quorum call:

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, i

would briefly want to share a few thoughts about judge thomas vanaskie, who's been nominated for the third circuit court of appeal a veryortant position. he currently serves on the district court of the middle district of pennsylvania, and i do intend to support his nomination, give deference to the president. i'd just like to share a thought or two about his testimony before the judiciary committee. he did say he believed that american courts should not use foreign law in interpreting the constitution but he did believe that the supreme court properly used foreign law in cases like lawrence v. texas, and i think that's a bit contradictory. and in roper v. simmons, the supreme court also concluded that the constitution, because

of -- quote -- "evolving standards of decency" would now prohibit states from imposing a death penalty on juveniles who commit murder. i think that is a legitimate public policy issue to discuss, but the question is, does the constitution say that a state is not able to decide what age people are executed -- are to be executed. he said another point, that foreign law was relevant to determining fundamental constitutional rights. well, our document, our constitution is the one that we have and judges, if they're faithful to our oath, will enforce this constitution, our constitution, the one that we have. it's difficult for me to comprehend how somebody could conclude that a legal action in

the european union would provide illumination to a judge on how to interpret our constitution and what it meant by the people who passed it and what it means by the plain meaning of the words. so i think this is a bad philosophy. it's a -- evidenced a detachment -- evidences a detachment from the judiciary from the limited role they're given. we have limited powers, the president has limited powers, the courts have limited powers. courts are not empowered to reinterpret our laws and our constitution based on some better idea they think they may find in france. they just are not. this is not a little-bitty matter. but it's a trend that's occurred in our courts and i'm disappointed that several of the president's nominees seem to be seduced by these ideas, including speeches made by justice sotomayor on the supreme

court. she talked about how she favored justice ginsburg, her views about that. so i want to give this judge a -- the benefit of the. he did say that he didn't follow this doctrine to the full extent of it, and i'll give him the benefit of the doubt. but also, some of his statements indicate that he may yet be seduced by this idea. he had difficulty articulating any limit on the commerce power. the commerce clause says congress can regulate commerce. does that mean everything? does that -- does regulating commerce mean that you can reach down into oklahoma and tell an

individual farmer you have to have insurance? that raises a serious question of constitutional power. and does that impact interstate commerce? well, you could theoretically conjure up a way that it could. but i want to know that a judge understands there are -- there is some limit to the amount of reach that the federal government can have. now, we've had a number of people complain about the process of confirmation and that judges are being -- are langui languishing before the senate n. particular, my friend, senator whitehouse, noted the nomination of judge james winn, judge albert diaz to the fourth circuit. senator whitehouse hasn't been here since -- but since 2006, so

he isn't familiar with some of the procedures that have gone on in our congress. wynn and diaz' nominations have been pending in the senate for only 167 days. that's half the time -- half the time -- that president bush's circuit court nominees waited. 350 days. in fact, four of president bush's nominees to the fourth circuit never received any hearing, and they were highly qualified nominees. those nominees, mr. steve matthews, chief judge robert conrad, judge glenn conrad, and former maryland united states attorney, rob rowenstein were well qualified, had bipartisan support of their home state senators, yet they were blocked steadfastly from ever moving forward. president bush nominated steve matthews in september of 2007 to

the same seat on the fourth circuit for which judge diaz has now been nominated and expects to be confirmed and will be confirmed, i'm sure. but for them -- to hear whining about how long it takes judge diaz to move along in a fairly steadfast way, in light of what was done to mr. matthews, is a bit much, to me. i just have to tell you. we all know -- you know, this is a robust body. we don't mind speaking our minds. but mr. matthews had the support of his home state senators and received an a.b.a. rating of qualified. he was a graduate of yale law school, had a distinguished career in private practice and was -- waited -- he waited 485 days for a hearing and never

gone -- never got one. so his nomination was returned, expired in january of 2009. another of president bush's nominees recollect, chief judget conrad was nominated to the seat for which judge wynn is now nominated. he is want support of his home state senators, received an a.b.a. rating of unanimously well qualified, the highest you can get. judge conrad met chairman leahy's standard for noncontroversial, consensus nominee. he had received bipartisan approval by the committee when he was confirmed by a voice vote to be a united states attorney and later district court judge for the district of north carolina. he was then chief judge. senator burr and dole sent letters in support of that confirmation and he was blocked. i know he can make decisions because, if i'm not mistaken, i

used to say he was the point guard for the university of north carolina basketball team. i think that was incorrect. i think it was point guard at clemson. regardless, anybody that can play point guard in the acc can make decisions. he was chosen out of all the prosecutors in america by attorney general janet reno to conduct a very sensitive investigation of president clinton when he was accused of some wrongdoing. he conducted that, concluded no charges ought to be brought. this was a highly qualified person and was blocked. so, mr. president, our time is out but i know that -- that every nominee doesn't get to be brought up immediately when they're -- they are called -- when they're -- some people would want to call their nomination up. it requires unanimous consent to

bring up a nominee and immediately get a vote and unanimous consent isn't always given, so it slows down people. but i -- and i do believe we ought not to unnecessarily delay persons, but i would want to say that the i ca alacrity by which president obama's nominations are moving far surpasses anything like the difficulties that president bush's nominees had. i've been here, i've seen it, i know that to be a fact, and i hope that we can create a climate where judges have a reasonable time on the docket, they are -- have hearings in judiciary, opportunities are -- to raise objections are made, the nominee comes to the floor and eventually they can be brought up for a nomination and a -- and a final confirmation vote.

that would be my request, and i see it's time for the vote rs and i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the confirmation of the nomination of thomas vanaskie. the senator -- is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

the presiding officer: is there any senator who cares to vote or change his or her vote? guess not, so the -- the votes are 77 ayes, 20 noes, and the confirmation -- and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to consider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be

immediately notified of the senate's action. the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i would ask -- i ask unanimous consent that we return to legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: could i have 10 or 12 minutes in morning business? thpresing officer: without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president, i want to address -- the presiding officer: please, order in the chamber, please, for the senator from iowa. the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: mr. president, i haven't listened to every speech on the floor in the last week or so, whether it's been a lot of talks about secret holds and everything. but since i have been in the senate working with senator biden over a course of maybe a decade in a bipartisan way, not

to do away withholds but to have a transparency of holds, and seeing those things compromised, and then particularly to see exception taken to what's happened when this side of the aisle has put holds on, and then considering when we -- when senator wyden and i did try to do something that was gutted by people on the other side of the aisle, i'd appreciate it if democratic members of the senate would listen while i explore some of the history so that they know that this bipartisan effort, that if it had been done the way senator wyden and i did it before it was gutted, that we wouldn't have a lot of problems today that we have.

so i want to go into my remarks, but i want to preface it by saying what i just said. there's been a lot of talk recently on the senate floor about secret holds. for a practice with so much bipartisan guilt to go around, it is interesting that the discussion has taken on a partisan tone. republicans are being accused of being particularly egregious offenders when it comes to circumventing disclosure requirements. let me just say that if any of my colleagues have holds on either side of the aisle, they ought to have the guts to go public anding to public -- and to go public the minute they put the hold on it. not like this mysterious way that it's done now, which really amounts to nothing. it has been my policy for years to place a brief statement in the congressional record each time i placed a hold with a

short explanation of why i placed the hold. and i did that before there was any grassley-biden -- i should say grassley wyden or wyden-grassley proposals. the current disclosure requirements for secret holds have been discussed quite a bit lately, as has my work in a bipartisan way with senator wyden to address this issue. so i think it is important that i give a little background about how we got where we are today. after many attempts to work with various leaders over the years on policy to make all holds public, senator wyden and i decided that the only way to settle this matter once and for all is for a full senate to adopt a very clear policy. so in the 109th congress senator wyden and i were successful in passing an

amendment to the ethics reform bill by a very wide vote of 84-13 to require public disclosures of holds. that bill was never enacted, but the identical provision was included in the ethics bill passed by the full senate at the very beginning of the 110th congress. you may recall that the democrats had just secured a majority in both houses of congress. then in a process that has become all-too familiar under the past two democratic congresses, there was no conference committee. instead in a twist of irony, the so-called honest leadership and open government act was rewritten behind closed doors by the democratic leadership. lo and behold the public disclosure provision senator

wyden and i had worked so hard on and which the senate had overwhelmingly adopted on that 84-13 vote, had been altered, and altered very significantly. now, keep in mind that under article 1, section 5 of the constitution, each house may determine the rules of its proceedings. that means that the house of representatives has no say whatsoever about the senate rules. when the full senate speaks on a matter of senate procedure, that should be the final word. and particularly if it's 84-13. so i want to be very clear that the current weak disclosure requirements that we now have are not the ones originally proposed by senator wyden and this senator. in fact, at the time i came to

the floor and criticized the specific changes because i saw that they would be ineffective and ineffective they are. so let me reiterate some of those criticisms that i initially aired to the senate on two occasions, august 2, 2007, and september 19, 2007. in the first -- in the version the senate originally passed, we allowed three days of senators to submit a simple public disclosure form for the record just like adding yourself as a cosponsor to a bill. this was intended simply to give time to perform administrative functions of getting the disclosure form to the senate floor. not to legitimatize secrecy for that period of three days. the rewritten provision gives

senators six session days. now, that might not sound so bad, but just wait to see how that actually works out in practice. first of all, it doesn't take a week to send an intern down to the senate floor with a simple form saying that you're putting a hold on a bill. the change that i find most troubling is the six days until the disclosure requirement is triggered in begins only after -- only after a unanimous consent request is made and objected to on the senate floor. and that's too late. because i'm going to tell you how that is ineffective. by that point a hold could have existed for quite some time, perhaps without the sponsor of the bill even realizing. in fact, most holds never get to

point where an objection is made on the floor because the threat of a hold prevents a unanimous consent request frc made in the -- from being made in the first place. so maybe the six days is never even triggered in. the original wyden-grassley provision required disclosure at the time the hold was placed. and that's where it ought to be today. we've heard lately about how my party, the minority party in the senate, has used the weak disclosure requirements to avoid making holds public. however, this change made it far less likely that the majority party holds would ever, in fact, even become public. since the majority leader controls the senate schedule, he would hardly object to his own request to bring up a nominee.

he would simply not bring up a bill or nominee being held up by a member of his own party and we might never know that there was a hold on it at all. so why were these provisions changed? well, simply i don't know. i don't know who does know because i can't be sure who it was that rewrote these provisions in secrecy behind closed doors. i will say that the majority party should be careful now, as they complain about republicans exploiting loopholes in the disclosure requirements for holds. both parties are guilty of using secret holds. but you can't blame republicans for the fact that the current disclosure requirements are weak and ineffective. again, there's plenty of blame to go around when it comes to using secret holds. but i'm hopeful that this recent

attention to the problem can result in a bipartisan consensus to end secret holds once and for all, and that's something that we hope -- senator wyden and i hope that other people will talk to us about. we'd like to move in this direction. and i, for one, am happy to work with anyone on either side of the aisle to that end. but it should be stressed that this has been a bipartisan effort. everybody in this body talks about bipartisanship. but when this thing was watered down, it wasn't watered down in an environment that i know about where any republicans were present. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: would the senator yield for a question before he yields the floor? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. wide wye first, let me -- mr. wyden: first, let me tell

the senator from iowa how much i have enjoyed working with him on this. we have, as incredible as it sounds, a 10-year campaign to try to end secrecy in the senate. just so that people know a little bit about it -- because i always think when people hear about a hold in the united states senate, they probably think it's a hair spray or a wrestling move or something like that. senator grassley, isn't it correct that a hold, the ability to block a nomination or a piece of legislation is one of the most powerful tools that a member of the united states senate has today to influence policy? mr. grassley: mr. president, senator wyden is absolutely right. it is a very powerful tool. mr. wyden: and with respect to transparency, what i think you and i have focused on all these years -- i mean people say, you're trying to abolish the

hold. and i think you and i have said, look, we believe senators ought to have a right to weigh in on something important, but at a time when the public wants transparency, an openness, an accountability, a senator who wants to use what you have just said is an extraordinary power, the real public interest is satisfied by that senator having to disclose promptly that they are imposing a hold. is that a correct -- mr. grassley: mr. president, senator wyden is correct. and i would add, senator wyden, this point, that not only is it transparency that is essential and it happens that way, but also a lot of times hoped are put on -- a lot of times holds are put on because people -- there's something wrong. well, you've got to know -- who it is that thinks something's wrong if you're going to work

out some sort of a compromise. mr. wyden: for one additional point. senator grassley, is it your sense -- because we talked about this often and we've been watching this spectacle in the last few weeks of all these secret holds, that the central problem is triggered too late and it takes too long to kick in. is that a fair statement of what really needs to be changed? we need to get the openness earlier. it needs to be triggered earlier and it needs to get into the public domain earlier. is that correct? mr. grassley: mr. president, the senator is correct that the present rules are not much better than what we've always operated under. so there isn't transparency and it isn't done soon enough. mr. wyden: i -- i just want to express my appreciation to the senator from iowa for giving me the opportunity to work with him. you and i have pursued a lot of

issues in the past and very often those issues are part of television, news debates and the like. and, obviously, the secret hold would not be something on main street in des moines or portland that people know about. but i think this is the time to get this right once and for all. we sought to do it literally for a decade. a number of majority leaders, democratic majority leaders, republican majority leaders all said that they wanted to get this done. yet as of this day i personally believe that it continues to be abused and flagrantly so. and at a time when the american people are looking at these challenging economic circumstances, they deserve a government that's truly open, truly accountable, and truly transparent. and that has been what's guided our bipartisan efforts over this

last decade and i really appreciate you coming to the floor this evening. there aren't that many opportunities to advance a truly bipartisan agenda here. you've given us the opportunity to do that tonight. and if the senator yields back his time, i'm going to say -- mr. grassley: i would yield the floor. mr. wyden: and i thank my colleague and look forward to working with him to once and for all get secret holds abolished here in the united states senate. mr. president, i know a number of colleagues, senator whitehouse, who has a great interest in this topic, is here as well. i would just ask unanimous consent to speak at this time for up to 10 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president, to just continue this topic, i think we need to kind of put into perspective a little bit about why this secret hold has

become such a detrimental practice. when willie sutton was asked why he robbed the bank, he said that's where the money is. well, secret holds are where the power is. and senator grassley and i have just outlined the enormous effect that a secret hold can have on a piece of legislation, but, frankly, one of the other points that needs to be mentioned is i have long felt that a secret hold is a very powerful weapon that's available to a lobbyist. i expect that practically every senator's gotten a request from a lobbyist asking if a senator would put a secret hold on a nominee, and without the lobbyist's fingerprints appearing anywhere. if you can get a united states senator put a hold on a bill, it's like hitting the lobbyist

jackpot. not only is the senator protected by anonymity, but so is the lobbyist. and a lobbyist can play both sides of the a vote street and get -- of the street. and a secret holds in my view given the number of instances where i've heard of lobbyists asking for secret holds, i'm of the view, mr. president, that secret holds are a streltsdz extension -- stealth extension of the lobbying world. there is -- it seems to me it would be the height of irony if the senate were to adopt a variety of changes to curtail lobbying as we've done in the past without doing away with what, in my view, is one of the most powerful tools that can be

available to lobbyists. the overwhelming majority of our citizens say in every corner of the lands, be it alaska or oregon or rhode island, that they want public business done in public. and if you walk down the streets of this country, i don't think you could find 1 out of 100 people who'd have any idea what a hold is or what a secret hold is all about. but the fact is that these secret holds here in the united states senate can dramatically affect and change the lives of our citizens and our people will not even know about it. the hold, the ability to block a piece of legislation, block a nomination can't even in a number of instances end up being discussed on the floor of the united states senate. literally, the united states senate won't even get a peek, won't even get the briefest look

at a particular issue that may involve millions of our citize citizens, billions of dollars and affect the call of life -- the quality of life of citizens in every corner of the land. so what this is all about, what senator grassley and i have been working for lo this past decade, what i've heard colleagues and senator whitehouse has spoken eloquently about is we believe now is the time once and for all to permanently wipe the secret hold off the rule books of the united states senate. it's one thing if the -- if a united states senator exercises the extraordinary power that a hold presents. it's quite another when they can't be held accountable because they exercise this power in secret. so the average person in america may not know what a secret hold is, but i'm very, very certain they want the united states senate to do its business in

public. so i want to expect my appreciation to senator grassley, who has left the floor, for working with me over this past decade to end what i think is a simply inexplicable denial of the public's right to know. that's what this is essentially about. this is a denial of the public's right to know. and with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, i'm determined to this time get this changed, to shorten the period, to make it easier to trigger the requirements of public disclosure. i know my colleague from rhode island is interested in getting in it issue. mr. president, i look forward to his comments and yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, may i ask unanimous consent to engage for five or ten minutes in a colloquy with the distinguished senator from oregon. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i, first of all,

want to salute senator wyden of oregon for his long work on th this. he has been working on this since before i came to the senate, before i had any experience of secret holds and saw, as we are seeing right now, their pernicious effect in this body. at present, we are looking at probably a little less than 80 -- 8-0 -, 80 -- secret holdsy republicans of president obama's nominees. some executive -- most executi executive, some judges. and in the past few days, senator mccaskill and i have come to the floor to push some of these nominees forward, to ask unanimous consent that they go forward. in one case, a nominee was a judge who was supported by both a democrat and a republican senator from his home state, had passed out of the judiciary

committee by a unanimous vote of 19-0, a roll call vote of 19-0, and they have been held for months and months and months. and the distinguished senator from arizona, senator kyl, was put in the unfortunate position, since he had voted for this nominee in committee, to have to come to the floor and raise an objection to the unanimous consent for a judge who he'd voted for in committee and one of his republican colleagues supported, the home state senator supported, to have to object to that nomination going forward because somebody had a secret hold. and we went through a great deal of these. i want to salute senator mccaskill. she carried the greater part of the burden. i only moved a few. i think she moved over 70 by the time the day was done, and i really want to extend my appreciation to her for that. senator wyden, as i understand it, the rule is that now that these unanimous consents have been made, there is a six-day of

session period in has now begun to run, and at the end of that six days, our republican colleagues will be obliged to disclose publicly their holds: who's holding it and what their reason is. and i understand that there is a potential loophole which is that they could pull the old switcheroo, and that at the end of that six-day period, the senator or senators with that hold could all release their hold so at the end of the six hoof day period, they have no hold -- six-day period, that they have no hold to disclose, but they could connive with another colleague to put in a hold since the u.c., the unanimous consent request, so they can start the process all over and hide their accountability.

but it strikes me that those are really the only two choices that our republican colleagues have. they either have to divulge or they have to engage in a game of switchspur oo connivance, to try to duck out of this rule, which i think had 92 -- not unanimous but very strong bipartisan support. and i just wanted to clear that understanding with you, senator wyden, since you're expert on this, that the clock is running, that they have six days to come clean about this, and that the only two ways out are either to divulge or connive with another senator to engage in a little switcheroo. mr. wyden: or i think there might be a third option, of course, which would be to lift the hold. but the senator has done a very careful and thoughtful analysis of the situation, and particularly the situation of

what senator grassley and i came to hold the rotating, you know, hold, simply shifting from person is something that's been done often, you know, over the years by democrats and -- and republicans, and i think now is the time to get this changed. i mean, if you look at this in the history -- and by the way, you're absolutely correct on the bipartisan nature of the rule change. the vote was 84-13. there was overwhelming bipartisan support for it. the library of congress actually has put together a very thoughtful historical analysis featuring discussion of things such as the may west hold, which came to be known as the "come look me over hold" which i gather wasn't a full-fledged hold but it might actually blossom into one. so the senator is absolutely right about what the choices a are. and that's why it is time once and for all to get this changed, and i so appreciate the senator and also senator mccaskill from missouri coming and

highlighting the fact that this is -- that this has, again, gotten out of control. the historical analysis of this has been that the hold was something that would be used rarely. the hold was something of great consequence, and yet now it seems that we have these secret holds that are simply thrown out for nominations and pieces of legislation because someone has some modest interest or is carrying out a different agenda and i think that's why the secrecy is so unfortunate. and i appreciate my colleague. mr. whitehouse: so to have 80 secret holds by one party all at once pending in the senate is not consistent with the history of the use of this procedural tactic in this body? is that my understand -- is my understanding correct? mr. wyden: the senator is absolutely right about the fact

that 80 secret holds is clearly not what senator grassley and i and reformers thought would happen. and given all these secret hol holds, you would think that the back of the executive calendar, which is page 19, it's entitled "notice of intent to object to proceeding." given what the distinguished senator from rhode island has pointed out, one would think that page 19, "notice of intent to object to proceeding," would be filled with these, you know, names if the rule was being honored, and both you andry holding up these page 19's with nary a word on them. mr. whitehouse: looking at an empty page. so just to summarize, the clock has run as a result of this

series of unanimous consents that senator mccaskill and i have put forward. the six days have begun. by the end of that, one of three things, as you've corrected me, will have happened: either the hold will have been lifted and then we can move to unanimous consent and clear these individuals who the president has nominated and get them to work for the american people, or; two, the senator who has the secret hold will have to acknowledge publicly and become transparent and clear and candid with the rest of the body about who they're holding and why, or they can engage in this rather obscure, shall we say, game of rotating holds, what i called switcheroo, ducking out before the time runs and getting somebody else to actually have your hold for you, but get a proxy in.

given that this was a rule that was adopted with very, very strong vote, very strong bipartisan vote and that it is now a rule of the senate, what comment would the senator have on that third tactic in terms of its merit and appropriateness if we find that that's being used at the end of the six days and does that -- would that spur the need for reform of this rule? mr. wyden: it surely would, and i am grateful to the senator from rhode island for prosecuting the reform case. i've talked with senator grassley about it and with senator mccaskill and you, and i think this is the time. there are two points with respect to the secret hold. one as it relates to the institution, one as it relates to an individual senator. with respect to the institution and this example you've given of

scores of these secret holds, i think this serves to undermine the credibility of the institution at a crucial time in american history. it is no secret that americans are divided on a host of issues. well, if the united states senate insists on doing so much important business in secret, which is what happens if you honor these secret holds, i think that just undermines the institution. so i think first and foremost, you're absolutely right to zero in right now where we have all these secret holds. second, with respect to an individual senator, what seems particularly important, the senator and i share an interest in health care and a variety of economic issues. supposing an individual senator works for years and years to try to build a bipartisan coalition on an issue and then is done in by an unknown or secret opponent, an unknown, unseen opponent who has been able, in effect, to block all that work,

bipartisan work, in secret? so i want the senator to know that i am foursquare behind his efforts to get this changed. senator grassley and i have been talking about it. i think there's an opportunity to make this bipartisan. i will also say, in closing -- and you've been kind to give me all this time -- i don't think the secret hold passes the smell test of openness in american government. it's time to change it. i look forward working with my colleague to finally, after all of these years, to get this done and send the secret hold off into the dust bin of history. mr. whitehouse: well, the senatorsenator from oregon's len this of ten years of work is very, very impressive to this newer senator and i appreciate so much what he and senator grassley have done over the years to begin to put an toned this practice -- put an end to this practice. i think the straw that broke the camel's back, or maybe the 80

straws that broke the camel's back, was the absolute avalanche of secret holds that has confronted our new president from this republican minority. and it has come to the point where the president i think fairly believes that his ability to staff his own administration is being compromised by people who won't stand up and be counted and be accountable for the reason for their opposition. it's being done in the dark, secretly and without any accountability.ñ and i agree that needs to be put to an end. so i urge people who are watching this the sixth day has begun -- six days of session. at the end, we will know. we will know who is doing this or we will be able to clear these nominees, and we will have broken this unfortunate practice to a significant degree, or we will have learned something, i

think, very unfortunate about our friends on the other side; and that is that they have agreed to connive with one another to play a switcharoo and bring in a new senator to dodge the clear, clear import of the rule that you and senator grassley worked on on a bipartisan basis to put into effect in this body and which was approved by an enormous majority in this body. so the clock is running, and we will see. we will learn a lot about this institution and our colleagues in six days. and i thank the senator for his intense leadership on this issue. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. quorum call:

mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: may i ask that the pending quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate broad to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of h. con. res.

222 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clk will report. the clerk: h. con. res. 222, recognize being the leadership and historical contributions of dr. hector garcia to the hispanic community and his remarkable efforts to combat racial and ethnic discrimination in the united states of america. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to consideration of the measure. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the measure be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 483.

the presiding officer: withoutk, congratulating the republic of serbia's application for european union membership and recognizing serbia's active efforts to integrate into europe and the global community. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will froatd measure. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. the chair submits to the senate for printing in the senate journal and the "congressional record" the application et al -- errata to the answer of judge thomas por porteous jr. to the

articles of impeachment against judge porteous pursuant to s. resolution 4511 with application was received by the secretary of the senate on april 21, 2010. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. thursday, april 22, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there be a myriad o period of mornings for one hour with senators allowed to speak up to 10 minutes each, with republicans chroming the first 30 minutesaged the majority controlling the final 30 minutes, that following morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of denny chin to be united states circuit judge

for the second circuit as provided for under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, there will be up to one hour for debate prior to a vote on confirmation of the chin nomination. senators will be notified when the rote is scheduled. if ness no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate will stand adjured until 9:30 a.m. thursday, april 22.

>> we heard about wall street regulation from senators hutchinson and corker. this is 20 minutes. >> mr. , i rise today to speak on financial regulatory reform. during the current economic downturn, we have see far too many americans lose their jobs, homes, and their savings disappear. today, 15 million of our citizens are still out of work. and national unemployment continues to hover near 10%. it is this uncertain climate in which we consider now financial reform legislation. the crisis is going to remain in the forefront of our national consciousness for years to come, meanly due to the government intervention that was pushed through over the past year and a half attempting to stabilize our frozen credit markets.

but instead, accumulating massive debt that threatens to harm our economy much worse than the original problem. the current legislation continues the government too big to fail policy. too big to fail, reverse free market, suggest that entities can privatize their profits, yet socialize their risk 37 and taxpayers foot the bill. the american taxpayers should not be forced to play the gambling debts of risky bets made by large financial institutions. republicans and democrats alike agree that we must end too big to fail. but the big that is being proposed does not do that. chairman dodd's bill provides both the scic and the treasury department emergency authority to provide brood debt guarantees in times of economic distress to struggling firms.

it is foreseeable that the scic or treasury could step in to prop up a firm under any circumstances all without seeking to resolve and unwind the firm. the chairman's bill authorized continue emergency lending authority for the federal reserve, but conceivably, only for large banks. under the dodd bill, the federal reserve would retain supervisory authority over bank holding companies with assets over $50 billion. the federal reserve supervision essentially predesignated the firms that are too big to fail. these banks would have the implicit backing of the government and the taxpayers and with a competitive advantage giving it access to cheaper credit from lenders, expecting to be made whole. this puts our nation community and independent banks at a severe competitive disadvantage.

i will offer an amendment if this bill comes to the floor to permit community banks to remain under the supervision of the federal reserve. if the feds supervises only the largest firms, it will gear monetary policy towards these large financial institutions. effectively, leaveing out the voice and realtime experience of community bankers in my state and across the country. while the large financial institution were with making bad debts on subprime mortgage markets, community banks were making home and business loans to local customers. local community banks provide to lending and deposit services for our nation's small businesses so they can operate, invest, create jobs, and drive our economy. it is the business lending that will help create jobs and grow our economy. tom, president of the federal reserve bank of kansas city,

said recently, our nation's largest banks would be well served to take lessons from our community banks. why? because community banks have been committed to providing the credit and services needed for small business. they know their customers and they can make good solid loans that are supportable. in texas, richard fisher, the president of the dallas federal reserve bank said the provision in the bill would leave the dallas federal jurisdiction, the federal reserve jurisdiction, only one or two bank holding companies, down from 36 member or $74 billion in assets that he now has supervisory authority over. the feds should know the needs and economic conditions throughout the country. not just new york and washington, d.c. it is precisely the ability to foster bottom up growth through small businesses that sets community banks apart from other

financial institutions. unlike the big financial institutions, we see in the headlines, bailouts and bonuses, community banks don't have a systemic risk to our financial system and they are not identified as primary contributors to our latest crisis. however, community banks would soon be subjected to a considerable amount of new cost and regulatory burdens as a result of this legislation. community banks are already regulated. they are well regulated. adding additional layers of federal bureaucracy with limitless authority would be a burden that would only serve to hamper the ability of community banks to effectively provide depository and lending services to america's consumers and small businesses. community banks should not be punished as a result of this

legislation. we should preserve and enhance our dual banking system. not impose additional federal regulations that stifle their ability to serve their communities. mr. president, i'm also concerned about the direction of the regulation the over-the-counter derivatives. in the wake of the collapse of the mortgage market where the use of derivatives and even derivatives of derivatives helped cause great losses to banks and nearly brought our economy to its knees, it is important that federal regulators have a greater understanding of this derivatives market. we have members on both sides of the aisle who are negotiating these terms. republicans and democrats have the same goal. we want to end too big to fail. we want to end bailouts. we want to assure that our community banks still have the

capabilities to serve main street customers. the bill before us that is not being brought to the floor because it did not have any input from the republican side does not achieve those goals. so, mr. president, we are now meeting in small groups. we are meeting with the secretary of the treasury and others in the administration to try to come to terms that would do the right thing and meet the goal that we all agree is the goal. that is what is going on right now in the united states senate. it is my great hope, and i see my colleague from tennessee who is also on the banking committee with me, and he too is a part of the negotiations that wants to bring this bill to the floor. we can do something good for our economy. passing the bill or letting it come to the floor and roll out

of here in its present form would not achieve that objective. so i welcome my colleague from tennessee who have been a major player in this debate. he has been a major reason that we are coming to a point at which i think we can have a successful bipartisan bill. i will say that our chairman and ranking members chairman dodd and senator shelby have been meeting for weeks to try to woman to these terms. -- come to these terms. i think everyone is sincere at this point that we have bipartisan bill. financial regulation is not political. the consequences of passing a bad bill are huge for our country, for every american. we can do this. so, mr. president, i welcome the comments from my colleague from tennessee, and look forward to his leadership continuing so that we can have a bill that

will help the consumers in our country, that will stabilize our economy, and most of all, will bring that unemployment rate down from 10% so that more americans can go to work. thank you, mr. president. >> mr. president. >> senator from tennessee is recognized. >> typically when i come to the floor, it's time to speak, you don't like to wait for another senator to speak. you want to speak and be able to go back. i'm so glad today i had the opportunity to hear the senator from texas. i want to say that both of the federal reserve leaders in kansas city and dallas i think have added tremendously to this debate. and i think no one has been more of a supporter for community banks than the senator from texas. everything that you said, senator, regarding the fed, keeping community banks, i could not agree more with. my sense is with by the time the bill comes to the floor, it'll

either have that in it or let me just say to you right now, i will cosponsor the legislation or the amendment that you bring forth. because i think you are absolutely right that the federal reserve should keep the smaller state guarded bed members and the fact is that this rearranging the deck chairs serves no purpose. i could not agree with you more. i also agree with you regarding the derivatives. which -- if you want to make a comment, i'm going to lead into comments based on what you said about derivatives. if it's okay, i'd like the senator from texas to be able to respond. >> mr. president, i appreciate the senator from tennessee's remarks. because i think of course i welcome your cosponsorship of the amendment. it is essential. i couldn't support this bill if we shut the fed off from tennessee and texas and california by just saying that the top 50 bank holding

companies are the systemic risk then we might as well all move to new york. well, new york doesn't want any more people, i'm sure. they are well populated. but most of all, i want to make sure that the main street bankers and the small businesses of all of our states are known to the fed. >> right. >> and the way they are known to the fed, of course, as you know, is that their local fed banks know their issues, know their problems, know their needs because they have the ability to serve those banks. which is not allowed in the bill before us. so thank you for your leadership, senator corker. i look forward to coming to, i hope, a result that we can all be proud to support. >> which brings me right back to where i want to be. thank you, senator. the fact is there's a lot of people coming down to the floor. a lot of things being said in the press. first of all, i think we're going to end up with a bipartisan bill. i think we're going to end up with a bipartisan bill before

the actual vote to notice to proceed takes place. i believe that. that's being led by certainly senator dodd and senator shelby. they are the point people. you can't have eight negotiators. but i believe that's where we are headed. so when i hear a lot of rhetoric on the floor and other places, you know, i think it's just rhetoric. i think at the end of the day, we're going to end with a really solid bipartisan bill. i hope it's one that i can support. i'm giving input into that. that's where i hope we end up. which leads me to this. there have been folks that have come down to the floor talking about about us supporting wall street. republicans supporting wall street by not supporting the dodd bill in its present form. that's just ridiculous. what's happening, some reporter i think made comments yesterday at lunch to republicans and

slammed the dodd bill. that's not true, i was very emphatic about one thing. republicans are not representing wall street. candidly, when i look at this bill, i bet my friend from delaware would agree, there's not much in the bill that is very offendive to wall street to be candid. i mean this bill, you know, focuses on three topics. what i have said to my colleagues is this, is this whenever we have regulation, the big guys get bigger; right? and the small guys end up bearing the brunt of regulation. what we are all trying to do, as senator hutchinson said out, to make sure the legislation deals appropriately with community bankers and manufacturers in iowa and texas and other places. the fact is there are some issues with this bill that we need to work out. candidly to say that republicans are representing wall street couldn't be further from the

truth. there's just not in this bill that's very offendive to wall street to be candid. i'm not saying we should go out of our way to be offendive, but i think anybody looking at what this bill says would know there's not much in this bill that's that offensive. the fact is we're putting derivatives on clearinghouses, which i hope happening. i think that's a good thing. i think we need to get as much of that done as possible. when somebody's money is bad, they have to put money up that day. it alleviating some of the systemic risk. we deal with resolving the firm that fails. i think that's appropriate thing to do. hopefully we'll get consumers protection back. by the way, that's a section of this bill. if it's not handled properly, it won't effect the jpmorgans and citigroup, it will effect community bankers. all we're trying to do on our side of the aisle, this is what i was very emphatic about

yesterday, we're trying to make sure this bill is in balance. i think we can do that. but look, there's not much in the bill that's particularly offensive to wall street. and to say that those of us who want to get it right for everybody else in the country are defending wall street is just way off of the mark. it's just not true. second thing i would way is there's many thing that is are good. there are things that aren't so good that are being worked out. that's typically what happens when we have a bipartisan discussion. each side brings their particular strengths to the bill; right? we all represent different points of view. when we work together, we end up with a good bill. one the things that was trouble me, i was very emphatic yesterday about this, and today and tomorrow and i have been for a long time, is this bill doesn't even deal with underwriting. at the end of the day, at the end of the day at the bottom of this upsidedown pyramid, the

crisis began because we had a lot of mortgages in this country that should have never been written in the first place. that's at the core of this issue. then we had firms that were way over leverage that were doing that and spread the pain through $600 trillion around the world. right? but it started with the fact that a lot of loans were written that shouldn't have been written. and i don't think this bill even addresses that. i think that's a little bit of an issue. you know, if we come to the floor with a template that deals with consumers protection, that deals with systemic risk, that deals with derivatives, i hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join in with many members on this side of the aisle to correct that. at the end of the day if we continue to write loans that shouldn't be written and we continue to securitize them and

continue to spread them around the world, we haven't done much in the legislation. have i been emphatic about that? have i wanted these two pieces of the legislation, a balance as it relates to the rest of the country, and making sure our underwriting is done appropriately. do i believe those are things that are important? yes. do i think we're going to address those? i hope so on the underwriting. i hope so. i'm not sure. i can't tell if people really are willing to make sure that americans across this country have to live in a semidisciplined way as it relates to mortgages. i'm not sure. i hope that we get some place there. because i think it's important. i think though in closing, let me come back and say indespite of all of the rhetorics of bail outs and what's happening in

offices, i think negotiations are taking place that are going to get us to a place where we at least have a template, a piece of legislation, that can be embraced in the beginning in a bipartisan way. and then i hope that can happen, i know my friend from d delaware is going to be engaged, what i hope happens after that, after we get the base template we have a vigorous debate on the floor about where we need to go from there. there's some other pieces that maybe i would consider them to be central. okay? but i'm okay with legislation coming to the floor where we have a balance between resolution, derivatives, and consumers protection. and then let's go from there. let's have the kind of debate that i think our country would love to see us have in public focused not on rhetoric, because this is one of those issues where we have plenty of

substance; right, but on substance -- let's do something that will stand the test of time. i think we're going to do that. as a matter of fact, mr. president, i know my time is up. i think that this bill, this bill has the opportunity in the next few days and once we begin debate on the floor which i hope will happen in a bipartisan way. i think this bill is potentially the beginning of us being able to function in an appropriate way in this body. that's what i hope happening. that's why for weeks and months i've been saying that i think at the end of the day we're going to end up with a bipartisan bill. i hope -- i hope it has some important elements in it like the ones i just mentioned that will allow me to support it whether that happening -- i hope it happens, i hope it happens. i hope we have a good debate and end up with a good product. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> madame president, i come to

the floor today to talk about the issue of financial regulatory reform. an issue that is consuming the good efforts and time of many of our colleagues here in the senate. it's an issue that's very important to the future economic health and viability of this country. up, as we go about our lives even in this difficult economy whereby i think it's easy to forget how bad things were just a couple of years ago. how bad things were in the fall of 2008. and it's important for us to remember the situation that we were put in. where our stock market fell precipitously, where our financial institutions where on the verge of collapse, where the united states congress was forced to step in to give billions of dollars of taxpayer money to save the financial institutions to avoid what was

perceived to be a situation as dire as that which happened in the late 1920s when the great depression started. it's important for us to remember that terrible and challenging time as we evaluate what we should be do now to prevent that time from happening again. we should be looking back to the causes of that crisis in order to figure out the solutions that we should impose today. now there has been good work that has been done between members of both sides of the aisle. senator dodd, senator shelby, senator corker and others on the banking and financial committee have been working to come forward with a piece of legislation that will help put us in a situation where we will no longer have companies too big to fail, which could put us back to the american taxpayer asking

the american taxpayer to bailout wall street and save the financial institutions. we should never be put in that situation again. i commend the work that's being done. i am hopeful that we should have a bipartisan product. there are pieces which give me concern. the cause of a bailout to again be a situation that the united states congress has to address gives me great concern. this is particular legislation as part of this package which would set up a fund of $50 billion, certain companies designated as too big to fail. i think that's the wrong strategy. i think, therefore, you are guaranteeing future bailouts. you are saying to these companies, you are too big to fail, the federal government is giving you its staff of approval. we will come in and rescue you with taxpayers or shareholder dollars for that case.

i think it sends the wrong incentive, promotes the risky behavior, and at the same time, it creates an unfair playing field for those institutions which have played by the rules and had sound financial management. we should not forget in this debate and discussion that the way business is supposed to work in the country is you put together a venture to sell a product or service. if you succeed, you have a profit. if you fail, you go out of business. the failures of the american economic system are in many ways just as important as the successes. where would we be if technologies that proved to be failures were subsidized and prevented better technologies from coming forward? that doesn't make any sense for consumers, it doesn't make any sense for the american way of life. we need to make sure that businesses can fail if they don't succeed. we've got a system of bankruptcy

in this country that is admired around the world. that orderly takes company into its procedures, either reorganizes or ridgely question dates them. we want the good businesses to succeed. we certainly don't want to create a playing field where the good businesses who run their businesses the right way are at a disadvantage. so i have problems with that portion of the bill. and there are other portions of the bill that i have trouble with, certainly we should not be in the situation of more taxpayer bailouts or even shareholder bailouts. madame president, i want to talk today about the causes of the prior crisis and what this bill needs to do to make sure that that crisis doesn't happen again. if we go back to the mid

2000s, we can see now in hindsight what led to this financial meltdown. in a state like mine, from florida, we have been particularly impacted from the mental healthdown that occurred. because the basis of this meltdown was residential property. and the mortgages that went along with that property. now in a state like mine in florida, we've been were fortunate over the past 0 years or so. -- 30 years or so. because as we've have slowdowns in the real estate economy which is a main driver, construction and real estate, other parts of the market have been able to step in and succeed when real estate and construction fell back. never before until this most recent crisis was the financial market whetted together with the real estate market. so let's look back at the circumstances that occurred. some time during the early

2000s a process started whereby banks and lending institutions would give mortgages to people who did not have the ability in all honesty to afford the home that they were purchasing. there's a type of loan in florida and i'm sure in other parts of the country called the ninja loan, no income, no jobs. why would a lending institution give you a loan if you were noteworthy to obtain. i had the opportunity to purchase my first house in 1995. when i did, i could only put down 15%. my bank required me to get -- to get mortgage insurance in order to make it to the 20% deposit requirement. that was the way it was in this country. there was a time when you tried to obtain a mortgage where the bank was very vested in you

being able to pay because they were holding the note. well, sometime in the early 2000, the process started whereby brokage, mortgage brokers and banks could sell off your mortgage into the marketplace because we started to securetize mortgages. make mortgages trading instruments. what that happened and the mortgage broker or the bank who generates a fee from the writing of the mortgage of itself can take that mortgage and send it off and sell it off to somebody else within we created a bad incentive. the bad incentive was i don't care about the credit worthiness of the person i'm loaning the money too, because i no longer have to hold the mortgage. so the creation of these instruments, securitized

instruments created that bad incentive. all of the sudden mortgages were being written to people who otherwise didn't have the credit, it didn't have the likelihood of repaying them. what does that do? easier money meant prices became inflated. most folks in florida and all around this country don't look at the price of the home they are purchasing, they look at their monthly payment. interest rates were extremely low, money was easy to get, a down payment was no longer required, this helped the building business, the home construction business to make off. more homes, more mortgages. well, the financial markets on wall street found that putting together the mortgage-backed security, these large trading instruments with thousands, tens of thousands of mortgages was very profitable for them. they could trade these back and forth and they too could receive a commission on the sale of these products.

that made them money. and guess what, they weren't responsibility if they went under either. now in order for all of this to work, someone had to vouge for the worthiness of the trading instruments. wall street looks, as it always has looked, to the rating agencies. smp, moodies, fitch, guess what, they came along and they allegedly looked at these products and stamped them as being triple a. the highest level of credit worthiness, very unlikely to have any problems with them where the person who purchased some kind of instrument on that would not get paid. let alone lose their investment. the challenge was that the rating agencies didn't understand the mortgages that were in these products, they didn't do the due diligence and

we protect them by federal law from any recourse against them for the most part. they didn't have any skid in the game either. so now you have the borrowers with no skin in the game. because they didn't have to put anything down on their house. they are basically renting. you have the bank and the mortgage broker with no skin in the game because they don't have to hold the mortgage on their books. you have the financial firms with no skin in the game because they are just trading these large securitized instruments and worse, still they create synthetic agreements where you don't have to hold any of these mortgages yourself, you're just creating short of a shadow trading instrument that trades off of the same underlying mortgages but, in fact, it does not hold them. it's sort of like me betting that your house will burn down without me having any interest in your house. and we created this long chain

of people in the marketplace from the borrower to the mortgage broker bank to the financial institution to the rating agency who had no skin in the game on these transactions. and the sale of these mortgage-backed security and later the credit default swaps which was the insurance policies created huge fees for the financial firms. and we did for the first time in the history of this country something that we had never done before. we put the prime asset of most americans, their home, in play, on wall street. and year after year after year the demand for these mortgages drove the excess. more and more and poorer and poorer mortgages written to feed the beast on wall street. and at the end of the day, the

housing market couldn't sustain itself and when the mortgages started to fail, when people started to not be able to make their payments when the increase in property prices could not increase any more because gravity effects everything after a while, the whole system in 2007, then 2008 began to fall apart. we found out companies like aig were all entangled on buys and selling insurance products on these products. they had huge exposures and wall street banks had five, 10, 15 million more in exposure in some of the biggest institutions that we know from wall street failed. at first brought up by other companies and ultimately bailed out by you the taxpayer. i go through this history, madame president, and explain is in the best way that i know how. it is a very complicated topic.

because what we do in this reform bill has to address the skin in the game problem. so i have made to my friends, senator dodd, senator shelby, senator corker, senator warner, and others who are in the midst of the negotiating the bill that will come to this floor. i have made three suggestions as to what we need to do to make sure that we don't replicate that problem again. first of all, these rating agencies who are captive to the investment bank as products they rate can no longer be held harmless to not do the due diligence required and stamp aaa on products they do not investigate or understand. but for these rating agencies, this crisis would probably not have happened. but for them -- but for the

imprepture of their aaa stamp, people would not have slept well buying a product they didn't understand. consumer report said this is a great car and safe. you don't understand the modern workings of a car. but you buy consumer reports and you read it and it tells you this is the safest car in america. so you feel safe putting your wife and your kids in that car. but you didn't know under this circumstances that the rating agencies were rating the products, one weren't doing any due diligence and were being paid by the investment banks who product which they already rating. that's got to change. suggestion number two, in terms of residential mortgage underwriting, if a broker or bank is going to write some exotic type mortgage where there is little to nothing down, they

should be required to maintain a portion of those mortgages on their books. let them bare the risk. don't let the bank shift it off so that it can become securitized in the marketplace, entangle all of our financial institution, and put us the taxpayer at risk. if we make the bank hold the nontraditional mortgages, i guarantee they will do a better job of making sure the people they are lending money to are good credit worthy investments for them. the third suggestion is this, these issuers of securitization, including these synthetic which basically means manufacturer, not real, chat rised debt obligations, they all too should be required to retain a stop sign stake of the instruments they market. they have to have skin in the game as well. so if those instruments fail,

they are going to lose money. we have got to have not only on -- in this discussion but throughout the problems that you address, we've got to understand the incentives we're creating. we cannot have a financial market system whereby there is no exposure to me in any part of the equation. because that's going to encourage bad behavior. it's the same reason why we got it wrong on health care reform. because as long as we have third party payers, medicare and medicaid insurance companies, we the consumer have little interest in the cost of what we are paying for. therefore, cost don't go down. it's the same brewing problem that we're going to have when a recent statistic says that 47% of americans don't pay taxes. if 47% don't pay taxes, do they care the united states does a good job of spending money effectively and efficiently.

the incentive is not to care because it's not their money. we have to address the issue today in the financial markets and in tomorrow in all of the legislation that we pass. americans, banks, consumers, in all forms whether we're buying health care services or financial products, whether we're buying a home or trading on wall street, we have to have skin in the game. or we create bad incentives that harm our country. with that madame presint, i conclude my remarks and suggest the absence of a quorum. >> mr. president, i would like to take a few minutes this afternoon to discuss further the efforts in financial regulatory reform. i'd be remised, mr. president, if i didn't note the contribution of the presiding officer to this effort. i want to thank him personally, he's a member of the banking committee, he has expressed strong interest in this legislation and various parts of

it. i thank you for it. today i want to talk about assets of it. i've been talking about the bill on the floor every day and the last several days dealing with issues of the so-called too big to fail which we address very aggressively. we talk about the efforts that have been made to try and forge a comprehensive bill, a strong bill, which we've involved and invited virtually everyone who was interested to participate in a product and to which i'm proud to say many did offer their ideas and thoughts as we tried to develop a proposal that was not only strong and broad-based but attracted again a strong group of our colleagues in both democrats and republicans to this effort. today, over the days we've spent a lot of times discussing. of course, the impact of wall street reform on large financial firms, the investment banks, the nonbanks and others corporate executives, federal regulators

and other power players in the financial sector. that's been the subject of a great deal of attention. and a complicated subject matter of derivatives and how they work and how they apply and shadow economies and black pools and systemic risk and all of these language and discussion that sometimes can lead the average citizen feeling as though they are talking in a foreign language about these matters. and the question they ask is how does this effect me? i'm glad you're going to try to clean this up. but what is happening with all of this that has some positive impact on my life? as the taxpayer, as a working american, i'd like to know what's being done to see to it that my interest are going to be considered as you're trying to resolve all of these larger questions that somehow seem very distance to my concerns every day. today i'd like to take a few minutes to talk about the impact of this legislation on millions and millions of our fellow citizens who aren't financial

wizards and will be the first to tell you so. they are not big wigs on wall street or large banks and financial institutions. they are peep who are just trying to -- people who are trying to big a nest egg for their family, maybe take a loan out to buy an automobile, home, send a child to college because that child has asked everything and want to go on to the educational opportunity and need the resources. the demands and needs are obviously clear. unfortunately, as we know and many americans have found out over the hard way particularly in the last few years, our current financial system leads consumers too often vulnerable into being deceived and purchases products if not ripped off by greedy wall street firms and others. after the heart of the financial crisis that has cost our nation so dearly with the subprime

mortgages to american who's didn't understand their terms and who would never, ever have afforded them. and the lenders knew it. they knew it going into it. yet, they lured them into those arrangements. with great damage done to individuals and to the economy as a whole. wall street unquenchable thirst for profits and disregard led to a pattern of greed that came to creating a complete collapse of our financial markets and our economy. millions of americans lost their jobs or more than eight and a half or around eight and a half million, homes, seven million gone into foreclosure. retirement earnings, evaporated and sometimes almost instantly. and maybe more importantly than all of this as hard as it is if you lost your home, retirement, and health care, you lost their

faith and sense of optimism and confidence in our financial system in this country. and that loss of confidence, that lost of optimism, the loss of belief that while you may make a bad bet on a stock, that the system was sound and fair and would treat you fairly. that you weren't going to get hurt because we had a good system in place. and that confidence, that faith, has been lost. and that maybe more important than everything else i've mentioned in terms of the future strength of our economy and our country. and to add insult to injury, those same americans then saw those same firms collecting billions, dollar bailouts, at the expensive a taxpayer, paying billion bonuses to the same executives who's bad decisions put us in the mess in the first place, who would have been out of a job had the bailout not occurred in order to allow the institutions to survive and turn around and write themselves a

huge bonus check. in in chamber we voted 75-24 to stabilize our financial system. a decision, mr. president, was the right one. i believe we made the right call, as difficult as it was. but at end of all of that, you have major executives in these companies then reward themselves as the head of these institutions because we in the taxpayer -- most of the taxpayers by the way, had come up with the resources to make it position for the institutions to survive. mr. president, the american people are angry and with good reason. but they are also wonderers who's looking out for us? who's job is it to make sure this doesn't happen again. and while our current system pays lip service to consumer protection, those responsibility are divided among some seven different regulators for whom consumer protection is just an

afterthought in too many cases. it's the primary safety and soundness they are responsible for as well. the result is regulators put the banks before the interest of the consumer who rely on those institutions for their long-term economic security. if this sounds like a recipe for failure, that's because it is. secretary of the treasury michael barr testified before our banking committee not long ago, let me quote him. he said today's protection regime experienced massive failure. it could not even stem a plague of abusive and unaffordable mortgages and the credit cards despite warning signs. it cost millions of responsible consumers their home, their savings, and their dignity. and it contributed to the near collapse of our financial system. we did not have the financial crisis, we had a consumer

crisis. end of quote. mr. president, that massive failure could happen again. today we're in no different position than we were in 2007, 2008, and 2009. nothing has changed. and yet we are in the brink of creating change. that could make a difference in this very area. those today massive failures are still lurking out there. and the same consumers who lost their homes, lost their jobs, lost their retirement. lost their health care, are in no different position today should a crisis happen today or tomorrow. the same system, structure, exactly the same so-called regulators out there charged with protecting consumers from the kind of problems that led us to the difficulties we're in today. wall street again the financial products and practices are being

devised on wall street even as we speak to make it more difficult in many ways. are they safe? exploited? we have no idea. either do the american people because no one is looking out for them. our legislation answers the question of who is looking out for ordinary americans. when they interact with the financial systems. the bill that we'll present with our colleagues, creates an independent consumers financial protection bureau. this new bureau won't have any job more important than helping consumers make smart financial decisions because protecting, educating will be their only job. >> i don't want to create a situation where not congress, not the courts, but bureaucrats and -- by the way, i don't use that term majoritity, government officials, unelected government

officials decide who gets bailed out, when, under that circumstances, what gets paid back, who doesn't, and how much it's going to cost the taxpayers. that's what provided for in the legislation. when folks say look, this is a big that we need to support because it ends too big to fail. that's wrong. taxpayers are still on the hook. if those things are fixed, then my criticisms in this particular respect go away. but we have not yet heard from these negotiations that that's what's being done. so i just told my colleagues, don't come to the floor and say this is a great bill, it solves all of these problems, it ends too big to fail and there's nothing wrong with it. there are things wrong with it. let's do those things. i would assume if you ask the abstract question of every 100 of the senators, do you think we ought to end too big to fail, yes would be the answer. ask our constituents. yes. then we can get down to the

nitty-gritty. quote, the fdic will guarantee the banks under certain circumstances. that has to be carefully defined or we're going to have taxpayers continue to be on the hook for these obligations. like i said, we haven't done anything to fannie and freddie in the legislation. that is going to be a continuing taxpayer obligation as well. as i said before too, those firms, the ones teemed too big to fail have an advantage over the smaller banks, the community bank. we just met with the community bank representatives in arrest. they fear this will make them uncompetitive. these are the big boys. result we will end up with a few really big banks and maybe some that aren't, that are in kind of a medium sized of operation and almost all of the smaller banks

having to go out of business because of this anti-competitiveness that will result from the legislation. now one of the other ways in which what i've been talking about occurs is through section 113. the financial stability oversight council. this is one of the entities. it's the federal reserve authority to prop up any nonbank financial company that the council, this new council deems to be a threat to the stability in our economy. this is a board based in washington. it decides which institutions get treatment and gives the bureaucrats tremendous latitude to pick winners and loosers results in a competitive advantage and disadvantage. what determines whether a nonbank is a threat to stability. what are the criteria? that's pretty much an open book.

"any other factors that the council deems appropriate." i would think that if the congress tries to legislate in this very complex and difficult area, we would try to give very specific direction to the federal authorities to whom we give great power as to how we want it exercised. i don't think this is it. take towft built. let's have a bipartisan negotiation to do that. if somebody can demonstrate why that has to be left in, then great. these are the kind of things that lead me to the conclusion that, no, we should not agree to consider the bill that came out of the banking committee on a purely partisan basis because purely partisan basis because on a purely partisan basis because there are problems in it. today "the wall street journal" says the bill allows too much discretion to federal regulators to determine which to regulate and howl, which two rescue or close down and which two reward and how. exactly what i was saying, it

goes on to conclude this. the bill also extends the fdic resolution authority subject to other approval beyond deposit institutions to any financial companies deemed to be systemically important. and gives the fdic discretion to discriminate among creditors as judges who gets paid what as part of resolution. recall the journal says how the white house exploded its authority under tart to trash chrysler's creditors to give unions a better deal. that's not the only section. section 1155 is untitled and emergency financial stabilization and this is another way in which the bill guarantees bailouts and puts into the law leaves taxpayers on the hook. under this section the fdic would be allowed to trade in new program of limited size to guarantee the obligations of depositories and holding

companies. what does this mean cleansed since there's no guarantee and you called on its taken into receivership or bankruptcy irresolution how the fdic can prop up what ever company chooses and this authority can be exercised without congressional approval. it is one of the reasons i've said right there needs to be some element of bankruptcy or other processed prior to the instigation of this particular kind of authority. you can say that this bill and is taxpayer bailouts as long as you have these sections in it to. now finally, there's much seven rep. consumer protection. does anybody know anybody that doesn't pay for that? i think we all do. there are questions have to intelligently do it, you can create a lot more costs to consumers and to make regulations so costly and inefficient they end up paying more money than they would have otherwise and that is i fear

what could happen here. it happen with the credit card legislation and predicted it could happen here as well and could easily happen with business as we don't intend to cover. i know i've heard from dental offices and car dealerships. many think about wall street bailout's you don't think about your next europe neighbor who sells cars or maybe your neighbor who is a dentist but if they have an installment plan where it takes four months or you can get up to four months to pay your bill to them you can be covered by provisions here. then all the consumer protections apply and so on. let's be careful in an effort to make sure that all street handles its affairs properly we don't impose on main street the folks who like to see thrive in times of recession with in a way that would end up either causing them more expenses or at worst in making them uncompetitive with the so-called the bigger guys. restraining credit is a big way

to do this and requiring that they have to apply capital not to building their businesses but to somehow backing off upward -- packing up their credit issuance even though that's not the main part of their business. just quoting briefly from the new york post and i quote: new restrictions on credit are likely to cost our economy tens of thousands of jobs each year. reductions and credit which would result here means declines in job creation. a lot of small businesses use, in fact, start-ups' a lot of times use home-equity debt or credit cards as source of funding and there is in home-equity debt to be had these days. a lot of our homes are not marketable at the present time. and so credit cards are maxed out and that's a difficult way to do it was but a small businesses are doing this the credit flows aren't stopped because of provisions of this

bella and in an op ed in the new york post it was pointed out the bursting of the house and bubble largely eliminated the first option, the mortgaging of your home to get additional credit, and now washington is trying best to kill the second, the credit-card provision. the dodd bill has consumer protections be on credit cards and restrict the availability of all forms of credit while raising costs. now mr. president nobody intends this result, i don't think anybody in this body wants to impose additional costs especially on small businesses or startup businesses, is simply an inevitable result of policy written too broadly. we need to be careful how we do to ensure that we don't write so broadly that friends we want to protect here are not adversely impacted. they've been coming to my office, khosa never dreamed of covered by this act coming and saying this is how it could affect me and, please, make sure it doesn't and i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, take these concerns

on board. there aren't partisan concerns and make sure that when these negotiations figure out want -- we taking consideration the things raising here. they aren't partisan concerns, there are concerns of every day americans and really to our constituents to think these three and if need be changed the bill. i'm sure even senator dodd would say the bill is not perfect and there are things we need to see changed and then let's do that. and the last point has to do with another element of consumer protection. a lot of folks do business in more than one state. fax some of the larger companies do business in all states. it is cost-efficient for them and if there is one rule, if there's one regulator so they don't have to for example one figure out what every single stage requires in terms of

different consumer protection or notice or whenever it might be and then have to comply with all 50 states, some of which contradictory as well as federal regulators so up to now we pretty much had a federal regime that has preempted the state jurisdiction as some of these areas. as i anderson and the legislation does away with significant component and will allow the state regulators to impose individual requirements someone. so you could have been on a situation where you've got lots of different requirements. some of you have seen ads on tv that's a call now to get your free -- $29.95 and if you call you'll get another thrown in for free and then the last 10 seconds of the ad has somebody reading class land bridge, offer not valid in mexico, new york, arizona, oregon and so on and so on and you can't even follow what he sank to the reality is there are different requirements

and so what we would like to do is have things be as uniform as possible to keep the cost down because the greater the cost of the more cost to the consumer. unfortunately however, this bill creates a patchwork regulatory regimes that expand the number of regulators by 50 in certain areas and as a result is going to be much more difficult thing to comply with and much more costly if we believe that we understand what's necessary in consumer protections that must provide for it. if we think we don't believe this to other regulators let's not make the rules ourselves, let them do it but she shouldn't do both and in addition the chairman talked about safety and soundness. this is a technical term that essentially has regulators require institutions to carry a certain amount of reserves of that if people want their money back out of the bank the bank has money to give to them.

with no bank believes that every day when hundred% of its deposits are called back by its depositors but they have to have a certain percentage of those funds on deposit so if you say i want my money out of the bank and bad enough to give to you or if they have loans go bad they have enough to carry those and so on. that's with the safety and soundness requirements of the regulators do and it's a good thing. those same people can also provide for consumer protections and to say we know think needs to reserve certain amount of money and we also know consistent with that that they need to ensure the protection of their consumers in certain way. what's difficult is when you separate the functions as this legislation does so you have one group saying to the bank here's what you have to do for safety and soundness and have another totally independent group saying we don't care about that but here's what you got to do for consumer protection and you can end up with duplicative

overlapping costly and sometimes even consistent -- inconsistent requirements all of which make it more difficult for these institutions to give cheaper product, better loan, credit card with lower interest or whatever and i urge my colleagues everyone is for consumer protection and safety and soundness, let's try to do this in no way that doesn't impose such great burdens especially on the smaller folks that they aren't able to be competitive and provide their consumers who after all we should be most concerned about with the cheapest product that is backed by the safety and soundness of the institutions. incidentally, on this last point some who are a little more cynical said maybe this needs to be done for more nefarious purpose and if every single attorney general can go out and hire trial lawyers of special contract to bring class-action lawsuits because of violation of

state laws then you have a brand new which cause of action for the trial lawyers to do even better than in the past. unlikely to suggest that's the motivation but i suggest nothing in the bill could prevent that and as long as that's a potential then bar the door. again, there are many things in this legislation that are not partisan in terms of one -- we all want to protect the same folks but questions raised the need to be dealt with and i think it would be far better to take the time to have republicans and democrats sitting down and going to these issues carefully, writing a bill they can agree on, bring that to the floor so the rest can look at it, and hopefully we would say that's a lot better product than we thought. it's not exactly as i would have done it, it looks like there's compromises and their but after all that's what the process is when you have little more than half the body one party in less

than half the other body, that's how you get things done. i can assure you this mr. president and assure my colleagues and the other side, republicans want to work with our democratic friends to get a good bill that all of us can support and good for our country. i think if we can work in good faith toward that end will be much happier with the results then if it's the results of a partisan or near partisan vote in this body and likewise in the house of representatives. mr. president, i thank my colleagues for their patience and am happy to yield the floor. >> jessica brady is a writer for roll-call and had the lead piece in the newspaper, seven years showdown. what can you tell us about negotiations? >> they are ongoing. i left a press conference with several republicans takeovers including senator richard shelby who very much to seemed -- said

he was optimistic a deal would be forthcoming and was unable to give a time limit, but we are expecting maybe something can be announced by the end of the week or perhaps early next week. >> looking at other news reports optimism seems to be the key word and so what are the key issues that are being negotiated? >> it's interesting, a few weeks if not months ago the big sticking point was how the consumer protection agency, judging by the rhetoric won it seems that members have worked that issue out and right now we're getting down to technical changes and perhaps the big sticking point is this issue of what to do with a $50 billion account as senator dodd and with bill would create that would bail out banks that were heading toward bankruptcy, this would be an account banks would have to pay into and this would be a way to wind them down.

it's become the most controversial provision and the last week or so and that's definitely a hot topic on the hill and. >> is controversial just republicans or some democrats? >> the little factions very much want this $50 billion fund they think that this is the most appropriately to deal with resolution. more moderates are saying is absolutely not, not the panacea. you heard it over on the house side and steny hoyer said this wasn't something they must have in the bill. this is something more republicans are working on an aids are saying on background that this is sort of the last issue to be resolved. >> other meetings on capitol hill include the senate agriculture committee, there markham today of derivatives legislation. what was the result of that meeting today? >> the derivatives bill was passed and perhaps very exciting for democrats was that senator charles grassley voted with the

democrats to send the bill out of committee. this was a big win for democrats in something certainly senator lincoln was celebrating. in fact, republicans to the press conference i attended were cheering the vote as well as saying that this proves that there is a will to do bipartisan work here, that people want to work together and i senator grassley support was proof. >> would this derivatives piece of the financial regulations do? >> this would set a new set of regulating standards which until this point hasn't been quite strictly a wash as other markets. >> how much difference will this be from the version of financial regulations the house passed last year? >> that's an excellent question and i will say i'm not sure yet because senator dodd and has now released well perhaps the amount it would be so were not clear. >> any idea on the timetable of release and then we might see on

the senate floor? >> and again that's the million-dollar question and something we're all watching. members are thinking that possibly a deal could be announced by the end of this weaker early next week. senator reid said he wanted to start debate and of next week, early next week so perhaps there's a theory out there that senators dog and shelby will work for the weekend and announce on monday and get started on tuesday, but all of that is just theoretical nile. >> jessica brady of roll call, thanks for joining us an update. >> you're welcome, thank you.

here's one of the second place winners. >> this is margaret, your average american senior citizen. she among many others are greatly concerned about the current health care debate and we must understand how her health care affects her for a better tomorrow.

>> if we do nothing to slow the skyrocketing costs we will essentially be spending more on medicare and medicaid then every other government program combines. >> during the presidential address president obama spoke of the increasing cost with medicare and the government-funded health insurance program for u.s. seniors. it's a serious issue and raises questions. >> no one knows. >> i've seen them in hospices, accountable health care organizations, 800 million out of the power wheelchair's component and compare the effectiveness 300 million and the list goes on. >> seniors have also raise questions and concerns regarding the medicare doughnut hole and. >> the drug prices increase in medicare says we will pay you prescription benefits up to one

of the point of view having spent $2,500. after that amount everything that you spend is quote on quote in a donut hole, it's the patients expenditure for the medications. >> strengthening medicare secure the financial fidelity and solvency of medicare for years the town and provide seniors with better benefits and guaranteed access to their doctors and in this legislation which will immediately begin to close the done atoll. >> i can't count the amount of the patients i've seen on a daily basis that tell me they can't pay for their medications and these are medications that they need. >> we must take 13 different medications each day, sometimes two or three times a day. we live on social security and after all the bills are paid we have less of $100 each week for food and gas and everything

else. i am proud that my states representative is helping to make prescription drugs more affordable by closing the medicare does not toll. >> as you can see this topic has most impact on the senior citizens of our nations and margaret my grandmother who we introduced a perspective on how for health care of fax her. >> we will be losing a lot of money and so they will take some money out of our pensions for medicare and as far as the pros are not really sure what the pros would be for us. >> studies have shown seniors can pay up to six times what a middle age basin -- person pays. >> the best part of it would be that we get a little more money which they are going to do right now, we are going to be losing a tremendous amount. but you children will have to pay for it and that's what we don't like and that will be

hard. >> the physicians and some of a medical associations regard how it affected their patience. >> if you could say anything to the people in washington about the recent health care debate regarding medicare what would you say? >> i think they're trying to attack too much at one time and i would say let's do one piece at a time and see if it were some move on from there to help this crisis. >> be careful what to do because with every youtube will impact the health care and a lot of doctors aren't excepting medicare because it costs too much. the sickest people in need this and there are the most problems, there are going to have trouble seeing doctors. >> elderly patients are scared to death. they perceive that there is going to be a ration care. >> one of the more active decisions and the debate former governor deane davis got on the proposals at the howard beckham center in september. >> acosta not come out of care,

the, out of subsidies and drug companies so they will be the ones paying for this and the other place that cuts come from is from what congress calls waste, fraud and abuse not taken from seniors but taken from the people who provide equipment and the drugs and insurance. we ought to open up medicare and allow younger people and 652 sign-up. it works pretty well. >> how do you pay for it? >> things that are tough to do. if -- to make sure, first of all, the to do quds have a trillion dollars out of waste and money and suppliers and drug companies and pharmaceutical companies and then you have to start raising premiums of or benefits. >> another one bill frist give his opinion regarding the debate in november at the moscow chamber of commerce. >> medicare serves almost to million seniors today so as to bring in terms of health care security and unless you reform the system and away health care

is delivered that means you pay nurses less and to pay doctors a lot less for delivering the care bear expected to give it and pay hospitals a lot less. so i'm concerned about the proposal. i think first american people have a moral obligation to fulfil our commitment to our seniors today and i think for our seniors there will be okay, the cuts if they occur of this administration will not be so severe you'll be denied health care. the cost of health care is going up three times faster than what people's wages do and in order to bring the uninsured into the market is going to cost more money. unless we can slow down the growth of health care cost overtime. that means taxes are going to go up in the mes health care premiums because somebody has to pay for it are going to go out. >> the house bill does two things. gets half of the uninsured into the market to itself and what it does not do is slow down the

growth of health care cost and, in fact, increases health care costs to your parents and your families and the taxpayer out there today. i'm hopeful that the bodies that iran in, the u.s. senate, will do something different and that is slow down the healthcare growth the growth in health care cost. if they can do that we can pass an effective bill. >> on christmas eve to the asinine the u.s. in the past $871 billion health care bill 60 -- 39. conference committee is being sent to begin meeting this month to develop compromise bill between the senate and house versions which both will go photon. >> they're going to suffer the most of the >> healthcare is a big challenge in this country and there's a lot of different opinions out there about how you take care of it and we should all respect each side of the argument, no

one person has the answers and a lot of times in politics which one you're trying to siphon out people just trying to attack each other rather than the problem. i would encourage them to keep an open mind, i would encourage people to keep an open mind one and work your hardest to tackle this problem. we can tackle it if we were together been. >> and confident we can come together in a bipartisan way and both parties come and address the issues. it can be done and hopefully it will be done. >> to see all of the winning entries of this year's studentcam competition a visit studentcam.org. >> let's meet another winner from our studentcam video documentary competition: we asked students to give it a video on it whenever country's greatest strengths or significant challenge facing our country. today we meet a greater mass to

tipson from knoxville, tennsee. matthew, hello and congratulations on your wan. >> thank you. >> matthew, tell us what is your video about? >> our video is about health care for senior citizens and medicare. >> what made you pick this topic? >> we knew we wanted something that affected by the and everybody will be by medicare some dead. us also it was such a major topic of discussion on the news and radio and discussions we heard he built around their parents and grandparents and we thought this would be an interesting topic to cover. >> how do you think the healthcare debate affects you? >> decisions being made right now in washington will affect americans for generations to come so not only will it affect me and my parents and my grandparents, but will affect my kids in my kids' kids. also affects the quality of health care of the economy. >> how did you produced this video? >> we started to look for people

to interview doubt have inside on the topic and one of my teammates, his mom is a nurse practitioner so we interviewed her and then she had access to several other physicians she worked with that were willing to be interviewed by yes so we got a lot of information from them and then we decided to interview howard dean and bill frist because they would have insight on the topic we have chosen and then we put voice overs and this some more research on the topic. then we put music to the video and that's basically how we produced its. >> what was the experience like to for you interviewing governor dean and bill frist? >> those are the two most memorable interviews, they were politicians and positions so they have the political and medical perspectives on the debate and i came from completely different sides of the argument. you need to hear that so these

are amazing experiences. >> what did you learn while producing this? >> i've learned that things like the medicare doughnut hole and then backed -- the fact it will be projected to go bankrupt by 2017, that can be difficult for seniors and seniors are sometimes, that can make them uneasy. i learned that -- i learned how medicare works and how it will affect me with an all american citizens. >> how long did it take you to produce this and what was the most difficult part in doing this whole thing? >> my teacher, she introduced this project to us on the first day of school which was in august and up until mid january when the video was a man in the we've been -- we had to choose a topic and we've been interviewing people and doing the editing process and over the course of that time of six months one, during that the most

challenging part was definitely editing because sometimes people would say things in interviews you didn't want to cut out but it's in eight minute videos so you have to choose the best things people want in the video and pkinihar's >> congratulations once again, matthew. >> thank you. >> let's watch more of his video. there today or tomorrow. >> i think they're trying to attack too much at one time and i say let's do one piece at a time and see if it works and move on from there to try to help in the crisis. >> be careful of what you do because when ever you do will impact the healthcare and. a lot of doctors don't even xm medicare because of the cost is an issue and there are the sickest people we're saying that have the most problems so they are going to have trouble seeing doctors. death. they proceeded that there is