and if indeed you have an issue in these penalties i think it's time for transport to take a real close look at you, even though you are billing this. because it may be too late as was the case at upper big branch while all this isn't deal, while we're trying to get to some magical point in our lives here, to say, yeah, that mine should be shut down. i think it's indeed there have been this many penalties this year, i think we take the step to say all right, the district manager needs to send more inspectors, more frequently into that my because there's something wrong here. just because you haven't got to the final day that some uphill process says you have to pay these fines, it's too late for these miners. they have gained the system here. and i mentioned that in my testimony, and, you know, there's going to be someone argued that, well, we don't really need laws or whatever. and i would point out, i said

this in the beginning, had the law been updated here, we would not have had this explosion and 29 minus losing their life. . . before we passed the 1969 act. it didn't work. i have a lot of ideas about this, but i would like to get the other panels' input. >> thank you.

i just have a question. >> thank you, physicians chairman. we've been -- mr. chairman. we've been talking a lot about the culture and i think it's important to point out that i would say 98% of west virginia virginians, pennsylvanians, of ohioans wyomingites, have never been down a mine. so it's -- what people have to understand, this isn't sort of a public place we're talking about. this is 35 minutes, 45 minutes up a beautiful hollow, with lovely streams and things, and then all of a sudden you come to this enormous mine. it's a private, private life. decisions are made by very few. and the effects are very many. the miners are put in an

impossible cultural position. because if they get offered payment of $65,000 to $70,000, what are they going to do? are they going to say no, not interested? that's not the way it works. but when they -- and they have family, so they have obligations to that family. they have to survive and they have to take care of their families as well as keep the lights on in america, so it isn't really a choice for them, this culture. to me, the culture has to start from the top and i'm going to give you an example, and i'll be short, mr. chairman, as i always am. i was governor for eight years in west virginia and we were having unacceptably high death rates in hour mines. i decided that as chief executive, that is, c.e.o., that i would go to each of the mines

where the mine inspectors would gather, after there had been a death. that had never happened before. there i was sitting, as there were trying to explain to each other what happened and who should have done what. things happened. everything was different, because the culture change took place at the top. now i'm not saying that i changed the world, but it did have an effect and that's why in a secret world it end of 35 miles of hard driving, and then a thousand to 2,000 feet underground, when only a few -- or only a few people from that state or from any state have ever been, it has to come from the top. it has to come from the top. >> mr. chairman, related to that, i have been down in an underground mine, but i know that most people have not. >> because we're senators. >> there's a fellow from west virginia, i don't know that he still lives there, named homer

hickman, who has written a great book that gives you an understanding of what it was like. after 2001, he wrote a book called "we are not afraid" which talks about the culture of the miners, and perhaps the way americans ought to view the terrorism attacks we've had, but he also has a book called "the red helmet" that even gets into some mine accidents, so i would recommend those to people that haven't been in a mine. thank you. >> you know, listening to everybody, i've been respectful of not trying to interfere hearing all the questions and the comments and constitute, i keep thinking, what's harris got to say about this? what's a guy who actually goes in the mines and works in those mines, do you have any last thing you want to say here? >> yeah. i really believe that, you know, those people that died, they at any time have to die. i mean, it didn't -- they didn't have to die. it could have been avoided. that's what i like about being

in the union mines. you have representation all the time. you don't have to be scared to call that hate hundred number. you don't have to have that fear. and the coke operators, they want to get the work done safely. they want you to go home safely. they want you to return to your families. you don't have that in the non-union mines, you don't have it, and i have had inspectors have told me that they have asked for representation at the union mines, some of the men that walk with them, they say no, because we're going to get fired if we do. i mean, you haven't had to live like that, and to be on this side of it, it's really worth it, because you have a voice, and if they're going to shut the mines down, they're going to shut the mines down. it don't matter what you say or do, if massey going to shut the mine down, he's going to shut it downeyway. you know. he's going to lay everybody off

anyway, so it doesn't matter. you do so much for him, that he's going to lay you off. you don't care about you. all he care about you what he's getting out of that is that coal and that money. he wants to be the lead coal producer in the southern appalachian and as long as he can do that, he don't care about nobody. that's all i've got to say. >> mr. harris, i think that is a great final word. thank you for this panel. we'll now bring our next panel up. >> panel three. panel three is david michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health. he's a nationally recognized leader in the scientific community's efforts to protect the integrity of the science that forms the basis of our public health, environmental and regulatory policies. before coming to osha, he was professor environmental and

occupational health at the george washington university school of public health and health services. from 1998 to 2001, dr. michaels serveddals the assistant secretary of energy for the environment, safety and health. mr. michaels will just hold on for a second until we get some calm restored here. we're now shifting over to osha. i just might say parenthetically, that this panel and the next panel now, we're going to be shifting from msha to osha and focusing on the occupational, safety and health program.

could we please take conversations out in the hall? if you really need to talk, i'd appreciate it. we really do have to move along here. ok. mr. michaels, welcome to the committee. your statement will be made a part of the record in its entirety. if you could sum it up in five minutes, well deeply appreciate it. >> thank you, chairman harkin, members of the committee. today we are meeting under the shadow of three recent tragedies that captured the headlines and the hearts of the american people. the almost unimaginable deaths of 29 miners in west virginia, the loss of seven refinery workers in washington state, and the 11 workers still missing from the deep water horizon. what we are also here in the knowledge that 14 americans

failed to come home from work to their families every single day of the year. we must think seriously and act courageously to ensure that osha has the tools it needs to enforce safe working conditions. if we have to fulfill secretary of labor's vision of good jobs for everyone, we must have effective laws that will ensure that all employers do the right thing. good jobs are safe jobs. but american workers still face unacceptable hazards. yesterday, the labor department released its spring regulatory agenda, which plus a new enforcement strategy, plan, prevent, protect. this new approach would require each employer to do what many employers do now -- to implement their own injury and illness prevention program, taylored to the actual hazards of that employer's worksite. we're asking them to find and fix their hazards. last week, we announced a new initiative to implement long overdue administrative changes to our penalty formulas, which will have the effect of raising osha penalties, while maintaining our policy of reducing penalties for small

employers and those acting in good faith. and we had implement a new severe violator enforcement program, increasing our focus on repeatedly recalcitrant employers. while important, these two administrative measures are severely limited by the constraints of current osha law. the administration supports the protecting america's workers act, which makes meaningful and statutory policies changes to osha's penalty structure and enforcement program. the most serious obstacle to effective osha enforcement is the low level of civil penalties allowed under our law, as well as our weak criminal sanctions. currently, the maximum penalty for serious violations, those that pose a substantial probability of death or serious physical harm is home $7,000. osha penalties have not been raised since 1990. the index civil penalties to the civil price strike tour to make tour penalties do not degrade

over time. nothing focuses attention like the possibility of going to prison. currently, successful criminal prosecution under the osha act only results in a misdemeanor. under pawa it is a felony. another obstacle it protecting workers is now if the employer contests a violation, osha cannot force that employer to fix the hazards until after the contest is decided. this loophole in the law has fatal consequences. osha has identified at least 30 cases over the last 10 years in which workers have been killed during the contest period of after the citation was filed. pawa would require employers to abate serious, willful and repeat hazards after of the citation is issued. we know that osha works better if workers are actively involved in protecting their health hand safety. but as employees fear, they will be retaliated against for participating in health activities, they are not like live to do so. osha's whistle blower provisions are 40 years and lack behind

laws that provide stronger worker protection. it is critically important if an employer fails to comply with an order providing relief, both eol and the worker can file a civil action. pawa also cdofies a worker's right to refuse unsafe work and prohibits employer retaliation against employees for reporting injuries or illnesses. osha recognizes the importance of family participation. while it is osha's policy to talk to families during the investigation process, and to inform them about our citation procedures and settlements, this policy has not always been implemented consistently and in a timely manner. pawa is facing into law the right of a family member to meet with osha regarding an investigation and receive copies of the citation at the same time as the employer at no cost. pawa would also enable victims to be informed of any notice of contest and to make a statement before an agreement is made to withdraw or modify a citation. finally, it is a little known

fact that state and local employees who respond to our emergencies, repair our highways, clean and treat our drinking and wastewater, pick up our garbage, take care of our mentally ill, provide social services and staff our prisons, they are not covered by osha, unless the state in which they work chooses to do so. and only 25 states have elected to do so. >> public sector workers perform work that is as dangerous as those in the private sector, and according to the bureau of labor statistics, they have a higher injury rate than private sector workers. public employees deserve to be safe on the job. the days of treating public employees as second class citizens must come to an end. mr. chairman, as we prepare to observe workers memorial day tomorrow, we role highs that our work is far from done. to quote from president obama's statement in the wake of the upper big branch mine disaster, we owe all workers' actions, we our them accountability, we owe them assurance that when they go to work every at a, they are not alone. they ought to know that behind them is a government that is

looking out for their safety. i join with you, mr. chairman, in dedicating ourselves to bringing about the day when there will be no more workers me moral highed nestor consider consider memorialized for dying on the job. >> thank you for your testimony. i read your written testimony here. i thought you would talk about. some of the examples and i mentiond in my opening statement how the fines and penalties, both civil and criminal, are tougher on environmental laws than they are on worker safety. you point out in your testimony about the 2001 tankful of sulphuric's sulphuric acid thatt a refinery in delaware, killed jeff davis, a worker, his body was literally dissolved in the acid. the osha penalty was $175,000. yet in the same incident, thousands of dead fish and crabs were discovered, allowing a clean e.p.a. water act amounting

to a fine of $10 million. how can we tell jeff davis' wife and their five children that the penalty for killing crabs is many times higher than the penalty for killing their husband and father? and these things just cry out for us to do something, and we've got to make the necessary changes. and that's what we look to you for, is your suggestions and your advice on how we change these. right now, we just heard from msh habmap, i think you were here -- msha, i think you heard all of that, they have the authority to withdraw miners from all areas until they have abatement, they can shut down a mine, but we know that that doesn't happen that often. yet osha cannot immediately shut down the process or remove workers from harm until the hazard is corrected. is that correct? >> yes, sir. if an osha inspector is in the

facility and sees a hazard that we believe is dangerous to workers, we can certainly ask the employer to shut it down, but we can't require it, we have to go to court to do it. >> even though there may be imminent danger? >> yes, sir. >> do you have any advice for or any suggestions for legislative changes? >> i certainly would like to see that changed. i think that's an extremely important change. you know, msha has the ability to give a report and make a phone call to say shut that down until we arrive. we can't do that. the osha law is very weak and hasn't been amended in any substantive way since 1990. >> as a former member of the house, representing a very rural district in iowa and as a senator representing a lot of small towns and communities, over the years, i've heard story of after story of osha inspectors coming out and nit-picking on something, they

find some little thing, and you kind of hear all these horror stories, and some of them we've tried to track down, it's very hard to do, but address yourself to that. i'm sure you've been around long enough, you heard hall this, right? >> and they pick on these little things, you know, and just create nonsense calmicicah kindf things they have to pick up. >> when osha first began, they took all the standards from many consensus organizations and i'm told, they applied them all equally and any violation they found, they issued a citation and obviously, that was a severe mistake and osha took a real beating and i think they learned, this was actually under president nixon and ford. i think it got straightened out really by the ford administration and osha hasn't been that way since. osha takes its job very seriously. we have relatively few employers. we have very few. we have relatively few

inspectors. we and our state partners have 2,000 inspectors to cover eight million workplaces and 130 million plus workers. so we only look at serious problems. 83% of our violations are serious violations, which mean they could threaten death or impose serious physical harm on the worker involved. we have don't have time to nit-pick. >> tell me about, quickly my time is running out, the sve program, the severe violates enforcement program, how does that differ from your enhanced program? >> it's reshaped and we can certainly get you more information on this, but it really makes us focus on those employers where we found serious problems that we think are quite recalcitrant and makes us go in in on a regular basis and see what's going on there. we think it's a big event, we're just putting in to effect now. i wasn't here for the previous program, but i'm confident this program is veally going to do a god job. >> thank you, mr. michaels. senator ensign. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have helped to get the post

off under osha when i first got here and call for inspections on my office on a regular basis. i know you're short of inspectors, so chances are that a business is only going to be inspected once everyone hundred years, and i suspect that the thousands of people that we'd have to hire in order to have a shorter period of time than that would create quite an economic burden in this country, but there is a program that's working very well, and that's the vpp program, the voluntary participation program, where they volunteer safety experts to work as government employees, and some pretty extensive criteria for them to never be recognized that way. i know that it does leverage 35fte's to get the help, of 2400

special government employees to conduct inspections and audits and i'm pretty impressed with that. i'm even more impressed with some of the independent evaluations that have been done, because it shows that it saves taxpayers millions of dollars every year, just in personnel, but it also avoids serious injuries, probably $59 million worth in 2007, not to mention, you know, the pain and agony that goes -- agony that goes with that, so i think the vpp has shown very strong growth. i wanted to get it down into even medium sized businesses, not just the big businesses, but it does indicate some recognition of exemplary workplace safety in getting public relations value that's intangible in regard to spreading this core mission and making sure that people go home safe. given those factors, do you believe that the vpp is worth preserving? >> yes, i do. i'm a great believer in the vpp

program, as some of you know when i was at the department of energy, i ran the vpp program. i think the concern that i've heard from your office and from others is our shifting of resources around that and i want to discuss that. we think -- it's a very worthwhile program. we are very much focused though on those employers who are not the good participants, the ones that really want to make a difference. the vpp program, our employers have gathered, but there are 14 workers who die every day on the job and there are lots of employers who are just irresponsible and don't care, so we're forced with choosing between do we put our resources into those employers who want to do the right thing and those employers who don't. and so what we've done is we've just said, we have to really focus on those increased enforce minneapolis-st. paul on employers who don't really understand it, so we want to see the vpp program continue. what we'd like to see and we'd like to work very closely with your committee and the association of vpp companies, the vppa, in finding alternative

means of funding for this program. we think it's a good program and we want it to continue. >> looking at the budgets, we're talking about $3.5 million of changing resources. >> somewhere in that ballpark. >> $3.5 million, just in the federal savings, $59 million in savings. if you hook at the injuries in the private sector, there's about $300 million in savings. doesn't it seem like we really ought to extend that program and get more of the people that are good, you know, good participants into that program so that they're doing extensive inspections and cutting down accidents rather than -- and then we can shift more of the resources of the inspection over to the bad actors? >> i'm not sure where the $59 million figure comes from. i'd love to see that. i believe it's a useful program and i believe the companies involved want to do the right thing and we should encourage them and we should find ways to do that, but we really do have to if he cuss on the small companies, the high hazard

companies. vpp is primarily large companies. only 6% of the employees covered in the vpp program are -- work as employers of less than 250 people. it's big employers who can afford essentially to help us find some way to fund this program. >> and if we drop that, how much of the extra resources are we going to need just to take care of the ones we are going to be neglecting who do do a good job. i'd be more interested in who is developing this new proposal and who has been briefed on it, and whether it will require new legislative authority and how long it will take to put the system in place and how we can work more with more of the good people, so that you can really concentrate on the bad people. i have a bunch of additional questions, but i'll provide those in write, especially since the vote has already started. >> the vote started at 4:30 p.m., but i know senator murray has another meeting she has to attend to and i'm going to recognize senator murray. >> i really appreciate that, mr. chairman, because i do want to talk to you about the terrible tragedy in my home

state, we lost seven workers, and it just had a huge impact, and i'm trying to understand how osha's inspection protocols work in states like my state and 26 other states that operate a dol-approved state occupational safety and health program. can you tell me how the federal osha programs like the petroleum refinery national emphasis program are conducted in states like mine? >> well, i can tell you -- yes. we have a national emphasis program that focuses specifically on oil refineries, because we believe refineries are particularly dangerous facilities. we've had a number of terrible events. the bp texas city being one example, but certainly, -- in federal states, we take our experts in process safety management. it's a relatively small number of people who understand refining and things like that, and we put them into do inspections an we're trying to

cover every facility in the states that are federal states. we've asked states who operate their own states programs to do the same thing, because under the osha law, states must be at least as effective as the federal osha. now, fortunately washington state has a good osha system and has decided to replicate what we do, so the -- they have adopted -- >> but there isn't any requirement. >> in this case, there is no requirement. when the national emphasis program, nep, was put in to effect, it was allowed to be voluntary apartments of states and certain states, a small number have decided not to do that. we are quite concerned about that and we are now reevaluating -- we have a national program, whether we should allow states to opt out of it, because it would no longer be a national program. >> does osha do followup inspections, to sites that have been inspected as part of that national -- >> yes. in fact, we recently -- we had a followup inspection at the bp

facility in ohio. i'm sorry, senator brown isn't here. we went in to that facility, we found a number of violations, we asked bp to -- bp huskie to abate those. when we went into the followup, we abated those but went to the other part of the facility, because these are very large refineries and found they hadn't made changes, the same changes that we required in one part, they hadn't made them in the other part, they just ignored that, so we issued more than $2 million fine against bp huskie for exactly that problem, so we are extremely concerned about oil refineries and the possible catastrophic events associated with them, so we're going back in to them hand seeing what we can do. >> you nope the refinery was cited for 17 serious safety violations in april 2009, so this is a big concern and i want to followup with several other questions, but i want today ask you before my time is up. you have explained under current law, osha cannot develop a

pattern of violations or cite an employer of repeat violations if that employer has employees in multiple states. right? so if the original violation occurs in one of these 21 state plan states, that administers their own osha programs, do you necessarily know that other states have violations as well? >> that's correct. we don't know and we can't use that information. it's one of the many weaknesss of the laugh we hope to address. >> >> what's the logic behind that? >> that's the way the state laws are written. the state plans are quite independent. >> mr. chairman, this is a serious problem, because if a refinery an many of them do have separations in many states and they're under state-run osha plans, then those violations don't add up in totality and people don't know about it. it seems we have to fix that. mr. chairman, i know we have a vote. i have a number of questions i'd like to submit for the purpose the record, but i want you to know, this is something i intend to pursue. >> thank you very much, senator.

>> mr. chairman, i just wanted to mention that that $59 million figure comes from an osha press release. >> great. i'd like to see it. thank you. >> all right. >> senator rockefeller? >> i juries want to yield to senator murray. >> thank you, mr. michaels, thank you very much. there's a vote on right now. we'll recess here for about 10 minutes, go over and vote. we'll be back and we'll take the next panel and i would invite the panel forward to go ahead and take the table. margaret, holly shaw, michael brandt. we'll be right back. sno [inaudible conversations]

>> the u.s. senate continues to debate today on whether to bring up the financial regulations bill. they're gaveling in now. a vote coming up today at 12:20 p.m. eastern. the third of three attempts to bring it to the floor. we'll take you live now to the u.s. senate on c-span2. may they delight in your will and walk in your ways. protect them from that preoccupation with trivial things which saps the ability of the mind to deal with the things that really matter. lord, prepare them for the role committed to their fallible hands in these challenging days,

as you bring their desires and powers into conformity to your will. may their individual lives be lighted windows amid the encircling gloom. we pray in your righteous name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate.

the clerk: washington d.c., april 28, 2010. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom s. udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: there will be a period of morning business for 90 minutes with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the first 30 minutes will be under the control of the majority. the next minutes and the remaining time will be equally divided. following morning business, the senate will resume the motion to proceed to to the wall street reform legislation with the time until 12:20 equally divided. at 12:20. senate will proceed to a vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed on the wall street reform. i want to say a few words this morning about one of the

senate's most senior members, one of the newest on this side of the aisle. i have known senator arlen specter for many, many years. i've worked with him, learned from him and admired him. truly a legal scholar. anyone who has read his books -- and i have -- know that senator specter's life has been a struggle. from his days as a son of immigrants in depression-era kansas to his treatment for hodgkin's lymphoma has endured while working as a full-time united states senator. he has not had it easy but he fought hard. i consider it a privilege to work with arlen specter. he's a strong contributor to our caucus and most importantly a fine public servant for the people of pennsylvania. it wouldn't surprise anyone to learn that over 25 years senator specter have not always agreed on every issue, but i've never seen another senator with a greater willingness to work in a bipartisan manner, put people over party and encourage others

to search their hearts and do what is right. senator specter has fought to end the partisanship in washington just as hard as he fought for his constituents in pennsylvania. he's often reminded at some key times, including from right here on the senate floor, that we had to go a direction that he thought was important, and he would tell us about that. we were sent here to govern, not to demagogue. he's warned his former colleagues on the other side of the aisle not to let a strategy of obstructing obscure their responsibility to govern. it is a message with particular relevance that should be enforced this week. without senator specter's courage to reach across the aisle we wouldn't have passed the economic recovery plan. it is pulling our nation out of recession and putting people back to work. arlen specter didn't vote for it for political reasons. he supported it because he saw what the great depression did to his family. it forced the specters to move

from their home in wichita to his aunt's home in philadelphia. he didn't want to see it slip-up again and fall into a depression. senator specter then came over to our side of the aisle and helped pass the health reform law that will help americans life healthier lives. in the anger of the town hall meetings last summer, senator specter found himself on the front lines. he didn't give in to the myths and misinformation. he never lost his cool. as a senior member and former chairman of the judiciary committee, senator specter played a critical role in the historic confirmation of justice sotomayor. i know he'll do a equal job when we replace justice stevens. i want to thank him for all that he does both publicly and privately for the united states senate. the state of pennsylvania, of course, is home to some of our nation's most significant political history: the

declaration of independence, the constitution was drafted in philadelphia. he recorded some history of his own. no pennsylvanian has served in the united states senate longer than he has. his moderate voice has been an asset towards a diverse calks and i look forward to work curbs diverse caucus and i look ford to working with him for many years to come. i can remember as a boy we moved from searchlight aeupbd then got a job in henderson where i was going to high school. we rented a home there, and we had a tv set, our first tv cement i -- tv set. i can remember way back then my mother watching a show called "as the world turns." it was a soap opera. i never watched it on purpose; passing by, i guess. she watched that whenever she could, any time she had a tv

set. my wife as a young woman, young mother, to get away from the chores of taking care of those children of ours would watch "as the world turns." this soap opera went from my mother to my wife. mr. president, that show is still going on -- "as the world turns." this soap opera is never going to end, i guess. and i want everyone here in the senate to know that the negotiations we hear so much about are never going to end. we've got to get on this bill. my friends on the other side of the aisle should understand we have negotiated in good faith and we have tried, and we've got to get to this bill. negotiations are like "the world turns." the soap opera. they're never going to end until we get on this bill. i would say to my friends let's get on this bill because we're going to continue having votes on this matter as long as it takes. i'm happy when we get on the bill. i've told everybody on numerous

occasions publicly and privately, as we have 90% of the things have been brought to this floor. 90% of the things brought to this floor, we've had open debate. we've had the most open debate in many congresses, and i'm happy about that. and this issue that's now before us is going to be one where we can amend, offer amendments and have debates and move forward. and my friends on both sides of the aisle want to offer amendments. they've told me that. and that's what we'll do. we can't do that until we get on the bill. and i say to my friends on the other side of the aisle again, let's stop talking about this negotiation. it's going nowhere. we started off months of negotiation with specter -- i'm sorry. with the chairman and ranking member, senator shelby, until they broke off. and then the senator from tennessee thought he would have his try at it. he tried; that failed. and we went before the committee. there were a lot of amendments filed by the republicans.

they didn't offer a single amendment before the committee. that's what was reported to the floor. mr. president, we need to move on. republicans and democrats have held months of bipartisan meetings, negotiations and consensus. but the time has come to move this conversation from the sidelines to the playing field. it's time this debate happen on the senate floor where it belongs. they think all the negotiations, i guess, should happen behind closed doors. they want all the disagreements end before the discussion begins. i was so disappointed in one of my friends. i heard her on the radio this morning saying, well, this is a complicated bill. we've got to get it worked out before we're going to allow this bill to go to the floor. now that is about, i say with all due respect, not very -- doesn't make much sense, mr. president. they want everything worked out before we get to the floor? is that the new standard?

they want all the disagreements to end before the discussion begins? i wonder what they think the purpose of debate is and why we have the amendment process. negotiations aren't moving forward, mr. president. it's "as the world turns," the soap opera never ends. well, this is going to end. we've got to continue on this legislation. the republican leaders insist that we work this out in back rooms is a stalling tactic. every day they stall is a day they say to wall street, "keep up the good work." mr. president, i've learned a little bit about this debate as we've moved on. i've learned, having been in the past chairman of the nevada gaming commission, which is the gambling commissioner. we try to make those games fair so that people who came to gamble -- and, mr. president, they gambled with their own

money. if they lost that money, they lost it fair and square. but one thing they lost was their own money. the deal on wall street is a really interesting gamble. they use our money, and they keep all the profits. and if they lose, they come to us for help. it's been northern two years since the financial collapse, months since these negotiations started. it's time to move forward on this negotiation. what are my friends afraid of? this is the united states senate. we're supposed to legislate. negotiate, there comes a time when we have to legislate. that time has arrived.

mr. mcconnell mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, yesterday i came to the floor and noted that an increasing number of businesses large and small have been weighing in on the financial regulatory bill. and what we've seen from these groups is a growing concern about the adverse effect this bill could have on their businesses. everyone from candy bar companies to motorcycle makers, it seems, is now worried about the impact of this bill. so this has been a very useful exercise by giving people time to actually look at this bill and study the details for themselves. we've been able to assess not only the potential impact of the actual text of the bill itself, but also some of the unintended consequences it could have. as we know, this is something americans were denied in the leadup to the vote on the stimulus bill. democrats insisted we vote on that bill about 18 hours after

we got the text, and we've seen how that turned out. this is something americans were denied again on the health spending bill, which is basically written by a few guys in a room and then jammed through the senate during a blizzard on christmas eve. we've seen how that turned out, a bill sold on the promise of lower costs and lower premiums is now expected to lead to higher costs and higher premiums. that's what happened on the health care bill. so this time people have actually had a chance to look at one of these massive democratic bills for a change. and what's perfectly clear to most of them, this bill needs some work, which is precisely what the republicans have been saying for the last two weeks. let's start with the basics. the first thing we had to ensure with this bill is it didn't leave taxpayers on the look for any more wall street bailouts. and that's the first thing some of us on this side of the aisle

noticed: the loopholes. so i raised the alarm on that issue, and the two parties have been looking into it. but there are other problems. in particular, there is growing concern that in an effort to hold wall street accountable, this bill could catch the little guys up in the same net as the big banks. and this is now a major concern for a lot of people, a concern we need to address head on. for instance, whether the authors of this bill intended it or not, there is a real concern that this bill could penalize anyone in this country who buys or sells something on an installment plan as a result of some language in section 1027. as "the new york times" put it this morning -- and here i'm quoting the "times" -- this bill gives broad powers to a consumer protection agency to regulate almost any business that extends

credit, meaning that companies like car dealers and professionals like orthodontists who allow customers to pay over time could be subject to a new regulatory and supervisory regime." does this mean that some graduate student in louisville looking to buy an engagement ring would now be required to pay a higher interest rate or that the jeweler wouldn't do the deal because this bill would create new oversight over any nonfinancial institutions that lend money to consumers? what about the parent trying to spread out payments for their child's braces? will they now have to pay for it all up front? will the orthodontist be willing to show his or her practice to federal supervision? i don't know the answer to these questions but i'd like to have a good answer if one of sunlights asked me about t right now i don't. no one can deny that the language of this bill is

ambiguous. that it lends itself to broad interpretation, so let's tighten it up. and why shouldn't we? why shouldn't we tighten up the language to make it crystal clear exactly what this bill means and what it doesn't mean? the last thing we want is for the little guy to get hurt bay piece of legislation that's intended to rein in bankers on wall street. but that's precisely why we've gotten so many letters of opposition to this bill over the last so many days from groups like the national federation of independent business, the u.s. chamber of commerce, americans for tax reform, and the national taxpayer union. that's also why we've gotten so many letters expressing serious concerns from groups like the u.s. automobile association, the military officers association of america, the national council of farmer cooperatives, the farm credit council, the american council of life insurers, and the housing policy council, the national association of

homebuilders, the national association of manufacturers, and the fertilizer institute. the list goes on. in fact, the only people who seem to be willing to come out in support of this bill are the executives at goldman sachs. the biggest bankers at the biggest wall street firm of all. the c.e.o. of goldman sachs was here on the hill yesterday discussing his firm's role in the financial crisis and the point he made about this bill is that he agrees with the president who said last week that the biggest beneficiaries of this bill are on wall street. so, the supporters of this bill may have locked up the support of the folks at goldman sachs, goaltdmasoldmangold nonsacks iss bill but the -- and not before there is an ironclad protection

of wall street firms like his. americans want know that this bill will protect them, too. and right now they've got more questions than answers. i already mentioned concerns about section 1027. how about section 1022? it relates to government collection of information through a new bureau of consumer protection. here's what that section of the bill says. quote -- "in conducting research on the offering and provision of consumer financial products or services, the bureau shall have the authority to gather information from time to time regarding the organization, business conduct, markets, and activities of persons operatingg in consumer financial services markets." it continues, "in order to gather such information, the bureau may make public such information obtained by the bureau under this section, as is

in the public interest in reports or otherwise in the manner best suited for public information and use." i got a question. does have a credit card make you a person operating in consumer financial service markets? what if you sell something on ebay and someone pays with you their credit card through paypal? does that make you someone operating in consumer financial -- in the consumer service -- in the consumer financial service market? does that make you operating in that market? i'm sure it's not the intent of the chairman to give the government information on kentucky kenyans who use paypal? but i why not make it clear? these are questions people are asking once they have real estate had a chance to lact this bill. i'm talking now about the unintended consequences. plenty of other groups have

pointed out some of the real adverse consequences of this bill on meme had absolutely -- on people who had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the financial crisis. for instance, i've heard from a number of utilities in kentucky that use traditional derivatives as a way of keeping prices low for themselves and by extension for homeowners and small business owners across my state. general electric employs more than 5,000 people in kentucky, so i want to hear what they have to say about this bill. and what they're telling smee that this bill -- and what they're telling me is that this bill could really hurt them. they're concerned that this bill could hurt the cost of managing foreign exchange risks associated with their vast global supply chain. and they're concerned about increasing hedging costs related to the financing they provide the suppliers and retail

customers who buy g.e. appliances like washers and dryers and water heretos that are made in louisville. look, homeowners and small business owners in kentucky didn't have anything whatsoever to do with the financial crisis. i'm sure none of of the kentuckians who look at g.e. had anything twod it either. but because this bill doesn't distinguish between utilities who use derivatives for a general use and those who abuse them, ratepayers in my state will almost certainly get hit by this bill. these are just some of the concerns people are raising about this marijuana. -- about this measure. the fact is these concerns are only magnified by the recent performance of the democratic majority. i'm afraid those who claim that this bill wouldn't do any of the things people are fraid of now have a higher hurd toll cross after the assurances they gave the american people on the

stimulus, the debt, and health care. a lot of people took democrats at their word and they got burned. now they want more than a verbal assurance in this bill doesn't allow bailout. they want proof. i don't think anybody really thinks the fertilizer institute is responsible for the financial crisis. and i don't think the authors of this bill think kentucky farmers are to blame for the collapse of lehman brothers. but whether they intended to or not this bill would punish them and that's simply not rievmen r. so americans want a number of things in this bill fixed, and they want more than verbal assurances. at this point, americans want the supporters of this bill to put a highlighters through the relative passages and then tab the pages. americans expect us to prove we're doing what they say we're doing. and after the past fugates, i don't blame them -- and after

the past few debates, i don't blame them one bit. none of this should be viewed as a burden. isn't that how the legislative process is supposed to work? major legislation is proposed, the american people get to take a look at it, they let us know how it would affect them, and then we weigh those concerns against the various problems at hand. the authors of this bill may believe some of those concerns are misplaced, but they're going to have to prove t mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, there will be a period of morning business for 90 minutes with senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, and with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the next 30 minutes. the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. alexander: thank you very much. i want to congratulate the

republican leader on his remarks and listening to him, i was wondering how kentuckians would respond to the thought that we seem to be hearing now in this so-called consumer protection agency. we're from washington and we're here to protect you? mr. mcconnell: i would say to my friend from tennessee, now that we're get ago chance to -- getting a chance to take a look at this bill, it is clear it has a broad reach. it would touch a whole lot of meme had absolutely nothing to do with what happened on wall street and i think it is noteworthy that the most conspicuous supporter of this bill is the chairman of goldman sachs. mr. alexander: i wonder if the majority leader -- republican leader -- excuse moo, freudian slipe -- i wonder if the republican leader would agree with me that it's noteworthy

that the legislation we're talking about focuses on shop owners, auto dealers, real estate agents, farmers, community bankers, doctors, dentist whose have virtually nothing to do with this great recession we're in but completely leaves out the two giant federal housing agencies called fannie mae and freddie mac who had almost everything to do with the recession that we're in? mr. mcconnell: i would say to my friend from tennessee, many, if not most all, experts felt that the crisis really began through fannie and freddie. and as far as i can tell, they are not addressed had this measure at all. mr. alexander: i thank the republican leader. mr. president, we're from washington and we're here to protect you is a promise or an offer that is creating a lot of suspicion around my state of tennessee, and i suspect around the country. i'm hearing from a lot of people

who don't like the sound of that. shop owners, auto dealers, real estate agents, community bankers, retailers, doctors, dentists, traders on ebay, they're afraid that the so-called consumer protection bill that we're hearing about will make it harder to borrow money, it will take more time to borrow money, it will be more expensive to borrow money, you've have to fill out more forms to borrow money, you'll have fewer choices to borrow money, and if the shop owner, the community banker, the real estate agent, the doctor, the dentist, the traders on ebay can't borrow money, they can't invest, we can't create jobs, and we can't put an end to this recession. so we wouldn't want to pass a piece of legislation here, i would not think, that says we're from washington, we're here to

protect you, and the effect of it, to people up and down main street, is going to make it harder to borrow money, take more time to borrow money, make it more expensive to borrow money, fill out more forms to borrow money. someone said yesterday -- i think it was the senator from north carolina -- that if the number of forms you have to fill out to buy a house is what it aches to stop a recession or to make sure we don't have one, we shouldn't be in this one because anyone who's filled out a mortgage form lately knows that you have to fill out a stack that high of consumer protection forms, and so just adding another layer of consumer protection forms to buying a house or borrowing money or buying something on credit -- what's that got to do with wall street? what's that got to do with this great recession we're in? we need to make it possible for community banks to make a loan, to a small business who can hire

a person, who can make an investment and who can get the economy moving again. most of us thought this wall street bill was about wall street, but it's turning out, we're being told, to be more about main street. and main street, the auto dealer and the community banker and the retailer and the dentist says main street success. the a about whether we can borrow money -- it's about whether we can borrow money, get credit, expand a store, or create a job. we're from washington and we're here to protect you sounds hollow to a lot of americans. it sounds like a washington takeover, or another washington takeover to meevmen me. we've already made washington the new american auto capital. we've already made washington the new american health care capital. we've already made washington the new american student loan capital. and now we're going to move main

street to washington, d.c., for every little credit transaction up and down main street? we need to be careful about that. i don't think in chicago and new york city they want to move the great financial centers of this country to washington, d.c. and if we do so with some of the kind of restrictions we're talking about we may move those financial centers and those jobs to singapore, to shank hierks to london -- to shanghai, to london, to other places. but moving main street to washington? why is this even in the bill? if the bill is about reining in wall street, that's a good idea. that's a good idea. but why are we going up and down main street reining in main street when main street is having ver a very hard time thee days? the president is in iowa today talking about main streevment i hope he's explaining why we have a piece of consumer protection legislation that says, we're from washington, we're here to protect you, when most relaters,

most -- when most realtors, most community banks, most dentists, most traders on ebay say, look, wait a minute. we're not sure we want that kind of protection if what it means is it makes it harder to borrow money, take more time to borrow money, make it more expensive to borrow money, to fill out more forms to borrow money, have fewer choices to borrow money because if it means all that, we might not be able to create more jobs. of course what we're saying on the republican side is we want to exercise the prerogative democrats offer when they are in the minority, which is to provide some checks and balances to the proposals that are made here. and then the majority leader, rather than encouraging that, is arriving -- he's already the world record holder in offering no motions. a no motion says no to more amendments, no to more debate, no to more checks and balances. so we'll vote on that again

today. we want more debate. we want more amendments. we want more checks and balances. we want to exercise the prerogative we have to make sure that the people up and down main street have a right to see what's in this bill. and so that we're well informed about the bill before we pass it. we're writing the rules for the united states of american economy. we produce 25% of all the money in the world. what we do here tpaebgts not just -- affects not just nashville and main street and american towns, but it affects the entire world economy. we need to be careful. i suppose our friends on the other side think maybe, well maybe it's politically smart to offer all these "no" motions. we like to be known as the party they may be thinking wants to cut off for a record time the opportunity to debate, the opportunity to offer amendments, the opportunity to have checks and balances. i don't think it's so

politically wise. i think it's politically tone-deaf. the people in my state don't want to see another big bill run through congress as fast as a freight train without checks and balances. we saw that with the health care bill, and you know what we got. we got a health care law that over the weekend the obama administration's chief actuary said it does just what republicans said it would do: increases spending, increases premiums. it will have medicare cuts. we said all that. we argued strongly that it would be better instead of expanding a health care delivery system that already is too expensive, that we should instead focus our attention on reducing the cost of health care so more americans could buy insurance. that was our effort at checks and balances. i think we won the argument but we lost the vote on the floor of the united states senate by one vote. we would like to win the argument here on financial regulation as well.

say let's rein in wall street. but why are we making it harder to borrow money on main street, for heaven's sakes? we should be making it easier to create jobs and to make investments on main street. why are we reining in main street and ignoring the two great housing agencies that were at the root cause of this great recession we're in? main street was not the cause of the recession. the great housing agencies were. so we're reining in main street lending and we're ignoring fannie mae and freddie mac, the two great housing agencies? we have some questions that we want to make sure are answered properly. does this legislation give big banks an advantage over community banks? does it make big banks permanently too big to fail? the republican leader said, well, goldman sachs supports the bill. well, they may, but yesterday in my office the dentists didn't,

the auto dealer didn't, the community banker didn't, the people up and down main street didn't. so what are we to take from that difference of opinion? so, mr. president, we're here today to say let's work together. let's take advantage of this great system of checks and balances that our founders wrote into the constitution that said that in the united states senate we come to consensus. let's look carefully at this bureau of consumer financial protection which will have so much independence which will have a partisan appointment which can cruise what financial products can and cannot be offered and could regulate hundreds of thousands of nonbank businesses a skpwaourpl row that could -- a consumer bureau that could place new burdens on main street businesses that have nothing to do with the economic crisis and very little to do

with the financial world. these maintenance and time-consuming requirements, these new forms to fill out and delays are not the way to help create new jobs and get the american economy moving again. so, mr. president, what we're saying on the republican side of the aisle is we think we have a great opportunity here. we think, as the president said in his campaign, we can come together, write rules that help to fix the problems that help create the great recession. we can't guarantee there will never be another recession, but we can avoid some of the abuses. this all started out in a good way with senator dodd, the chairman of the committee, appointing a republican and then a democrat, dividing it up into teams. and suddenly in the middle of the discussion somebody said, wait a minute, we won the election. we'll write the pass and -- we'll write the bill and pass it. shouldn't we have learned with the health care law it's not just a matter of passing the

bill, it's gaining confidence in the bill? don't we want the country to look up at washington and say i'm relieved to see that republican and democratic senators are working together on these great issues, and 70 or 80 of them vote yes. we've written the rules for the future for the financial system of the united states, which is in some trouble. it's not going to be changed whether we have a republican congress or a democratic congress after november. this is something you can rely on. then small business people up and down main street, business people on wall street, commodities markets in chicago, all of the places where people have money that's just sitting, they say we see some certainty because of the stability in washington and we're ready to create new jobs. i believe this can be a tipping point in the economic recovery. so why would we play politics in

the united states senate? why would the other side keep offering no motion that is cut off our right to debate, our right to offer debate, our constitutional prerogative to offer checks and balances on a runaway washington government? we think most americans want those checks and balances. and should we have them and should we demonstrate a bipartisan bill here, we'll not only get a good bill, we'll not only help create good rules for the future. we can avoid putting handcuffs on main street from auto dealers to community banks. and we can send a signal to our country that there's certainty in the marketplace. go ahead and make your investment. go ahead and create your job. the world will respond favorably to that. we can get out of this great recession that we're in. so, mr. president, i'm here to say today that there are a lot of people suspicious about this phrase "we're from washington, and we're here to protect you." they think it's a better idea to say "we would like to see some

checks and balances applied to the majority's push for this new consumer regulation bill. and if we do apply those checks and balances and come to a bipartisan agreement on the bill, the country will be pleased with the work we're doing here and the economic recovery, hopefully, will have a chance to move along a little more rapidly. mr. president, i thank the chair, and i yield the floor. and i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is recognized. mr. cardin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i understand that, although the republicans still have time left under the division, that with their consent that it's permissible to proceed with the time for the majority.

the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. cardin: mr. president, i take this time to emphasize the need of our nation to move forward with an energy policy. i know that the presiding officer shares that commitment on working very hard on the environmental and public works committee to produce legislation that will solve the three major issues we have in this nation with energy. one, to create jobs. we need to create good, clean energy jobs here in america, not lose them to overseas. we need that. we also understand we need an energy policy for our national security. we've got to become energy-secure here in america. and we need to do it for the sake of our environment. we know that greenhouse gas emissions, carbon emissions, is polluting our airs and that we can answer all three of these issues -- creating jobs, national security, and

environment -- through alternative and renewable energy sources, using less energy and moving forward with nuclear energy. all that we need to do. and it cannot be solved by trying to drill our way out of this problem. i say that because america has somewhere around 3% of the global oil reserves. we use about 25%. we can't drill our way out. and, secondly, we've got to use less carbon emission fuel sources for the sake of our environment. president obama recently announced the opening of eight frontier areas in the united states for the outershelf exploration and development of oil and gas. i oppose that possible, and i want to explain to my colleagues why i oppose that policy. secretary salazar said that we need to protect our most environmentally sensitive areas from drilling. i agree.

his -- the president's announcement protected the west coast and the north atlantic, but i can tell you, just talk to any people in this region, and they'll tell you that the chesapeake bay and our coastlines in this area are just as precious and just as vulnerable as the west coast of the united states or the north atlantic. i oppose the president's policy because there are other areas currently available. 68 million acres that have not yet been explored are available in this country for oil and gas exploration. many of those areas are on the outer continental shelf. so there's no need at this time to expand that network. and i must tell you, the risk-reward is mostly what i am concerned about. the risk of doing environmental damage versus the little oil that may be in these areas.

it just doesn't pay. i heard the advocates of offshore drilling say, well, modern technology has substantially reduced the risk, that we now know how to deal with this issue. and avoid any type of catastrophic environmental risk. well, mr. president, let me share with you this photo. you're looking at the deep water horizon in the gulf of mexico. this photograph occurred at an accident just eight days ago in which there was a tragic explosion and fire, in which people lost their lives, which is the greatest tragedy, the loss of life, but also created an environmental disaster. eight days ago. now, let me tell you something. deep water horizon is considered to be the most technologically advanced offshore oil rig in the

world. $600 million was spent to construct this so that it would be safe. my point is, it exploded, and it cost people their lives, and it's created an environmental disaster. this oil rig is located 50 miles southeast of venice, louisiana. there are 700,000 gallons of number 2 fuel onboard that was burned or spilled into the gulf. it's currently leaking about 1,000 barrels a day, going into the gulf of mexico. it is spreading. if i could just show you this map. now, this is hard to see, but this is from space, taking a look at this region of the united states of america. you can start to see the coastline of america. but you can also see where the spill is located. the spill is right here. so from the space shot you can actually see the spill area.

the spill area has spread 1,800 miles, an area larger than the state of rhode island. this is another view of the spill area. what i'm showing you here -- this is what the oil area that you saw -- this is all oil that's currently in the gulf of mexico, and it's spreading. the trajectory shows -- and these lines are -- what you saw here is the area that includes just this area here. it doesn't include the green it doesn't include this light orange area. that's where it's projected to go on april 27. this is spreading. let me tell you the good news in this, to the extent there is good news, is that we haven't had strong winds out of the north or northeast. if we did, it's very likely that this oil spill would already be approaching the coastlines.

there's many areas that are vulnerable as a result of the spill, many coastal areas in louisiana, mississippi, alabama, and florida. it's approaching the delta and breton national wildlife refuge and the chandelier bearier. it threatens our coast, bird nesting habitats, wetlands, the list goes on and on and on. i know the presiding officer the presidin--i know the presiding r understandunderstands that oifos can be destroyed for generations as a result of pollution. when we lose wildlife we can lose it permanently. when we lose wetlands, we lose the filtration system that protect us from pollutants coming into the bay and we lose the speed bumps that can prevent

more havoc when it comes to our coast. this is all happening in the most -- as a result of a spill and fire from the most technologically advanced rig in the world. "the new york times" -- today's article says, "we might have to have a controlled burn." we don't know how to clean up this oil. we're told we have technology. now we're going to have to use a burn in order to deal with that, with the ensuing consequences. the first thing you do when you have an event like this is you try to plug the hole so it doesn't spill out more oil into the bay. guess what? we're told because of the depth of where it is, it could take up to a month -- several months to plug the leak. and guess -- and so what can you do? oil is pouring out. they say, we're bag to try to funnel the oil for collection. it's never been done before at

this step, trying to retrofit equipment today in order to deal with that problem. will it work? i don't know. but these are the risks inherent in offshore drilling. it underscores my concern and opposition for offshore drilling, as proposed by the president of the united states. so let me talk about why this is not hypothetical to the people of maryland, but this is a real problem. there is a site known as lease sale 220. lease sale 220 site is located off the shore of virginia. it's a 2.9 million acre site. now, the site that they want to drill is the green triangle that you see here. the purple shows the current flows. and here you see the coasts of new jersey, delaware, maryland,

virginia, north carolina, and south carolina. what is instructive by this chart is you also see how the currents go. let me also tell you that noaa tells us that 72% of the time the prevailing winds in this region flow towards the coast. 72% of the time. if there is a catastrophe, if there is an oil spill related to this site, the likelihood of reaching the shores of new jersey, delaware, maryland, virginia, the outerbanks are real -- are real. here's the mouth of the chesapeake bay. 50 miles away from this site. the chesapeake bay, as the presiding officer knows, we're struggling to deal with the cleanup of the bay. it's hard enough just dealing

with the known pollutants that come in from farming and from development and from storm runoff. put into that a potential oil spill, and it would set us back decades in trying to restart our oyster crops and help our watermen with the blue crabs and to deal with the returning of the rockfish. it's too great of a risk. as secretary salazar said, there are certain parts of this country that are just so environmentally sensitive, they're not worth the risk. the west coast of the united states, the north atlantic, and i tell you that the coast around the chesapeake bay falls into that category. we should not permit that type of drilling. we can do something about this. we're going to have a chance. i'm a strong proponent, with --a strong proponent of what senator

kerry is attempting to do in bringing forth a bill that will create jobs, deal with national security and responsibly dealing with pollutants in our environment and be an international leader dealing with carbon reductions. all three of those solutions can be done without this drilling. we'll have a chance to say something about it. i just urge my colleagues to take a look at what happened off the gulf of mexico and to work with us to make sure that we have sensible energy policy in this country, and help me and happy our nation protect the chesapeake bay and protect those lands that are just too valuable and too sensitive to risk to oil drilling. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the .uorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from medical new mexico is recognized. mr. udall: thank you. mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that christina swallow, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for today. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to introduce legislation that i believe will help improve the safety of automobile drivers and passengers. the legislation, the vehicle safety improvements act, would, among other things, require all automobiles sold in the united states be equipped with an event

data recorder or e.d.r. they provide report of a vehicle's operating statistics. things like the throttle position and the speed of the vehicle. during the last seconds before and immediately after a crash. they serve a similar function as the black boxes that are in each airplane. by documenting critical information leading up to an incident. but unlike black boxes, an e.d.r. does not record the voices of the vehicle occupants. it simply preserves the vehicle's internal operating data. the information stored by an e.d.r. can be crucial in determining what happens in the last few seconds prior to a crash and the moments immediately after. if a vehicle doesn't have a recorder or if the data is not easily accessible, this information can be lost. and that leads local and federal investigators little to work with as they try to determine whether or not a vehicle

malfunction was to blame. unfortunately, while the majority of vehicles in the united states are currently equipped with these recorders, many still do not have them. in 2006, the national highway traffic safety administration, nhtsa, created a framework for the type of information to be recorded by event data recorders in light-duty vehicles, but it stopped short of requiring the recorders. if a vehicle manufacturer installs an event data recorder in a car, it must comply with the rules. but there is no requirement that the manufacturer install the recorder in the first place. nhtsa's 2006 rule further requires the manufacturer to ensure that a tool to read the recorder is commercially available. today, while there are many tools commercially available, there is no one universal tool.

creating a challenge for investigators who must carry a suitcase of readers with them on investigations. this is an unnecessary burden that can be easily addressed. this particular burden came to light recently in the context of the tragic toyota crashes. during hearings held by chairman rockefeller in the commerce committee, we learned that although toyotas were equipped with e.d.r.'s, until recently they were only able to be read by one computer in the entire united states. that's why in addition to requiring the recorders in all vehicles for sale in the united states, the vehicle safety improvements act will also require that recorders be easily read by a universal tool, regardless of make or model of the vehicle. in addition, nhtsa's rule also fails to address medium- and

heavy-duty vehicles. my legislation would require nhtsa to issue a rule addressing those vehicles as well. while they comprise a small percentage of the vehicle miles traveled on an annual basis, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are overrepresented in crashes result ing in fatalities. in these crashes, an event data recorder would be a useful tool during the crash investigation in dirge the cause of the crash. -- in determining the cause of the crash. my bill protects privacy by assuring the data can only be assessed with the vehicle owner's permission when authorized by a court or legal proceeding or by a government motor vehicle safety agency. adding these recorders won't cost much. in their rulemaking, nhtsa estimated the cost for the manufacturer to install an event data recorder at just over $2 per vehicle.

that is a small price to pay for the critical information that can ultimately be used to save lives in the future. vehicle crashes are horrible and oftentimes tragic. they result in damage, injuries, and too often fatalities. they create congestion and costs our economy billions of dollars each year. event data recorders will not prevent crashes, but they will help to determine what caused the crash. and in the case of a vehicle malfunction, help to identify solutions to improve vehicle peformance. in the end, the data they provide will serve to ensure a safer travel environment for all. i urge my senate colleagues to join me in this important effort to improve vehicle safety. i look forward to working with you and with my chairman, chairman rockefeller who has

been a champion on issues of transportation safety, to pass the vehicle safety improvements act this year. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today just for a few minutes to talk about s. 3217, the financial regulatory reform bill. i want to focus, if i could, my comments today, mr. president, on why the cloture vote on financial reform is such an important key vote. my colleagues from the other side have talked about this vote, and it's often referred to as a procedural vote to begin debate. almost in the same sentence, i think both sides of the aisle recognize that not withstanding the good work that has been done by chairman dodd and ranking

member shelby, there's still shall to be done on this bill and there are still some significant flaws within the bill. now the argument goes on to say don't worry, these problems can be worked out on the floor. we'll have a robust debate and we'll have floor amendments. so get the bill to the floor, the argument goes, and the promise is made that the fixes will then happen. but that's where the logic here really goes in the ditch. once this bill does get to the floor, we all recognize that it's going to be very, very difficult to change it. look at the health care bill to see how difficult it is to make changes. let me make that comparison because i think it's a fair comparison. during the health care debate, let me remind my colleagues that there were 488 amendments that

were filed. of those 488 amendments, only 28 received a vote. 28 out of 488. and of those 28 amendments, only 11 amendments passed. this means that only 2% of all the health care amendments filed actually got enacted. now if you look at the partisan nature of this, it even becomes more bleak. if you look at the republican amendments, you really come to the conclusion that there's a serious problem here. only one republican amendment passed. so the death knell of your amendment depended upon whether you had an "r" or a "d" behind

your name. so the notion that we'll be able to fix a bill -- and again, everybody is acknowledging is a flawed bill on the senate floor -- is really pure folly. history is our greatest teacher. instead, i would respectfully suggest what we really need to do is get serious about reaching a bipartisan compromise. i've said public clicks i will say on the senate floor every opportunity i get, with a sufficient amount of work, this bill could get 70, 80 votes. we have worked on this issue on the banking committee for months and months trying to understand what went wrong and how best to fix it. the american people want members of the senate to work together on the bill. they wonder what on earth has come of congress when they see us holding -- holding -- the exact same cloture vote on the

exact same legislation day after day. they ask a simple question: why can't you sit down and work through these differences of opinion? now, i'm mindful of the fact that this is probably clever messaging. a clever messaging ploy by washington's standards. but i will tell you by nebraskans standards, we're tired of washington cleverness. and the partisan rhetoric that goes with it. i can tell you that people want a bill that will end too big to fail and protect our economy from financial meltdown, but they don't want a bill written so broadly that it impacts businesses in a segment of our economy that played no part in the economic collapse. i want these same things. i still believe that we can

accomplish this. so my hope is that we can quit making this an issue of political games gamesmanship and talking points and start working towards a solution. i've constantly stated that the issue of regulatory reform really isn't a partisan exercise. the issue just doesn't cut on r&d lines. we can get a broad bipartisan bill if we stop the attacks and focus on trying to solve the differences that still exist on this bill, important policy differences. stop the daily cloture votes. i understand the political theater of that, but it doesn't lend itself to solving problems. what we need is a bipartisan effort here where people sit down and work through these differences of opinion. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: has the quorum call begun? the presiding officer: yes. mr. levin: i would ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: mr. president, yesterday the senate permanent subcommittee on investigations, which i chair, held the fourth in our series of hearings to explore some of the causes and consequences of the financial crisis. these hearings are the culmination of nearly a year and a half of investigation. mr. president, if i could yield myself ten minutes? the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: the freezing of financial markets in the collapse of financial institutions that sparked our investigation are not just a

matter of numbers on a balance sheet. these are numbers reflecting millions of americans who lost their jobs, lost their homes, lost their businesses a in a recession that the housing crisis sparked, and this has become now the worst economic decline since the great depression. so behind these numbers are american families who are still suffering the effects of a manmade economic catastrophe. our goal has been to construct a record of the facts in order to try to deepen understanding of what went wrong, to inform a legislative debate about the need for financial reform and to provide a foundation for building better defenses to protect main street from wall street. our first hearing three, four weeks ago dealt with the impact of high-risk mortgage lending, focused on a case study, as our committee does, this time the

washington mutual bank, known as wamu, a thrift whose leaders embarked on a reckless strategy to pursue higher profits by emphasizing high-risk loan. these are not loans that were likely just to -- likely to fail. these loans also created real hardships. the borrowers as well as the risk for the bank itself. what happened was there was basically a conveyor belt which was built that fed toxic, bad, reckless mortgages based on these loans into a financial system just like a polluter dumps poison into a river. this was a commercial stream that these mortgages were dumped into. the package that they came downstream in was a mortgage-backed security that wamu sold to get the enormous risk of these mortgages off its own books. and shifted to somebody else. the second hearing examined how

federal regulators at the office of thrift supervision watched, observed wamu, saw the problems year after year and did nothing to stop them. supervision that should have been conducted at arms length was instead done arm in arm, supervising the regulators, supposed to supervise -- part of its name -- arm in arm with the bank it was supposed to be regulating. the third hearing dealt with credit rating agencies. these are specific case studies of standard & poor's and moodies and while wamu and other raters dumped these bad loans, credit rating agencies were assuring everybody that the poison water was safe to drink.

triple-a ratings were slapped on bottles of high-risk financial products. so that was the third hearing. we got to do something about the inherent conflict of interest that is involved when credit rating agencies are paid by the people whose actual documents and whose transactions they're approving or not approving and putting ratings of triple ha, double-a, what have you, on it. there is an inherent built-in conflict of interest. yesterday's hearing explored the role of investment banks. we focused on 2507 and that housing bubble burst of goldman sachs, one of the oldest firms on wall street. goldman's documents made it very clear that it was betting against the housing market while it was aggressively selling investments in the housing market to its own clients. it was selling to clients

high-risk, mortgage-backed securities and what they call c.d. o.'s and synthetic c.d.o.'s that they wanted to get off their books. they wanted to get securities off the books. they were selling them. they were reaching out with one hand to respective buyers and saying, here, but with the other hand they were betting against those same securities. the bottom line is, what we discovered in this investigation, saw yesterday at our hearing, that there is a conflict of interest too often between what's in goldman's interest, what's good for their bottom line, and what is in its clients' interests. these are deeply troubling findings. there not only was a collapse of a housing market. there was a collapse of value. and extreme greed is the thread that connects these events, starting with those mortgages

that were sold out there in the state of washington by a washington mutual bank, extreme greed that indeed involved the people who were supposed to be doing the credit rating, being paid and doing a lousy job, rating the financial instruments, the pension funds that others are birks the greed that was involved in wall street, selling, securitizing financial instruments which they believed were not good, they were betting against at the same time their clients and customers were being sold. so what we've got to do is build defenses against these kinds of excesses. and i think most of us that are at the hearing, most of us, democratic or republican senators, who are on my permanent subcommittee on investigations saw the problems right from the beginning where

the upstream mortgages were created, downstream where they landed in wall street securities. we see the problems. americans see the problems. americans and we -- we cannot understand how a company can design and build a product and sell that product to its clients while at the same time they are betting that that product will fail. it just runs contrary to common sense. kind of a common ethic. if you're going to sell somebody a pair of shoes, if you know or believe that that pair of shoes is defective, if you bet against that pair of shoes and so that your profit is not just the profit you make on that immediate sale when you sell

that pair of shoes, but when the pair of shoes fails that there's some way a profit comes to you as well, when you're betting on the failure of the product and will make money from that bet when that product fails, most americans -- and i think most members of the committee hopefully, maybe all of us -- say to ourselves, that kind of a conflict of interest has got to be stopped. that's not what the wall street folks were telling us yesterday, is making a market, where you've got someone who comes in and wants to sell something and somebody who wants to buy something or put together. that's making a manchet bring a buyer and a seller together. this is -- that's making a market. bringing a buyer and a seller together. this is where the firm -- where the person who is going to be betting is on one side of the deal. that person is goldman sachs.

they in some of these deals were taking in instruments, securities from their own inventory that they wanted to get rid of, packaged them into a financial instrument, sell that instrument to their customers -- so far so good, providing they disclose that it's their own product that they're selling; that's okay -- but then they take what they call a short position. they take a bet. they make a bet against the very instrument that they put together to sell to their customers. that, to me, is incredible. and they also are engaged -- and a lot of people were engaged in what we call these credit default swaps, which are nothing more than casino bets as to whether something will happen or not. where, for instance, people are betting that a particular, say, stock will go up or down.

neither party owns the stock, if it's a so-called synthetic default swap. they're just betting. i bet you that stock will go up. you bet it'll go down. that's okay. people want to bet on that, let them bet. but when the government ends up paying the winning better, now you've -- the winning bettor, now you've got a problem. where the company that is making those bets, ensuring those bets, as it was called in the case of a.i.g., supposed to be ensuring that's bets, is sure to fail. they have annessured so many bets and pension funds that if that private company fails, the economy is going to be terribly damaged as result and we end up, as taxpayers, paying off those bets. that has got to be stopped as well. theist are just casino bets, and we shouldn't paying the winner. i would yield myself five additional minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

mr. levin: now, throughout these hearings we see lack of accountability. executives at washington mutual make the reckless mortgage loan. not held accountable. executives at goldman sachs and their company who passaged many of these same -- who packaged many of these same loans into toxic securities and then take a confliblght of interest position on it, no accountability. regulators, credit rating agencies that were supposed to check these excesses, no accountability. in each case the senior leaders that managed to avoid responsibility for the crickets to a crisis -- for the contributions to a crisis, which has caused millions of americans to lose their jobs or their homes or their businesses. now, others may fail to take responsibility for their actions, but we must exercise our accountability. we must act. i do not understand how our republican colleagues, knowing what they know about the crisis, knowing that there's no real

regulator on the beat on wall street, they don't have a cop on the street at wall street. we need a regulator there, we need credit rating agencies that are not involved in conflicts of interest, we need to have a banking regulator that acts, not just watches but acts, has the responsibility to act as well. the dodd bill acts -- takes very, very significant steps relative to each of these areas, whether it is the banking arks the regulatorss regulators' aret rating area. there are sot critical steps taken in the dodd bill. there are some people who say they don't like portions of the dodd bill. okay, bring the bill to the floor and let's debate it. let's legislate it. the lealgive process is supposed to involve -- the legislative process is pose supposed to inve

sooner or later a bill which comes to the floor and is open for amendment and then you debate. there are a lot of areas in this bill that can be strengthened. there are some areas in the bill that some people don't like and would like to strike. we've been on this bill now in committeecommittees with jurisdr months. there have been hearings in those committees. i think we know what the issues are, and there's no agreement on the resolution of this. there's no unanimous consent, obviously, as to exactly what reforms should be put in place and how they should be written, but we can't always operate in the middle after crisis by unanimous consent. yet at some point where there are differences, have to bring those differences to the floor and debate them and offer amendments on them and vote them up or down. that's our responsibility, and it is not responsible -- it is irresponsible to block that process from take place. i think almost all of us say we

want reform. that there's enough of us who say we're not going to allow this to be debated unless we get our way, that this is going to stymie -- the reform process has been thwarted by a filibuster. it is wrong, and the remedies that is are offered can be debated and can be voted and are essential to avoid a repeat of this disaster. these are complex issues. we all know that. but there's been a huge amount of debate and attention and analysis on these issues. there's going to be differences on these issues. but the place to resolve differences is finally here on the floor. often we can resolve them before we get to the floor. fine. but to stop a legislative process from taking place, it seems to me, is an irresponsible act when we're in the middle of are a crisis and where the people of the united states want

confidence that their legislators are addressing this crisis. so i would hope that our republican colleagues will allow this bill to come to the floor, to offer amendments. there are many amendments that are going to be offered. senator merkley and i have an amendment which we believe will strengthen, just to give one example -- that amendment has not yet been -- quote -- "worked out" with the sponsors of the bill. hope hopefully we can get them to -- hopefully we can get them to agree to language which will allow for a stronger step to be taken in an area which we think involveses serious conflict of interest. but if we can't -- quote -- "work it out" in advance, okay. there's such a thing called an amendment. it's part of our rules book. we can offer amendments, if you want. you can't always work out things

in a back room somewhere. that doesn't -- i don't want to denigrate working problems out. i try to do it all the time as chairman of the armed services committee. i don't denigrate the process of working things out in advantages. lord knows, we work most things out in advance. but with a project, a threat of this size, which requires us to act, and there's been a good-faith effort to come to some kind of agreement in advance, where that proves not to be possible, for heaven's sake, we've got to legislate. we've got to have an ability to move to the floor with a bill and to go through a legislative process with it. that's what's been thwarted. that's what's been denied us because we don't have 60 votes, and i just hope that our republican colleagues will see the importance of this issue, the essential need for reform, and allow this bill to come to the floor and be legislated upon. and i yield the floor.

mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana is recognized. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. dorgan: mr. president, would the senator from louisiana yield for a a question, very briefly? mr. vitter: yes, i will. mr. dorgan: if i can ask the senator how long he expects to hold the floor? mr. vitter: i would expect for 14 minutes a latest. mr. dorgan: i ask unanimous consent to follow the senator from louisiana for 15 minutes and be recognized in morning business. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. i rise to strongly agree with chairman levin that what we've heard in many of these hearings regarding goldman sachs' activity and many others is extremely disturbing, really outrageous, and i don't support that activity in any way, shape, or form. i think i have a lot of credibility saying that, mr. chairman, because back in the fall of 2008, i didn't support huge taxpayer bailouts

to goldman sachs and the other megafirms. i opposed those taxpayer bailouts. i thought it was wrong and counterproductive and moving us in the wrong direction. but i have to disagree with the distinguished chairman that the present version of the dodd bill fixes these key issues. i don't think it does. and so so i encourage us to have a true bipartisan bill that can come to the floor to really address the problems that exist. mr. chairman, i have three major sets of kerpbz about the dodd bill in its -- concerns about the dodd 3weu8 in its present form. the first is very fundamental. the dodd bill expands too big to fail. it doesn't end it. the dodd bill ensures future bailouts. it doesn't stop bailouts. and that's a big, big problem to

me and i believe to american taxpayers. mr. president, it's not just me saying this. it's many educated folks. take "time" magazine, not exactly an arch conservative publication, and they have reported -- quote -- "policy experts and economists from both ends of the political spectrum say the bill does little to end the problem of banks becoming so big that the government is forced to bail them out when they stumble. some say the proposed financial reform may even make the problem worse." close quote. also jeffrey lacquer, he's the -- lacker, the president of the richmond federal reserve board. in a cnbc interview, cnbc asked him doesn't the dodd bill allow for winding down failed institutions? and lacker said -- quote -- "it

allows those things, but it does not require them." mr. president, let me repeat that because that goes to the heart of the problem. "it allows those things, but it does not require them." moreover, it provides tremendous discretion for the treasury and fdic to use that fund to buy assets from the failed firm, to guarantee liabilities of the failed firm, to buy liabilities of the failed firm. they can support creditors in the failed firm. they have a tremendous amount of discretion. and so, again, they have the ability for more bailouts, for continued pumping of taxpayer dollars into failed firms. william isaac is a respected former chairman of the fdic. he agrees -- quote -- "nearly all of our political leaders agree that we must banish the too-big-to-fail doctrine in banking. but neither the financial reform

bill approved in the house nor the bill promoted by the senate banking committee, chairman chris dodd, will eliminate it." close quote. and simon johnson, distinguished m.i. at this time professor put -- m.i.t. professor put it succinctly -- quote -- "too big to fail is opposed by the right and the left but not apparently by the people drafting legislation." close quote. these are specific ways the dodd bill actually expands too big to fail. specific authority, specific sections that clearly do that. now a lot of the attention has been paid recently to the $50 billion prepaid fund, and that is problematic in my mind. but that's not the only, not even the most problematic section of the bill that expands too big to fail. all of these sections go directly to that issue.

mr. president, my second main objection to the bill is that the bill also creates a new all powerful superbureaucracy that goes well beyond the need for targeted regulation to prevent what has happened in the last five years. again, these are specific sections that create this huge new all-powerful superbureaucracy. one of the most worrisome is section 1081. that subjects anybody, any business who accepts four installment payments to the cfpb, the new superbureaucracy. mr. president, that's not just goldman sachs. that's just not citigroup, bank of america. that's my family's orthodontist. that's my neighborhood store that sells electronic equipment. that is a huge coverage

affecting millions of small businesses throughout america. imagine anybody who accepts four installment payments, is that really the problem actors we're going after? this is a huge overreach in terms of federal regulation. and this is a fundamental problem with the bill. and finally, mr. president, the third major problem with the bill is that the present version of the dodd bill does nothing to fix certain key causes of the crisis. what do i mean by that? well, it does nothing on fannie mae and freddie mac. an 1,100-page bill supposedly comprehensive financial regulatory reform, and yet the four words -- fannie mae, freddie mac -- are nowhere in

those 1,100 pages. this was not the only cause of the crisis, but this clearly admittedly was a key cause of the crisis, disastrous policy and administration of fannie mae and freddie mac. as lawrence white, distinguished economic professor, has said -- quote -- "the silence on fannie and freddie is deafening. how can they look at themselves in the mirror every morning thinking that they have a regulatory reform bill and they are totally silent on fannie and freddie? it just boggles my mind." close quote. boggles my mind as well. and also nothing on lending standards. mr. president, clearly one of the fundamental problems that caused the financial crisis is institutions which led, lent money, subprime loans with no meaningful standards. and so, what are the new standards we're enacting, putting into this bill?

absolutely nothing. silence on lending standards, underwriting standards. clearly a huge part of the last crisis. where is the change, mr. president? these are the top firms that got bailout funds, including goldman sachs. i voted against all of these bailouts. but these are the firms that got them. these are the billions of taxpayer dollars that they received. this is their old regulator, the federal reserve. and this is the brave new world that this dodd bill would be introducing. exactly, precisely the same regulator. where is the change? mr. president, we need meaningful financial reform, but we need it targeted on the problem. we need it to include all the causes of the problem. and these are key principles that that would mean.

permanently ending bailouts and too big to fail. i fought against the bailouts a few years ago. we can't continue that policy. we need to end it. ending all bailout authorities for the federal reserve and fdic, it's not good enough to just say we have a new resolution mechanism. if those bailout authorities continue as they do in the dodd bill, they will be used again. enhance consumer protection without overreach, without creating this new all-powerful super bureaucracy. greater transparency for derivatives while allowing businesses to properly, legitimately manage risks. begin addressing fannie mae and freddie mac. again, the current dodd bill doesn't include the four words fannie mae, freddie mac. establish minimum lending standards for mortgages.

we had subprimes with no underwriting standards, no lending standards. this present dodd bill does not change that. we must change that. increase competition for credit rating agencies. they were clearly part of the last crisis. and improve coordination and communication among all financial federal regulators. mr. president, these are the principles of strong regulatory reform. i hope these are the principles around which we can come together in a bipartisan way. i certainly support that effort by richard shelby and chairman dodd. i encourage that effort. but those negotiations will not be meaningful unless we demand here on the senate floor that they be meaningful and demand that a bill moving to the senate floor is true reform and a bipartisan approach.

i urge that approach, mr. president. i enthusiastically support that approach. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois is recognized. mr. durbin: mr. president, in about one hour the senate will convene for a vote. it's one of the few times this week that the senate comes together. those who are following our proceedings will see senators from all over the united states gather on the floor of the united states senate. that gathering will be for a critical vote as to whether the republican filibuster on wall street reform will continue or end. this will be the third time this week we have given the republicans an opportunity to join us in a bipartisan effort to bring real reform to wall street and the big banks on wall street. twice now we have failed to get a single republican who will stand up and vote with us for wall street reform. i don't understand it. certainly they understand what we've been through as a nation

with this recession. they realize that some $16 trillion of value has been yanked out of our economy, yanked out of savings accounts and 401(k)s and out of business ledgers. they know what's happened as these businesses have failed and millions of americans are out of work. and they realize the root cause of this was on wall street, with some of their dealings that, frankly, were outrageous. and now we're trying to change it. and yet we have failed to come up with one republican senator who will vote to begin the debate on wall street reform. not one. a colleague of mine analyzed what wall street is doing to lobby against this bill. he took the amount of money that wall street banks and financial institutions are paying their lobbyists on capitol hill and divided it and came up with a number. they are spending $120,000 a day to stop wall street reform.

$120,000 a day. two to two and a half times the average annual income of an american, the wall street banks are spending each day to stop this bill. so far they have been successful. they have convinced every republican senator to vote against beginning the debate on this bill. they have convinced every republican senator to vote to continue the filibuster, because the wall street lobbyists know that if this bill doesn't come to the floor, they're not going to have to change their ways. they can keep doing what they've done for so long, and they don't have to face any new laws, any new oversight, any new regulation. of course the american people know what's happened too. they saw the hearing yesterday. senator carl levin of michigan who was just on the floor presided over the permanent subcommittee on investigations, the committee on homeland security. carl levin told me that he had

worked for 16 months in preparation for that hearing, trying to understand the complexity of wall street and how it works. he brought in the highest executives from goldman sachs and asked them point-blank to explain what they had been doing. we saw it on television last night and this morning. when the men who were called before him who have literally made millions of dollars out of this investment scheme were asked to explain it. something as basic as this: how could they sell a product to a consumer at goldman sachs without disclosing that goldman sachs was betting that consumer would lose money? that's what happened. they were so-called shorting the market, meaning they were betting huge sums of money that the investment they were selling to their customers was going to fail. and these men sat before that committee and said that's

business. that's how we do business. well, that's the sort of thing that has to come to an end in this country. there's a man by the name of paul krugman who writes for "the new york times," and he wrote an article about what happened at goldman sachs which led to their investigation as well as charges that have been lodged against them, and i'd like to read from this article from april 19 of this year. where mr. krugman says we've known for some time that goldman sachs and other firms marketed mortgage-backed securities even as they sought to make properties like betting that such securities would plunge in value. this practice, however, while arguably reprehensible, wasn't illegal. now the s.e.c. is charging that goldman created and marketed securities that were deliberately designed to fail so that an important client could make money off that failure. krugman writes, "that's what i call looting." he goes on to say that this

legislation that we are considering contains consumer financial protection, the strongest law in the history of the united states. and here's what krugman writes, "for one thing, an independent consumer protection bureau could have helped limit predatory lending. another provision in the proposed senate bill before us being filibustered by the republicans required that lenders obtain 5% of the value of loans they make, would have limited the practice of making bad loans and quickly sell them off to unwary investors." he goes on to write "the main moral you should draw from the charges against goalman, though, doesn't involve the fine print of reform. it involves the urgent need to change wall street. listening to financial industrial lobbyists and the republican politicians who have been huddling with them, you'd think that everything will be fine as long as the federal government promises not to do

any more bailouts. but that's totally wrong, and not just because no such promise will be credible. for the fact is that much of the financial industry has become a racket, a game in which a handful of people are lavishly paid to mislead and exploit consumers and investors. and if we don't lower the boom on these practices, the racquet will just go on." every day that the republican filibuster of wall street reform continues is another day that we will fail to take into consideration this bill, this financial stability act, which is pending before the united states senate. each day that the republican filibuster continues is a victory for the wall street lobbyists. that's just wrong. have we learned nothing from the recession that we're in? have we learned nothing from the hearing yesterday when these men, these multimillionaires who pay themselves lavishly. sat and said they thought it was

perfectly acceptable to sell a product to one of their customers that they were betting would fail with their own money? they think that's just fine. it's part of the casino that they run on wawvment well, john ensign of nevada took exception to that and said, that gives las vegas casinos a bad name, because we deal with things honestly and people know the odds are against them. it's not like the situation on wall street where people are misled into believing they're making a good bet when the house is betting against them. and that's what happened at goldman sachs. and that's the sort of thing that will come to an end. what this bill does is to hold wall street accountable. we're fighting to hold them accountable for the reckless gambling that led to our recession and the loss of 8 million jobs in america -- 8 million, 8 million families affected by these activities on wall street. and the republican filibuster would stop us from even

considering changes to the regulation and oversight of wall street activities. we want to end taxpayer bailouts for good. i listened to the criticism of this bill, and i try to draw an analogy, which i heard senator menendez of new jersey do. what we try to do in this bill is to create, for lack of a better term -- under senator menendez's analysis -- a prepaid burial plan. and when it basically a means is if your company, financial institution, is going to go out of business, we want to make sure that we have put enough money in the bank to pay for funeral expenses, the winding down and liquidation of the company. because we don't want the american taxpayer to $it. this bill creates a so-called corporate funeral fund and says let the banks themselves fund so that the taxpayers don't have to. i think that's reasonable. the republican approach, though, is to say, let's just bet

there's enough money in the estate to pay for the funeral. maybe there will be and maybe there won't be n that case, the transparence on the hook again. that's not a good outcome. so trying to create some assurance that there's money to liquidate and wind down these financial institutions protects taxpayers from another bailout. the republicans object to that, but they've not come up with a better solution. the third thing we want to do is to put customers and consumers in control in america. i don't have to remind most people, if you open a bank account, if you enter into a mortgage, if you decide to sign up for a credit card, go out to buy an automobile, sign up for a student loan, sign up for a retirement plan, they usually send you some legal documents along the way. at a real estate closing -- and i have been to plenty of them as a consumer and lawyer -- they give you a stock of papers. and you sit there at the bank

with your spouse nearby, signing these papers one after the other after the other until after 20 or 30 minutes it's all over, they hands the check and head on out to see your new house. well, most people don't know what's in those papers, feign a lawyer is sitting at the table with them, it's unlikely that they've parsed every single word. and, as a result, a lot of people end up signing up for things that they didn't understand. we want to change that. i don't think it's too much to ask that these financial obligations and instruments be in plain english, so the average person knows what they're getting into. what we want to do in this bill is to empower consumers so that you can make the right choice for yourself, your family, and your business and your future. we don't want you to fall victim to the tricks and traps of the latest little turn of a phrase that could turn your world upside down. that's what the consumer financial protection law is

included in this bill. it is the strongest consumer financial protection law in the history of the united states. now, there are lobbyists lined up outside this chamber trying to carve out exceptions. they're trying to argue, wait a minute. we don't want this to apply to pawpawnbrokers. let's give them a pass. we don't want this to apply to casinos. let's give them a pass. we don't want this to apply to auto agencies. let's give them a pass. they want to have loopholes and carve-outs for the favorite industries they represent. i was at the airport coming out here this week and one of these folks, good local businessman in the suburbs of chicago, came up and said, i am an honest businessman. i didn't cause the recession. i've never had a problem in my life. people don't complain about me. the better business bureau gives me the high et of marks.

why should i be regulated? why should the government look what the i'm doing? and i said to him, if you're doing everything you said, you shouldn't worry about it. what you ought to worry about is your competitor down the street who is fleecing people and giving people in the industry a bad name. these carve-outs and changes is the reason they're holding up the bill. they have promised the lobbyists they will cut out loopholes in this bill for the special interest groups that are represented by them. they will exempt the automobile dealers, they would -- some of them were exempt the home loan industry, some of them would exempt pawnbrokers -- the exemptions could be as long as your arm, exemptions as long at list of lobbyists who are trying to push these loopholes. i don't think that's a good outcome. i don't really believe that we should be creating lobbyist loopholes in this law. let us hold everyone to the same

legal standard, a good-faith standard of real disclosure and honeest dealing with consumers. -- and honest dealing with consumers. clear english language whether you're taking out a credit card, buying a carks buying a home, a student loan or a retirement benefit for the rest of your life. shouldn't the language be clear? we've got to make that clear as part of this. and at some point i hope the republicans, who are filibustering this wall street reform, will decide if they have a good cause and they want to bring it to the floor that they can open up the debate, plead their side of the story, urge the members of the senate to go along with you. if a majority agrees, it will be in the bill. if not, it will be outside the bill. if that sounds vaguely familiar -- like the united states senate you read about when you were going to school -- it is. it's what we're supposed to be doing. this isn't supposed to be an empty chamber of desks here waiting, as we lump day to day

to -- as we lunch day to day to another -- as we l. ruvment ch day to day to another issue. the republicans continue to filibuster, stop the debate, refuse to go to amendments. refuse to take their special pleadings on what they want to achieve in this bill to the court of public opinion. that's not fair and it's not right. and it's also interesting that when we were in the middle of the health care debate, how many times those on the other side of the aisle stood up and said, you know what the problem is here? the democrats are trying to write this bill behind closed doors. they won't bring it out to the floor of the senate. now fast-forward to the current debate and what are the republicans saying? you know what the problem is here? the democrats refuse to change this bill behind closed doors. they want to amend it right here on the senate floor. it seems to me that they're in an inconsistent position f they

believe that these amendments are good amendments, they shouldn't be afraid to offer them in front of the american people. but if they want to cook a deal behind closed doors, i had i do have some problems with that. i think if they have a good cause, they should bring it to the floor and deal with it. i think sunlight and transparency in the shadowy markets of financial institutions are not good for this country -- shadowy institutions are not and sunlight is good, transparency is good. i think it's time that we stand up for the american people and say that reckless gambling on wall street with the future of the american economy is absolutely unacceptable. some of them arc you know, let's go after the biggest financial institutions. let's not blame the bill people -- the little people who are involved in the credit business. there was an article in the new york tiles on sunday, april 18 -- in "the new york times" on sunday, april 18 by jim dwyer.

he was talking about credit card companies turning a $2.50 slice of pizza into a $37.50 slice. they did it, of course, when they bought a slice of pizza with a debit card that was over the limit and the penalty was $35. and the question was on that fee, were the people notified ahead of time what they were going to face? i don't think it's unfair to notify people what they have to pay. i think this kind of disclosure is important to the confidence in our economy. and i'm you your urging my collo stand up and join us and make sure that we have the chance to bring this bill to the floor. in less than one hour, this empty floor will be filled with senators, democrats and republicans. we need 60 senators to step up and say, this recession has taught us a lesson. we're not is going to let america go through this again because of the greed and malpractice of those on wall

street and financial institutions. we're going to change this system. we're going to require them to be more transparent, more accountable, put their own money on the table and be honest with their customers. we're going to require financial institutions to make full disclosure to the people they deal with so that those customers can be empowered to make the right decisions for themselves and their families. we're not going to exclude certain businesses in america and say they can do whatever they'd like when what's at stake is the financial security of a family. everybody is going to be held to the same basic standard of honesty, a standard which good businesses live up to every single day. i urge the good businesses across america not to stand in defense of the bottom feeders. i urge them to stand up for good business practices which are part of the free market system and have made our nation so strong, as the entrepreneurial spirit has blossomed into more

jobs and economic growth. that spirit needs to be regained. the confidence needs to be regained. the embarrassing chapter yesterday in the committee on homeland security when these wall street titans came in and said they saw nothing wrong with misleading their customers into millions of dollars of losses has to come to an end. it will only end when the republican filibuster ends on the floor of the senate. i will hope at 12:20 when this vote begins that at least a handful of republicans will stand up and say, enough is enough. let's move forward with reform. let's move forward to putting the american economy back on track. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be suspended. officer without objection. mr. durbin: dur i have seven unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during of the session of the today's senate. i ask that these requests be agreed to and printed in the record.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the pridingfficer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 3217, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to the consideration of s. 3217, an original bill to promote the financial stability of the united states and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order the time until 12:20 p.m. will be equally

divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that curtis sturgall be granted for floor privileges for the day's proceedings. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. harkin: well, mr. president, yesterday in the permanent subcommittee on investigations chaired by the distinguished senator from michigan, senator levin, we learned more about the reckless actions of traders and executives at goldman sachs. now goldman sachs was hardly the only bad actor in bringing our financial system to the brink of collapse in 2008. traders and executives at many other financial institutions got fabulously wealthy by gaming the unregulated casinos on wall street. they walked away with fortunes even as millions of americans lost their jobs, their savings and their homes. yet, as we witnessed in yesterday's hearing, wall street remains quite arrogant and quite

unrepentant and quite unwilling to change its ways. it has the gall to believe that it should remain free to do business as usual. to that end i am told it has mobilized a legion of lobbists, an estimated 1,500 of them to try to kill, water down or stop the financial regulation reform from coming to the floor. it's deeply unfortunate that every one of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle -- every single republican has joined with wall street in obstructing this legislation. every single republican, not just filibustering the bill, but preventing it from even coming to the floor for debate, an amendment. they keep saying they want to improve the bill. well, is that not what the debate and amendment process is about? if someone has a better idea,

offer it as an amendment. let's debate it. maybe it is better. maybe we'll adopt it. maybe we won't. it seems that's the way we should conduct the business here on the senate floor. i say to my republican colleagues, senator dodd and senator lincoln have bent over backwards. they have developed good, solid commonsense legislation. well, but if people on the other side of the aisle want some changes, that's what the amendment process is for. we're not cutting off anyone. we the want to bring the bill up, it's open for amendment. why are the republicans so afraid of offering amendments on the floor? if they've got a better idea on how we should do this? it's a bitter irony, mr. president, that even as we've spent a fortune in taxpayer dollars to -- to rescue the global financial system, the self-appointed masters of the

universe on wall street rewarded themselves with billions in bonuses and they've geared up to fight the efforts here to prevent -- to prevent this from happening again. well, it seems that wall street is all too used to living a different life, playing by different rules than the rest of the country. nowhere is this disconnect between wall street and main street is more stark than in the area of compensation much over the last decade compensation in the financial sector has skyrocketed with some executives walking away with annual compensations of hundreds of millions of dollars even as the inflation adjusted incomes of ordinary working americans have remained static. mr. president, thi chart traces the financial industry profits as a share of domestic profits

since 1948. from 1948 until about 1980 you can see it remain fairly stable. little bumps up, little things down, little bumps up, but basically stayed pretty even. somewhere between 8% and 18%. so somewhere between 8% and 18% of all domestic profits in this country, think about everything, everything in this country, all the profits made, about 8% to 18% was taken by the financial sector on wall street. but starting in 1984 financial profits began to rise dramatically. you can see it here going up. in 2001 financial industry profits were almost 45% of all domestic profits in america. almost half. 45%. up from about 8% to 18%. today, despite the 2008

meltdown, they're back above 35%. 35% of all of the profits made in america going to wall street. going to the financial sector. mr. president, this is -- this is a concentration of wealth unprecedented in our history. even worse than before 1929. worse than before 1929. now, the second chart here contrasts this explosion of wealth on wall street to what happened to ordinary americans on main street. from 1990, which we have right about right in here -- well, i can't read it myself here. 1990 to 2008 real median household income stag mated at about $50,000.

right in here. just stag mated. since 2000, real median household incomes have actually fallen. so from about 1990 to today real median household incomes stag mated and actually -- nag natured and actually -- stagnated and have actually fallen. stagnated and now it has fallen down. that's what's happening to the average household in america. the median household in america. well, let's see what was happening to our friends on wall street then. well, let's see what happened on wall street. well, just as we were stagnating and median household income from about 1990 on, look what happened to the the average wall

street bonus. huge. wall street compensation skyrocketed nearly 300% during this period of time. since 1990, the average wall street bonus -- i'm not even talking about salary, i'm talking about bonuses -- soared from about $50,000 in the early 1990's to the $200,000 in 1996. now, go out to talk to our constituents and the main street business people that run our shops and talk to anybody out in america today. did their income increase 300% during that period of time? no. it stayed level. but look at the bonuses. and that's just the bonuses. i'm not talking even about their salaries. this is bonuses. well, i dwell on this and i point this out, mr. president, because i think it points to a larger issue. in my view a big reason for the financial collapse of 2008 is

that things got out of balance and they got out of whack. as glass-steagall was repealed, and i might say this forthrightly, there were eight senators on this floor that voted against the repeal of glass-steagall. and i'm proud to say i was one of them. but i remember at that time saying, wait a minute, there is a reason why in the 1930's under president roosevelt that we didn't want to have this happening again. so we said to commercial banks, if you want to be a bank and take bank deposits, fine, you can be a bank, but you can't do insurance and you can't do investments. you can't do swaps and derivatives and all that stuff, you're a commercial bank. and, for that, we give you fdic protection. we also give you federal reserve protection. we said to the insurance company, if you want to be an insurance company, fine, but you can't be a bank. we said to investment house, if

you want to take money in to invest, fine, but you can't take deposits. you're not a depositry banks. you don't get the protection of fdic. in 1999 this congress repealed that. put it all together. i said at the time and the record will show i said it, i said i hope it doesn't happen. i hope -- i hope all these smart people know what they're doing, but i don't trust them. i don't trust them. as you're going to start having a lot of funny games playing. in the last 10 years we saw the games they played. well, the special interest after -- after glass-steagall was repealed, they attacked the very idea of government regulation, the s.e.c., other watchdog agencies just started doing nothing. wall street stepped into the void, now they have all the protections we consumers and other consumers had under

glass-steagall was gone. and so what they did, they just drove our economy off a cliff. and ordinary hard-work ring americans had to pick up the tab. that's why we need this serious financial reform. as others have noted, and i say, again, financial crises in this country shouldn't be looked upon as -- as floods that just come every 10 years. or some kind of natural disaster that you sort of accept. that every so often we're going to have a flood or we're going to have a hurricane hit the coast or we're going to have a drought someplace. financial collapses that has happened in the past, these are not preordained -- happening to our system. they happened because we let people run amok with large sums of money, gam