senator mccain is on the floor. if i'm reading his body language right, it looks like he wants to say something. we're having a brief colloquy on the heels of our visit to afghanistan and pakistan last week. i don't know if you'd like to be a part of this brief colloquy or you'd like for us to get out of your way so you can talk about something else. let me yield to the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president the? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i congratulate my khraoe colleagues for taking that -- my three colleagues for taking that trip. it is of the utmost importance that my colleagues are able to see the situation on the ground, meet with our leaders, meet with the leaders of afghanistan and

pakistan, be with the men and women who are serving in the military. and one thing i know is that the word spreads. word spreads throughout the men and women in our military that you took the time from your schedule, from our recess to be with the men and women who are serving. there's no better way to express your appreciation. but also it is very, very much noticed by the men and women who are serving over there. and i know that my colleagues come back better informed. and also as the situation in afghanistan continues to evolve, would be much more qualified and informed as we engage in what is appropriate for the united states senate to engage in discussion and debate over our strategy and our goals in afghanistan. so i thank my colleagues for going. i thank them for their service. and even the senator from delaware has proven that even a former navy person can understand the issues that confront the army and the marine

corps. mr. carper: mr. president, if i could reclaim my time? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: senator mccain is, along with senator brown, spent a lot of time in uniform. i know as long as -- i know the senators felt special pride in our troops. they're serving over there. they're serving folks from 40 other countries and some didn't send troops. japan sent money. they're quadrupling their salaries so they can hire decent people and keep them. the army, navy, air force, marine personnel we met with, they understood their mission, understood the importance of their mission. they're proud to be serving. we're proud to support them. let me yield back to senator ensign and senator brown for any closing comments they may have. then i think senator mccain wants to offer an amendment. thank you for your patience. mr. ensign: a couple of other

observations to make. one is -- and i expressed this to general mcchrystal, ambassador eikenberry, when we had a -- one of our pwraoegz was of the -- one of our briefings was of the various aspects of the international coalition from usaid to the state department, various aspects of the state department, the military, all of the coalitions that represent what are called p.r.t.'s or prevention reconstruction teams. when we were in that meeting, i asked the question about, you know, how much money we were spending now, but also it was very clear when we were talking about the economy of afghanistan and whether it would be able to support this large army and large police force that we're putting into place, i asked the question: how much money are we spending now and how much is going to be into the future, and

how long? because president obama has talked about us starting to withdraw troops about the middle of 2011, around july 1 start drawing down some troops there. it became very obvious, though, that we're going to have to have a commitment there for some time. i think it's important for us to be honest with the american people, first of all, about how much it's going to cost. conservative estimates that for many, many years to come we're going to be talking about at least $10 billion a year, around $6 billion to support their army and their military -- excuse me. their army and their police force. and about another $4 billion as far as helping build their economy because their economy can eventually take over if their national resources really come to be what the u.s. geological service says that some of the minerals, what they're worth, oil and gas

reserves they potentially have there. klein is coming -- china is coming to build a big copper mine there. they're going to take years to develop those resources. that was one of the things i think i came back with is we need to be a little more open with the american people. we're going to be there for awhile, and it's going to cost us quite a bit of money for awhile, and we should be able to say to the american people, our constituents back home, here's how much we're going to be spending and here's why it's in the other comment -- and we haven't spent a lot of time our vital national interest. talking about -- was pakistan. pakistan, first of all, we have some great leaders over there as well. between ambassador paterson and vice admiral lefevre, they are the civilian and military leader over there, and their teams are incredibly impressive as well. visiting, as senator brown talked about, the refugee camp, and also we visited a base for pakistanis to train.

they are called the frontier scouts, these are for the tribal areas to help fight the taliban. this is in our interest to be able to do that. i was very encouraged by what i saw in pakistan by the new leaders there, giving up some of their power voluntarily, the new president and see pakistan as much more as a potential ally to the united states in the future. i was just in general, i thought that the part of our trip to pakistan was very much worthwhile. i would conclude my remarks with that. mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. in conclusion, i concur with all the comments that senators before me mentioned. one of the things that i found most interesting, mr. president, i have a hearing in about an hour on the afghan police and the contracting associated with us supporting the police force in afghanistan. i was able to ask very direct questions to our ambassadors and

to the military and civilian leaders that would help me better understand where the $6 billion we've spent to uplift the afghan police force has gone. another reason i went there was self-serving in that it gives me the tools to make sure that i can better inquire to find out on behalf of the american people where their money is going, how it's being spent and whether we can find a way to spend it better. in addition to that, one of the things that was glaring to me, even in pakistan, there is an i will literacy problem that needs to be addressed. that i will literacy problem if not addressed, i think will really be fertile ground for the taliban to come in and try to influence the youth of that country. they have a lot of hope, yet they have some very serious problems. so i think in conclusion, once again, i want to thank our leader. i have great respect for him, someone i didn't know before i

went. i would encourage others to do that and have that bipartisan feel as i've tried to do often. we saw senator baucus over there with his team kind of shadowing us and making sure they remember actually working. it was a lot of fun to see them over there as well wean their travel problems. but i'm looking forward to doing it again. i want to thank you, mr. president, for allowing me to speak. mr. carper: mr. president, let me close it down for our side. senator brown, was a great opportunity to travel with you and to get to know you and to learn with you. thank you so much for being a great part of our team. to wendy anderson who helped put this all together and army major mcdone now. we've been joined on the floor by congressman whitman, first district of virginia and want to say how impressed we were with him. the road map in afghanistan won't be easy. i think it's an important road

we have to travel and it's not one we have to travel by o*ufrplts a lot of other -- ourselves. a lot of other nations are involved in this. we need help from the leadership of afghanistan. we made very clear to president car stkaoeugs who is under a lot of -- made very clear to president karzai we have no intention of being an occupying force. this is not an open-ended commitment. my hope is it won't run up the cash registers as much as senator ensign suggested. nonetheless, it's an important use of our resources. this is a battle, this is the war we should have been fighting all along. mr. president, thank you for this time today. i why many. mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to call up amendment 3724 and that it be modified with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report the amendment as modified. the clerk: the senator from

arizona, mr. mccain, proposes amendment numbered 3724 as modified. at the appropriate place insert the following: section, sense of the senate regarding a value-added tax. it is the sense of the senate that the value-added tax is a massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income and only further push back america's economic recovery and the senate opposes a valuedded tax. mr. mccain: mr. president, as my colleagues well know, today is tax day. earlier today i came to the floor to speak about the enormous burden americans bear every year in order to comply with today's deadline for filing their federal tax returns. we have a complex, antiquated and oversized tax code that wreaks havoc on american taxpayers. and according to the national taxpayers' union, will require them to spend $103 billion this year in compliance-related expenses. when we have a 2,000-plus-page tax code which requires over a

hundred billion dollars in compliance costs, something is clearly wrong. so what's the answer? amazingly, instead of offering proposals to reform the system and ease the burden on our citizens, some are suggesting creating ways to impose new taxes on americans and even further complicate our tax code. according to this morning's "wall street journal," the obama administration and its allies have floated the idea of imposing a value-added tax, a sales tax imposed on each stage of production, on each firm's value added with the actual cost ultimately hidden from the end user, with the final bill being paid by the consumer at the cash register. this type of tax has been widely imposed throughout europe. this morning, in an editorial entitled "europe's v.a.t. lessons," the "wall street journal" stated -- and i quote -- "as americans rush to complete their annual tax returns today, there's still some consolation in knowing that

it could be worse. like europeans, we could pay both income taxes and a value-added tax or v.a.t., and maybe we soon will. paul coal occur, nancy pelosi, john podesta and other allies of the obama administration have already floated the idea of an american v.a.t. and so we thought you might like to know how it was -- how it has worked in europe. v.a.t.'s were sold in europe as a way to tax consumption, which in principle does less economic harm than taxing income, savings or investment. this sounds good, but in practice, the v.a.t. has rarely replaced the income tax or even resulted in a lower income tax rate. the top individual tax rate remains very high in europe despite the v.a.t., with an average on the continent of about 46%. in the u.s., v.a.t. proponents aren't calling for a repeal of the 16th amendment that allowed the income tax and, in

fact, they want income tax rates to rise. the white house has promised to let the top individual rate increase in january to 39.6% from 35% as the bush tax cuts expire. while the dividend rate will go to 39.6% from 15% and the capital gains rate to 20% next year and 23.% in 2013 under the health bill, from 15% today. even with these higher rates, or because of them, revenues won't come close to paying for the obama administration's new spending, which is why it is also eyeing a v.a.t. thanks to the recession and the stimulus, u.s. federal debt held by the public has now reached about 63% of g.d.p. and is headed higher. but the oecd forecasts that the 30 wealthiest nations will see debt burdens exceed 100% of

gross domestic product in 2011. debt levels in france, germany, spain, and italy are expected to have increased by 30 percentage points of g.d.p. from 2008 to 2011. greek has a value-added tax rate of 21% but its debt as a share of g.d.p. is 113%. the very efficiency of the v.a.t. means that it throws off huge amounts of revenue that politicians eagerly spend. the v.a.t. thus becomes an engine of even greater public spending. in europe, average government spending was about 30.2% of g.d.p. when v.a.t.'s began to spread in the late 1960's. today, those governments are more than 50% larger, with spending of 47.1% of g.d.p. on average. by contrast, u.s. government spending, federal and state,

rose to 35.3% from 28.3% as a share of g.d.p. in the same period. it's precisely this revenue-generating ability that makes the v.a.t. so appealing to liberal intellectuals and politicians. even liberals understand that at some point, high income tax rates stop yielding much more revenue as the rich change their behavior or exploit loopholes. the middle class is where the real money is, and the only way to get more of it with the least political pain is through a broad-based consumption tax such as v.a.t. and one more point. in europe, this heavier spending and tax burden has also meant lower levels of income growth and job creation. from 1982-2007, the united states created 45 million new jobs compared to fewer than 10 million in europe. and u.s. economic growth was

more than one-third faster over the last two decades, according to the bureau of labor statistics. in 2008, the average resident of west virginia, one of the poorest american states, had an income $2,000 a year higher than the average resident of the european union, according to economist mark perry of the university of michigan, flint. the price of a much higher tax burden to finance a cradle-to-grave entitlement state in europe has been a lower standard of living. v.a.t. supporters should explain why the same won't be true in america. one trade of european v.a.t.'s is that while their rates often start low, they rarely stay that way. of the ten major oecd nations with v.a.t.'s, or national sales taxes today, only canada has lowered its rate. denmark has gone to 25% from 9%; germany to 19% from 10%; and

italy to 20% from 12%. the nonpartisan tax foundation recently calculated that to balance the u.s. federal budget with a v.a.t. would require a rate of at least 18%. proponents will also argue that a v.a.t. would result in less federal government borrowing but that, too, has rarely been true in europe. from the 1980's through 2005, deficits were by and large higher in europe than in the united states. by 2005, debt averaged 50% of g.d.p. in europe, according to the oecd data, compared to under 40% in the u.s. while there is no official proposal to impose the v.a.t., i think it's necessary for my colleagues to be on record on this onerous, new tax. therefore, i'm offering this very simple sense of the senate amendment which calls the v.a.t. exactly what it is, a massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income and

only further push back america's economic recovery. daniel mitchell, a senior fellow at the cato institute, recently wrote, "the v.a.t., on top of all the other taxes washington imposes, is a terrible idea. imposing it would pretty well finish the transformation of our country into a european-style, slow-growth nation. the right way to close uncle sam's gaping deficits is to reverse the continued explosion of federal spending. the real-world evidence shows that v.a.t.'s are strongly linked with both higher overall tax burdens and more government spending. in 1965, before the v.a.t. swept across europe, the average tax burden for advanced european economies was 27.7% of economic input versus 24.7% of g.d.p. in the united states. taxes on income and profits consumed 8.8% of g.d.p. in

europe in 1965. below the united states level of 11.9%. by 2006, the european burden had climbed to 13.8% of g.d.p., slightly higher than the 13.5% u.s. figure. the same trend holds for corporate tax data. today's income tax system is a nightmarish combination of class warfare and corrupt loopholes, but adding a v.a.t. solves none of those problems. it merely gives politicians more money to spend and a chance to auction off a new set of tax breaks to interest groups. that's good for washington but bad for america. j.d. foster, a senior economics fellow with the heritage foundation, wrote, "it comes as no surprise that attention is now turning toward the v.a.t. as the liberal solution for unsustainable deficits that threaten the stability and very future of our economy.

having hiked spending dramatically in the doubling down with his obamacare, the nation now faces unprecedented near-term debts as the clock ticks toward the long-recognized entitlements time bomb. if there's one thing conservatives and liberals agree on completely, it's that deficits of this magnitude cannot persist. credit markets won't allow it. some fundamental course correction is certain. the massive amount of revenue a v.a.t. could raise is the only acceptable solution left for most liberals since they steadfastly refuse to reverse course on their recently enacted spending binge. why is the v.a.t. the darling of the left? because it can raise vast, new revenues without the taxpayers being really sure who took their money. consumers would pay the tax when they purchase goods and services: buy a car, pay the tax; by groceries, pay the tax; buy chemotherapy drugs, pay the

tax. in this way, taxpayers would only be aware of a bit of their tax bite with each purchase. and unless the tax is printed on the receipt and they look for it, consumers would have no idea how much tax they paid on a particular transaction. today's deficits and tomorrow's results -- and tomorrow's result from too much spending, not too little revenue. reverse the massive obama spending surge and the bush surge before that and the deficits would quickly fall to sustainable level. instead, paul volcker has done the nation a great service in telling us what obama and his congressional allies are planning. if that is not the case, if the president and the democratic leadership in congress really are not planning a v.a.tt. attack, let them decare their opposition to a v.a.t. plainly. every current and would-be member of congress would say where they stand on the v.a.t. and unless they favor a huge

government, much higher taxes and less transparency from government, they will stand against it. mr. president, i agree with mr. foster, every current member of congress should say where they stand on the v.a.t. with this amendment, i'm giving members of the senate that opportunity. several of my colleagues have explained to me that they would support a v.a.t. if it was replacing the federal income tax or the current corporate tax structure. i say to those colleagues that i have not seen a shred of evidence from the administration or anyone in congress that the v.a.t. would be used as a replacement tax. i am supremely confident that if and when it is offered, the v.a.t. would be an additional tax on the american people. that is the last thing the american people need right now. the solution to america's worsening government fiscal output is not to increase taxes, it's to cut spending. congress could get america's economy back on track by focusing on tax relief and

simplification, liability reform, regulatory reform, health care security, and energy independence, not on imposing a new, massive tax increase that will cripple middle- and low-income families and delay america's economic recovery. i ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there's not a sufficient second. there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mccain: i thank the president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut is recognized. the mccain amendment is the pending amendment.

mr. dodd: mr. president, i'd like to ask consent that i be able to speak as if in morning business, so as to not interrupt the -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dodd: withou i thank my cole from arizona as well. mr. president, i came to the floor of the united states senate -- i come to the floor -- i came to the floor yesterday, rather -- to the floor of the united states senate in response to the campaign by though, both outside and apparently unside this chamber, who are trying to literally kill the wall street reform legislation, and to tie that reform to that bill, to bailouts. i pointed out in those discussions yesterday that these arguments are straight out of wall street's playbook, written by political strategist frank luntz -- as we all know, i submitted his political strategy that he offered months or weeks before even consideration of the bill, outlining politically how to defeat this legislation. so even before there was a bill,

mr. luntz had a strategy on thousand to kill it. you have to look at the date of his memo to know what i'm talking about. here we have a strategy basically written by limb to avoid any accountability for the mess that they've made of our economy. if it seems strange to you, mr. president, and others that the minority leader is accusing our bill for being too kind to wall street by reciting talking points written on behalf of wall street, you are a he not alone drve obviously -- you're not alone -- obviously. what seems stranger is the leader's insistence that this legislation is too partisan. perhaps he hasn't spoken to the former chairman of the banking committee, senator shelby, with whom i have spent months working on building consensus, who he himself said months ago that we had achieved a consensus on as much as 70% of the bill that will be presented to this body in a mott o matter of days.

perhaps the minority leader hadn't spoken to any of the republicans on the banking committee, mr. president, who joined with democrats in bipartisan working groups and asked reform months ago, each of which those groups achieved real and meaningful progress that is reflected in the bill that will be on the floor in a matter of days; not just amendments that will be offered, it is in the text of the bills, of those working groups, democrats and republicans on the banking committee. perhaps the republican leader had forgotten that as far back as february 2009 i insisted that meetings with the treasury department, as they were still crafting their plan for reforming wall street, include republican staff, so that republican idea ideas would be e proposal from the very beginning, mr. president. well, this morning mcclatchy newspapers looked into the minority leader's accusations made in this chamber yesterday morning and frankly found them lacking. please indulge me for a moment,

mr. president. i'm reading from this morning's newspaper. let me quote, if i can. "mcconnell accused discoed of drafting bipartisan legislation even though the banking committee chairman has worked roughly half a year with key senate republicans and incorporated many of their ideas into his bill. mcconnell also said the bill contains controversial bank bailouts, but it doesn't." end of quote. and this from today's associated press report, mr. president: "mcconnell on tuesday said his views on the financial regulation package have been most influenced by the comments of community bankers in kentucky, his home state. yet such bankers are represented by the industry groups that most favor setting up an advanced, prefinanced liquidation fund for large institutions, the independent community bankers association, the very community banks that insisted upon the $50 billion, that the banks have to put up if they are real estate going to be unwinded, rather than taxpayers, the very banks

that my friend from kentucky claims are advising him on his views of a different view than he does about the bill that is before us. the newspaper article goes on. it says "mcconnell has also complained that the democratic bill is partisan and the white house intervened to stop democratic-republican negotiations." "senator christopher dodd, the chairman of the bank committee, negotiated for months with leading republicans and found much common ground only to see the vote in his committee unfold along party lines." well there you have it mr. president, in black and white. attacks on the wall street reform bill are false. mr. president, this legislation incorporates republican ideas and democratic ideas and it definitely includes one idea that we all agree on: ending taxpayer bailouts. just ask sheila bair, the chairperson of the federal deposit insurance corporation, the organization that comes in

and puts an end to failing banks. ms. bair is also a republican, former legal advisor to former majority leader bob dole, an appointee of the previous administration, the bush administration. she told -- sheila bair told the "american banker" in an article published this morning, mr. president, "the status quo is bailouts. the status quo is bailouts. that's what we have now," she says. "if you don't do anything," she says, "you're going to keep having bailouts." end of quote. "nothinnothing is what we will e even members deny having this bill come you on the floor of th."it makes bailouts" -- this l that we'll have before this body -- "it makes bailouts impossible, and it should," she says. "we worked really hard to

squeeze bailout language out of this bill. construct is that you can't bail out an individual institution, you just can't do it." end of quote. mrs. boxer: will the senator yield for a question? mr. do: i will be happy to yield. mrs. boxer: i want 10 say thk you so much for taking to the floor to explain to the american people the very strange debate we hear coming from the republican leader on this. i was stunned because i had heard that he had met with the wall street people and the banks and then he said over and over again -- the same phrase yesterday, which was repeated endlessly, that the bill that you and the president and the democrats are working on, trying to get bipartisan support for -- for which i commend you -- he said that that bill would mean one thing and one thing only: taxpayer bailouts.

when we all know the entire purpose is to put an end to one dollar of loss of taxpayer bailouts. so i have a question to ask you. isn't it my friend's goal to get into a situation where the banks and the super-big banks, the investment houses bay into a fund themselves with their own money so that if there's any problem and they need to be wound down, it doesn't cost $1 of taxpayer money, that the fund will be paid for by these businesses themselves? am i correct on that? mr. dodd: mr. president, let me thank my dear friend and colleague from california. she says it so much more directly and clearly than my efforts here to explain this. she's just absolutely correct. this is the ira irony of ironie. the $50 billion provision in this bill was proposed by the republicans. i didn't come up with this idea.

this was an idea that was brought up by the community bankers and republicans who said the taxpayer, if there's an unwinding of a failed institution, the american taxpayer shouldn't have to pay a nickel for that. it should be paid for by the institutions that put nem selves in that position. that's what we did. in fact in the other body they have a stronger provision with even more dollars involved in t the irony of ironies, that a republican provision in this bill designed to insulate the american taxpayer from having to pay a nickel to unwind a failed institution, they're knew calling somehow evidence that this is a bailout. the only reason that money can be used is to bail out -- rather, unwind that institution if it gets that that situation. mrs. boxer: and further, if i could say, my understanding is, if an institution gets in trouble, if they're just going to go down. they're just going to go down. they're not going to be revived. and i would say to my friend, because he's an expert on this -- and years ago i was on the

banking committee the, no longer there. i want to make sure i understand if i'm right on this. i think the american people have appreciated the fdic over the years, because the fdic was another way for taxpayers to be kept out of a problem because it's an insurance fund. the banks are taxed, and they put the money into the fund, and if there is in fact a bankruptcy, you're covered, your deposit is covered -- right now i think it is up to $250,000, am i correct? mr. dodd: correct. mrs. boxer: so this whole notion has worked very well. but in closing, because i don't want to interrupt, you know, the speech of my friend, because i think it's important, it seems to me suddenly there's been a huge injection of politics into a bill that really should have had, as you point out, i say to

my friend from connecticut, bipartisan support. if in fact the republicans came up with the idea to have a fee on these institutions to protect the taxpayers, so that we have no bailouts, and now after meeting with the banks it feels like to me -- and these big institutions -- they've turned on their own idea. but they're using the language that is the opposite of what they now want to do because, as i understand it -- tell me if i'm right -- if we keep the status quo and do nothing -- which is again their idea right now -- we're in trouble because we saw what happens when these big institutions get in strubl trouble. main street starts to hurt. lending starts to freeze. and we have seen millions of job losses due to that horrible time we went through. so i want to commend my friend and just urge him, if he has to come here every day -- and i'll

be glad to come over here as well -- to explain to the american people the truth. i'm so tired of politics obscuring the truth. and we need to put an end to it. we're not perfect. the other party is not perfect. no one is perfect. we don't have the ideas that are going to save every -- cure every problem. but we know one thing from this crisis: we had to turn to taxpayers. what a nightmare. thank goodness, by the way, those funds are being repaid. we're still out some funds. but the vast majority of those funds are repaivmentd but we're not going -- but the vast majority of those funds are repaid. but we're not going to go through that again. i would never vote, and i say that right here, to bail out those huge institutions. i won't do t so therefore let's put something into place where they pay into a fund so if there is a problem in the future and they're going bust, we'll wind

them down and we'll wind them out on their dollar. and i just hope you'll keep saying that because, you know, i don't mind getting in a debate with the other side. as a matter of fact, i think there are great differences between the two parties which makes our country great because we all appeal to different people in the country. it's good for stability of a nation. but let's not come here with false debate. let's not come here with made-up arguments, because that only hurts the debate. and i just wanted to praise my friend. i wanted to thank you for doing this. mr. dodd: i thank my colleague for doing this. you don't have to have a ph.d. in bank. just ask yourself this question: the idea of requiring these institutions to put up money in advance so that if they fail, they end up paying for the cost of unwinding it. who would object to that? who is objecting to this? and i mentioned earlier it was not my idea. this was an idea brought to me

by the republicans. sounds moo me -- sounds to me the people who have to put the money up is objecting to it. these are the large institutions that don't want to be assessed any cost associated with their mismanagement of an operation. and so it's pretty much as plain as the nose on your face. i thank my colleague from california. i'll try to complete these remarks. i know others have other matters that want to be heard. i want to thank sheila bair from the federal deposit insurance corporation. we know her here having worked as legal counsel and being part of the bush administration. when she talks about our bill and says that she did today hear that there's absolutely -- this bill has been written specifically to end any notion of any kind of a bailout by the american taxpayer again -- i'll quote her again -- "it makes

bailouts impossible and it should. we worked really hard to squeeze bailout language out of this bill. the construct is you can't bail out an individual institution. you just can't do it." end of quote. further, mr. president, our bill stops bailouts by imposing -- let me tell you how we do it -- tough new requirements on wall street firms. being too big and too interconnected will cost these firms dearly. and should that not be enough, our legislation, regulators can use the new powers in our legislation to break those firms up before they can take down the economy of our country. it stops bailouts by forcing firms to write their own funeral plans and to pay for their own liquidation in advance so that taxpayers don't have to pay a dime for that. and they shouldn't. and if that isn't enough, our bill stops bailouts by literally

eliminating any possibility for the government of the united states to bail these firms out. you see, these wall street firms, mr. president, believe that no matter how much we hate bailouts, if they're important enough at the end of the day, taxpayers will come riding in on a white horse to save them. that's like they did under the bush administration. this bill kills the white horse. there is no white horse under this bill. and when we pass it -- as i hope we do -- big banks, large institutions, banks will know that if they fail, they fail. their management gets fired under our bill. their assets will be liquidated under our bill. their creditors lose money under our bill. and taxpayers don't pay for any of it under our bill, mr. president. the bill stops bailouts. to insist otherwise indicates that either the minority leader doesn't know what's in the bill or he chose to distort what's in

the bill. and yet, mr. president, i read this morning in the "wall street journal" the republican leadership -- and i quote them -- "struggling to maintain a unified opposition even going so far as to circulate a letter pledging that each republican senator will vote to filibuster this bill and keep it from even being discussed." i hope that's not the case. i can't tell you, mr. president, in my 30 years here what a denial of everything i've stood for and worked on here in countless pieces of legislation for three decades, to have members of this body who have spent hours with me crafting the bailout, including their ideas, to vote against even allowing this bill to be debated. i just know that cannot happen. i just don't want to believe that 41 of my colleagues haoerbgs many of whom -- here, many of whom have worked with me on this bill, are going to sign

on to a commitment that they won't allow this bill even to be debated and discussed unless i agree to their provisions. i've never seen anything like that in my 30 years here. i've worked tirelessly for months to put together a bill that reflects various ideas. i know it doesn't satisfy everyone. i've been criticized by the left and the right on this bill. i understand that. but, mr. president, i tried to put together a bill that reflected what i thought was common sense, sound and good legislation. and i pray that the news i'm hearing about 41 signatures before most of these people have read what's in the bill, have any idea what's in it, are signing on to a political commitment without understanding what's at stake by losing this bill and having the status quo remain, bailouts that are in place, taxpayers are exposed and the 8 million jobs that have been lost in 7 million homes and others that have suffered as a result of this economic crisis get little or no relief.

that's a stunning conclusion, if you will, of the efforts that have gone on. and it isn't about us. it's about the people out there who deserve far better than they're getting. anyway, still even apparent that the republican strategy is to delay and obstruct, even after it's become clear that the minority has very little to offer in this debate except for some false talking points verbatim from the big bank script. the minority leader took the floor again this morning and said -- and i quote -- "the republicans believe the solution is for bipartisan talks to continue." well, mr. president, they will. as frustrated as i am, my door has never been shut. and the door is still open to sit and resolve and work together to get through this bill. but i'm not going to sit around days on end in the rope-a-dope game of never knowing who i'm talking with, whether or not they have any ability to bring people to the table, just to disagree with my idea and i'm

still against the bill. i've got to ask myself why did i go through this process agreeing to much of what they're offering, and there's not a single political vote to show for it, in fact to vote against even debating the bill. why in the world would you go through what i just did to end up at this particular point? apparently someone informed the minority leader, i guess, that those talks have been going on for over a year. so they will continue. then again, he once again made the false statement that the bill would -- and i quote him -- "allow wall street to bail out banks." say it enough, i guess it becomes true in some people's minds. i would say to my friend, the minority leader, if you want to continue this debate, you can start by ceasing the efforts to filibuster this bill even before it gets to the floor, and i would suggest more than two or three people have probably seen it, have any idea what titles are in it, what we try to

achieve under the bill itself. if you want to debate, you have ideas, bring them to the floor. that's what this body exists for. let me also say this: if the debate is going to consist of democrats offering ideas to tackle this very complex -- and it is a complex set of issues -- and critical challenges on behalf of american families and businesses and the pherpbz making -- republicans reading false talking points, then count me out. i'm not going to engage in that kind of debate and that kind of negotiation. i have no interest in that whatsoever. we have a job to do here. if my friends on the other side of the aisle don't feel like doing the work, maybe they should think about the millions of unemployed americans. who didn't go to work this morning because they lost a job in this economy created by the mismanagement, the failure to step up and take steps to correct these problems overt last number of years. those americans would love nothing more than to put in an

honest day's work for a good day's pay, but they can't because the same banks who are sponsoring this parade of bamboozlement on one side of the aisle cost our country jobs, 7 million homes, lost health care and destroyed futures and retirement accounts. that's all gone. what about them in this debate? are their issues, their views, their concerns going to be discussed? just shut it down, don't even debate the issue because you won't agree with my idea. mr. president, that's not what this institution exists for. it's not about the process. it's not about committee assignments. it's not about your idea or mine. it's about people beyond the walls of this chamber who are counting on us to get a job done for them. and our failure to step up and even debate these issues and consider each other's ideas, i think is a tragedy. i know my friends on the other side of the aisle are faced with a difficult choice between supporting their party leadership and participating in

this complicated, difficult debate. and i'm not naive. i know that's a hard place to be. but if we can't act like united states senators for the sake of this issue, for the sake of legislation whose success or failure has such an enormous impact on the very survival of our middle class and our economy as we know it, then why are we even here? why are we even engaged in this if that's what the choice is? it's easy to understand why the big banks don't like this bill. it's far harder for me to understand why any of us would be sympathetic to those arguments. we don't work for the big banks. we work for the american people who sent us here from our respective states. we work for families who paid a steep price for wall street's risky behavior. we work for the american public that lost those jobs, those more than 8 million jobs and still face near double-digit unemployment. mr. president, we work for an

american public that lost nearly 7 million homes to foreclosure, for millions of people who have seen their small businesses fail or their retirement accounts evaporate in a matter of hours. we work for an american public that is sick and tired of feeling like no one is looking out for their interests. and like the political hacks and lobbyists hold all the cards in these debates and discussions. mr. president, the minority seems intent on proving them right. i hope that's wrong, but i'm worried that they may be right. on proving that there's no issue more important than saying no, stopping all discussion, currying favor with special interests and trying to gain petty political advantage. strangling this bill with a filibuster or suffocating it with false claims that stick our nation and its taxpayers with bailouts forever. it will continue this era of greed and recklessness on wall street. it will leave us vulnerable once again to another economic

crisis. mr. president, i've been here a long time. i know this institution is better than that. i know there are friends of mine on the other side who care about this bill, who want to be a part of the the debate, who want to be part of the solution and have ideas to bring to the table and recognize no one group, no one senator are going to write exclusively to this bill. but i can't get there if the attitude is we won't even let you debate it or discuss it. that attitude is not what the american people expect of the members of this body. so on their behalf, mr. president, who desperately need us to act, i hope that we're better than that. in the coming days before this bill reaches the floor, that we can find that common ground. if not, we need to go forward, but we need to have that debate on the floor of the united states senate. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: excuse me. i looked up -- mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. corker: i noticed -- i'd like to vitiate the quorum if there's no problem with that. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. corker: i came to the floor because the senator from connecticut, who is my friend, made numerous comments about the process. i know that he's still here. i would hope that possibly he'd be willing to enter into a colloquy. i notice he's talking to the president right now. i'll wait just a second. i was hoping maybe the gentleman from connecticut might be interested in a two-minute colloquy. maybe five. and i'd like to give a preamble, if i could. you know, there's a lot of rhetoric going on around this

financial reform bill. i appreciated so much the chairman of the committee engaging me for 30 days to try to reach a bipartisan agreement. we voted a 1,336 page out of committee in 21 minutes with no amendments. and we did so with the understanding -- at least it was my understanding, i'd love to have it cleared up right now -- that the best way to reach a bipartisan bill was to vote a bill out of committee. we knew it was going to be a party-line vote. to not stiffen opposition by having a bunch of amendments debated and maybe getting people pulled further apart. and then what we would do is try to seek a template for a bipartisan bill before it came to the floor. mr. dodd: certainly that was the intention. there was 401 amendments filed by 2:00 p.m. on friday before the announced markup of that

bill. over the weekend, staff came, or some, to work on amendments. i say respectfully that no one from the minority side came even that weekend. but over the sunday weekend, it was suggested to me by the minority. mr. corker: not by this minority. mr. dodd: no, but by the minority that they wouldn't offer any amendments. i was prepared. it turned out to be a 21-minute markup. i was prepared to stay there all week. just for purposes of understanding here, that was their decision. hopefully we can get to some agreement further down the road. we agreed to a lot. the bill that was on the table that day for the markup was substantially different than the bill i offered as a discussion draft in november. it reflected a lot of ideas and thoughts that had been incorporated between that date and the actual markup date. mr. corker: and i have repeatedly, publicly thanked the good senator from connecticut for going through that process. and there is no question it is a much better bill. as a matter of fact, i think it

is a very amendable bill. here's what i'll say, i think things are being said -- there's no question some of the attacks on the order to liquidation have been over the top. on the other hand, there's no question that treasury and -- and the fdic created some loopholes. that's what executive branches do, because they want the flexibility to do whatever they'd like to do. i would do the same thing if i were them. but there are some things that need to be tightened up and i think we can do that in five minutes. i really do. i talked to the treasury secretary yesterday. it's obviously more of a committee-committee level deal now. i understand that. i think we can resolve that. i think the thing -- i know there's been discussions about this letter. the fact is i think what we're trying to do is say let's get this template done over the next couple of weeks. let's don't slow it down.

i know talked about entering a bill on april 26th. i know there's talks of sliding a week because there are some other cats an dogs need to be -- and dogs that need to be dealt with. but we can do this. if everybody would just calm down and if everybody would quit exaggerating how bad things are, there's been a lot of cooperation. i just met with the ranking member. i left his office. i think there's a strong, strong, strong desire to reach a bipartisan agreement. and i hope -- i think -- i'm not blaming anybody, but i think the white house is stirring around in this, all kind of forces going on. i think the good senator from connecticut wants a bipartisan bill that will stand the test of time. i know that i want one. i know the ranking member wants one. i think most every republican wants one. and i think if we could quit shooting things over the transim

and settle down, i think without slowing the introduction of this bill down, not slowing is it down one day, if we just get serious as adults for the next 10 days or so, a week, i think we could finish. and -- and i really believe that. and i just would ask -- i'd ask all my colleagues, and i ask this respectfully of my colleague from connecticut, who, you know, look, things didn't get where they needed to be and i understand what happened. but i still relish the fact that we came close and i think we can get back there. i really do. i don't think anybody's trying to su sub trifiewj this. we may have a few folks who don't want this because they don't like laws. i'm making that up slightly over the top myself. but i think most people really want a good bill and i think the chairman -- i think what you did in december demonstrated that you really want a good

bipartisan bill. i don't think it's right -- i will get in a little bit here. i don't think trying to call one republican senator to pick him off, two republican senators, to pick them off, i don't think that's a bipartisan bill. let's get back to the table -- mr. dodd: my colleague wanted a colloquy here. i'm glad to be an audience here. mr. corker: i'm glad to listen. mr. dodd: if i've been -- because i'm responding to the minority leader. the minority leader has come every morning now saying that this bill perpetuates bailouts. i'm not going to allow those being accusations being spread s the country when i've been told this is a partisan bill. i have done what i have done in the 28 months i have been chairman of the committee. i developed a bipartisan solution to bills. it motivated me in everything

i've done. to all of sudden out of the blue, knowing all of the efforts that i made, along with others, to try to find that common ground as my colleague from tennessee well knows here, and then to be faced with a minority leader who should know better to come to the floor making these silly accusations, false accusations about a process that has been anything but partisan, about conclusions in the bill that are anything but accurate when in terms of what's included in the legislation, and i'm willing to listen to ideas and how we can make this tighter, if that's the case, to stop the bailouts that are occuring in the country. all of that. then to have a letter circulated, 41 people, even most of whom have no idea what's in the bill, but take a political position because they're being asked to do so without some appreciation for those of us, including yourself, who have worked so hard on this to produce as good a bill as we can, understanding that there are many ideas that many colleagues want to bring to this debate. and they should have the right

to do that. that having a full debate on the floor of the senate -- i fine -- what does that say to future chairs? why would you bother doing what i went through? if in fact at the end of it all, the answer is, i'm sorry. we didn't get our way, so we're going to stop our debate. i find that distressing to me, as a member of this body, leaving it in a few months, i won't be here for the debates. i have to say to the newer members coming along, be careful. if this is the template on how we operate, then all of the things i tried to do, the hearings, involving everyone, recognizing you didn't solve every issue, you have to request yourself the question, why would you do that if at the end of the process you get a letter to circulate stopping a motion to proceed of this import -- if this had been a purely partisan, you're not allow in the room, keep you outside, we're going to write what we want to write. i would sign the letter if that is the case.

this is not the case in my view. i say that respectfully to my colleague. mr. corker: i will respond respectfully, i think the course -- this course of action to get under way is to finish the bipartisan -- let's face it. you and i went a long ways and we stopped on march the 10th it end and i understand that you were losing democrats on your committee -- mr. dodd: i had gained republicans. mr. corker: you had one and that's all you asked for. i want to reiterate that. i never said i would speak for everybody but myself. and i didn't leave the table. never left the table. so the fact is the bill has taken a partisan bill on march the 10th. there's no denying that. you wouldn't deny that and look at me with a straight face. there are some bipartisan solutions in this bill, and i grant that, and i thank you for those incliewtionz, but there's -- inclusions, but there's still work to be done. and i would say to you what

republicans are trying to do is let's finish that work before it gets to the floor. you've said this and i don't think i'm betraying confidences. i would never do that intentionally. this is a complicated piece of legislation and what we need to do is get the template at least bipartisan in the beginning and then you're right. i mean there's issues like the volecker rule and governance issues that will go back and forth. but let's at least get the main parts of the bill right. not the way that you would want it on your own, not the way that i would want it on my own. that has not happened on a number of the titles in fairness. and i would just urge everyone -- there's been a lot of work done. you've done a tremendous amount of work in this committee. let's finish that work over the next 10 days. let's quit yelling at each other and let's finish the work the american people sent us to do. and i'm not lecturing.

i say all of this respectfully. let's just finish what we started. mr. dodd: i hope it can be the case. i thank my colleague. mr. corker: note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: are mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona is recognized. mr. kyl: i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. kyl: there is a view sometime next week, upon disposition of the bill currently before us, perhaps some other matters, we may take up the issue of so-called financial regulatory reform. i would like to speak to one of the key issues that i know is of concern to some of my colleagues and certainly to me. the american people have pretty firm -- a pretty firm view on this, i think, after what they've seen with regard to tarp and the other bailouts. they're obviously not crazy about what has happened.

i think most americans think there should be two basic goals, first of all, to prevent the kind of crisis that occurred from ever happening again and, secondly, to make sure the taxpayers are not on the hook. especially if we're talking about the possibility of continued bailouts where federal money would be involved in unwinding big wall street firms that get into trouble. unfortunately this bill that came out of the banking committee and could be brought to the floor next week, unless it has changed significantly, not only doesn't achieve the first goal, but it also carries forward that policy of too big to fail and taxpayer bailouts. and that's why in its current form you have a lot of people on my side of the aisle saying it's got to be changed. let's get together, talk in a bipartisan way and make sure we can both achieve the goal and, secondly, not carry out -- or carry forward current bad

policies. this bill at least in my view, and i'll explain why, would set the conditions for firms to become overleveraged, that is to say, taking on too much debt relative to their value and it would trench in law forever this concept of taxpayer obligation to bail out these firms. well, how would it do this? primarily it creates a $50 billion so-called orderly liquidation fund established through assessments on the largest banks. so at least the first part of the fund would be paid by banks themselves. but even that, obviously, would not be big enough to cover the bailout, for example, of one of our larger banks let alone some of the other kinds of institutions. but by creating this fund we're, in effect, designating those entities as too big to fail. meaning that the government will have to then pick up obligations beyond what's covered by

the $50 billion. so after the e exhaustion of tht fund and some other steps, taxpayers have provided not just an implicit but explicit guarantee, and it provides the fdic shall shall liable, in effect, for amounts that are necessary beyond that. the specific language is fdic -- quote -- "will guarantee the obligation of banks" in times of severe economic distress. now, that's the status quo. that's what people object to why should we be on the hook for those big banks when they fail? there are some additional problems. this kind of guarantee increases the likelihood that those firms will take risky behavior and then become overleveraged just as what happened with the real estate entities so-called fannie mae and freddie mac. because there was an implicit guarantee that the government would bail them out if they got into trouble, they took risks that were beyond what they should have and the end result

was because they failed we were on the hook. and for a lot more than would have been the case if they had not taken those risks. in addition to that, they are actually shielded from market forces and are given a competitive advantage over their competition. private investors, as we saw in the cases of fannie mae and freddie mac, are more likely to lend to these firms and to charge them a lower interest rate, because they are pretty well guaranteed that if anything bad happens, they will get their money back. meanwhile, other banks like arizona community banks don't have that kind of implicit guarantee. in fact, a lot of those banks are on the brink, frankly, of collapsing today. they are charged more money in order to borrow money than would these very large too big to fail institutions. so this creates an anticompetitive barrier that will in effect make cartels out of the large institutions that would receive this guarantee. and the consequences would be

severe. peter wallison is a fellow at the american enterprise institute. very knowledgeable about these matters. he wrote this last year, and i'm quoting now -- "financial institutions that are not large enough to be designated significant will gradually lose out in the marketplace to the larger companies that are perceived to have government backing, just as fannie mae and freddie mac were able to drive banks and others from the secondary market for prime middle-class mortgages. a small group of government-backed financial institutions will thus come to dominate all sectors of finance in the united states." end of quote. well, that's the former way of saying what i have said before, and that's one of the reasons why you don't want to have this kind of implicit guarantee or in the case of the legislation explicit guarantee by the taxpayers. you'll see the same kind of distortions as were created by fannie mae and freddie mac in the housing market prior to the collapse of the financial sector last year. back in 2003, i was chairman of

the senate republican policy committee, and we began researching and writing about this. we wrote two specific papers sounding the alarm about fannie mae and freddie mac. i was concerned back then that this explicit guarantee or backing of these institutions permitted them to operate without adequate capital and to super more risk than their competitors and borrow at below market rate of interest and that's exactly what happened. smaller companies got crushed, fannie mae and freddie mac engaged in increasingly risky lending with the backing of the federal government, and on a massive scale, they made mortgages available to people who could not afford them by buying those risky mortgages, and that easy credit fueled very rapidly rising home prices. as prices rose, obviously, the demand for even larger mortgages and fannie and freddie looked

for even more ways to make mortgage credit available, notwithstanding a questionable ability to pay. it was a giant accident waiting to happen. by 2008, these two g.s.e.'s or government sponsored enterprises held nearly $5 trillion in mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. they were overleveraged. they were too big to fail. while the resulting collapse devastated our economy and it left taxpayers with a tab of hundreds of billions of dollars. in fact, fannie mae and freddie mac have now transferred to you and me $6.3 trillion of their liabilities, just those two entities, and we are on the hook for it. that's what we have to prevent from happening, but that's exactly what this legislation that passed out of the banking committee would permit. why would we continue this kind of too big to fail taxpayer

liability in what we call a reform bill? we ought to stop that, make sure it never happens again. and i would also make the point, since there is a new regulator contemplated in this legislation, that what happened to fannie and freddie happened despite the fact that they had their own dedicated regulator, and that's exactly what's proposed for institutions in this bill. in fact, the bill would use the very same regulators who failed to stop the financial crisis from happening. i thought this was supposed to be reform. this isn't reform. i am reminded of a line from literature. i don't think it's from "tale of two cities" but it could be, where the actor says reform? sir, don't talk of reform. things are bad enough already. that's kind of the way i look at this. we have got problems. and the kind of reform that's

being suggested here is not an improvement. it's a continuation of the same obligation of taxpayers to bail out those who are deemed too big to fail. and i would add that the bill even extends the scope of these potential future bailouts beyond banks. it would explicitly give the federal reserve the authority to regulate any large company in america that it wanted to. thus, a financial stability oversight council, the fsoc, would have the power to designate nonbank financial institutions as a threat to financial stability, the code word for too big to fail. so a new government board based in washington would decide which institutions get special treatment, giving unaccountable bureaucrats tremendous authority to pick winners and losers, and these favored firms, too, would have a funding advantage over their competitors. in addition to extending this to

bigger companies, the legislation extends this same definition all the way through our -- our financing sectors to smaller companies. for example, one of the auto dealers in your town that finances the automobiles that you buy, if you have more than four payments, they are covered under here. it even would cover like a dentist's office or an optometrist. if it takes more than four payments to cover what he had to do to you, you can be covered by this. this extends small and large and in all cases puts a government bureaucrat in charge of figuring out how to unwind a firm that's in trouble and ultimately require, if they are needed, taxpayers to come to the rescue of these firms. as i said, we have got to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. a firm's cost of capital should be based on its ability to repay its commitments, not on the probability of future government assistance.

and so given recent experience, i would suggest that we need a more competitive financial industry with many firms, not just a few large firms with implicit government guarantees dominating the market. i started my comments here by talking about what the american people don't like and what they would like to see. i think they deserve a better approach than this legislation that passed out of the banking committee, one that promotes accountability and responsible oversight. this bill, as i said, is a risk the taxpayers don't need and frankly cannot afford. so i want to urge my democratic colleagues to re-engage with republicans to produce a bipartisan bill that can pass the senate by a wide margin. let's not have any more health care bills which are done strictly on a partisan, party-line basis with a consensus lacking with the american people not liking what's being done. we can provide for the orderly bankruptcy of these failed

institutions without keeping taxpayers on the hook for losses. by the way, a lot of this reform has to deal with preventing the bankruptcy in the first place. in other words, regulating some of these esoteric new financial instruments so that there is greater transparency in these -- in the complicated trading of these financial instruments. i think we can work this out and keep politics out of it. everybody understands there are things which need to be done to prevent the kind of collapse that we had in the past, and it is my understanding that the hard-working members of the banking committee on both sides of the aisle have been working hard together, have been producing compromises. they are characterized to me as it's not everything i would want, but then in a compromise, you don't get everything you want, and that's the spirit in which we could work together to produce a product that would both be, i think, acceptable to our constituents who don't want to be on the hook for any more

of these bailouts and also provide the kind of transparency up front and procedures for unwinding businesses on the back end when they finally are unable to -- to continue in business a process which would not require that taxpayers bear ultimate responsibility for their losses. if we're able to work together to do this, it will be a win-win situation for the american people, and just maybe, mr. president, we will have demonstrated that republicans and democrats can actually sit down together, work something out and pass a bill that's good for everybody. mr. president, i suggest the absence -- the presiding officer: the senator will suspend and let the chair make an announcement. the chair submits to the senate for printing in the senate journal and the congressional record the replication of the house of representatives to the answer of judge j. thomas porteous jr. to the articles of impeachment against judge

porteous, pursuant to s. res. 457, the 111th congress, second session, which replication was received by the secretary of the senate on april 15, 2010. mr. kyl: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. burris: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. burris: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burris: i would like to have unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. burris: thank you, mr. president. earlier this morning, we awoke to sad news out of memphis, tennessee. this country has lost a civil rights pioneer, a strong leader and a witness to history. benjamin lawson hooks fought all his life for freedom, prosperi prosperity, and universal equality. when the world was consumed by war, benjamin put on the uniform of the 9 2nd infantry division and rendered honorable service to his country. when peace was won and mrk looked inward to address policies of discrimination and

inequality, he was on the front line once again standing with visionaries like reverend dr. martin luther king jr. at every turn, at every moment in his life, he waged a fight against injustice. he became an attorney and was eventually appointed as the highest-ranking black federal judge in the state of tennessee. but that was only the beginning of a remarkable career in public service. benjamin hooks was the first african-american to serve on the federal communications commission, where he spoke out against bias reported in the media and called for minority ownership of tv and radio stations. in 1977, he was unanimously elected as president of the national association for the advancement of colored people, the naacp, a position he would hold with distinction until his

retirement in 1993 and which could be -- which would define his career. throughout those tumultuous years, benjamin hooks was at the forefront of the nonviolent struggle for civil rights. he constantly challenged old assumptions, stood up to discrimination, and fought against those who defended the status quo. mr. president, he taught us the courage to live out our convictions, he showed us how to translate our dearest principles into words and action. in 1980, he became the first national leader to address conventions of both political parties. he denounced those who resorted to violence and personally led

prayer vigils, peaceful protests and countless other popular demonstrations. at various times throughout his career, benjamin hooks served as a pastor, a soldier, a judge, and a political leader. he fought for equality in the courtroom, in the pulpit, on the airwaves, and even on the battlefield. but never did he act for personal gain. not once did he forget the cause of justice that he and others dedicated their lives to defend. mr. president, so great was the legacy of this civil rights leader, so deep was the impact he had on the fabric of our society that even today, on the sad occasion of his passing, i cannot help but feel what a lasting sense of pride of the

profound and enduring accomplishingments he leaves behind. bingbenjamin hook will be sorely missed for all who knew him, particularly his family, to whom we express our deepest condolences today. but even as we mourn his loss, i urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating his memory and honoring the living legacy that he leaves behind. i'm sure that benjamin would be the first to remind us that we must not pause and remember it for long because there is much work yet to be done. so let us take up this fight. let us defend the principles that guided benjamin hooks throughout his life, embrace the spirit that drove this pioneer to reach for equality, fight for opportunity, and aspire to greatness. thank you, mr. president.

i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. specter: i tha the chair. mr. president, i have sought recognition to introduce the surreptitious video surveillance act of 2010 on behalf of senator feingold, senator kaufman, and myself. this is a bill which i submit is necessary to protect our citizens from unwarranted intrusions in their homes. the bill requires and it regulates the use of surreptitious video surveillance in private residence where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. earlier this year at lower marion, a suburb of philadelphia, it was discovered that laptops taken home by students could be activated by

school officials and thereby see what was going on inside a private residence. surprisingly, this kind of surreptitious surveillance is not prohibited under federal law. the wiretap laws specify that it is a violation of law to intercept a telephone conversation or to have a microphone which overhears a private conversation, but if it is visual, there is no prohibition. this issue has been in the public domain since 1984, more than 25 years ago, when judge richard posner, in a case captioned united states v. torres, said this -- quote -- "electronic interception being by nature a continuing rather than a one-shot invasion is less discriminating than a physical

search because it picks up private conversations, most of which will usually have nothing to do with any illegal activity over a long period of time. electronic interception is thought to pose a greater potential threat to personal privacy and physical searches. television surveillance is identical. it is indiscriminate character to wiretap and bugging." so that although judge posner identified the problem a long time ago, it had laid dormant until this incident in lower marion township brought it into the public fore. on march 29, in my capacity as chairman of the subcommittee of the criminal law subcommittee of judiciary, we conducted a hearing in philadelphia and had

an array of experts identify the problem and speak very forcefully in the -- on the need for corrective action. "the new york times" editorialized on april 2 of 2010 in favor of this legislation. i urge my colleagues to take a look at the bill. i think there is likely to be widespread acceptance that in an era of warrantless wiretaps, in an era where privacy is so much at risk that we ought to fill the gap in the law to cover this kind of electronic surveillance. and i ask consent that the full text of my statement, a copy of the bill and a copy of "the new york times" editorial of april 2 be printed in the "congressional record." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: in the absence of any other senator seeking recognition, mr. president, i

suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. lemieux: i ask that the quorum call be dispensit and ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lemieux: today is april 15th, it is the day that americans are required by law to file their taxes to pay their fair share to the internal revenue service so that we can operate the federal government. i think it's an appropriate -- it's appropriate on a day like this to talk about the taxes and

the efforts that americans have underwent over the past months to put together their financial information to pay what they must pay to the government. leading up today, americans have been involved in that effort of carefully preparing that income tax returns. it is estimated that 7.6 billion hours of time and more than a million accountants were required to file this year's returns. our tax code has become so complicated that it takes 7.6 billion hours for americans to file and figure out those complicated returns and more than a million accountants to help us in our efforts. i know my wife, mikey, last night was up late making sure that we got everything in on time. we do our own taxes and it's not easy to understand even for someone like my wife who is an accountant and who is trained in

it. and it begs the why, why? every time we do something in this government that doesn't necessarily help the folks that we represent, it's our obligation to question those practices. need the tax code be as difficult as it is? need it take so many billions of hours of americans' time? time that could be spent working. time that could be spent with their families. need we employ a million service providers in the form of accountants to help us figure out how to fill out these taxes? of course the answer is no. and there are good proposals in this chamber and the house to simplify the tax code to put it on one piece of paper. my colleagues senator gregg and senator wyden have such a proposal. there's a proposal in the house that offers the same type of clarity and simplicity to allow americans, if they choose, to file taxes quickly and easily. certainly something, mr. president, that we should undertake and be about.

but let's also ask this question, is the amount of money that americans are paying in tax actually going to something that effectively an efficiently anyonadministered by the federal government. and let's think about all of the money that washington is taking from americans every day. and not just washington, our state an local authorities. in fact, when you think about the number of taxes that people pay, it's really quite amazing. first, you -- first you go to your job in the morning and you make a salary and you pay tax on your income. and then if you choose to spend that money, you're taxed on a variety of different ways because if not every state, virtually every state has a sales tax. so you're taxed on the money you make, then you're taxed on the money that you spend. now, of course, if you don't want to spend that money and save it, we're going to tax you on that too.

i mean, think about that. what kind of incentives should we be creating for americans? should we be saying that you should save your money or should we be saying that you should spend it? we tax it, albeit at a lower rate even to save your money. any interest that you receive on money that you put in the bank or if you invest in a mutual fund or a stock and you receive returns on that investment, you sell that stock, you pay tax again. of course we know when you die, you pay death taxes. but that's not all. have a phone? you're paying a tax on that. have a cellphone? you pay tax on that? have cable television, you pay tax on that? want to buy property in the state of florida where i'm from? you pay tax on that? want to hold property? you pay tax on that. and for some americans, more than 50% of what they make, more than half, is paid in taxes.

mr. president, i would contend that it's immoral to take from anybody more than half of what they make in taxes. especially if how that money is being spent is not being done wisely. here in washington we're very good at taxing and now we've become very good at spending. this year we're figuring the 2011 budget, we're going to take in an estimated $2.2 trillion, but we're going to spend 3.8 trillion. $1.6 trillion more than what we're going to take in. we're not looking at the money that we're taking in in taxes and trying to figure out how much we should spend based on that baseline. we spend based upon what this congress decides it needs. we have a budget committee in the senate. there's one in the house too.

but the truth of it is we don't operate under a budget. american families sit down at the kitchen table and figure out how much they make and, therefore, how much they can spend. american businesses do the same thing. and so do state governments, by the way. state government who's have balanced budget requirements like my home state of florida right now are in their legislative session and they are evaluating how much they can spend based on how much they're going to have from tax receipts. and guess what? they only spend what they take in. they have three choices. they can cut spending. they can raise taxes or find new sources of revenue. here in washington it's like it's a different conversation if there's a conversation even at all. because we don't talk about spending based upon what we take in. we talk about spending based upon what people in this chamber want to spend money on. and that system, unfortunately,

threatens the very viability of this country. we know right now that we have nearly a $13 trillion national debt. remember $1 trillion is a thousand billion. these numbers are so staggering, it's hard to comprehend them. we know if we continue spending the way we are projected to spend, this administration has told us that by 2020, we will be be $22 trillion in debt. now, why is that important? it's important because it hurts investment in our country. it's important because more and more of what we spend each year has to go to pay interest on the debt. this year, we're going to spend more than $200 billion just paying interest on money we shouldn't have spent in the past. if we keep going, by 2020, we'll spend $900 billion a year on interest.

and my friends, by the time we get to that point, the system will have failed, because with mandatory spending, spending on social security and medicare and medicaid plus $900 billion in interest payments, there won't be any money left for anything else. there won't be any money left for defense. there won't be any money left for homeland security. there won't be any money left for agriculture or commerce or any of the other programs and the system will have failed. so do we wait until 2020 until the system fails or do we do something about it now? we don't have a problem on the revenue side. we're taxing people plenty, and today is the day where most americans realize that. you know, there is a real problem in this country that we don't think about taxes more because they are sort of hidden from us. we have something called withholding. most people work for somebody

else, their employee, and they get their check every week, every two weeks, once a month, and what do they look at? they want to know what the bottom line number is. they think that's what they make. they think that's what their employer is paying them, in fact. they don't realize -- and none of us do -- we make the top line number. what's in our check is after everything else has been paid. imagine, madam president, if we got rid of withholding. imagine if every american was required at the end of the month or at the end of a quarter like becerra people have to do to write a check to the federal government to actually pay their taxes, to take that affirmative act instead of having it withheld out of their check. madam president, i think americans would be in the streets. i think they would be protesting because they would finally

realize how much money they are actually paying in taxes. our problem in this country isn't not enough tax. we don't need to do, as members of this administration have suggested, add a value-added tax or the equivalent of a national sales tax to help get us out of our deficit debt problems. madam president, what we need to do is stop spending, spending money we don't have. and by the way, this body and the body down the hall, you would think that we would be focused on oversight, trying to figure out how the money is being spent in these agencies. sadly, i tell you that is a topic of little interest to many of the people in either of these two bodies. my colleagues, for the most part -- and there are notable exceptions -- care more about creating new programs than focusing on the programs we

have. so what we need, madam president, is a construct. we need something that's going to focus us on spending, spending less. legislation comes to the floor and we'll have a member of the senate champion and shepherd that legislation through to spend money. what we don't have is a procedure to focus us on spending less. all the mechanisms here, all the directions all flow towards spending money. they never flow towards saving money. we have got to change the structure around here, even if just a little. we have got to change the focus. what we need to focus on is not spending as much money so that we can have a balanced budget. i have proposed yesterday a solution called the 2007 solution, filed legislation to this end, that we would freeze spending at the 2007 level, because if we did that, we could

balance the budget by 2013, and by 2020, we could cut our national debt in half. not the $22 trillion that's estimated, but $6 trillion. half of the $12 trillion debt we have now. and we could save america. because for our children, if we continue down the path that we're on, they are not going to have the opportunities that we have. we have been able to enjoy an america where anything was possible, where you were not limited by anything but your hopes and dreams. but for our children -- and i have got four little ones -- max, taylor, chase, and mad a line, mad a line is 2 weeks old. they are not going to have the same opportunities that i have enjoyed if their country can't afford to meet its obligations. if investors from around the world no longer come here because we're no longer a good

investment. if we have to raise taxes to such an incredibly high level that it stiefless innovation, entrepreneurship. where my kids come to me when they are 18 or 22 when they are done from school and say dad, i'm going to ireland or india or brazil or some other country because the promise of that country is greater than that of the united states of america. so it is incumbent upon news this time, not tomorrow, not next week, not next year, not when we think the economy is doing better, but today to start getting our spending under control. now, why can't we live off of what we lived off of in 2007? when i go back to florida and i talk to some folks today from florida who were here from barto you which is in -- from bartow which is in central florida, and i said to these business leaders could you live off of what you had in 2007, and they all shook their head affirmatively because they had more money in 2007 than

they have today. so now that we have gotten past the stimulus and that big bulge in our spending hopefully is over, why can't we go back to 2007 levels before the economy declined? remember, it wasn't until december of 2007 that the recession started. why can't we go back to that robust year and say this is our base line? we took in $2.7 trillion that year. that's more than we expect to take in this year by half of a trillion. why can't we live on that level? and guess what? then we would have to come to the floor of the united states senate, and our colleagues would have to do it in the united states house of representatives and have a discussion about priorities. do we need to spend as much money as we're spending today in our various agencies? are we getting bang for the buck? when is the last time a cabinet secretary, an agency head went inside their department and said i want you to find cuts of 10%,

20%? i want you to use technology to create efficiencies. let's impose a hiring freeze until we can figure out whether we can do more with less. american businesses have been doing this for the past three years during this recession. they have been cutting in order to make ends meet. government is going to have to do the same. and i guarantee you, madam president, that there are hundreds of billions of dollars of waste and inefficiency and fraud in the system, that if we spend as much money and attention and time focusing upon that as we do upon creating new programs, we could right our fiscal house. so i have offered this legislation to bring us back to 2007, really just to have a debate, have a focus and a structure to talk about it every year for 50 hours on the floor of this chamber and on the house so that we can begin to focus on what matters, and that is

putting our fiscal house in order so our children have the same opportunities that we had. because, frankly, madam president, that is our solemn obligation in this country, our obligation is to make sure that our children have equal or greater opportunities than we have had. and everything else that we do by comparison won't measure up if we fail to meet that solemn and sacred vow. with that, madam president, i conclude my remarks and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i would ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: madam president, my understanding is that our republican colleagues have been down here on the floor and have expressed their concerns about financial reform and their desire to work in a bipartisan way, and i welcome that. so i am going to lay out some ideas that i hope could have republican support. not sure that they will but i would love to see it because i think the vast majority of the people in our country are profoundly disgusted with the behavior on wall street, the greed, the recklessness, the illegal behavior which has led us to the terrible recession that we find ourselves in today. so i just want to tick off a couple of issues that i hope my republican colleagues would be

interested in working with me on. every week i receive, and i suspect you do, madam president, and many of my colleagues do, telephone calls and letters and e-mails from people in our states who are outraged by the kind of interest rates they are forced to pay, interest rates which to my mind are nothing less than usury. usury which has been condemned by every major religion in this world, usury, which has been condemned throughout history by some of our great philosophers and writers who have basically said that it is wrong and immoral to force desperate people who are in need of loans to pay outrageous interest rates. and yet today, more than one-quarter of all credit cardholders in this country are paying interest rates above 20% and in some cases as high as 7

79%. that, from my perspective, is not providing credit. that is loan sharking. that is doing precisely what criminals do when they lend people and then they break their kneecaps if they don't pay it back on time, exceptly people, , the loan sharks who are doing this now, where three-piece suits. and they don't break kneecaps but they destroy lives. they destroy lives by forcing people to pay outrageously high interest rates when people are using their credit cards to buy their groceries, to fill up their gas tanks to get to work, to pay for the basic needs that their families have. madam president, millions of credit cardholders have received letters from citibank, bank of america, wells fargo, and j.p. morgan chase notifying them that their interest rates are going up, in some cases to 30%.

and a point that has to be made is that these four large banks -- the four largest banks in america -- issue two-thirds of the credit cards in this country. and these four banks are ripping off the american people from one end of this country to the oth other. and it is time that that outrageous behav behavior ended. so, madam president, i hope that my republican colleagues who have come to the floor expressing concern about wall street, i hope that what they're saying is more than just rhetoric, that they really want to do something. and if they want to do something, i hope very much that they will join me in -- when i offer an amendment as part of financial reform to cap credit card interest rates at 15%. and that is the same statutory cap that has been in existence

for 30 years at credit unions all over this country. so credit unions are doing just fine. but by law, they can't ask for more than 15%, except under certain circumstances, when it can go up to 18%. i think that if that's good enough credit unions all across this country, it should be good enough for citibank, good enough for bank of a and j.p. morgan chait and other large financial -- j.p. morgan chase and other large financial institutions. madam president, if my republican friends are sincere, i hope they will join me in supporting efforts to bring transparency to the federal reserve, and that amendment that i intend to offer will do just that. and what we need to do, among many other things, is we need to

understand which financial institutions during the bailout received over $2 trillion in secret taxpayer-backed loans virtually interest free. who are they? i can tell you that last year, as a member of the budget committee, i asked fed chairman bernanke that very simple question, and he said, no, he is not going to tell me which financial institutions, not going to tell the american people which financial institutions received trillions of taxpayer dollars. well, i've got a problem with that. i think the american people do. and we're going to offer an amendment as part of financial reform in order to understand what, in fact, is happening to demand transparency there. madam president, in april of last year, the senate voted

59-39 on an amendment that i offered with senators webb, bunning and feingold to the budget resolution calling on the fed to release this information and yet as of this day, the fed has refused to do that. in august of last year, federal u.s. district judge loretta presca, nominated by president george w. bush, ordered the federal reserve to release this information. the fed appealed that decision and last march, the u.s. appeals court in manhattan upheld that decision, yet the fed his still not disclosed this information. and over 300 members of congress have cosponsored legislation calling on an independent audit of the fed. in other words, madam president, we now have 59 senators, over 300 members of congress, a u.s. district court judge, and a u.s.

appeals court that have said to the chairman of the fed, mr. bernanke, in no uncertain terms that the american people have a right to know the names of the largest banks in this country that have received over $2 trillion in taxpayer-backed loans from the federal reserve. so if my republican friends are sincere, if they really want to take on the greed and the recklessness of wall street, if they want to give the american people transparency as to what's happening on wall street, i certainly hope they will support that amendment. madam president, i also hope that we can receive support to address the issue of too-big-to-fail. and in that regard, i have offered legislation which is

pretty simple, and it says that the treasury department would provide a list to congress of all the too-big-to-fail banks in this country within 0 day90 dayf passage of that legislation and break them up within a year so that they can no longer threaten to bring down the economy is once again they get into troub trouble. madam president, quite amazingly -- and i think most people don't understand this -- under the leadership of the bush administration and fed chairman ben bernanke, the largest financial institutions since the bailout have not gotten smaller. in fact, they have gotten larg larger. in 2008, the bank of america, the largest commercial bank in this country, which received a $45 billion taxpayer bailout, purchased countrywide, the largest mortgage learned in this country, and merrill lynch, the

largeslargest brokerage firm ins country. in other words, what we are seeing in at least three out of the four largest banks in this country, is since the bailout, they have become even larger, becoming an even greater threat to the financial stability of this country if once again they're ever in a position to fail. madam president, the issue of large banks is not just that they are a threat to the stability of our economy if they are about to fail. the other aspect of that problem is the concentration of ownership that currently exists. when you have four large financial institutions that issue two-thirds of the credit cards in this country and half

of the mortgages, you have a very dangerous and noncompetitive type situation. and i think given the fact that we have seen these financial institutions issue esoteric and not understandable financial institutions -- financial instruments whose only goal is to secure more money and profits and compensation packages for the c.e.o.'s of these institutions, we need to start breaking them up and have financial institutions that understand that their roll is to provide credit to the productive economy, the businesses in this country that actually produce real products, provide real services, and create real jobs. in other words, we need to break them up to create a new wall street which becomes part of the

united states of america, part of our economy, not an isolated island whose only goal in life is to issue worthless financial instruments in order to make outrageous short-term profits. and that is a huge issue that we have got to deal with. so, madam president, if my republican colleagues are, in fact, sincere, if they want to do more than follow pollster frank luntz's playbook and throw out certain words that they think will work for them politically, i look forward to their support for real financial reform. bottom line is we cannot continue to do what we have done for a number of years. we have got to summon the courage -- because it will take

courage -- because wall street is enormously powerful -- in order to get the redegree laition that led us to -- deregulation that led to the disaster that happened over a year ago, over a ten-year period, wall street spent the unbelievable sum of money of $5 billion on campaign contributions and lobbying. frankly, i don't even know how you can spend that kind of money. but, nonetheless, it certainly worked, and against my vote when i was in the house, they got the deregulation they wanted. and lo and behold, once they were deregulated to, not my surprise, they went out and did all kinds of very, very strange things, reckless things, illegal things, which brought us to where we were a year and a half ago. so i think what we need is real financial reform. we need a cap on interest rates so that wall street cannot continue to rip off ordinary americans. we need transparency at the fed.

we need to know which financial institutions are receiving trillions of dollars of taxpayer money. we need to begin the process of breaking up these huge financial institutions, not only from a too-big-to-fail concern but also from a concentration -- concentration of ownership issue, because you're going to need a lot more competition in the financial industry than we have right now. so let us -- we will find out soon enough whether our republican friends doing more than reading from a pollster's playbook or whether they are serious about taking on wall street. i have my doubts but i hope that i'm wrong and i hope that we will gain their support in bricking real reform to our financial institutions. and with that, madam chair, i would yield the floor and note the absence of quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk

will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: mr. durbin: madam president, i

ask unanimous consent that the quor call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: we're considering the extension of unemployment benefits and it's a debate which has gone on repeatedly. i see the chairman of the senate finance committee has come here and has been sitting patiently on the floor trying to work this through. and i think we may be close to a vote on this matter very shortly. and if i'm not misstearntion i think if we're successful in passing this, it will extend unemployment benefits until the end of may. i hope we don't face this again between now and then because not only does it tie up the senate for a lengthy period of time, but it creates uncertainty across america. 212,000 people had their unemployment benefits cut off in the united states last week because we were gone and the benefits expired. and so this week another 212,000 people. in my home state of illinois, 16,000 people a week lose their unemployment benefits because of

the decision by the senate not to move forward and extend those unemployment checks. an unemployment check in my home state is about $300 a week. some have come to the floor and argued that we shouldn't give unemployment benefits because it makes people lazy. if they're getting $300 a week, they won't go looking for jobs. i wonder when it was, if ever, that a senator tried to live on $3000 week? i think it would be very difficult -- $triads to live on $300 a week? i think it would be very difficult. so extending these benefits in my estimation is not only humane, it is a good economic judgment. the money given to people out of work is money that is spent immediately for the necessities of life. it isn't saved or invested. they go out and spend it on what they need, whether it's utility bills or rent or food or clothing, whatever it might be. so it's money that's injected

straight into the economy. and when our republicans come to the floorks they say, now wait a minute. at some point with our national debt, you've got to pay for this. and i say to them, how would you pay for it? they say, we'd pay for it by cutting spending on projects that create jobs. now, wait a minute. if you cut spending on projects that create jobs, there are more people unemployed. more people unemployed need more benefits. we can't end the recession until we focus on putting people back to work. one of the key areas that senator baucu but a and the sene finance committee has work -- one of the key areas that senator baucus and the senate finance committee has worked on is putting money back into america. small businesses are going to be the engine that brings us out of this recession. so when senator baucus and the finance committee create tax credits for businesses that hire the unemployed or reduce their payroll taxes for those that hire the unemployed or new deductions for expensing and the purchase of capital equipment,

we're doing everything we can to put money into those small businesses. and the argument that we should stop spending on those things will just mean the recession goes on longer. so i hope that we can reach a point soon where we put the question of unemployment behind us. there should be a debate on the national debt, and there will be. i don't know if it's a great honor or not, but senator reid, the majority leader, has appointed me to the deficit commission. and i met today with erskine bowles, who was the head of the small business administration under president clinton, as well as alan simpson, former united states senator from wyoming who chaired this commission. and we're going to start in just a couple of weeks our inquiry and debate on what to do about our national debt. and it is one that's long overdue. but i think if we're honest about this, we realize it will take some thoughtful consideration and some time to come up with an approach that really deals with the debt in a humane and sensible way but

doesn't stop our recovery in this recession. so we're tasked with doing that. senator baucus is a member of that commission as well. we'll spend some time together talking about it i'm sure. and we have to report by the end of the year. in the meantime, we'll be watching the appropriations bills that come through here to cut the waste out of the spending, if there is some, in some of these agencies and i'm sure we can find some. in the meantime, let's not really make the unemployed across america the vick tills of this debate. -- the victims of this debate. let us give them some certainty that the necessities in life that they need because they've lost a job through no fault of their own are going to be provided for. we want to make sure that if they've lost their live's savings and stand to lose their home, we give them a helping hand while they look for work. in my home state of illinois, the unemployment figures haven't gone down. it tells me we were late to the recession. we'll probably be slow to the

recovery. i'm sorry to report that. but in the meantime, we to create the climate for small business expansion and we have to create safety net for those who are out of work across america. the passage of this bill will help us do that. madam president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask consent the ll of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: first i want to express my appreciation to everyone in the senate. there's been a good debate. sides have been chosen. arguments were good on both sides. we had amendments on this. there were efforts made to move forward and have a cloture vote on it. i thought this was the best way to go. so i appreciate everyone's help. we didn't want to take these votes, we took them. i ask consent that at 5:00 p.m. the senate proceed to vote in relation to the mccain amendment number 3724. upon disposition of the mccain amendment, no further amendments be in order, the senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the baucus amendment number 3721 as modified, that

cloture is invoked all post cloture time be yielded back and if the amendment be agreed to, the bill be read a third time. following the reading of the paygo letter from the chairman of the budget committee the cloture motion were the to the bill be withdrawn, the senate proceed to sewed on passage of the bill as amended and two minutes prior to the first vote be equally divided and controlled between senators baucus and mccain. the presiding officer: is therebjecon? without objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: madam president? the presidg fice the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: madam president, it's tax day. americans are overtaxed and burdened by a complex, antiquated and oversized tax code. this year they'll spend $100 billion in compliance-related expenses. neff offering proposals -- instead of offering proposals to

reform the system some are suggesting a value-added tax which would even further complicate our tax code. i believe it's an opportunity to, with the sense of the senate resolution that members of congress should say where they stand on that. and this is their opportunity. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. mr. baucus: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: madam president, the amendment by the senator from arizona would state the sense of the senate that we should not adopt a value-added tax. personally, i agree with him. i do not myself favor a value-added tax. i for one would be happy to accept the amendment. i don't know if the senator from arizona wants a roll call vote or not. i hope we don't have to have one, but if he wants one, that's fine with me.

personally, the order i think states we'll start voting at 5:00. if we don't get the vote on the mccain amendment, i intend to vote on it. the presiding officer: is all time yielded back? the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote: