it took nine months -- nine months -- to cap, to seal. and the resulting spill was the second-largest in world history. over ten times larger than the exxon valdez spill. as you can see from this map which has here texas, louisiana all in the gulf, the spill traveled 600 miles from its center. 600 miles blanketing the coast of mexico, texas, and louisiana, causing extraordinary damage. now we're debating the wisdom of expanding oil production on the outer continental shelf. in essence, all along the coastlines of our country. some think the way to expand offshore drilling reasonably is simply to create some type of a

buffer zone off the coast, as if a little more room can protect our shores, as if the ocean was in kneel little boxes that could somehow be confined. frankly, madam president, i think this graphic of the ixtoc spill those that oil spills don't respect state borders or buffer zones. in the wake of what we're seeing in the gulf, i'm deeply concerned that the current five-year plan recently announced by the administration would allow oil drilling less than 100 miles from cape may, new jersey. cape may is a great historical place in new jersey, beautiful beaches, some of of the greatest beaches in the nation. cape may, where delaware bay meets the atlantic, is the epicenter of bird migration on

the entire east coast, and one of new jersey's most significant seaside resort communities, the fourth-most lucrative fishing port in the entire nation. the fourth-most lucrative fishing port in the entire nation, rich with scallop beds. it's less than 10 miles from delaware waters, waters that the administration announced they are studying for possible future drilling. so i'm concerned that if the lease sales go forward, the coastlines of maryland, delaware, and new jersey will be under threat, not just an environmental threat but an economic one as well. approximately 60% -- 60% -- of new jersey's $38 billion tourism industry comes from the jersey shore, and the state's multibillion-dollar fishing industry would also be threatened by the specter of a

potential oil spill. now, we had an unfortunate incident in new jersey's history. yearly in 1987 when the shore was polluted with medical waste in that year and -- medical waste that ended up on the beaches of new jersey, syringes on the beach of new jersey, other medical waste on the shores of new jersey, and tourism revenue dropped 22% and it took some tie to recover. if a serious oil intril ever to hit our coast, the damage would be enormously costly and if the exxon valdez spill is any guide, much of the damage would be permanent. it simply does not make sense to play russian roulette with an asset that generates thousands of jobs and tens of billions of dollars per year for potential

drilling assets that could never generate even one-tenth of that. and this is only in one state. magnify that by so many other states that have similar coastal economies. this tragedy in the gulf is a wake-up call. it demands that whatever we do in terms of drilling we do carefully, thoughtful will and with the very real i am annals of this tragedy -- and with the very real images of this tragedy in mind. it is obvious -- now more than ever -- that we cannot ignore the risks of oil exploration, that we cannot take the safety of these rigs for granted or the reliability of redundant shutoff systems that were supposed to prevent such a spill. it's time to weigh the risks against the payback and what is the payback? well, the energy information administration, the entity that

our federal government has to give us information about our energy sources, estimates that opening all the shores -- all shores to drilling -- would amount to no more than a few hundred thousand barrels a day, which translates to a few table spoons of gasoline per american vehicle. and we don't keep oil in a domestic market. oil is part of a world market. so there's no guarantee that american-produced oil comes to america for the purposes that we need. hardly a drop in the bucket with no measurable impact on gas prices. i don't want to gamble with the coastline of new jersey or any of these other states for a few tablespoons of gasoline. madam president, this image of a

burning rig in the gulf that ultimately sunk and for which we have all of this disaster taking place is a wake-up call to all of us who are committed to finding the best energy options for the future, options that will not put hundreds of miles of our coastline at risk. you know, i don't quite understand why it is that when we're talking about global climate change legislation that we're in desperate pursuit of oil, which is a contributor to the greenhouse gas emissions that we're trying to avoid and, in essence, change from so that we don't have the climactic changes that can thrnts our way of life. that's exactly what we're doing. going after this.

so i'm respectfully requesting that the administration reconsider its from expand offshore drilling until we're absolutely certain that we can protect the new jersey shore and the entire atlantic seaboard from the potential environmental and economic disaster that could come from coastal drilling. i don't know why the atlantic coast has to be under siege, but it seems to be. other coasts -- the other coastline was largely kept unexplored. instead of doubling down on 19th century fuels like oil, we should be investing in 21st century green economy that will create thousands of new jobs, billions in new wealth, and help protect our air and water from pollution. it's time for this country to move forward and embrace the future rather than clutch to the ways of the past that have not

only given us this addiction but at the same time given us the consequences in our environment of polluting it in a way that ultimately creates risk to our crops, our farmers, our shorelines, as well as our health. ness terms of a state -- in terms of a state -- my home state of new jersey that has far too many cases of respiratory illnesses, including cancer. we can do much better than this. we should do much better than this and we should stop feeding an addiction that ultimately would only add a few tablespoons of gas and not do anything about the price but put an enormous risk to the economy of these coastlines to our natural habitats and to the quality of air that we breathe. i hope the president will understand that this disaster is a wake-up call that needs to be thought of seriously before we

move forward on something that can be so rickey to our economy, to our environment, to our way of life. with that, madam president, i yield the floor and observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. mccaskill: madam president? the presiding officer: the sphror missouri. ms. mccaskill: came to the floor of the senate last tuesday to make 74 unanimous consent motions to trigger a law that this body voted for by a vote of

96-2 back in january of 2007, and this law says that once a unanimous consent motion is made for a nomination, that people who are secretly holding the nomination must come out into the sunlight. the law req -- the law requires six days after that motion is made, then whoever is holding the nominee must identify themselves and, in fact, that must be published in the congressional record. tomorrow would be the day for publication for all of the dozens of different nominees that are being held by who knows who for who knows what reason. i wanted to make sure that the leaders of both parties were aware that this time had run and today i would ask that by unanimous consent a letter that i have sent to the minority leader and to the majority leader acknowledging that the

rule has been triggered and with the list of the various nominees asking that they make sure that the members of their party have, in fact, come forward and identified themselves for the record tomorrow. i would ask unanimous consent that the two letters to leader mcconnell and leader reid be made a part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. mccaskill: you know, we've gone back and looked at the executive calendar that contains all the nominations from a historic perspective. at this point at the beginning of this week we had 84 pending. 84 nominations pending. at the exact same time at president bush's presidency we had eight. that's what we call a lopsided score, 84-8. of the 49 nominations we voted on as a body since president obama took office, 38 of them were confirmed by more than 70

votes. pretty lopsided margins. 20 of them were confirmed by more than 90 votes. i am confident that if we took the time, which i think maybe the desire of my friends on the other side, if we took the time to file cloture and go through an individual vote on all of these nominees, that the vast majority of them would receive those kind of lopsided confirmation. this is a game that we need to quit playing. the secret holds need to end. i have written some colleagues of mine, mark warner -- senator warner and senator whitehouse and i composed a letter and asked our colleagues to sign it that we will no longer participate in the secret hold. no more secret holds for us. we don't need the law to tell us that we only have six days to

secretly hold. we're not going to do it anymore. and we've asked in this letter that the secret hold be abolished. there's not a good reason for it. there really isn't. why does anything like that need to be a secret? it -- it's something that needs to be done publicly. the people that everyone works for need to know why they rl holding a nomination -- they are holding a nomination or blocking a bill. and so the secrecy needs to stop. hold somebody, as i said last week, it's your prerogative as senator to hold a nominee. work against that nomination. try to defeat them in committee. keep in mind that all these nominees i'm talking about came out of committee without objection. no objection in committee. but if you want to object, that's your prerogative as a senator. come out here on this floor and tell the world why this is the wrong person for the job. but don't hide.

don't hide. so i want to make sure i will be watching with interest tomorrow the congressional record. i'm very worried that we're going to have what's called the old switcha. mr. reidswitcharoo, which meansf you withdraw your hold within six days, you can just hand it off to somebody else. you can say, i no longer have a secret hold and you whisper to your body, hey, why don't you do the secret hold? and then we have shiks more days -- six more days and then another six days. i want to give notice that i will make a unanimous consent motion every time there's a secret hold. so everyone who does it only has six days. if we start the switcharoo and continue to go week after week continuing to hold people and not know why, that's when people should get angry. that means that people voted for a law for every intention they

had evading. you know, people are mad enough at us. that's liable to get them over to the flat furious category if we go into that territory. so i -- i am hopeful that this congress will be the congress where we end the secret hold. i want to once again acknowledge the work that senator grassley has done on this for years and senator wyden. they have definitely tilled this ground and they, in fact, were the ones that put this in the that you we voted on back in -- this in the law that we voted on back in 2007. i compliment they for the work they've done on this issue and we continue to work together on this issue. senator wyden and senator grassley are continuing to try to find a way to reform and make this place more open and transparent and i invite all my colleagues to sign the letter. republican, democrat, independent, sign the letter. we have 43 signatures. that means we're almost halfway

there. and if we could get 60, we could move mountains around here when we get to that magic number of 60. i'm hopeful that we can get to 60 by the end of next week and that means we'll have more than a majority in this body to say i don't need a rule, i don't need a law, i'm perfectly willing to make any hold i have open to public inspection. i also want to make another motion today. we have a very important functioning government, and that is investigating accidents. we are getting ready to enter into the travel season. the national transportation safety board is a very body. in fact, they are going to be considering in the next week the miracle on the hudson accident and the problem with aviation as it relates to the danger of birds and possible engine failure. in june they will be investigating the tragic metro accident here in washington when nine people died there has been

a -- this is one of those boards where a democrat and republican are -- are both appointed. the democrat has been waiting since last december ostensibly for a republican to be nominated. dr. weiner has been on the calendar, and dr. rosekind are needed on the ntsb. if any member has a reason to recuse themselves, they would not have enough members to go forward with these investigations this is the kind of work that needs to be done. this is the kind of work that the people want the government doing. there's a lot of stuff they don't want us doing. but they want us to figure out what's going on with accidents in our nation's transportation systems and come up with solutions an answers so that we can avoid these deadly accidents in the future. soy think it's important in light of that that i go ahead and make another unanimous consent motion to try to confirm these two people so they can

begin their work immediately on the national transportation safety board as we enter into the most heavy traveled period in america, that is, the summer vacation months when so many more americans are traveling with their families. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of the consideration of calendars number 592, mark r. rosekind to be a member of the national transportation safety board and 787, earl weiner to be a member of the national transportation board, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc, no further motions be in order, the president be immediately notified of senate's action and any statements relating to the nominee appearing in the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: reserving the right to object. i have no problem with either of these two nominations. i understand they're in the

process of being cleared by all members. while i have no specific problem, we want all senators to sign off before consent is granted. last week i objected to some of the nominations to allow the two leaders to work their clearance process on executive calendar. i understand the leaders worked to consider and confirm, for example, four u.s. attorneys later today. under these circumstances as to the specific request of my colleague, i will object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mrs. mccaskill: madam president, if i could inquire for purposes of making a clear record of the senator from arizona? mr. kyl: madam president, i objected. mrs. mccaskill: i want to make sure that the objection, madam president, the reason i'm asking to inquire is has to be clear the objection is being made on behalf of someone else and not on behalf of the senator. mr. kyl: madam president, reserving the right to object. let me just explain this process.

when a nomination is sought to be cleared by both sides, there's what's called a hotline. all offices receive a quick notice that a particular bill or nominee is being hotlined. if you have a question or a concern, you register that. it's registered as an objection until it can be cleared up. in many cases very quickly it's cleared up. sometimes overnight. sometimes the two leaders need to work out a process for it to be cleared. it is, in one sense, a hold. as i said, i have no objection to these two people, so i am not holding them. i am objecting on behalf of the republican leadership in order to en80 the two leaders -- enable the two leaders to clear both of these nominees, that is, to make sure there's no objection on either side to be sure that they can both go forward. that's the reason for my objection. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri.

mrs. mccaskill: i will yield in just a minute. but let me make a couple of comments concerning that. first, mr. weiner has been on the executive calendar since march 24th. so this isn't something that happened in the last couple of days. it happened march 24th. it is clear that the senator from arizona said he wasn't objecting. so he's objecting for someone else. this notion that this has something to do with the two leaders working together, none of these nominees are being held by anybody that -- that -- this is not about the leader asking for time to clear names. and it's not whether or not somebody can hold. certainly somebody can hold. the question is after they've done it for six days, they can't be secret anymore. so what i'm trying to do here, and i know the senator from arizona understands this completely, i'm not quarreling with somebody's ability to hold. i just need to know who's holding. it can't just be oh, we're working on it and oh, it came over on the hotline and give us

a few days. the six days are up. people who are holding these nominees now have to say who they are. and i wanted to make clear that your objection was not your objection to these nominees. in other words, that you're not claiming the objection, you're claiming it on behalf of someone else who won't ey identify themselves. that's the point here. and tomorrow's the day that all of these people need to be identified as to who's holding them. if it is senator mcconnell that's holding everyone, then he needs to claim them. and say i'm holding all the nominees. if it is other members of the caucus, then they need to claim them. and the same thing for any democrats that are holding. i believe we had two or three democrats -- two or three nominees being held by nominees. they need to be published in the congressional record tomorrow. but this notion that this is somehow being held up because the two leaders are working together, senator reid doesn't have anybody being held.

so i -- i want to make sure we got that clear and i'm happy to yield to the senator from rrn for a question. -- from rhode island for a question. mr. kyl: it is precisely on the basis that i stated that i'm objected here this evening. i believe the two leaders will be able to clear the two specific nominees my colleague has asked unanimous consent for tonight. it is truly a matter of the clearance process through the hotline. and as a result, what i said is true. it is nothing more than that to my knowledge. now, i take all of the other points that my colleague made. but as to my objection here this evening, i would prefer to have my colleague acknowledge that what i said is what i believe, namely, that this is a clearance process for the two leaders through the hotline and that it is my expectation that these nominees will be cleared through that process. but it is simply not completed. mrs. mccaskill: let me -- i

certainly want to apologize to my friend from arizona. i did not mean to intimate that you are saying something you did not believe. mr. kyl: i appreciate that. mrs. mccaskill: the point i'm making here is pretty obvious. we have 84 backed up. we had 84 at the beginning of this week backed up at the train station compared to eight under the bush administration. if anybody can't see as plain as the nose on your face what's going on, they need to tune i in and pay attention. this is stall and block, stall and block, stall and block. if you're going to stall an block, fine. claim if. that's what this is about. claim it. if you're proud of slowing this process down, we want to know who you are. to say this is about the leaders clearing the hotline, that's not what this is about. this is about the law that says you can't have secret holds once a unanimous consent motion is made. and i will be down here as many times as it takes to reform this process and end the secret hold.

and i'm happy to yield to my colleague from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you. first of all -- thank you, senator mccaskill, for your continuing efforts on this point. i had the privilege of joining you the first day and moving some of these unanimous consents. and you carried on and did the vast bulk, 73 of them i think you did in one day to tee all of these names up under the senate rules that require that once a unanimous consent has been proposed, the identity of the senator with the secret hold has to be die -- divulged in six legislative days. as i understand it, the six legislative days run today and therefore tomorrow is the day when one of three things has to take place. either we can come to the floor and clear these folks by unanimous consent because there will be no longer a secret hold -- that's option one.

option two is a senator would have stood up, filed the papers that the rules of the senate require and admitted to their secret hold, made this process transparent and open. or the third is that they will have done what you and i both call the switcheroo, and they will have gone quietly to some other senator and say i only have four days left, i don't want to hold it to six. if you pick up my hold now for me, then you are after the unanimous consent, and we think we can dodge the rules this way. is it your understanding that those are the three options that we will discover tomorrow as to all of these 80 nominees, which category they are in? mrs. mccaskill: i believe under the law those are the only two options available, to either withdraw the hold and let the nomination go forward or claim the hold and publicly identify yourself or evade the law. mr. whitehouse: with respect to the observation that the

distinguished senator from arizona made that they have just after this process allowed four united states attorneys to be cleared, in the light of the fact that at this time in the bush administration there were eight bush administration officials who were the subject of democratic holds, but it is more than 80 obama officials who are now still the subject of almost exclusively republican holds, notwithstanding what's cleared under the pressure of this initiative. we're actually down from over 100, but we're still holding at over 80 officials who are tangled up here in secret holds. so in that -- is it a fair statement of mine to put gosh, we released four into the context of yeah, but we're holding 84?

that's the -- that's the way the ratio works right now, isn't it, senator mccaskill? mrs. mccaskill: to be fair, i know we had 84 pending at the first of the week. i think us raising a ruckus is beginning to have a little bit of an impact because the iceberg moved slightly this week. i think we may have confirmed 14 this week of the 74, i believe, that i moved by unanimous consent last week. keep in mind that all 74 that i moved last week had been unanimously reported out of committee. no opposition from the republican party in committee, none. mr. whitehouse: votes in favor by the republicans on the committee. mrs. mccaskill: exactly. in fact, many of them voice voted without -- we even checked to make sure no one said nay at the committee level. so these were unanimously agreed to out of committee. there were 74 last week. i made the motions last tuesday on the 74. you made a few motions on some that were not in that group that had been unanimously agreed to,

and i believe this week some of the group, maybe some of yours, maybe some of the ones that i made unanimous consent motions on, i know that we had 14 that moved. so i think we're around 70 total right now, but of those, 60 of them are this unanimous category and ones that we have no idea who is holding them. mr. whitehouse: and of those -- if i could ask another question, of those who have been cleared, some have been allowed to come forward for votes on the senate floor. i think the last was judge chin who had been held for a considerable period of time, and we actually, if i recall correctly, had to file cloture and take more time. there is a process built around cloture so it burns up senate floor time when we're forced to do that, and when the nomination was finally voted on in the

senate, it's my -- is my recollection correct that he cleared the senate 98-0? mrs. mcmccaskill: -- mrs. mccaskill: he was held for a long time. mrs. mccaskill: time is money when you're working for the taxpayers. every hour we spend on something, that's an hour we can't spend on something else. everyone, all the good people that are here working in this room and in the cloakrooms and in all the offices are paid by taxpayers. we took time to go through cloture, and then there wasn't one no vote. now, if that's not a great example of obstructionism for the sake of obstructing, i can't think of a better one. forcing the united states senate to take days to confirm unanimously a nominee after they have been held for a long period of time. mr. whitehouse: and just by a process of elimination, unless one of the two absent senators

was the ones that had the hold, whoever was holding judge chin actually ended up voting for him after months and months of having delayed the nomination. mrs. mccaskill: i don't know about you. i'd love to know how many people secretly hold a nominee and end up voting yes, because nine times out of ten -- i shouldn't say that. i don't know. it's a secret. i have to believe that many times people are holding a nominee secretly because they want something else from the agency. you know, in fact, i had a member actually acknowledge to me that, you know, i don't care about what happens to that nominee, but i need something from this agency. and so it's -- it's like a leverage thing. like i'm going to hold your nominee hostage until this agency gives me what i want. i think we remember there was an instance that came out in public that some people were being held for, you know, projects in their state. mr. whitehouse: that is the right of a senator to do so long as they do it publicly.

mrs. mccaskill: right. mr. whitehouse: they can still do that even after the secret holds. mrs. mccaskill: absolutely. if you were trying to leverage -- i don't agree with this, but it's your right as a senator. if you want to leverage a project in your state by saying to the administration i won't let you have any nominees to go to work in that agency until that agency gives me what i want, that's your right, but people ought to know about it. but, see, i don't think that would be really popular. i think that people might have a problem with that. that's the beauty of the secret hold. you never have to tell that you're leveraging a nominee to get something you want out of an agency. that's why we need to end the secret hold. simple. mr. whitehouse: if i may conclude, i just want to thank the senator for indulging me in these questions and allowing me to ask them and for her energetic and principled leadership on this issue. mrs. mccaskill: well, i want to thank my colleague from rhode island. he has -- we have together worked on -- you know, there are

so many things about the united states senate that i respect. you know, the traditions, the service. and make no mistake about it, there are so many of my colleagues that serve in the republican party that i admire and respect. they care deeply about their country. sometimes we disagree on issues, but that doesn't diminish my respect for them as public servants and as people. we all get along better than people probably realize we do. but there are certain traditions around here, frankly, that kind of really are more like a bad habit. you know, the tradition of comity is wonderful. the tradition of debate is wonderful. the tradition of collegiality is wonderful. the tradition of -- of -- of seniority and respecting people who have been here for a great deal of time. so much of it i -- i think has been built up over the history

of this nation, and i am so proud to be a member of this body in so many ways, but there are some bad habits that are not traditions we should be proud of. and this is one of them. this is a tradition that needs to end. the secret hold is a bad habit, and it is a luxury that we should not indulge in as members of a public body here to serve the public on behalf of the people we work for. our work should be open, and the word secret doesn't really have a place of honor in this democracy. secret, good government, that's a little bit like oil and water. so let's -- let's do away with this bad habit. let's demolish this tradition for all the right reasons and go forward and have a new tradition that from now on, if you feel strongly enough about a nominee to block their nominations, that

you come forward, explain your reasoning and allow the people that you work for to judge for themselves whether or not that is a valid reason to stop the nomination. in many instances, the people you work for may believe it's a valid reason and may applaud you for it, but if it needs to be secret, i don't know, i would bet maybe they might not. so let's -- let's end the tradition, and i want to thank the senator from rhode island. i also, obviously, want to thank once again senator grassley and give him -- he has so many times been the conscience of this place for so many different reasons, so many different issues. i have greatly admired his work and the inspector general community has done so much work with inspector generals to strengthen them, make sure they have independence. he has been a great champion for accountability and transparency in the united states senate, and i am proud that he has worked as long as he has on trying to stop

the tradition of secret holds. he and senator wyden both get the lion's share of the credit for the work that has been done on this issue over the years, but i think we now have 43 senators that are willing to say enough already. now, if we can just get a few more, i think we can nail the coffin shut on secret holds once and for all, and i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, may i ask that my statement be followed by a colloquy among the cosponsors of the amendment that i will be discussing, and that the statement and the colloquy appear at the appropriate place in the record regarding the discussion of the wall street reform legislation. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, madam president. i had planned actually to offer an amendment to the wall street reform bill this afternoon but i have been informed that the open amendment process does not begin

until next week, so i will describe my amendment this afternoon and then return to the floor at the earliest opportunity to actually call it up. before i describe it, i want to commend chairmen dodd and lincoln for their hard work with crafting a strong wall street reform bill. the collapse of the housing market in 2008 and the resulting recession, near depression, were painful evidence that our financial institutions were underregulated and that we were ill prepared for the invention of complex new financial products. the legislation we are currently debating will strengthen and modernize our nation's financial regulation and substantially reduce the chances for future market bubbles and collapses with all the economywide collateral damage that we have seen from this collapse. my amendment is cosponsored by

senators merkley, who was here on the floor, i'm delighted he is here with me -- senator durbin, senator sanders, and senator levin. it would address an area that is not yet covered by the wall street reform bill, and that is runaway credit card interest rates. this bill -- this amendment would address that, not by imposing any new restrictions on lending, but rather by restoring to our states historic powers that they held for hundreds of years and that were eliminated only in the relatively recent past. madam president, when you and i were growing up, a credit card offer with a 20% or a 30% interest rate might well have been a matter to bring to the police. such interest rates were illegal under the laws of most if not all of the 50 states. today in contrast, credit cards

routinely charge rates of 30% or even more. usually after they have trapped you into a late payment or some trick of some kind to get you away from the teaser rate that they sold you the credit card with. and so you end up with 30% interest or higher. these interest rates have spiraled out of control, and for reasons i'll explain, the states, at least recently, have been powerless to do anything about it despite the historic power that they had in this area. prior to 1978, indeed, for the first 202 years of our republic, each state had the ability to enforce usury laws against any lender doing business with its citizens. our economy grew and flourished during these two centuries. these were not hard periods for the financial services

industries. and lenders profited while complying with the laws in effect where they operated. then in 1978 came an apparently uneventful supreme court case. it was little noticed at the time it was decided. in marquette national bank of minneapolis vs. omaha service corporation, the supreme court determined one word, the word "located" in the national bank act of 1863. the word that sat quietly in that statute for 102 years, in 1978 they interpreted it as meaning the location of the business rather than the location of the customer. where the bank was headquartered or domiciled rather than where the customer lived. well, it did not take long before big banks caught on to

the opportunity that this created, an opportunity never sanctioned by congress nor apparently even intended by the supreme court. it was an inadvertent loophole. but they found it, and they realized they could avoid the interest rate restrictions by reorganizing as national banks and moving to states that had the weakest consumer protections. so what happened? a race to the bottom. the proverbial race to the bottom took place as a small handful of states eliminated consumer protections, eliminated interest rate caps in order to attract into their states lucrative credit card business and the related tax revenue. today there is a reason that the credit card divisions of major banks are based in just a few states, and it causes consumers

in all of our other states to be denied the historic protection they enjoyed from outrageous interest rates and fees. my amendment would reinstate the historic long-standing powers of our sovereign states to decide which interest rate limits, if any, should be set to protect their own citizens. let me be clear about what this amendment would not do. it would not prescribe or even recommend any interest rate caps, and it would not impose any other lending limitations. it would restore to the states the power that they enjoyed for over 200 years from the very founding of the republic, the the power to say enough, the power to say 30% interest or 50% interest or 100% interest is too much. and we won't allow to you charge it to our citizens.

madam president, the current system is not just unfair to consumers who can't be protected by their own sta*euts state's government and are vulnerable to predatory lending from states far away from their home. it is unfair to local lenders and retailers that continue to be bound by the laws of the home state. they're still bound. so the home state bank is under the state law. it is the huge, gigantic out-of-state national bank that can come in and compete against those small banks with that disadvantage. the small local bank has to play by the rules of fair interest rates. the gigantic national credit card companies can avoid having any rules at all. so we need to level the playing field to eliminate this unfair and lucrative advantage that

wall street banks enjoy against our local main street community banks. to make sure that lenders can't find another statute to use to once again avoid state law, my amendment would apply to all types of consumer lending institutions, not just national banks. and that is for the purpose of forbidding them and preventing them from changing their charters to avoid limitations on gouging consumers. one of the other factors in this bill is that you can't choose your regulator by changing your charter, and we've reached broadly with this to protect against exactly that. my amendment would give state legislatures ample time to revise their usury statutes if they feel they need revision and would allow lenders ample time to adjust. the amendment would not go into effect until one year after the president signs the bill into law. in the meantime, it is worth noting that most states usury

laws are around or above 18% and that federally regulated credit unions do quite well under a federal 18% interest rate cap. so the underlying interest rates that states tend to apply when this power has not been stripped from them really inadvertently tend to be quite reasonable as proven by the fact that our credit union industry operates under a federal 18% interest rate cap and does quite well. it is the 30% and over interest rates that are the recent anomaly, the peculiarty in our country's history. we should go back to the historic norm, the way the founding fathers saw things under the doctrine of federalism and close this modern bureaucratic loophole, probably

an inadvertent loophole but one that the banks discovered, the big wall street banks, to gouge local citizens and compete unfairly with local banks. so i ask my colleagues for their consideration on this and turn to the distinguished senator from oregon, senator merkley. mr. merkley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: madam president, i rise to praise my colleague from rhode island for producing this amendment. i look forward to seeing it filed. i certainly am honored to be able to cosponsor it. i thought i would share with him a story that goes back to my days as a member of the oregon legislature. when i came into the oregon legislature, i had a lot of folks in my house district saying wouldn't you do something about payday lending and other

high interest lending? how is it possibly reasonable to have payday loans, which are secured by the next paycheck at over 500% interest, and how is it reasonable or fair that i'm being lent money through my credit card at 25% or 30% when the interest i'm earning is just 1% or 2%? and i had no good answer for why it was fair, because it wasn't fair. it wasn't right. and so i proceeded to start working on this issue. and when i went down to legal counsel, they advised me, well, representative merkley, it works like this: you can at the state level apply rules to payday lending and to pawn brokers and to title loans and to local consumer lending companies, but not when it comes to credit

cards. and they explained to me the story that the senator from rhode island has just shared, that those rules are set by the states issuing the credit cards. while certainly any state that has reasonable standards for that, cards are not going to be issued from within that state. thus we come to the race at the bottom that my colleague was describing. and so i proceeded to carry the fire, the battle over payday loans, the title loans, the pawn brokers and local consumer loans. we largely won that battle in oregon, but we couldn't take on credit cards. and so in the back of my mind, when i was running for the u.s. senate, i thought this will be an opportunity, if i join this body, to be able to weigh in in favor of states rights, in favor of consumers, in favor of common sense. and so, it's for all these

reasons i'm pleased to join you as a cosponsor of your amendment. mr. whitehouse: i thank you, and i'm grateful, and i see that senator sanders from vermont is on the floor and many delighted to welcome him to our colloquy. senator sanders. mr. sanders: thank you very much, senator whitehouse. i applaud you for introducing this amendment. the issue of credit card companies charging americans outrageously high interest rates is something that has concerned me for a number of years. and we have another amendment which takes -- approaches this issue from a kind of different level. but i'm going to work with you, and i think this is a very, very important amendment. the bottom line here is that usury and loan sharking is immoral, it is wrong, and it has got to be prohibited. as i know that senator whitehouse and senator merkley

are more than aware. you have biblical references both in the old and new testament to the immorality and the condemnation of usury. and we know as a nation, people look askance at loan sharkers. let's be honest, what are we talking about here? if a financial institution is charging people who are desperate enough to be buying in many cases their grocery, the basic necessities on their credit card and are being charged 25% or 30% interest rates, if that's not usury, if that's not loan sharking, then i don't know what is. we have introduced legislation that would cap credit card interest rates at 15%. senator whitehouse is approaching it in another way, which is an interesting way. but the bottom line is that we have got to deal with the absurd marquette ruling which essentially nullifies what every state in the country has done.

i think in vermont, we have usury rates at 12%. it doesn't mean anything because of the marquette decision. so i think, senator whitehouse and senator merkley, that all over this country, when we have 20% of the people in america now paying at least 20% interest rates on their credit card, those people want action. and when we talk about wall street reform and we talk about consumer protection, yes, of course, we need a strong independent financial services consumer protection agency. but more importantly, we need to address this outrage of high credit card interest rates. and your amendment would do that. so i think the american people want to see action, and i hope that we can work together on your amendment or my amendment and give people some relief. mr. whitehouse: i would add, senator sanders, and i thank you very much and senator merkley

for your cosponsorship of this amendment and your advocacy for it, i would add that i hope we could find support for this from the other side of the aisle. i do not see this as an exclusively democratic issue. and if you look at the arguments that have been made by all of us on the floor just now for it, senator sanders spoke eloquently about the judeo- christian tradition that informs so much of our civilization and its horror of exaggerated, is to be at that point interest rates -- exorbitant interest rates. for those of our colleagues who are attuned to their tradition, who take their religion seriously, they have to hearken back to the sources of the judeo- tradition to find this is good and historic. for those of us that are constitutional scholars and historians and familiar with the doctrine of federalism and the role of the states in protecting

their local citizens, the notion of states' rights is one that has been championed by colleagues on the other side of the aisle. here is an opportunity to express their fealty to that doctrine and to that principle of states' rights. to those who think that 202 years of successful tradition of local regulation of interest rates has value, we can document that this is a recent anomaly. this is a peculiarty that we are correcting. the great sweep of american history over more than two centuries is that the states protected their citizens properly and well. anyone who cares for consumers in their states, local consumers up against huge credit card companies that keep you waiting on the phone for hours when you have to try to file a complaint, whose offices are in another state or another country,

sticking up for your local citizens is something i think we should all be prepared to agree to. finally, for those of us who have local banks, community banks, main street banks, who are domiciled in our home states, why should they suffer the disadvantage of having to compete against these huge, rapacious credit card companies and wall street banks and be subject to their state's law but have this loophole allow the monster banks, the gigantic banks to take advantage of consumers in this way? i think you can look at this amendment from a whole variety of per speck alternatives and -- perspectives and the principles that it stands on are ones that many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have supported and championed over the years. mr. merkley: i might just chime in at this point and say that really in terms of the discussion i saw at the state level in oregon, this is a

bipartisan discussion, because it is indeed deeply rooted in traditions and wisdom that extends back not just generations, but thousands of years. and indeed, time after time after time the leaders and the philosophical and the religious leaders as well as political leaders saw the damage that was done to the foundations of society from extraordinarily high interest. and i think it goes back to understanding that the strength of a society is in the strength of its families, and you do not build strong families when wealth is stripped away by usurious interest rates, by extraordinary interest rates, rates that exceed by many, many times the earnings on interest that a family can get by putting their money into a bank, lending their money into the financial system, a very smaller return but borrowing out of that

financial system is very, very high charges. so if our goal is to build families, then this has all the wisdom in the world. and i certainly want to note that the other aspect of this that really helps tie together the democrats and republicans is that it is an issue of local control. and there was never a moment when this chamber or the chamber just a few yards from here, the house chamber, proceeded to say, no, we're going to take away states' rights to control their own interest rates on cars. there was never a moment like that. such a law was never passed. and indeed so you have not just the fact that federal law has trumped state law but has trumped it without any deliberate act of congress. and in the most bizarre of fashions. and so should i think that the

reach in favor of building strong families, building strong communities, and local control will be high and i certainly look forward to a bipartisan effort to pass this legislation. mr. sanders: if i can pick up from the senator from oregon, the reason for thousands of years that religious leaders and philosophers have condemned usury, which is really what we're talking about today, is that it is basically immoral, according to every major religion on earth, to tell a desperate person who is in need of a loan that i'm going to give you this loan, but i'm going to charge a very, very high interest rate. that is condemedz by every religion, -- that is condemned by every religion on earth. what i would like to do, i suggest to my friend from rhode

island senior senato, is i would some of the e-mails that i receive from my constituents in vermont. we're dealing with it one way, i'm trying to deal with it more on a national way. let me give to you a couple of e-mails that i come to me. this is from jeffrey from the state of vermont. quote -- "i was one of those guys who failed to read the fine print. a couple of years ago my credit card payment got lost in the mail. by the time i had realize what had had happened, they charged me a 45*dz late fee and then spiked my interest rate up to 35%. at the time i was in good standing with them. i desperately tried to get this back on track, but after 10 or 12 months of making these crazy payments, i had to make a choice: lose my transportation to work, lose my house -- ai i'm a fathef four beautiful children -- or

stop paying on the credit card? now my credit card report has suffered great lid and even though it has been over a year, they still harass me almost daily. this situation has affected every part of my family and my life." end of quote, jeffrey from vermont. this ronald from vermont. quote -- "i am writing about my city credimyst. credit card. the -- "i am writing about my citi credit card. my interest rate went from 12% to 29.9% overnight. i phoned them and was told it was not just myself paying that rate but everyone pays that rate. how can credit card companies let you make purchases on your

account for a moderate interest rate and just mysteriously move to 29.9% overnight? i hope you are a able to pass your law to restrict credit card companies from abusing their power over customers." so the bottom line is, what we're saying is we intend to end this outrageous practice on the part of huge banks who are ripping off the american people. and what senator whitehouse is trying to do is say, let us go back to "the federalist" -- back to the federalist principles of this nation. both of us together are going to do everything we can to end this outrage. i applaud the senator from rhode island for his hard work on this. mr. whitehouse: well, let me thank senator sandersings who is a passionate and articulate consumer advocate, senator merkley of oregon who has come to the senate with the interests

of his native oregonians in trying to make sure that they are well-erved, and he's been really remarkable at that. i know -- i apologize to senator durbin. i know he wanted to come and join us as well and the timing changed so that he was unable to attend. but i thank him for his cosponsorship of this amendment. and i also want to thank the distinguished chairman of the armed services committee, senator levin, for cosponsoring it t i am truly honored by their support, and the diswd senator from illinois -- and the distinguished senator from illinois, senator burris, tells me that he wishes to cosponsor as well. i am grateful to him and i thank him. he is a former banker so he understands these issues very, very well. i'm very gratified by his support. the last thing that i want to say before i close on this subject is that the system by which credit card companies get

consumers into these high interest rate predicaments is no accident. it is a system, and it's been carefully designed by the credit card companies, beginning with the way they write the agreement. when credit cardigan, the credit card agreement was two or three pages long. i'm looking at an array of young pages in front of me. they're pretty soon going to be getting credit cards of their own. they won't know what it was like when i first got my credit card. they're going to get a credit card contract that has 20 pages of fine print and hidden in the fine print have been amazing tricks and traps. one of my personal favorites, which we thankfully ended under the leadership of chairman dodd earlier, was that the credit card would declare that the day was over at 10:00 in the morning and then they'd open the mail at 11:00.

so if you got your payment in on the day it was due, they didn't open the mail until they declared the day was over. well, the day wasn't over. the sun was still up. it -- morning wasn't even over. but they had declared in the fine print of contract that they could end the day of -- payment day at 10:00 a.m. in the morning and then open the mail later in the day so that your check was, guess what, late. and then they could jac jack yor interest rate. one dare a at 12.9% and the next day you're at 30% and you don't know what hit. and once they've got you there, it's very hard to unwind. it's very hard to pay it off and get out. many consumers can't pay off their credit card all at once, so now they're really trapped and they're trapped in what professor ronald mann of columbia university has called

"the sweat box." he's looked at how the credit card companies manipulate their consumers. and what they do is they set up all these tricks and traps and slid you build up a nice balan balance, and it's at a reasonable interest rate. but you fall into one of the traps, they catch with you one of the tricks and, bam, they've got you. you're now in a 30% interest raivment you don't have the resources to pay it off all at once and the charges begin to piem. pile up. the fees, the exorbitant interest. and trite soon they've got you over a barrel. and it is systemtized. it is done to extract the maximum amount of money and profit from consumers who harnts aware of how sophisticated the machinery is that's out there trying to gouge them. so this isn't just a question of exorbitant industry -- interest rates. it's also a question of pushing

back against credit card companies that have developed a system, the sweat box system, that needs to be put to an end. and state regulation can help do it because if the state isn't being paid off with tax revenues to look away from what the bank is doing, and if most of the damage isn't being done in other states whose complaints aren't as relevant in the home state, in the domicile state, then they get away with it. and they won't get away with it once federalism, states' rights and the american tradition of state protection of its citizens are restored and this inadvertent loophole is closed, and my amendment would do that. i hope colleagues will think about supporting the amendment. ace said, i think it has -- ought to have bipartisan appeal and will certainly be good for people in our country who are at the business end of the credit

card interest's machine. thank the presiding officer. and i yield the floor.

mr. burris: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. burris: thank you, mr. president. my colleagues and i here in washington are here to fulfill a sacred public trust, a commitment we made the moment we raised our hands and swore the oath of office, and whether we swore that oath 30 days ago or 30 years ago, that commitment remains very real. we're here to fight for citizens of our respective states, to represent their concerns, and to make sure their voice rings out in the committee hearings and on the floor of this chamber. that is the obligation we took upon ourselves the moment we entered purr sssments i know it's something all of us take

very seriously. so, mr. president, i call upon my colleagues to rise to the challenge of this pivotal moment. it's time to live up to the promise we made. it's time to stand up for the people we came here to represent from all 50 states of this union. it's time to take action on wall street reform. so we can restore accountability to a system that has spiraled out of control and cost billions in taxpayers' dollars. the u.s. constitution makes it clear that my colleagues and i are accountable to the american people whom we came here to serve. but because we enjoy a thriving free market system, wall street bankers are bound by no such accountability.

that's why we used to have strict regulations in place like basic capital standards and lending requirements that laid out the rules of the road by which all financial institutions must operate. not to interfere with the market, mr. president, but to ensure that business practices were free and fair. it used to be that banks, large and small, based on their security -- based their security on the quality of their investments, and i worked at a very, very large banks in those days. the lending decisions were driven by confidence in the local businesses. financial institutions sank or swam as a result of the choices they made. this encouraged responsible choices and ensured that banks made smart investments. it kept them accountable to the

communities they served and to the businesses in those communities. mr. president, i said a moment ago i served as a banker for many years. and i helped secure loans for small and large businesses. i fought to keep investing in the local economy, as i knew we had a responsibility to those who worked with us. we helped them -- the people we did business with. the bank responsibility is to keep capital and cash flowing. so we were accountable to our customers. that's what banking used to be. mr. president, not anymore. gradually over the past few decades, tough standards were relaxed, regulations were rolled back and rules were bent or ignored by some of this country's larged and most

trusted financial institutions. greed replaced accountability as the driving force behind many transactions. banks made bad loans and then repackaged them with other loans and sold them -- sold off the risk. they created new types of securities and invented ways to place high stakes bets on investments. these activities have no value of their own, mr. president, they have nothing to do with our free market economy. they are designed to make easy money for the big banks and pass the risk on to someone else. but they contribute absolutely nothing to the economy. there's no product, no investment in private enterprise that will benefit local communities. so wall street has basically turned into a casino and it has done so at our expense.

these fat-cat bankers were gambling not just with our money but with our economic future. they placed our entire economy at risk, and about two years ago, their recklessness caught up with them. the bottom fell out, the whole massive scheme began to unravel. the american economy fell apart like a house of cards because that's exactly what wall street had become, a giant pile of empty investments that had been passed around between big banks, packaged and repackaged to the point where these investments were supported by little more than the paper they were written on. these large investment banks tried to make something from nothing, and in their wild pursuit of bigger and bigger profit, they gambled with the stability of our entire economy. so it's no wonder these systems came crashing down.

wall street dropped the ball and now they're trying to pass the buck. i refuse to let them do that, mr. president. i trophy stand by as these big firms try to make government bailout money and escape the consequences of their action. what they did was irresponsible and unethical. my colleagues and i were forced to make difficult decisions to prevent a complete economic collapse. we did what was necessary to stop the bleeding and get america back on the road to recovery. now it's time to make sure that we -- that this can never happen again. it's time to pass financial reform that will make wall street accountable again so they can't make decisions that undermine our economic security. that is why i strongly support the bill introduced by my good friend and distinguished

from senator from connecticut, chairman dodd. i thank my republican friend for allowing us to bring it to the debate. i said yesterday that the ball game had another inning and it did. i'm grateful to our republican friends who said that yeah, let us nut on the floor, let us debate it, let's not debate to debate and then not get on with the business of having the american citizens. and as we discuss this legislation here on the floor in front of the american people, i hope to work with my colleagues in both parties to hammer out a comprehensive, bipartisan bill, a bill that ends the days of the wall street casino and safeguard every american from the kind of reckless behavior that led to this crisis in the first place. mr. president, this is difficult work we've sworn to could dew when we came to this senate. and as we take up the issue of wall street reform, i intend to work with my colleagues, both democrats and republicans, to see that it gets done.

i said to you, mr. president, i am very interested in your piece of legislation that deals with the credit card interest rate usury proposition and i will go on your legislation as a cosigner. i thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, may i ask unanimous consent that the pending quorum call be terminated. thpridg ofcer: without objection, it is so ordered. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that amendment number 3739 be printed. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider en bloc the following nominations on the executive calendar numbers 820,

821, 822, and 823, that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc, any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on foreign relations be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 3714 and the senate proceed to its immediate csidetion. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3714, an act to amend the foreign assistance act of 1961 and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate shall proceed to the measure. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i further ask that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no

intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h. con. res. 264, just received from the house and now at the dk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 264, authorizing the use of the capitol grounds for the national peace officers memorial service. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. con. res. 61 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 61, expressing the sense of the congress that

general aviation pilots and industry should be recognized for the contrutio made in response to haiti earthquake relief efforts. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate should proceed to the matter. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the measure be placed in the record at the pope place as if read. -- appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. con. res. 62, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 62, congratulating the outstanding professional public servants, both past and present, of the natural resources conservation service on the occasion of its 75th anniversary. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate should proceed to the measure. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the

motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to the measure be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the homeland security and government affairs committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 481 and the senate proceed to its immediate csideration. the presiding officer: the clerk which report. the clerk: senate resolution 481, expressing the sense of the senate that public servants should be committed for their -- commended for their dedication and continued service to the nation during public service recognition week, may 3-9, 2010. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senator -- the senate shall proceed to the measure. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the measure be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 507, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 507, designating april 30, 2010, as dio delis nonis celebrating young americans. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate shall preto the measure. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements related to the resolution be placed in the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate complete completes is business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on friday, april 30. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and the senate resume consideration of

s. 3217, the wall street reform legislation. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate shall stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m. friday, april 30. e sete snds adjourned.

the people who are coming to us for a risk in the housing market wanted to have security then gave them exposure to the housing market and that's what they got .. >> of 1 to welcome me to the

2010 fiscal summit. advocate the great minds around the room. -- i look at the great minds around the room. it is our hope it is our hope we can come together in this summit and make progress from reaching consensus in three main areas. first, the nature and magnitude of our fiscal challenge, second,

the future, the nature in general direction and third, how we educate and activate american citizens to do something about it and? we've got all kinds of ideas and ideologies represented here today. while we may not agree on a whole lot else but most of us agree on one thing, our present fiscal course is unsustainable. at a time of multiple bailouts one uncomfortable thought lingers in the back of our minds. who is going to bail out american if our policies continue to stumble down these unsustainable paths some of you know this is an issue close steinhardt. i have been boring people with it for decades. in fact, ted sorensen said of one of my books once you put it down you will not be able to

pick it up. [laughter] but i believe the issue be addressed today has become more urgent with time. the purpose of today's summit is to listen to you, but before that i simply would want to summarize some views of the foreign relations. first, it is important to clarify how to redefine the problem. we make an important distinction between current budget deficits in the longer-term structural deficits, contrary to some perceptions the short-term deficits are not my primary concern. we understand the urgency of peop's