from your right, peter blank, kiplinger, ralph of eurasian business coalition, shauna thomas of nbc news. jerry guysle, crane communications, michael, supervisor with a.p. radio, jennifer levin daughter of the speaker and guest of the speaker. skipping over the podium we have andrew schneider associated editor and chairman of the press club speaker's committee. skipping for a moment over our speaker we have deborah, a senior vice president for haggard sharp and a member who organized today's event. deborah price of the "detroit news." marilyn business editor for national public editor. jane, editor and chief of the yahoo! politics and opinion channel. and ryan of bloomberg, the first word in business journalism. please give them a round of applause. [applause]

>> while sander levin leads one of the important committees in congress. likeable is more closely associated than power broker. levin has served in congress since name 82 representing the 12th district of michigan which includes parts of oakland counties in suburban detroit. "the washington post" calls him the lesser known levin because until now his younger brother, carl levin, a senator from michigan has historically gotten more ink but sander has worked quietly behind the scenes building expertise labor in trade policy. in march he took over as chairman of the house ways and means committee when charlie rangel stepped down due to ethics concern. levin oversees tax, trade, social security and measure that moves through congress. if there's major money involved it goes through ways and means. with the powerful position comes a place in the history books. with carl chairing senate arms

services. the levins are the first brothers since the 1800s to serve simultaneously as committee chairs. this year levin has said the economy is job number one for his committee. and he's ready to take on one of the controversial tax issues of the day. whether to extend the bush era tax cuts. other issues include looming shortfalls in social security, trade with china and helping u.s. businesses become more competitive. he's the father of four. and his daughter, jennifer, as noted is here with us at the head table today. he's also reported to be a means squash player and a red wings hockey fans which has been difficult in recent days. the national press club welcome back congressman sander levin. [applause] >> thank you very much. and thank you for inviting me. and my daughter. jen. -- jenny. i can't remember the first session or meeting or event my

late beloved wife of 50 years vicky and i took jenny to. i'm not sure she remembers. but i can remember her at our house in berkeley. on the stairway as we had meetings. and she was 2 or 3 years old. and she would just stay there listening intently. and so she's here today. and i hope jenny, you won't be bored. you're still looking at your dad and he's still looking at you. i decided to focus my remarks essentially on the matters before our committee. i thought that might be appropriate. if you would like to ask any question unrelated to ways and means, i will turn my cell phone on and text message my brother. [laughter]

>> so i have it here. especially if it relates to arms services matters. and others. he's investigating beyond arm services today as you know. you know, as i sat down to write my remarks, i thought what were the events of the 27 years that i've been in the congress. and my colleague is here. we served together. butler, we served together. and i remembered -- i came in the early '80s, the recession. the end of soviet power and domination. i remember a debate over the healthcare bill in the clinton years. i remember very vividly the republican takeover of the house. of course, 9/11 and the war in iraq. i remember also going home in

1993 after the deficit reduction vote that passed just by a sliver. and we made the mistake, i thought, of having a town meeting. i loved them all. but in a place in warren, michigan, in a shopping mall with a very low ceiling. and i can still hear the reverberations. it was a rather turbulent meeting. but as i began to write my remarks i decided that this is different. and so here's what i wrote down. we're at a major cross road. in a democracy every generation or so they occur conditions which can be described by what seems a rather strange label. a perfect storm.

it's defined and one of the staff dug this out of an internet. i won't mention which place. in quotes, a rare combination of circumstances that aggravate a situation dramatically. and this volatile climate includes -- and let them run through them, i think. you all know them and some of them report on them the deepest economic recession since the depression, a historic financial meltdown receiving more and more attention. the globalizing of our economy more apparent every day. all of them impacting the families that i represent in the community of suburban michigan. secondly bush administration policies contributed to a historically high level of income ineequalities. upper incomed families doing still better.

and middle class families essentially stagnant in their incomes. a historic increase in the debt replacing what were projected budget surpluses. in third and being on the committee i remember these issues so well. neglect of public programs intended to provide safeguards for families in need. a disgraceful example. and it's so vivid in michigan. the doubling of the social security disability backlog in eight years. hundreds of thousands waiting two or three years or more for a decision. and an unemployment insurance system that has too often failed to help jobless workers. and last, u.s. trade deficits, the largest in recorded history. twice as large as the previous record in the '80s.

and a major drag on our economy. and contributor to the global crisis. so when such a combination creates in quotes a perfect storm, there's rarely going to be perfect answers. the president has said that so often. but also i think it needs to be said that all actions will be imperfect. but inaction is more often than not the most imperfect. so in my judgment, major change is the only course. and this will inevitably in a democracy bring a clash of ideas. and from my experience going back decades, the clash has now been intensified by the loss of moderates within republican ranks. a few of you may remember, jenny

does, several decades ago i tried to be elected governor of michigan against a moderate republican, bill milliken who has become a good friend of mine. and if i might say so, he and i today are much closer in ideas than he is to those dominant in today's republican party. and so healthcare became the arena for this intense battle of ideas and rhetoric. the obama administration inherited a healthcare system, the best in terms of innovation. and almost the worst among industrial nations in terms of cost and coverage. the unsuccessful clinton reform effort which followed by eight years of inaction whose costs and coverage has grown worse. so he with reacted.

basic change creates resistance. and the nation heard claims of impending disaster similar to those heard surrounding the passage of social security, medicare. and the staff and i pulled together some of those quotes from the '60s and the 30s. they're not included here because of the lack of time. but they sound so similar those claims and arguments of decades ago to those here today. well, it turned out that pronost -- looking into the future is wrong. this happens i think when people do what they believe in. and believe their actions will be in the best american tradition spreading the wings of opportunity and of community.

well, we returned last week. and jobs is our number one issue. very much before this committee. the deeper the recession, the longer the traditional lag is we know in job creation. actions have led to significant stabilization. and i think there are more and more signs. when i talk to some of you in the business world, the first question i ask is it a bit better? and most of you say yes, a bit better. but clearly we have to undertake additional efforts to spur job growth. so as you know the president signed the higher bill last week. and it has some real incentives for small businesses. and the house approved, unfortunately, with only a handful republican votes the small business and infrastructure tax act to assist

small businesses and extend the very successful build america bond program, which experts have called, and i quote, one of the economic recovery efforts biggest successes. well, we heard -- had a hearing last week on green jobs. and a distinguished reporter was here. was there, i think, for all of it. it went from 10:00 until 6:00 pm. it was a useful hearing, i think. and we're now looking at further legislation. and several business spokespersons had something to say that i thought was so significant from gm and dow about the need for an active public partnership with the private sector to develop technologies shaping our future. and these two people said it could not have happened only relying on markets themselves.

and it was this that characterized programs of so many of you know in the recovery act. the battery grants which have helped to spark the beginning of a renaissance in michigan and elsewhere and industrially. it's interesting as i talked to my colleagues, how many of my colleagues say i come from the state that is going to be the new center of electric battery development. so many. and i look at them and i say, you know it's michigan. no, they say it's ohio. someone says it's delaware. joe biden is from delaware so i took that somewhat seriously. [laughter] >> but also this public/private partnership is the underlying premise of the r and d tax credit which is at the heart of

both bills. these bills are being worked on and to anticipate a question on this. i think these bills -- the extender bills and the infrastructure bills we need to work on them but pass them before memorial day. let me say a few words about safeguards for workers. i think those who reported knew as i handled the unemployment comp bill which is last week, i was really disturbed at the attack on the bill where the resistance to it further among senate republicans and then most unfortunately not all of the house republicans. there are today twice the numbers of long-term unemployed compared to any other time on record. it's usually been a bipartisan effort.

but the claim among republicans is that we cannot afford it because of the deficit. these members seem to have discovered fiscal responsibility when it comes to unemployed workers. but not when it comes to paying for tax cuts for the very wealthy. so we have to extend unemployment and cobra. we also have in the recovery act for those dislocated by trade. and fortunately in the recovery act, we began some long-needed reforms of the unemployment comp system. also we included -- and this has been somewhat overlooked, some important improvements to provide funding to help states with rising welfare case loads. and it's really interesting -- i do suggest those in the media look at what the states have been doing with these several billions of dollars in this tanf

program. some of the most conservative states have essentially used tanf monies to put people back to work. and congress has increased funding for the disabled. in michigan today, the average wait for those who are disabled or claim to be disabled is over three years. and there's no healthcare. these are people we don't see. it's hard to find them. they're covered by privacy requirements. but we need to do better. remember, two-thirds of the claims that are being litigated eventually are approved. and people are waiting all of

these years falling deeper and deeper into despair. and some even dying before the litigation can proceed. so let me say a word about tax policy. rumor is ways and means have jurisdiction over the estate tax. just a brief word about the estate tax. it expired. we're four months into the year without resolution of it. i find this uncertainty unacceptable and unfair. i wrote this out. and i had to double-check it. i'm a lawyer. i did a bit of estate planning. but i don't think i fully realized all of the ramifications. for instance, many wills are written to leave to the children as is below the estate tax threshold with the rest going to the surviving spouse.

today that means that the children may well be left with nothing. well, just a word about the expiring tax cuts. during the last economic expansion from '01 to '07, the top 1% of americans received two-thirds of the increase in national income. while the middle class incomes essentially stagnated. the divergence of income we have seen in the last decade means we should keep the middle income tax cuts and let those for the very wealthy expire. and i think that is going to eventually happen. and indeed this was the course set by statutory paygo. and paygo not only sets that course but is a vital step for fiscal responsibility. and just a word, once we handle

these issues, we can turn our attention to the reform of the tax code. charlie rangel as you know months ago unfolded -- unveiled a comprehensive tax reform proposal. and i think we'll continue to work on it. so just a few words about trade. as some of you know, i've been somewhat involved in this and have some deep feelings about it. the bush administration took a hands-off approach to trade policy. those of you who report on it have heard me say that so many times. it was whetted to the view that the more the trade, the better. no matter its terms or contents. in my judgment we need to both expand trade and spread its benefits more broadly. and be sure that our workers and businesses are playing on a level playing field. that's been the expression most importantly of the president.

talking about the need for it to be reciprocal, not just a one-way street. the administration has taken important steps to carry that out. a brief word and you may want to talk more about the specific trade agreements. that the administration inherited from the bush administration, korea, colombia, and panama. there's no doubt they contain some important positive aspects. but also some flaws. and when they were being negotiated, we made clear to those negotiating that they had to be changed. they weren't. and now we need to fix them. last week we held a bipartisan meeting of key house members. the four of us, republicans and democrats. with a new leadership working on the doha negotiations. it was a constructive session.

and maybe was a slight glimmer of hope that we can begin to revive a bipartisan trade policy. so we're going to be working together, i hope, on a broad range of issues. and perhaps you want to talk more about this we'll receive the transpacific agreement. and also the issues of currency. we are going to actively offer our support for the administration's g20 initiative it off address unsustainable global trade and financial imbalances including addressing currency policies. china's currency is clearly undervalued. and is an important cause of our country's major trade deficits. and i'll continue to be working with this administration over the next few months as it addresses in the g20, as it

must, the currency issue. so let me conclude with just a few thoughts. so many of the penny issues of 2010 are in the jurisdiction of our committee. moving ahead responsibly and responsively, and i emphasize both, we have held hearings, for example, on china currency. and recently on energy and technology issues. and we had recently a committee markup of the most recent jobs bill. and we'll continue to do that. and just this last comment. much is being reported now about the political outlook for november. and as i look about, that's true of many of you. congressional democrats know that repairing the damage of the combination of harmful bush

administration policies in many key areas and its inaction in others in replacing them with sound policies require both persistence and patience. and a vigorous dialog with the american people. we know that responding to the dynamics of a perfect storm means resistance is a part of progress. we have confidence that the path forward we are charting builds on the finest american traditions. and that we are going to succeed. thk you very much. [applause] >> and thank you, chairman levin. in keeping with the wide range of topics that your committee oversees we have a wide range of

topics for questions that have been submitted today. and i see more are coming in. starting off with one of the topics that you addressed, healthcare reform. it's being said that the healthcare reform package used all of the low hanging fruit in terms of revenue waivers. where can the committee look for new sources to pay for new investments? >> okay. by the way, i welcome your questions. and i know it's the tradition here to have written questions. so i'm sorry you don't have to identify yourself, who asked the question. [laughter] >> and also i love the back and forth including the chance to disagree with me after my answer. but i follow the traditions of this distinguished press club including a red cord that i'm totally unused to. [laughter] >> but anyway, no.

i don't know how low hanging it was. but it was there. black liquor was used so many times that we almost became drunk on it. [laughter] >> what are we going to use instead because we have the extenders bill that's been renamed for not only as a jobs bill in the senate and we have our small business bill that's over there. and has pay-fors including those relating -- relating to treaty shopping. and there's some resistance to it. also over there is a bill -- our nature bill with carried interest in it. all of these have been controversial. i met with senator baucus a week ago, last monday. and we had a really thorough

and, i think, very constructive discussion about where we're going to find the pay-fors. and i just want to assure everybody who's here that we're going to take a serious look at those provisions and others. we have to pay for them. it's required by paygo and by fiscal responsibility. not the unemployment provisions, the cobra provisions, the sdr provisions that are essentially covered by paygo. and i am hopeful as we discuss this that the republicans will drop their opposition to extending unemployment comp unless it's paid for. we have not paid for extensions of unemployment compensation or for cobra. and paygo provides, as i said, the structure to proceed.

however, the rest of the provisions have to be paid for. and i'm not sure where the fruit is. some people think it's sour. some may think it's rotten. but the main thing is, on those two examples and others, and we're working on others, we're going to find pay-fors using some intelligent discussion going beyond the labels to see where we can find provisions th provide resources with equity, with equity. >> thank you. and just to note for your representative press club traditions including the red line we do know you're very popular among the tax and trade lobbyists in this town and we try to keep the paparazzi from you out of respect of our speakers. a lot of our questions had to do with the various trade agreements that have been

waiting for some approval ratification to the congressional process. have you received any signals from the white house who intend to send you the free trade agreements. do you think the korea free trade agreements will be fixed to address your concerns especially about automobiles? >> okay. let's take them quickly one at a time. panama -- by the way, we've been working on these for years. it was a year and a half ago, i think, that i spent two saturdays at the panama embassy with a staff person discussing with the panamanians the free trade agreement. in those days, the then-administration did not want to negotiate labor and environmental provisions. and so essentially the democratic trade staff and i did the negotiating. or the discussing. that's changed. it's up to ustr to do the

negotiating and now we have a ustr which will do that. the issues that we discussed with panama then related to their coming in compliance with basic ilo worker provisions. it wasn't as prominent then as it was now. essentially what has to happen with panama is to implement what we discussed a year and a half ago. and to pass a tax haven provision. they do that. and i think then we will be in a position to move forward. let me say a word about korea. i said, and i wasn't the only one, to the administration negotiators that they had to open up the korean market for our industrial goods. they ship 700,000 cars a year here. we ship less than 10,000.

they have a wall against our exports industrially. american refrigerator manufacturers cannot sell their basic refrigerators in korea. you can go into lowe's home depot and buy several korean-made refrigerators. it's a one-way street. and we told them it had to change. and they had to provide for those changes. they failed to do so. and so they went ahead with a path that was sure to fail. we warned them. can it be fixed? the answer's yes. and fortunately when our two presidents met, the korean president and president obama, for the first time korea indicated a willingness to sit down and talk about fixing it. i want to say a quick word -- i see you're shuffling your cards. i'll try to be brief.

i want to say a word about colombia. our trade policy under this administration essentially says this. you have to expand trade. but to do so in a way that spreads its benefits. that's better for those countries and better for ours. with colombia -- and this was the battle we had over cafta. latin american countries in too many cases essentially have these deep disparities in terms of income and opportunity of income and opportunity. you can't grow middle-class is under those circumstances. middle class is the one who buy our goods, basically. so there is a basic point in worker rights and environmental issues.

it is not because anybody is standing up for any particular interest group in this country. we are standing up for our businesses and workers and and the workers and other countries in need to be part of the nixon ordered to buy our goods. -- part of the mix in order to buy our goods. today there was an article -- you reporters, we clip you endlessly and we stuck them in our pockets the same way. so i stopped this in m >> it comes from the "washington post." colombia's struggle to reduce poverty. the cat between rich, poor continues as wealthy get much of the u.s.a. i went down to colombia myself, as i did when i went to china myself or went to other coaches,

myself to see firsthand what the conditions were. i met with people who worked in the sugar industry. they're essentially workers are totally deprived of their ability to be participants and have a say. they have set up the so-called cooperatives that are a century dummy outfits. and workers go from cooperative to cooperative, being paid for by some entity, i'm able to be able to be a major part of the economy. that has to be fixed for their good and our good. i fully understand the importance of opening up the colombian market. i fully understand that. for our workers, our businesses and workers. we need to have trade agreements that essentially reflect our

values and in the case of workers, basic international labor values. once that happens we will be able to proceed. i understand some gains in security. they're also have to be gangs in terms of diminishing the disparities in income that have so beleaguered a latin american countries. i finished with this. my beloved dad, her granddad, love to latin america, traveled there. we were raised with a feeling of affection. he was the honorary consular general for honduras in michigan in the '50s. he wanted to find a country that would make him consular. [laughter] >> so he found honduras. he stamped five visas a year. but he felt so deeply about the importance of those countries,

fully meeting the needs of their institute. that's what this is all about. so in a word, i think we need to proceed. we need to address the outstanding issues. i hope we can do that. >> one of the frequent argue it's made in favor of ratifying these free trade agreement is the need to force strategic allies. how much wished consideration should be given and whether to ratify free trade agreement? >> the answer is some, but they are trade agreements. that's the answer. i mean, look, we know with korea, for example, the other issues. they are important issues. all i suggest is that they not totally overwhelm what is the

basic purpose of a free trade agreement. i will finish with this. the rhetoric in this town about this administration, our people like myself, being isolationist, charlie rangel an isolationist? now, we are people who understand the importance of globalization and who want to make it work. and word is that article indicates, not for a minority, but for the vast people of that country. because it's better for that country, and it's better for our country. and that was once the foundation of american policy toward latin america. and i want it to be revived, and i have confidence under this administration it will be. >> one month ago future to hearing on chinese currency manipulation. afterwards you conclude the

status quo was unsustainable. another month has passed. china's currency has not appreciated against the dollar. president obama discussed the issue with president who didn't how here with washington. no time unless it. what is congress' role to play in this issue? his legislation on the currency helpful? should the charge rate judge china as a currency manipulator? >> the administration has essentially decided on this course, to try to resolve the china currency issue multilaterally. when secretary geithner and i met two fridays ago, i think it was, we discussed it at length. and he made clear that that was how they were going to go. and the g20, our meeting in a couple of months, it's clear to me that this administration is

differing to try to help bring about a change, that china has rigged its currency. it's been part of their overall strategy. it has to change. they are going to try to use and multilateral process to help bring that about. if it doesn't work, the u.s. will act. i have no doubt about it. i think the administration will act, and i think the congress will act. in the meanwhile, congressional pressure, i think perhaps helps the chinese to understand that the status quo is unacceptable. it has had the imbalance, a substantial impact on our businesses and our workers. one can argue endlessly how much is it undervalued? is it between 15 and 40%, or 10 and 30%?

and how many jobs have been lost? all i know is that the chinese government, and it isn't the only thing, subsidization and other features of it, but the currency has been a major tool for them, essentially, to get an advantage, economically, over us. it is far from fair for us. i think it is also unwise for the chinese to continue doing it that way. so in a word, i think it will change by the end of the g20 meetings. china will make the decisions, will begin to do this, or else we will take further steps. >> we've had several questions relating to the value added tax which was a proposal that's been discussed on capitol hill. could you please discuss the pros and cons of the value added tax, and would such attacks by the president obama's promise not to oppose taxes on people

making less than $250,000? >> you know, i've been listening to this debate. i saw, waiting for the red wing hockey game yesterday, i shouldn't have waited, but i listened to the talk shows. and it's interesting how the value added tax had gained such prominence. i was somewhat surprised. i've heard almost nobody within our ranks discuss it. i know that one distinguished economist in this town to talk about it, but the administration hasn't. so i was somewhat surprised. my guess is that by next week it will be a goner. and that's for good reason. i think it's being raised mostly by the republicans for political gain and trying to label us as a

tax or. i suggest, not only are they wrong, but they should read paul bryans proposal. he is a republican right now, paul, and he has a value added tax provision in it. so i don't think it's on the agenda. and so, let me suggest that we argued the pros and cons, the next that i can come to the press club. >> under chairman rangel, the ways and means committee has put an enormous effort in the last couple of years into putting together a revenue neutral package of tax reforms that were brought in the over all base and lower taxes on u.s. companies and middle-class taxpayers. given the deficit, is a possible to do a revenue neutral reform? does any package of tax changes or reforms need to bring in more revenue over all? >> well, i think to charlie

rangel's credit, he brought that out, as i said earlier, some months ago. it was actually many months ago. and i think clearly, tax reform has to be a major item on the agenda. as to whether it's neutral or not, i think has to be discussed at a time when we are able to focus in on comprehensive tax reform. this isn't the time now. we have been neatly in front of us the estate tax issue. we had immediately in front of us the '01-'03 tax cuts. we have to address them to it isn't going to be easy. if there isn't a budget resolution, with further reconciliation possibilities, it's going to take 60 votes. now, if any of you can tell me how we are sure to get that,

tell me, it will be off the record. i'm not sure how we do that. but that really has to be the focus in the coming months. i'm not sure how we do it, not sure whether they are combined. but that has to be the first order of business, and clearly, comprehensive tax reform is an issue for next year, not this year. >> is it realistic to believe that individual tax increases can be limited only to high into taxpayers when the bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year? >> yes. [laughter] [applause] >> do you think all taxes are the same? if not, what kind of taxes serves society best?

>> all taxes the -- who wrote that question? [laughter] >> i meant that almost seriously. that's what i love town hall meetings, you know? because the person who asks the question has to an ounce himself or herself. know, obviously all taxes are the same. by the way, as i was riding my remarks and i was reading some material and talking with the most talented staff, if i might say so in the congress, the ways and means staff, i had the chance to serve on four of the subcommittees over the years of ways and means. which now income security held, social security where i was able to serve as ranking after our much loved passed away. so i was just going back with

the staff over some materials. and my guess is, if i gave you a test, it would be a quickie if i asked all of you to take a piece of paper and answer this question. what percentage of american taxes, from payroll taxes? my guess is that most of you might not pass. because some of the rhetoric in this town is that most people don't pay taxes. people don't say income taxes. they say taxes. but a very -- is well, well over 40, and perhaps over 45%, of our taxes come from payroll taxes, which virtually everybody has to pay. so the answer is no, all the taxes are far from the same. and my guess is that we will

continue to have an income tax which is progressive, that we will look at taxes like payroll taxes, and try to see if we can make some adjustments. it isn't clear. we have social security and medicare to look at. we have the health care bill, and its tax provisions to look at. clearly they aren't all the same. but we have to do in our society is to find ways to make intelligent decisions as to which taxes are the fairest, most equitable taxes. >> is there any reason the u.s. should not put in place a tax on financial transactions similar to the tax on stock trades that the u.k. uses? >> well, let me just quickly cover this point, because i thought somebody might ask about the bank tax and the financial

transaction taxes. i don't think the financial transaction tax idea is likely to be acceptable. we are now thinking about what we do with what's called advanced bank tax. as i think you know, the t.a.r.p. legislation essentially required in the next few years for the administration to come up with suggestions as to how any gap in terms of repayment is filled. it now looks like 60, 70% of the t.a.r.p. funds will for sure be repaid. i think it's close to that already. there's likely to be a gap, and so it's important to figure out how we are going to fill it.

and the financial reregulation provision in the senate has a tax, but different than is being discussed relating to the bank tax. i think one way or another, we are going to consider this issue as to a financial fee, or tax, on institutions that benefited from the essential need to rescue our economy. there are various ways to go. asset versus income, for example. the administration has proposed one path. we have been discussing intensely with the administration the various paths that may be opened. if i might say so, this is an example of the importance of the ways and means committee, and the importance of our working with the finance committee, the importance of our working with

the administration. and i hope the importance of working with the minority, to try to find out the best way to do this, if we are going to do it. and that's what we are in the middle of. and so i suspect that those of you in the media are going to be asking us in the next weeks ahead how it's going, and i will try to kill you. at this point it isn't clear. >> moving to climate change, do you think the carbon tax provision are workable? what are your ideas for funding climate change legislation? >> you know, i'm not sure where we're going because it has become so politicized. i voted for the cap-and-trade provision, by the way. our staff and i've put together the provision in terms of border testament. it's somewhat related to the

other issues, including the vat tax. because one of the problems we have with trade is, as you know, other countries have a tax system that advantages somewhat directly their producers. our system is more complicated. so we had to be sure in the cap-and-trade bill that we had a provision so that if other countries did not become a party to a meaningful environmental structure, and, therefore, gain an advantage over us economically, that we had an interim and how the to react. it was interesting, i might say so, i will do this quickly, how it immediately got caught up in the polarized rhetoric of trade. they said it was rejectionist.

protectionist, what we were doing is saying other countries tried to get in their head to be a deliberate effort to gain an advantage in trade through pollution, if you want to put it directly. that we would be able to compe compete. so any energy legislation has to include a sensitivity to is included, and as to what happens if we are competing with those who are not included. so i think the cap-and-trade bill has met major resistance. i think that john, john kerry and barbara boxer and others, working with lindsey graham, may have a way to do this that would work, that was different. all i can say is this. and this gets back to the perfect storm.

and it relates against to the environment. look, for my generation, global warming is a threat that we must address in terms of our children and our grandchildren. the assumption is that it will all work out, is an assumption that is too dangerous. so i think this will probably not be the year, but maybe so, but if it's not this year, i hope this country will have enough sense to have a sensible discussion of climate issues. and not be caught up in what has become so divisive within our rhetoric. >> we are almost out of time, but before asking the last

question we have a couple of important matters to take care of the. first, let us remind our guests and members of future speakers. on april 30 without secretary made his of the u.s. department of navy economic 19th will be hosting the honorable ken king, chair of the democratic national committee who will discuss his party's prospects in the 2010th elections. second, the moment we've all been waiting for, we would like to present our guest with the traditional national press club bug. [applause] >> i will unwrap. [laughter] >> final question, the pew research center released a survey today that found that four out of five americans surveyed this trust government. what has to be done to restore that trust? what role do you see the ways and means committee playing specifically? >> i heard those reports, and

they are very concerning. i think the first, the first approach has to be integrity. i think that everybody in this country wants legislators essentially to have basic honesty, basic integrity, to be in a position to call it the way they see it after they have talked to all interested parties and with their constituents. i think that anything that undercuts that is a serious problem. so i think i would put that first. i also think that we have to make clear that we are shutting

nobody out from the debate. i must confess that i find some of the echoes in our present debate somewhat disturbing. however, i think the best answer to that is to listen and to respond. and let me say lastly in terms of how we handle this issue in terms of -- i think people -- i think our citizens in this country have felt somewhat shutout. we have this perfect storm. we have the feeling among the middle income groups of this country that they essentially have been treading water, as they have. and i think we need to respond to what is the feeling of a

century treading water. and it relates to jobs, to jobs, and also i think it relates to education. this health bill, called health bill, has some important education provisions in it. also, i think there is a feeling of a need for equity and fairness. and i close with this, because i think it's a special charge to the ways and means committee that has jurisdiction over social security and health care, medicare, trade issues where fairness is an issue. and also tax policy. i think we in the committee have a solemn obligation to make sure that there is an equitable opportunity for every citizen in the united states.

every citizen in the united states. and why i enjoy so much serving on this committee, is that it gives us the opportunity and all of the areas i mentioned, to try to make sure that this remains a land of opportunity. and i add the word community. i feel what we have been trying to do, our majority, is to keep that promise of opportunity and of community. and my own judgment is that if we will keep at it, if we will have open ears and open minds, but also a sense of commitment and determination, that in the end, we will be able to respond to those who are skeptics of the way it is today. and skeptics of the government.

look, i want my constituents to be proud, not of me, really, but of the position i hold. and other government that i serve. i want to go back and convince them that it can be such. otherwise, why run? i want to run in an atmosphere that renews trust and renews faith and renews a sense that it is a government to serve, not to dominate. thank you very much for having me. [applause] >> and thank you, chairman levin. thank you all for coming today. i would also like to thank the national press club staff, including the library broadcast operations or for organizing

today's event. for more information about doing the national press club and how to acquire a copy of today's program please go to our website at www.press.org. thank you. this meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] we still have a vast workforce out there with too many people who can't read, can't learn, can't compete. 75 to 80% of people who would in the workforce in year 2000, we have to do more with them. >> whether bill clinton from 1987 or last week the c-span video library features 115,000 unique individual. every day adds new faces from politicians, reporters and experts to follow. search it, watch it, clip it and share it. every program since 1987 now available free online at the c-span video library.

>> the senate as gaveling in for the day. following and our of morning business senators will resume consideration of the nomination to be an undersecretary of the treasury. of vote on her nomination is expected at noon eastern. the chamber will then recess until 2:15 p.m. eastern for weekly party lunches. this afternoon consideration of two of president obama's judicial nominations, live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. lord, forgive them if they have been keen to see human failings and slow to appreciate the preciousness of the relationships they have forged in this legislative body. today, empower them to show

forth your praises, not only with their lips, but in their lives. we pray in your precious name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., april 20, 2010. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jeanne shaheen, a senator from the state of new hampshire, to perform the duties of the chair.

signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. the presiding officer: the majority lder. mr. reid: america today lost a civil rights icon. dorothy heigt died early this morning. she helped transform our country as considerably and as courageously as anyone, dedicated her life to fulfill our nation's promise for equality. for decades, she fought tirelessly for the rights of women and african-americans and help lead a national dialogue about gender and racial equality. she was the trusted council of every white house since franklin roosevelt's administration. generation after generation relied on her vision and her tenacity. our country is better because so many sought her help. her legacy is in a fairer and more equal america in which she died and we live today.

but she knew her work was not done and she never stopped pushing her country forward until the last days of her 98 years, dorothy height was still fighting for equality and opportunity. the thoughts of the entire united states senate today are with dorothy height's friends which are too numerous to mention and her loved ones, and her loved ones are more than just her family. following leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business for an hour. senators will be permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. republicans will control the first 30 minutes. the majority will control the final 30 minutes. following morning business, the senate will turn to executive session for the nomination of lael brainard to be under secretary of the treasury postcloture. at 12:00 noon, the senate will vote on that nomination. following the vote, the senate will recess until 2:15 to allow

for weekly caucus luncheons. following the recess, the senate will debate the nomination of marisa demeo to be an associate judge of the superior court of the district of columbia. there will be up to six hours of debate equally divided prior to a vote upon confirmation of that nomination. then the senate will immediately proceed to vote on confirmation of stuart gordon nash to be an associate justice of that same court. the superior court of the district of columbia. cloture has been filed on the nominations of christopher schroeder, thomas vanaskie and dennis chin. today we will consider a way to move forward on those nominations. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: madam president, with regard to financial regulation, from the beginning of this debate, i have called for a bipartisan approach, and for several months, i was encouraged to see bipartisan talks approaching agreement on a bipartisan bill.

somewhere along the line, these talks got off course, leading to democrats pulling away from bipartisan efforts and then a party-line vote in committee and the democrat leadership's stated desire to bring a bill to the floor that was -- that had in effect bipartisan opposition. so last week, i raised concerns with the dodd bill, but i also told the president and our friends across that this bill is not unfixable. it is important for the country and the taxpayer that we get this right. that we put them before politics. that's why i was disappointed to read that senate democrats are refusing to drop the $50 billion bailout fund, a fund that the treasury secretary himself opposes, unless republicans pay a price for taking it out. this is exactly what americans don't like about washington. when one side tries to get something for doing what they should have done in the first place.

if everyone agrees it should be dropped, it should be dropped. if senate democrats think it should stay, then they should explain why they think the treasury secretary was wrong when he said that this bailout fund would create expectations that the government would step in to protect shareholders and creditors from losses. now, both sides have expressed a willingness to make the changes needed to ensure without any doubt that this bill won't put taxpayers on the hook for future bailouts of wall street banks, so why don't we just do that? i'm heartened to hear that bipartisan talks have resumed in earnest, and in my view, the progress we have seen over the past few taste is -- few days is proof that i was right to raise concerns about this bill when i did. as i have said, the best way to get a bill with the credibility of bipartisan support is to allow bipartisan talks to continue. let's fix this bill and have bipartisan reform. madam president, i yield t

floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum

be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, wall street reform is very complex. few of us are experts in derivative trading or credit default swaps or even the intricacies of securities, but the principle before us is really a very simple one, in spite of all these complicated issues that will be in this bill. we either believe we need to strengthen oversight of wall street or you don't. you either need to believe you need to strengthen protections for consumers or you don't. i believe in those principles and in fixing what's broken. that's what this good reform will do. it will enforce the strongest protections ever against wall street greed. it will give families more control over their own finances and give consumers more clarity so they can make right financial decisions. this legislation will guarantee taxpayers that they will never again be asked to bail out a big bank. it will also ensure no bank can

become blackmail -- too big to fail and shield life's savings from gambling. it will make wall street more transparent so we can catch bankers' excesses and then hold them accountable. our bill contains republican ideas and democratic ideas. it's good for consumers and everyone who favors economic security over reckless mistakes. as i said, some elements of this reform are complicated. there is one part that is especially hard to follow. like the most complex commodity, republican reaction to clean up wall street is hard to understand. this bill will bring to the floor the result of months of bipartisan negotiations, investigations, negotiations and consensus building. our republican colleagues, in spite of the fact that they have been involved in much of the negotiation, investigations and consensus are pretending that

this is a partisan effort. i'm happy to hear my counterpart, my friend, senator mcconnell, the republican leader, talk about the need for more negotiations. we don't stand in the way of that. that is fine. madam president, this bill when it comes to the floor is going to be open to amendments, amendments by democrats, amendments by republicans. that's the way that it should be. so no one should think that the bill that comes to the floor is the final product. there will be amendments here. some people feel strongly that the bill from the committee is too weak. some feel it's just right. some feel it's too strong. so we need to make sure that everyone understands that this bill is not a final product. that's why i would hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle are going to let us bring this bill to the floor. remember, there is only 39 of us, so if a single republican is not willing to join with us,

there will be no wall street reform. republicans will have killed wall street reform. i am confident that is not what will happen. i read very closely the letter that was signed by 41 republican senators. i received a copy of it on friday. there isn't a sentence in that letter that says we're going to vote against moving to proceed. i was reap to read that. they said they wanted more negotiations, and there have been more negotiations. senator dodd and senator shelby -- dodd the chairman and shelby the ranking member, spent hours yesterday working on this bill, and that's the way it should be. the bill will bring to the floor and puts an end to taxpayer-funded bailouts. let's all agree on that. and protects consumers. let's all agree on that. but our republican friends insist on pretending, conversations i have heard here on the floor, that it doesn't protect consumers and it doesn't put an end to taxpayer-funded bailouts. we know wall street doesn't like the bill. that should speak volumes. it doesn't like this bill.

of course it doesn't. look at the rules of the road on wall street. they get to take your money, money that isn't their own. gamble it away with little risk and large reward. madam president, i was for four years of my life chairman of the nevada gaming commission. that is not hunting animals. it's gambling. and during those times, we had some very difficult issues dealing with gambling, with gaming. but i understood a lot about poker and 21 andrew let and other such things, -- 21 and rue at the time and other such things. it was on its face a gamble. what they are doing on wall street, we should have the nevada gaming commission come and regulate a lot of it. that's not what we are trying to do here. we're trying to bring a sense of stability and finality to what's going on there on wall street. i again say it, the rules of the road on wall street.

they get to take your money. it's not their money, and gamble it away with little risk and large reward. it would be as if i asked a senator from georgia to go to las vegas with me and i will bet all his money, his money, but i get part of the money, for doing nothing other than telling him that we're in las vegas. there are many who don't want us to touch a system that has let them take their home, take everything they have. they don't want us to touch a system that has let them take their winnings and ask taxpayers to save them from their losses. a pretty good deal. they can get all the money they can that's not their own, and if they profit, fine. if they lose something, that's too bad, even though it's not their money they are losing, losing somebody else's.

they know wall street knows if we don't act, they won't be held accountable for their mistakes. when they don't -- when things don't go their way, they know they can get a mulligan, they can start over. that's the way our system worked when it teetered on the brink of collapse. that's the way the system still works today. we have to change that. with this wall street accountability bill, we will. that's what this is about. it's a wall street accountability bill. let's bring this matter to the floor and offer amendments. let's not be threatening filibusters on different parts of it. let's just go back to the way we used to do things. bring an amendment to the floor. let's vote on it. whoever gets the most votes wins. whoever doesn't get the most votes loses, and move on to the next amendment. so it's puzzling why my republican friends are pretending that this bill to fix wall street is good for those who benefit from the fact it's broken. like the bankers themselves, it

seems a number of republicans care more about making short-term gains than they do about what's right for our economy in the long run. some details of this debate might be complex, but the different sides are as clear today as it could be. on one side are consumers and investors, families and businesses and the vast majority of americans who want us to make sure that the financial crisis they just lived through can never happen again. that is our goal. they know that there was no regulation or minimal regulation and those people on wall street took advantage of that. they were betting on things that would make famous nevada gamblers blush. they don't want us to just talk about it, they want us to do something about it and we have to decide who's on whose side here as we're ready to act. on one side are those that want

to make sure that we never have a situation like we have before. on the other side, we have wall street bankers. they're doing pretty well. two major wall street banks reported profits of between them about $7 billion last quarter. i don't begrudge them making money, madam president. that's good. people in our great free enterprise system can make money, so i don't bebruj them the amount of money -- begrudge them the amount of money they can make. i'm just saying, we need to make rules that don't allow them to cause problems like we had, which is second only to the great depression. some say it's worse than the great depression. these wall street bankers are sitting very comfortably. they see nothing wrong with the system that privatizes their gains and socializes their losses. they don't want us to change a thing. so let's decide that we, democrats and republicans, are

on the side of consumers and investors, families and businesses and the vast majority of americans who want us to make sure the financial crisis they just lived through can never happen again. so those who think this legislation is bailing out wall street should look at it again and let's move forward in a bipartisan manner to get this bill done as quickly as possib possible, go to conference with the house, have the president sign a bill. the sooner we do that, the more stable our economy will be, not only here in america but worldwide. would the chair now announce morning business. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, there will now be a period of morning business for one hour, with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans

controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. mr. isakson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. reid: madam president, if my friend would withhold. mr. isakson: i'd yield. mr. reid: i would ask that the time for morning business be one hour and the fact that the leader and i took some extra time should not impinge upon the republicans having a half-hour and the democrats having a half-hour. i would ask consent that be the case. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: i thank the leader, and i rise at a propitious time for what i'm to say because both the majority leader and the my in ordemy -- minority leader boh addressed the pending legislation in terms of the financial bill that's coming out of the banking committee and also the desire by both of them for the bill to be one that is amendable and debatable on the floor. because i'm here today to talk specific about just one facet of the financial crisis and just one improvement that is to be made by this bill that needs to be carefully addressed to make sure that we don't make or repeat a mistake that was made in the 1990's at the failure of

the s&l industry. i have a chart, mr. president -- or, madam president, i'd like to refer to for a moment. we've heard a lot about mortgages, and we all know right now if it wasn't for f.h.a., if it wasn't for v.a. insurance, it wasn't for the fed buying freddie and fannie paper, there wouldn't be much mortgage money available in the united states right now. it's all run away from the united states because of the subprime crisis, and, in fact, because people are nervous about what happened in the financial markets with subprime securities. but during this crisis that we've been in between -- beginning, really, in 2005 and 2006 and going on until now, in my state of georgia -- and these numbers are specific to georgia, but georgia's the 10th largest state in the united states -- you see here that of the mortgages in default, totally in default or in foreclosure, it got as high as 8.2% for what i refer to as qualified mortgages. those are mortgages that were made to credit-worthy people that had good underwriting standards. those were good mortgages.

well, up to 8.2%, or 1-10 of those at its e apex, was either delinquent or pending foreclosure. but 24.7%, or what's known as subprime or nonqualified loans, were either in mortgage delinquency or in default. 3-1. the reason i show this chart is it demonstrates where the problem happened, not just on wall street but on main street and that is in chasing higher yields, in pushing towards a desire for greater homeownership. credit standards got lax, loans became nonqualified loans. they carried a higher coupon rate or a higher interest rate but a much higher risk. and it's acknowledged by me and i think by most in terms of the housing crisis that we've been on, the largest precipitating factor was, in fact, shoddy underwriting, loose credit, and subprime mortgages.

now, the legislation coming out of the banking committee is going to create something known as shared risk or lender liability in terms of the making of mortgage loans. now, i'll be the first to tell you i'm not on the banking committee. i haven't seen the financial draft, so what i'm going to address is what i hope will happen, not what i know will happen. but what i hope the committee will understand is, in its requirement for shared risk being that the maker of a mortgage retain 5% of that mortgage for its lifetime or until it's paid, is a significant amount of capital that's asked for an institution to reserve. an impossible amount, i might add, for a mortgage broker "a mortgage banker, but not for an institutional learned. the problem is, there are no institutional lenders like saves and loans anymore. one should revisit what happened with the savings and loan crisis, the resolution trust corporation and the failure that took place in the late 1980's and late 1990's. in america in the 1970's and 1980's, most of the mortgages made were made by lenders who

didn't share the risk, they had 1100% of the risk. they were savings-and-loan associations that took deposits, paid a preferential rate of interest over banks by regulatory design to attract the capital and they held the mortgage in portfolio until it was paid. and that's not shared risk, that's total risk. what were our foreclosure rates in the 1970's and 1980's, up until the end of the 1980's? very marginal at all. 1%, 2%, certainly not%, certainly not 12.7. whatever in the savings-and-loan is the federal government took away the interest preference to pay between banks and s&l's so capital flowed out of the s&l's. that was number one. number two, because s&l's then needed to make more money on internal portfolio, we allowed, the governmental loud savings-and-loans to create service corporations which were subsidiaries to deviate from their original charter and instead of allowing them to make home loans, to make commercial

loans and developers. what happened? well, what happened is history. because we got off our mission, because we got off the risk, because we took our eye off the ball, the savings-and-loan industry across america failed. congress had to create the resolution trust corporation to dispose of the bas bad assets ad the country. and we went through, up until now, the most severe recession we've ever been through. but this one is worse, this one's more pervasive, this one was called by a lot of financial certainly irregularities and a lot of poor oversight on our part as well as greed on the part of many lenders. what my hope is when we start fixing things with regard to mortgages, we will recognize that shared risk is not going to solve any problem if 100% risk didn't solve it in the late 1980's. what's going to solve the problem is for us to have some reasonable standards of required underwriting that are an insulator from institutions making bad loans unless they take the risk. i'm suggesting that we define what is a qualified loan that

would not be subject to shared risk and what is a loan that would be subject to it. for example, what would a qualified mortgage be? and i was in this business for a long time. when i started in the business in the 1960's through 1980's, you could borrow twice your annual income. you couldn't have a monthly payment higher than 25% of your take take-hoe became and your total debts a year or longer couldn't exceed 33% of your gross income. that was reasonable spurned writing. what were our foreclosure rates then? 2%, 1.5, in the mid-1980's. but certainly nothing like we've had in the 24.7% and 18.2%. what's a quul tied loan? it's one that requires full documentation so you really do have to have a job, so the boss verifies your job, so the credit agency actually verifies your credit, so you actual have a down payment, you don't have down payment assistance or some now, you see it, now you don't loan. no-interest loans. everybody knows you're not

making an investment if you're not paying the debt service and only paying the principal. interest-only loans were a bad idea whose time came and it's went. it may be good for certain forms of commercial investment but not for residential. no balloon payments. one of the biggest problems with these foreclosures were good people were loaned money with shoddy underwriting that this balloon payments in three, five or seven years. they didn't know what a balloon. they thought a balloon is something that flew in the air. what a bool loon is when the whole principal comes when it wants and you're subject to the ability to refinance. that's not a qualified loan. that's a high-risk gain. no negative am torization. that's a bad idea that came and really left. thaat the end of the year, you d more, not less. that's wrong. that was predicated upon rapid inflation or rapid appreciation, which isn't always going to happen. and ten requiring people to carry private mortgage -- and then requiring people to

carry private mortgage insurance on their loan ifs they exceed 80% of loan to value on the loan. a normal practical until we got into loosey-goosy. we would attract all the money towards qualified loans underwritten like we did them in the good old days and then put the shared risk retention on those loans that are not well underwritten, make the mortgage broker or the investment banker on wall street hold 5% of an investment that they sell because it didn't meet these qualifications. what would happen? they wouldn't do it because they wouldn't hold the money. it would have prevented what has been alleged, one of the brokerage houses did already. they'd never short something and bet on it failing if they had a piece of it. they'd only do it if you had the piece of it and they didn't. so i think it's very important when we get into this entire suggestion or this entire regulation or reregulation of the financial industries that we

also recognize we have some obligations to correct some of the mistakes the government made itself in the past that caused the problem in the s&l's in the 1980's and with mortgages, nonqualified mortgages in the 1990's. what i'm suggesting, very simply, is this. let's take those things that are tried and true, not things we think will work but things we know will work. let's make them the gold standard. let's make them the qualification for the attraction of money into mortgages to fund the homes of the american people. and then let's say to those that want to take a risky loan, let's say to those who want to have shoddy underwriting, let's say to those who want to make a quick return and get out before the dollar comes due, they're going to have to take the risk. shared responsibility or shared risk is precisely right as an insurance policy to protect against that, but the unintended consequence of shared risk on a qualified, well underwritten loan is a higher interest rate for the consumer and less attraction of capital for the individuals who -- to form those loans to fund the housing

purchases of america, which ultimately leads the government to do with freddie and fannie what it did before, force it to make loans it shouldn't, force the government, the taxpayer, to be at risk in part on those loans and bring us back to another period like the s&l collapse or, later, like the financial markets collapse of the late -- last couple of years. there will be another one in the future if we don't recognize the need to make qualified loans well underwritten, do it like we did in the good old days when america flourished, our foreclosure rates were low and homeownership and housing was in reach within 70% of the american people. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mr. gregg: madam president, i want to rise to talk about the same issue that the senator from georgia has just discussed. and first, i want to congratulate the senator from georgia, and this is the point that we've been making on our side of the aisle. he's come up with a very thoughtful and appropriate way to address what was one of the core drivers of our fiscal meltdown in this country. if you look at what caused the

financial crisis of late 2008, which has caused this significant recession, which has caused us to go through all these expenditures as a government and which has caused so many american people to have to suffer the consequences of this recession, there were three or four major events that generated this. one was money was too cheap for too long. that was a federal reserve decision. but right at the essence of it was the issue of underwriting, the fact that there was a decoupling of the people who were making the loan from the people who were responsible for the loan. and you had this whole service industry built up that was making money off of the fees that -- for originating the loan and really weren't that concerned about the ability of the person to repay the loan or the underlying asset. what the senator from georgia has pointed out in the proposal that he's brought forward is a very responsible way to address this fundamental problem which we have, which is the failure of underwriting. and that's the point we've been

making on our side of the aisle. that we have a whole series of what we think are pretty good ideas as to how you can make financial reform work better. now, i was impressed -- and certainly one of them is the idea of the senator from georgia. i was impressed to hear both leaders say that they want to have a bill that's bipartisan, that's comprehensive, that's thoughtful and that addresses the issues which we confront in this regulatory arena. unfortunately, that's not the atmosphere around here that has been created. regrettably, there has been a huge amount of hyperbole, especially in the last couple of weeks. most of it has not been directed at moving down a path of thoughtful and mature and substantive approach to this issue. most of it has been addressed at raising anecdotal events which have then been hyperbollized into single one liners as to how

you address them. well, this issue of financial reform is far too complicated for one liners. that's just a fact. it's an extremely complex undertaking, to make sure that we accomplish what we need to accomplish in a regulatory reform. our goal should be two. first we should do whatever we can to restructure the regulatory arena so that we reduce to the greatest extent possibly the potential of another systemic risk event. i'll talk about what we need to do in that area in a second. and second, while we're doing that, we have to make sure that the regulatory environment that we put in place keeps america as the best place in the world to create capital and get a loan for people who are willing to go out, take a risk, be entrepreneurs and create jobs. you know, one of the great uniquenesses of our culture, what makes us different from so many other places in this world, what makes our -- gives us such vibrance and energy as an economic engine that we have people who are willing to go out

and take risks. we have people who are willing to be entrepreneurs. and we have a system of capital formation and credit which makes capital and credit readily available to those individuals at reasonable prices. and so as we go down this road of regulatory reorganization, we have to make sure we don't suffocate that great strength of our nation. and so there are four basic issues before us today in the issue of regulatory reform, and none of them are bipartisan. yet the atmosphere around here, you would think they are all partisan, especially the president's recent speech which was really over the top in his partisan dialect. the first is how you end too big to fail. now, we cannot allow a system to exist where there is a belief out there in the markets that the taxpayers are going to back up a company that has taken too many risks and has gotten itself

in trouble. why is that? because in that happens, if there is a belief in the market that the taxpayers will step in and back up companies that are very large and systemic, when they have taken too much risk and created -- put themselves in dire economic straits, that is there a belief the taxpayer is going to step up and back that company up. capital will be averted. capital will not be efficiently used. capital will flow in an inefficient way to companies which have proved themselves to not be fiscally responsible, and that's not a good way for an economy to function, certainly a market economy to function. and so we have to end too big to fail. now, this isn't a partisan debate. senator dodd has brought forward a bill which he thinks ends too big to fail. in my view, it doesn't. it has some serious flaws. it's a good attempt, but it doesn't get there. senator corker and senator warner, two parties, two different parties, have actually put together a concept -- we

call it resolution authority around here -- which actually does end too big to fail and does it the right way. it essentially says if a company -- if an entity gets -- which is a huge entity gets out of whack, overextends itself, gets too much risk, no longer viable, well, then we're going to resolve that company. the stockholders will be wiped out, unsecured bondholders will be wiped out and the company will basically flow into bankruptcy and will not be conserved, will not be conserved. so that's a good approach and it's a bipartisan approach. another big issue, how you address regulatory oversight to try to anticipate a systemic event. well, again, the dodd bill makes an attempt in this area, but there are ways we can improve it. we need to have all the different regulators who are -- who have an important role in this sitting at a table, most likely led by the fed who will take a look at the broad horizon and what's happening in the marketplace and say okay, in this area we have a problem

arising. we have too many people doing too many things which are at the margin of responsibility here. we're going to empower the agency which is responsible for that, the fdic or the o.c.c. or one of the other regulatory agencies to go out and make sure that that activity ceases or is abated, and they are going to come back and report to us so that you have some oversight here. that's the concept. it can be fleshed out in better terms. and it goes to this issue which is raised by the senator from georgia, which is we should have better underwriting standards as part of this exercise, so that in the marketplace, real estate especially, residential real estate, we get back to the approach that we should have taken to begin with, which is we know that the asset value that's being lent to exists and that the person can pay the loan back as the asset -- as the loan is adjusted over the years. thirdly, we have got the issue of derivatives. derivatives are -- are a huge

part of the market, massive. the number $600 trillion of value, something like that. just massive numbers. what do they do? they basically make it possible for american companies especially to sell their products around the world or to take and put their products into the market in a way that they are able to address issues which they don't have control over. for example, if you're caterpillar equipment and you're selling something in china, you don't know if the currency is going to -- well, you do with china. that's a bad example. if you're selling something in brazil, you don't know if the currency value is going to change. you don't know if there is going to be a change in the cost of your materials that you're building that tractor with. you don't know -- a lot of different factors you don't have control over. derivatives allow you to insure

over that. that goes to lots of different financial activity, all the way across the board to producers of goods. so there needs to be a regime put in place that makes these derivatives sounder, where we don't get an a.i.g. type of situation. we're basically backing up to what amounts to an insurance policy was a company with a name but actually no assets. and so myself and senator jack reed from rhode island have been working for months, literally months on a daily basis to try to work out such a regime, and we think we're pretty close. we think it's going to be a good proposal. nobody is going to like it which we know means it will be a good proposal. but it will accomplish what we want to do which is get more transparency, more margin in the market. there will be the opportunity to have end users who are exempt, but there will also be a primary incentive to put people on a clearinghouse, and to the extent can you move from a clearinghouse to an exchange, that will happen also, without undermining the market. but the key here is to put in

place a regime which doesn't force companies to go overseas to do their derivative activity. this is a very fluid event. if we come forward with an overly regressive approach here and an overly bureaucratic approach, one that basically pontiacs to the hyperbole of the moment which is that all derivatives are bad and not transparent and therefore must be put on exchanges, something like that, we're basically going to push offshore the vast amount of derivative activity. that is critical to our industry in america being competitive. really, as a very practical matter, if we can develop a sound market, we want to be -- and we can develop a sound market, we want to be the nation where most people go to develop their derivatives, because it is a big industry and something we should keep on shore. third issue, consumer protection. time is up? fourth issue. the presiding officer: the senator has used ten minutes. mr. gregg: i see where the senator from louisiana wants to

speak. but the point here is pretty obvious. this is not a bipartisan issue. we can resolve the issue of financial regulatory reform if we sit down and do it in a constructive, thoughtful way. step back, be mature, and take an approach that's thoughtful versus wrapped in hyperbole and populism of the moment, and i certainly hope we'll take that process and go forward. i yield the floor. mr. vitter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. madam president, i join my colleagues in urging the senate to come together, republicans and democrats, around a strong bipartisan approach to financial regulatory reform. we need to address the critical causes behind the financial

crisis of the last several years, and we need to do it right and in a bipartisan way. unfortunately, madam president, we're not on that path yet. the dodd bill which the president and chairman dodd and others are trying to push to the floor is a purely partisan approach, and unfortunately it gets a lot of the bigger issues wrong. first and perhaps most importantly, madam president, the dodd bill expands too big to fail, it doesn't end it. the dodd bill ensures more future bailouts. it doesn't get rid of the need for bailouts. madam president, it's not just me saying that. you know, as conservative an authority as "time" magazine wrote a few weeks ago -- "policy experts and economists from both end of the political spectrum say the bill does little to ebbed end the problem of banks'

becoming so big that the government is forced to bail them out when they stumble. some say the proposed financial reform may even make the problem worse." another significant authority, madam president, is jeffrey lacquer. he is president of the richmond federal reserve board. he was interviewed by cnbc and the cnbc reporter said, well, doesn't this bill allow all sorts of resolution? isn't that ending too big to fail? he said very clearly -- "it allows those things, but it does not require them." and that's the heart of the problem here. it allows those things, but it does not require them. "moreover, it provides tremendous discretion for the treasury and fdic to use that fund to buy assets from the failed firm, to guarantee liabilities of the failed firm, to buy liabilities of the failed firm. they can support creditors in

the failed firm. they have a tremendous amount of discretion. and if they have the discretion, they are likely to be forced to use it in a crisis." exactly precisely what we saw in the last few years. and william isaac, former fdic chairman, has echoed exactly the same concern." nearly all of our political leaders agree that we must banish the too big to fail doctrine in banking, but neither the financial reform bill approved in the house nor the bill promoted in the senate banking committee by chairman chris dodd will eliminate it." and finally, simon johnson, a respected m.i.t. professor." too big to fail is opposed by the right and the left, though not apparently by the people drafting legislation. the current financial reform bills are effectively a wash on the issue."

and there are multiple sections in the dodd bill that expands too big to fail. sections 113 and 114 essentially creating a too big to fail club. these sections creating a new bailout slush fund. sore sections allowing the bailout of creditors, and codifying back door bailouts. madam president, that is a significant flaw in the bill, not the only one. my second big concern is that the dodd bill creates a new all-powerful super bureaucracies with powers well beyond what's necessary to fix the problems that led to the last crisis. again, several sections creating that new all-powerful bureaucracy. perhaps the most significant one in my mind is one that subjects anybody who accepts four install

ment payments to the authority of this huge new bureaucracy. madam president, i have four kids. three are teenagers with braces. that's their orthodontist. that's the electronic store down the street. none of these folks were part of the problem that led to the financial crisis, but they sure accept four installment payments. we can't pay for three sets of braces otherwise. this is a huge new super bureaucracies with enormous authority. and finally, madam president, another big problem with the dodd bill is that it does nothing to fix other key causes of the crisis. for instance, it does nothing about fannie mae and freddie mac. we have a so-called comprehensive bill, multiple titles, thousands, tens of

thousands of words, hundreds of pages, and the words fannie mae and freddie mac are never included, are nowhere to be found. as lawrence white, an economics professor, said diagnoses "the silence on fannie and freddie is deafening. how can they look at themselves in the mirror every morning thinking that they have a regulatory reform bill and they are totally silent on fannie and freddie? it just boggles my mind." close quote. and it boggles my mind as well, madam president. and finally, nothing on lending standards, underwriting standards. exactly what senator isakson was talking about. the core fundamental problem behind the last financial crisis was that all sorts of loans were written that any reasonable person would know from the outset had no chance of making

it. the person getting the loan had no realistic chance of keeping up on that loan because there were no lending standards, no underwriting standards. an institution wanted to start the loan and sell it off and get it off its books and get quick profit for initiating the loan. the dodd bill doesn't address that and doesn't create those lending standards that we need to create. so, madam president, where is the change? we need change. we need real reform, but where is the change? these are the top firms, madam president, that got bailout funds from the temporaries. hundreds of billions of dollars all told. this is the old regulator of those firms. this is the new regulator of those firms, exactly the same. the regulation of these entities

doesn't change, doesn't move. exactly the same. now, madam president, again, we need regulatory reform, but we need it zeroed in on the real problems, and we need a strong bipartisan approach, not a highly partisan approach. and many of us think these are the basic principles of true regulatory reform, permanently ending bailouts and too big to fail, which the dodd bill clearly does not do. ending all of the bailout authorities of the federal reserve and fdic, because if they still have those authorities, they will use them in the future. enhancing consumer protection without creating this huge new superbureaucracy that goes well beyond what's needed to address the causes of the c

-- causes of the crisis. creating greater transparency for businesses while allowing businesses to manage risk as senator judd gregg explained. begin to address fannie mae and freddie mac. those are key causes of the crisis. there is no excuse for those four words to be completely left out of a so-called comprehensive reform bill. establish minimum lending standards for mortgages. that was a key cause of the crisis. it's ridiculous for that to not be addressed in a so-called comprehensive reform bill. increase competition for credit rating agencies. we saw significant problems there. and dramatically improve coordination and communication among the regulators. madam president, this would be an approach targeted on the real problems, not a bill using the

last financial crisis as an excuse to reach another preexisting agenda. this would be a bipartisan approach which the american people can support, and i hope, madam president, this will become the outline of the approach the senate adopts as we move forward. thank you, floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: madam president, this morning i met a friend who

was visiting. he told me he was planning to go out and visit the f.d.r. memorial. and i thought maybe the entire membership of the senate should go out and visit the f.d.r. memorial. essentially f.d.r. did three things in response to the great depression. one was to create jobs. a second was to fix housing. and a third was to repair the banking system. all three were essential. we've been immersed in all three components now, responding to the great recession that we experienced and the great explosion of the economy in 2008 that we're dealing with every day. what did roosevelt do in response to the banking challenge?

two main things. first, he made sure that american families could safely put their money back in the banks. that's the origination of the deposit insurance. second, president roosevelt made sure that banks didn't engage in high-risk speculation that would put the banks and the american economy at risk, because he understood the critical role of banks in lending to families and lending to small businesses. and the last thing you want in a recession is to have investment houses making speculative investments go down and then take the banks down with them. and so you compromise the lending to small businesses and to families at the same time that the investments go awry. that's why he separated those activities. highly risky investments separate from the lending that would continue to fuel our

economy. well, because of these regulations and the roosevelt administration, the wages of american families grew steadily right alongside the productivity of our economy. our economy was thriving and our middle class was thriving. and indeed, we should judge the success of our economy not by the gross domestic product, not by the size of the bonuses in boardrooms on wall street. we should judge the success of our economy by the living wages paid to working families and whether those wages are keeping pace with the productivity that our workers are bringing to the economy. and by that standard, we're not doing well. by the 1980's and 1990's, wall street convinced washington that we don't need those roosevelt-era regulations anymore.

we don't need those walls that protect the lending from the the high-risk investing. and instead of having oversight and accountability, we should just let wall street make their own rules. this is a little bit like a traffic system in which you say, you know, we're kind of tired of those traffic lights. we don't really like those stop signs. and lane markers, it's a waste of paint. we can do without them. and for a short time everybody can just kind of speed down the road and not worry about any rules to abide by until shortly thereafter everyone crashes. that's exactly what happened in our financial system over this last decade. the s.e.c. took down the leverage limits. five largest investment banks were told set your leverage wherever you want. we had bear stearns in a single year going from a leverage of 20-1 to 40-1.

for every dollar they invested they were betting $20 by the start of the year. by the end of the year after s.e.c. granted them permission for every dollar they held, they were betting $40. you make a tremendous amount of money on the way up when you can bet 40 for every dollar you hold. but you crash in a spectacular fashion when the market goes down in that situation. and then again we had the fed. the fed that puts monetary policy in the penthouse and safety and soundness in the upper floors, what did they do with their responsibility for consumer protection? they put it down in the basement, and they sealed the doors. let no daylight in and let little communication occur between the consumer protection side and the safety and soundness and the monetary side. they did absolutely nothing when a new product was invented in 2003, a new form of subprime

that had a two-year teaser rate, a prepayment penalty that had exploding interest rates that would destroy the family. the fed did absolutely nothing. and then wall street said, you know what? these loans, these loans are worth so much because we can pull so much money out of families with these loans, we're going to pay a bonus to a broker if a broker ties a family into one of these loans. and those steering payments resulted in tons of families that qualified for prime mortgages being steered into subprime mortgages. by wall street studies -- a "wall street journal" study, 60% of families that were in subprime qualified for prime mortgages, but their broker persuaded them that the best mortgage was one that was not in their best interest. and then we had the rating agencies. rating agencies had magic all their own. they didn't develop their own

models to evaluate triple-b bonds that were mixed and sliced and diced into new packages of bonds. no, they took their models from wall street. and based on those models, they said if you take triple b bonds from over here and triple b bonds from over here and mix them together we'll rate 80% of the bonds as triple-a. that's a money-making machine. but it also undermined one of the key instruments of the financial world. that's accurate credit ratings. then we had lots of tricks and traps buried in the small strip, stripping families -- small print, stripping families from their capital. sitting on a person's payment for ten days, even though it arrived on time. then posting it was late and charging a late fee. and as a constituent from salem said to me, "where's the the fairness in that?"

and when american citizens are saying time and time again when a clause is written in the fine print defy fundamental fairness, saying where's the the fairness in that? at every level we had a breakdown in our financial system. we know what happened. the deck was stacked against the ordinary citizen, and it turned a banking system that was designed to help families, strengthen families, strengthen small businesses into a casino for wall street's big bets. and when those bets went bad, the taxpayers -- you and i -- were left holding the bag. now, as the effort to restore fair rules of the road to wall street heats up here on the floor of the senate, there are those in wall street and those on this floor that want to block reform. they don't want to fix any of these things i've been describing. recently the minority leader met with more than two dozen wall street executives and hedge fund managers and urged them to let members of the party who would

stop these reforms that serve the american people. then he came back down here, and he whipped out his talking points from frank lutz, and he said this bill won't work. why did he say that? because he doesn't want a bill to reform wall street and fix these rules to restore prosperity to our economy. he wants to take this election year instead and serve a powerful constituency that doesn't want any rules restored to the road. and, folks, that's just wrong. we have a responsibility, just as our ancestors not so long ago fixed the problems from the great depression, fixed the banking system, restored a banking system that would take us forward in an orderly fashion and allow business to thrive in america, be the envy of the world in america, we have the responsibility to do that today. now, there are some who have

said, well, we want a free market. well, let me tell you, a free market thrives with rules that allow ordinarily conduct because those rules create the integrity that gives people the faith to utilize those markets. we saw with the stock market reforms that people believe that stocks are traded fairly in america. and, therefore, they're willing to invest. and by investing power up the companies that are issuing public stock. it works when there is integrity in the market. ford invests will come and put their dollars in america if they believe there is integrity in our system. that's what these rules are about. rules that create a free market with integrity so that it can power up the economy of america. that's whatness about. we're not talk -- that's what this is about. we're not talking about what some of my colleagues across the aisle are talking about: preserving the status quo, which means freedom from oversight,

freedom from accountability, freedom to translate triple-b bonds into triple-a bonds with a magic evaluation system, freedom to blow up the economy which destroyed families' savings, families' retirements, families' jobs, often families' health care; pretty much tore the foundation out from under the american working family. this bill creates a consumer financial agency that will say no more tricks and traps in basic financial products. and we need to have that mission no longer locked in the basement. we need to have that mission in an agency that says we will not allow those tricks and traps and scams that have been perpetuated over the last decade, so that americans will not say where is the fairness in that? instead they'll say thank goodness these contracts are fair and serving our family and our economy. the presiding officer: the

senator has used ten minutes. mr. merkley: thank you. madam president, is that my full allocation of time? the presiding officer: yes. mr. merkley: thank you very much. i'll just close and say that this bill must get done because we have a responsibility to restore foundations for our nation. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, let me first thank the senator from oregon for his remarks. he has brought great passion for this issue to the senate. he serves with distinction on the banking committee. and i could not agree with him more that the spectacle of colleagues scampering up to wall street to offer their services there and interfering with obstructing, watering down and impeding of all things, financial regulatory reform, after all we have been through,

is not a spectacle that is salutary. and i appreciate his remarks on that. i ask unanimous consent that jordan dimaggio of senator bingaman's office be given the privileges of the floor for today, april 20, 2010. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i would like to talk for a minute about nominations and holds. the senate's executive calendar contains the names of those individuals whom president obama has nominated to serve in his administration when those positions require senate confirmation. the executive calendar also contains the names of those the president has nominated to be federal judges. it's called the executive calendar, but judges. judicial offices are on it as well,ates both the district court level and the appellate level. since president obama took office last year, this senate has voted on 44 nominees.

some others have been approved by unanimous consent, but we have had 44 votes on nominations. of those 44 votes, 31 of them -- that's 70% of the nominees we've confirmed have been held over, they have been filibustered, they have been delayed by days and weeks and months. the average length of time that these nominations have languished in the senate has been over 106 days. that is 15 weeks, three and a half months from the time they were nominated to the time they were confirmed. and that's just the average delay. some have spent a full year in senate limbo as the result of holds by our colleagues. so if it's taken this long to confirm them, these must have been controversial nominees. these must have been tough

votes, close votes for the senate, one would think. well, let's take a look. and bearing in mind that it takes 51 votes to be confirmed by the senate. 16 of these nominees that have been held over or filibustered or delayed were subsequently approved when they came to a vote by more than 90 votes in the senate. 16 of the filibustered nominees passed the senate with votes, more than 90. another ten have been approved with more than 80 votes. bear in mind that it only takes 51 to get confirmed. more than 80 votes, another ten. three more with more than 70

votes. that is 29 out of those 31 nominees, who when they finally came to their vote were approved overwhelmingly by enormous majorities, bipartisan majorities in the senate. they had spent 106.6 days on average waiting to be confirmed by those vast majorities, waiting to be confirmed overwhelmingly. so the only conclusion that a rational mind can draw from this is that this is not about controversial nominees. this is about politics, plain and simple. bare-knuckled politics of obstruction. the kind of politics that says i don't care if you're qualified for the job you are nominated for. i don't care that the department of state or the department of homeland security needs you for a critical job. i don't care.

you are going to sit on the senate calendar for months and months and months, so i can score political points against the president, so i can inhibit the deployment of this elected president's administration into the offices of government. well, that is wrong, and it needs to stop. as of monday, the executive calendar contained the names of 101 nominees. 101 individuals for critical jobs and agencies all across the government that are now sitting on the senate's executive calendar waiting, waiting. i would like to address some of the judges who have been waiting for a long time, and i would like to ask that their

nominations be called up and approved. mr. president, i'll start with judge albert diaz and judge james wynn who are a pair of judges on the fourth circuit court of appeals nominees. mr. president, i call up executive calendar number 656 and 657, the nominations of judge albert diaz and judge james wynn to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit. let me tell you who they are. judge albert deyaz currently serves on north carolina's special superior court for complex business cases. he was reported out of the judiciary committee on january 28, 2010, by a vote of 19-0. he has served in the marine corps. he has nine years of state court judicial experience. judge james wynn was reported out of the judiciary committee the same day, january 28, 2010,

by a vote of 18-1. he currently sits on the north carolina court of appeals, the state's intermediate appellate court. he is a certified military trial judge and a captain in the united states navy reserves. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session and notwithstanding rule 22, the senate proceed to executive calendar number 656 and 657, that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, that any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read, and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action.

mr. whitehouse: mr. president, a unanimous consent request is pending. i ask for regular order. mr. whitehouse: there is a request pending right now, and there is no one on the floor to answer it or object to it. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. whitehouse: i will hold a moment. i am told there is a senator who is coming to make an objection.

mr. whitehouse: let me just reiterate while we're waiting for a republican senator to come and object to these nominees that they came out of the judiciary committee back in january, that they were voted out of the judiciary committee by a -- in one case unanimous bipartisan vote of 19-0. i'm informed that the senator from arizona, senator kyl, is coming to object. he sits on the judiciary committee. he likely was one of those 19 that voted in favor of this nominee at the committee level. i don't know who the one vote was for judge wynn -- who the one vote against him was, but he cleared the judiciary committee by a vote of 18-1.

again, a strong bipartisan vote of support. and yet, i'm informed by the floor staff that they are finding somebody to come and object to these nominees. who have now been held through all of february, through all of march, through half of april, despite being in one case unanimous votes on the judiciary committee and the other an 18-1 overwhelming bipartisan majority.

mr. whitehouse: for the record, i am informed that the minority was aware that i was coming to make these unanimous consent requests, that they had full knowledge that this was going to come, and if they are unable to get somebody to the floor to object, that is, as far as i'm concerned, not my concern. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i would renew my unanimous consent request now that there is a senator from the minority party on the floor. the presiding officer: is there

objection to the senator from rhode island's request for a unanimous consent? mr. kyl: mr. president, reserving the right to object, might i ask my colleague to restate the request? mr. whitehouse: absolutely. the request is to call up executive calendar numbers 656 and 657, which are the nominations of judge albert diaz and judge james wynn to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit. as the distinguished senator from arizona will recall, since he sits with me on the judiciary committee, judge albert diaz was voted out of the judiciary committee by a vote of 19-0 back on january 28, 2010. if my math is correct, that means that the distinguished senator from arizona voted for this nominee in the judiciary committee. judge james wynn was reported out the same day, january 28, by a vote of 18-1. i do not know if the distinguished senator was the

single dissenting vote in this overwhelming vote in support of judge wynn's nomination. judge diaz has served in the marine corps. he has nine years of state court judicial experience. judge wynn is a certified military trial judge and a captain in the united states navy reserves. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session and notwithstanding rule 22, the senate proceed to those executive calendar numbers 656 and 657, that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, that any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. mr. kyl: thank you. mr. president, i appreciate my colleague restating the request. just restating the right to object, and i will object, as i think my colleagues are aware, the two leaders have worked out a prots for -- a process for consideration of -- at least some of the judicial nominations. my understanding is that there is another agreement on at least one and maybe -- no, two circuit

court nominations, that they are working out time agreements on right now. that would occur, i presume, later this week. and i think it's important to let the two leaders work those agreements out, as a result of which reluctantly i will have to object to my colleague request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i appreciate the distinguished senator's objection. we do have 101 names, nominees on the executive calendar. and objections and holds which are secret are holding people up, as i said, for an average of 106 days. so while it is nice that one or two might be given a time agreement by the minority party, it does very little to relieve the blockade that the minority party has engaged in of judicial and executive nominees. so i will continue forward and i

will call up executive calendar number 701, the nomination of nancy freudenthal to be united states judge for the district of wyoming. she passed out of the committee by voice vote. a voice vote, as the presiding officer knows, is a vote without dissent. on february 11, 2010. she has decades of experience as a public servant and as a lawyer in private practice. she currently is wyoming's first lady. if confirmed, she will be that state's first female federal judge. it is the practice of the judiciary committee not to put forward judges unless the consent of the home senators has been obtained, and i would point out that both of the senators from wyoming are republicans. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session and notwithstanding rule 22, the senate proceed to executive calendar number 701, the

nomination of nancy freudenthal. that the nomination be confirmed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table that. any statements relating to the nomination appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read, and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: mr. president, for the same reasons noted earlier, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i will now call up executive cal at the number 702. -- calendar number 702. it's the nomination of judge d. price marshall to serve on the united states district court for the eastern district of arkansas, a district court decision has been held -- nominee has been held and filibustered. this district court nominee, judge marshall, is currently a judge on the arkansas court of appeals. he spent 15 years in private practice in jonesboro, arkansas. he served as a law clerk to seventh circuit judge richard s.

around. he was reported out of the judiciary committee on february 11, 2010, by voice vote and without dissent. he is held and blockaded on this floor. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session and notwithstanding rule 22, the senate proceed to executive calendar number 702, that the nomination be confirmed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, that any statements relating to the nomination appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, let's try another one. i will call up executive calendar number 704. this is the nomination of judge timothy black, again, a district court nominee, a local trial court nominee, to serve on the

united states district court for the southern district of ohio. judge black has served the southern district of ohio for six years as a federal magistrate judge. he is currently a federal magistrate judge in the court for which he's nominated as district judge. before that, he spent a decade as a municipal court judge and had a long career as a civil litigator. he was reported out of the judiciary committee without dissent after a voice vote on february 11 of this year. february, march, april -- more than two months ago. he has languished on the senate floor after clearing the committee without dissent, a judge, a district judge, a trial judge who serves now as the magistrate judge. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session and notwithstanding rule 22 the senate proceed to executive calendar number 704, the nomination of judge timothy

black. that the nomination be confirmed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, that any statements relating to the nomination appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read, and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: mr. president, for the same reasons stated before, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of the treasury. lael brainard of the district of columbia to be an under secretary of the treasury. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 12:00 noon will be equally divided and controlled between the senator from montana, mr. baucus, and the senator from iowa, mr. grassley, with the senator from kentucky, mr. bunning, controlling 15 minutes of time controlled by the senator from iowa, . grsley mr. bunning: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky is recoized mr. bunning: mr. president, thank you very much. i probably will not take the 15 minutes but somewhere between 10 and 15. mr. president, i rise in strong opposition to the nomination of lael brainard to be under secretary of state -- excuse me, under secretary of treasury for international affairs. mr. president, i don't think it's unreasonable for the american people to expect nominees to an important post in the treasury department to have a clean record in the payment of their taxes. after all, treasury is responsible for collecting taxes so treasury nominees have a special responsibility to live

up to the same high standards that want department demands from ordinary citizens. but the american people deserve much more than that, just someone with a clean tax record. they deserve a nominee who is honest, trustworthy and straightforward. the finance committee's bipartisan investigation of miss brainard revealed that she does not have a clean tax record. at worst, she refuses to be straightforward and honest about her tax records. the finance committee looked into the tax record of every nominee that comes -- that becomes before the committee. a routine examination of miss brainard's past few tax returns

reveal many, many problems. when asked if she has paid all of her taxes on time, she did not reveal several cases in which she had failed to pay her taxes on time. when she was asked on her nomination questionnaire that she was current with all of her taxes at the time she was nominated, she replied yes. but, in fact, that was not true. she was well overdue on paying county property taxes and d.c. employment insurance taxes at the time. there are also several forms that she was supposed to file to prove that her household employee was legal -- legally

able to work in this country. on one form, there was a serious problem with a space that the household employee is required to sign. it appears that miss brainard filled in that space with her own signature and she could not provide an explanation of why she did so. on another form, dates appeared to be have written over to change the year. she could provide no explanation of why this was done. on two different forms, miss brainard missed the deadline for completing the employer portion of the form. on another form, the employer portion was filled in one month

before the employee portion, but the law requires the employee portion to be filled in first. on yet another form, the employee certification section lists her husband's name but the signature is hers. on another form, the employee section is filled in but the required employer certification section was left blank. and there was another problem of the home office deduction which she claimed in the past several years. she could not provide a clear and consistent reason for taking a home office deduction of one-sixth of her household expenses. she was unable to provide a

credible reason for the size of the deduction. she reduced her home office deduction to 1/12th of household expenses on her 2008 tax return. however, she did not reduce the deduction on her 2005, 2006, or 2007 tax return, all of which had the inflated deduction. mr. president, some senators might come to the conclusion that these tax problems alone should not disqualify the nominee. they may say that, at worst, this is simply a pattern of sloppiness. but, mr. president, do we really want someone who is so sloppy in

her tax responsibilities to be in charge of international affairs at the treasury department? but this is not just a matter of sloppiness. this is a matter of total lack of candor with the finance committee and, by extension, with the united states senate and, by extension, with the american people. miss brainard spent nine months stonewalling the finance committee over all of these tax issues. she gave evasive and incomplete answers to the staff of the finance committee. the level of evasiveness of this nominee appears to be unprecedented. the committee had to submit ten

rounds of questions to clarify inconsistencies and incomplete answers miss brainard had given. and now several of those questions have been left unanswered. the many tax problems of this nominee and the extreme difficulty the finance committee had in getting straight answers about these problems was outlined in a bipartisan memo senator grassley entered into the "congressional record" on december 23 of last year. if we cannot trust miss brainard to be truthful and straightforward when she is a nominee, how can the american people trust her to be

straightforward and honest when she is confirmed and serving in the obama administration? as under secretary for international affairs, she will be involved in some highly sensitive issues such as determination of whether china is manipulating its currency. do we really want someone with such an abysmal record on truthfulness serving in this high position in the treasury department representing our country? this is not just a matter of taxes. it is a matter of trust. the american people deserve a person we can trust in this very important position.

that person is not lael brainard. we cannot trust someone who gives evasive, inconsistent, and incomplete answers to routine questions. we cannot trust someone who spends nine months refusing to come clean about her record. we cannot trust someone who refuses to be straightforward about her tax problems because she is so desperate to be confirmed. mr. president, someone with this record is a terrible noise to serve in the treasury department. i want to urge my fellow senators and my colleagues to consider this record before they vote on this nomination.

mr. president, i urge a no vote on this nomination and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold his request? mr. bunning: yes, sir, mr. president, i will. the presiding officer: thank you. the senator from missouri is recognized. mrs. mccaskill: i rise today to talk not about obstructionism but rather about transparency and the rules. the rule i'm going to talk about today is a rule that, in fact, we embraced in the last congress. when i first came to the senate, we embraced this rule by a vote of -- i think it was 92-6. we said we're going to change the way we do business around here when it comes to transparency. i thought it was a great moment. i was excited that we were making these bold changes about the way the senate works to open

up the doors and let the sunshine in. imagine my disappointment some two years later when i realized that for many members of this body, that was a meaningless exercise, because in the area of secret holds, we are doing no better today than we were before we passed senate bill one in those early weeks of my time in the united states senate in 2007. section 512 of that bill deals with secret holds, and what we tried to do in that bill is make sure that if you wanted to oppose somebody, no problem. you want to hold somebody, that's your right as a senator, but own it. own it. you're not here to be in a back room making a deal to leverage something for some kind of pork you want in your district. do you know what you're here for? you're here to do the people's business. and if you have an objection to

a nominee, you should tell the public you have that objection, and, frankly, you owe the public an explanation why. we're here working for them. we're doing the people's business here. we're not doing some back room deal. we're doing the people's business. so transparency is what this is about today. section 512 says the exact steps that are necessary in order to make sure that all of the holds become public, and the process republicans pretty simply. by someone making a unanimous consent motion to move a nomination. when that motion is made, then the senator that has the secret hold must submit a notice of intent specifying the reasons for the hold, and within six days, that must be printed in the congressional record. why do people hold secretly?

well, i can't think of a good reason. i mean, sometimes it's that they want to slow things down, they don't want to be honest about it. sometimes they want to leverage it for a deal in their state for that agency. they don't want to be forthcoming about that. that seems a little unseemly to say i'm going to block an unrelated nomination in order to get a deal. that's the kind of stuff people are sick of. that's the kind of stuff they don't want us to do anymore. they want us to be out front. if you want to block a nomination in an agency because that agency is not doing your will, then you need to be proud of that. now, here's the tricky part about this rule. once the motion is made, and therefore the clock starts ticking and a member has to admit that they have a secret hold and they have to own that hold, then you know what they can do? if it's before six days, they can withdraw their hold.

and that's when we start doing imitations of the worldwide wrestling federation on a tag team match. that's when another senator comes annandale tags and -- comes in and tags and says i will do a secret one now. then that person backs out after six days and somebody else takes their place with secret holds, and we get secret holds forever. ad nauseam, secret hold, secret hold, secret hold. so i come to the floor today to begin the running of the clock. we have over 80 of them. 80 nominations pending. at a comparable time in the bush administration, we had five. we have 80, around 80. now, i'm going to make the motion -- begin making the motion on these 80. now, why this particular group? i'll tell you why this particular group. no objection has been made to these members in committee, to these nominees in committee. let me say that again.

every single one of the names i am going to move this morning had no objection in committee. so we literally had every member of this body on one of these other committees, and nobody objected. nobody said a word. so right now, it's very difficult for the public to figure out why all these important nominees are not moving forward. vote no. i respect -- i'm sure that there have been nominees i voted no on. there is a nominee i put a hold on. i put a hold on a nominee, but i was very up front. put in the record committee why i put a hold, wrote a letter why i put a hold. i wanted everyone to know why this nominee was being held. i thought it was an important part of my duty as a senator to explain why i was doing what i was doing. so vote no. hold a nominee, but don't do it under cover of darkness, unless you've got something to be

ashamed of. now, if you have got something to be ashamed of, then do the tag team. the law lets you do it. just keep tagging off and get another secret hold on there and then tag off, get another secret hold on there. but you want to know why the country doesn't trust us? it's because of this kind of nonsense. this kind of secret hold shenanigans. this kind of -- or as my mother would say, shiz poodle dog. i don't think she means to insult all the poodle owners in the world, but it's a good phrase for what this is. it's nonsense. mr. president, when i have a minute left if you would notify me and i will begin making the motions on these people that are secretly being held by senators and not being allowed their time to even respond to whatever might be the secret reason why

they are being held. mr. president, notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive calendar number 333, that the nomination be confirmed, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee appearing at the appropriate place in the record as if read for an nominee is gordon nash, administrative judge for the district of columbia. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: mr. president, i have no objection. mrs. mccaskill: okay. mr. president, notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive calendar number 404, the nomination of warren miller, radioactive waste management, department of energy, that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made, laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the president be immediately notified of the

senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: mr. president, reserving the right to object. let me make the same brief statement i did with senator whitehouse. some of these nominees are subject to discussion between the two leaders working out time agreements for their consideration. at least some of the court nominees. i don't know about the specific nominee. i would say that i have no secret holds on anyone, so this is not on my own behalf, but in order to preserve the deliberation between the two leaders on behalf of the minority, i would object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. durbin: will you yield for a question? mrs. mccaskill: yes, i will yield. mr. durbin: listening to the objection of the senator from arizona, he suggested that the leaders -- meaning the democratic republican leaders, wanted these held. is the senator from missouri able to represent to the body that senator reid would like to see all of the names that you are calling moved forward today

at this moment, that he is not asking for a delay on the consideration of any of these nominations? mrs. mccaskill: all of these nominees have secret holds. the purpose of my exercise today is to begin to enforce the rule around here that everybody voted for, with the exception of a handful of people, that we weren't going to do secret holds anymore. and i'm certainly aware that the leader supports us doing this, that the secret hold has brought the nomination process not only to a halt but more importantly it's done it without the public even understanding why. mr. durbin: i ask a further question through the chair. so the representation that these names and nominations are being held because of the leaders, meaning the democrat and republican leaders, is not accurate. there is no intention of the democratic leader to hold any of these nominations. is that not true? mrs. mccaskill: that's true. mr. president, notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent

that the senate proceed to executive calendar number 500, which is the nomination of julie reiskin, member of the l.s.c., that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be made, laid upon the table, no further nominations be in order, that the the president be notified of the senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee appear in the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: mr. president, reserving the right to object. i note -- i'm trying to follow the numbers as my colleague is going down through the unanimous consent requests. i think my colleague skipped over the name of john j. sullivan of maryland, calendar number 208, to be a member of the federal election commission. do i understand that -- is there some objection on the other side or might we have an explanation as to why that name was skipped over? mrs. mccaskill: i would be

happy -- mr. durbin: mr. president, regular order. i believe there is a knack -- there is a unanimous consent request. mrs. mccaskill: let me explain how this list was compiled. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri has made a unanimous consent request. is there objection to that request? mr. kyl: i would be happy to object to that. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. mccaskill: by the way, just for the senator from arizona's edification, there is one of these nominees on here that i believe is being secretly held by a democrat. by the way, i want to point out that the rule that does try to bring transparency to this process was one that was sponsored by senator wyden and senator grassley in a bipartisan way. the wyden-grassley effort that spanned a number of years was a bipartisan attempt to change and reform the way the senate worked to provide more transparency. so this is really about transparency and this is about

secret holds, and my criticism for secret holds is a bipartisan criticism. i don't think anybody should do a secret hold. i don't care if they were republican, a democrat, an independent or any other party label. secret holds have no place in a public body. mr. president, notwithstanding rule 2, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive calendar number 501, the nomination of gloria valencia-weber, member of the legal services corporation, be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made, laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, that any statements relating to the nominee appear in the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection being heard. mrs. mccaskill: notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive calendar number 556, that the nomination be confirmed. that's the nomination of benjamin tucker for the national drug control policy. the motion to reconsider be made

and laid upon the table. no further motions be in order. the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and that any statements letting to the nominee appearing at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive calendar number 581, the nomination of john laub, director of the national institute of justice. that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, that any statements relating to the nominee appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: mr. president, for the reasons stated earlier, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. mccaskill: notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive calendar number 589, the nomination of anthony coscia, amtrak board of directors, that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made, laid upon the table. no further motions be in order, the president be immediately

notified of the senate's action. that any statements relating to the nominee appear in the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. mccaskill: i ask the senate proceed to the nomination of albert declemente, amtrak board of directors. that the nomination be confirmed, motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table. the senate -- that any statements relating to the nominee appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: i object. mrs. mccaskill: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive calendar number 592, the nomination of mark rosekind, member ntsb reappointment, that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered and made and laid upon the table, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, that any statements relating to the nominee appear in the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection?

mr. kyl: mr. president, i object. mrs. mccaskillz : i ask unanimous consent that we proceed to 617, david lopez, general counsel for the eeoc, that the nomination be confirmed, no further motions be in order, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, that any statements relating to the nominee appear at the appropriate place as in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. mccaskill: mr. president, notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive calendar number 620, the nomination of victoria lipnic, member of the eeoc, a reappointment. that the nomination be confirmed, the motion consider be considered made and laid on the table, the president be immediatelimmediately notified y statements appear in the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: mr. president, i object. mr. mccaskill: mr. president, notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive calendar number 628, the nomination of jill long thompson, that the nomination be

confirmed, the nominations be considered made and laid on the table, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and any statements related to the nominee appear in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: mr. president, oib. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. mccaskill: mr. president, notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive calendar number 640, the nomination of eric hirsschhorn, that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, no further motions be in order, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's, as that any statements relating to the nominee appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mr. kyl: mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive calendar number 643, the nomination of steve jacques, that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, any statements relating to the

nominee appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive calendar number 647, the nomination of jim esquea, assistant secretary of h.h.s., that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be made and laid on the table, no further motions be in order, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and any statements appear in the prord as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive calendar number 648, the nomination of michael w.punke, the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and that any statements relating to the nominee appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: mr. president, oib. the presiding officer: objection

is heard. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive calendar number 649, the nomination miss loquie, that the nomination be confirmed, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and any statements relating to the nominee appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: the majority has one minute at this time. is there objection to the unanimous consent request? mr. kyl: mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, let me just sum up. i've got through -- i had 20 that i was going to try to do today. there's 80 of them. i'll be back. this isn't about trying to rush through nominations. this is about trying to make the rules work the way we wrote them. that means that beginning immediately, all of the motions i just made, the members who are holding those nominees have an obligation under the law --

under the law -- they have an obligation to submit a notice of intent specifying the reasons for objection to a certain no, nomination. and not more than six session days after today, that must be printed in the "congressional record" of honor. now, these are the first 15 or so. we'll -- i'll continue to get them all on the record hopefully by the end of the week so every one knows that next week maybe we'll figure out why all these people are being held secretly. and this isn't about saying that you shouldn't vote "no" on these people. this isn't even about not debating these people. this is about transparency and open government. that should be a bipartisan value, an all-american value that we can all believe in. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority's time has expired. the chair will clarify for the record that executive calendar order number 333, stewart gordon

nash of the district of column column to be an associate -- columbia, to be an associate justice superior court of district of columbia, has been confirmed. [inaudible] the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. kyl: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: