u.s. have to these media? steve and david, i know, make the assumption that virtually every target of your information has access to the kind of media data we were talking about before. anyway, let me introduce steve right now and go ahead and tell us about your experiences with these media. >> well, i'll respond to something that you just said which i think is going to become a more and more important political issue which is a technological divide in this country between the haves and the have nots. there are huge sections of this country that lack high-speed broadband which is necessary in order to enable these technologies, and as you look ahead in, over the next decade, parts of the country that are left behind are going to be left behind not just in terms of the access to things like the ipad or blackberries or social media, they're going to be increasingly left behind with regard to education, with regard to

economic opportunity, and i think that this is a very important public policy challenge, and it's a public policy challenge that should be able to transcend the right/left debate that takes place in this country today because a lack of access to these technologies is going to turn entire ports of this country really into second-class regions. ..

>> in the late 1980s and it was wildly at the time it was considered a disaster on the basis he only attracted an audience if i recall correctly -- it was approximately 8 million people. so if that were today, he would be the -- he would be the king of cable tv. [laughter] >> where the top-rated shows are bill o'reilly which edges close to 2 or 3 million some nights. what is transformative about social media in a media era where the media is fragmenting and people are tuning in to media through niche markets. they're finding on a 400-television channel universe the shows that they like, for instance. so where there used to be one cooking channel, now there's five different cooking channels. you can find the mediterranean cooking channel, the italian cooking channel. so people more and more will be

in self-actualizing cocoons of information. there's need to be ever be exposed to anything that you don't want to hear, that you don't want to learn about. it used to be -- and i remember when you were making cassettes in the late '80s of your favorite music. it would require hours of diligedil diligent listening to the radio and hit play when you wanted to capture your song. and an ipod you don't have to listen to anything you don't want to be exposed to. whether it's economic opinions or your taste in food shows. and the great equalizer about social media, what's transformative about it, is that what matters as much now about what an institution says about itself is what actual people say about that institution or that candidate. so, for instance, british

petroleum tonight could release a 300 gazillion dollar advertising budget talking about their commitment to the environment, talking about their responsible corporate stewardship and a hundred other issues, and 20 years ago, it would have had a positive impact. 10 years ago, it would have had a positive impact. five years ago it would have had a positive impact. now what it would do is set off an insurgency, if you will on social media sites all across this country and all across the world that would mock british petroleum for the advertisement. so if you put out advertisements, if you make statements that are materially wrong, materially false, easy to be lampooned, then you'll be exposed by a social media that democratizes everybody's ability

to be their own broadcast network. it used to be when there were three networks and three anchors the news you got, the news you learned about is the news you were fed. you didn't have much say about it. it was -- it was very antismall d democratic, if you will. well, today in a lot of instances, if you cover politics from its -- if you cover -- if you follow politics and you follow the coverage of politics, in many, many instances, the trends that are being reported in the "new york times" or in the "washington post" are, in fact, first revealed on social media sites. they're covering the actual live discussion and discourse that's happening out in the country. and so when you look at social media in the context of the 2008 campaign, one of the things that was just abjectly true about the race was that there was huge

interest and there was huge enthusiasm for senator obama. it was organic. it was real and it manifested itself through people connecting together in pursuit of that common interest through the hub that david talked about. the genius of the obama campaign wasn't that it created a social media phenomenon. the genius of the obama campaign was that it harnessed it. the enthusiasm, though, was real. and it was organic. and it couldn't be created. a moment that i knew we were in real trouble on the mccain campaign was actually the obama girl video that you referenced. and the obama girl video got a huge amount of attention. it was all out over the place. everyone watched the obama girl video in the mccain world. and what the obama girl video

begat was a parody video that actually glenn beck ran when he was on cnn. and it was called mccain girl. and the mccain girl video was a bunch of elderly women who were singing about their affection for john mccain. [laughter] >> and it was just devastating in a major way. [laughter] >> but you understood this is now being driven totally by forces outside of the control of the campaign. and one of the impacts of this as we go forward into the future -- if the campaigns and the candidates themselves will control an increasingly smaller and smaller and smaller territory of their message. and more and more area of the campaign, more and more of the campaign's message is going to be shaped by outside forces in this social media and all of

these social media in the next twitter, in the next facebook that comes along. its next iterations are going to be a profoundly important -- a profoundly important part of that. >> steve, i have this wonderful image in my head of all the mccain -- not tv sets, computer monitors of what's in the obama gish video. -- girl video. i haven't thought about this before and you just mentioned it. would it be fair to say that it's possible that consumers of traditional papers and maybe even the cable channels -- if you were just watching those traditional media in the u.s. during that campaign, you might -- you might have heard a reference to it? it absolutely a phenomenon that cross-pollinated and migrated

what was mainstream -- what was considered to be mainstream journalism. the mccain campaign was a bit different in this regard. when the mccain campaign collapsed in july of 2007, and it was bankrupt and john mccain was flying to new hampshire -- [laughter] >> the issue of the campaign -- who's got a gas credit card we can fill the tank up as opposed to the -- when john mccain won the primary there were 38 people that worked in the headquarters. and it was $2 million. it was $2 million in debt. and as someone who is a, you know, practitioner of strategic communications in the corporate world or in politics -- i was watching with great interest as this, you know, organic phenomenon development, you know, went on and you knew we didn't have the resources to

scale it up and there was a lack of enthusiasm. for republicans 2008 wasn't just our year. for a lot of reasons. so you watched all of this, you know, develop in 2008 and now you see in a 2010 political cycle, you know, there's some catch-up on the republican side because the intensity levels for republicans have risen so there's more activity on the social media side. but the point that david made, i think, is -- it's just very important on this. what it means is whether you're a corporation, whether you're a nonprofit institution, whether you're a political candidate, you can't hide the ball. there can't be dissonance between who you are and who you say about yourselves because it's going to be exposed by this medium which is fundamentally democratic. small d democratic. and in its ability to include people in the dialog and the

conversation of the time. >> okay. i'm going to introduce mona and ask her to speak but i forgot to mention this before, mona and i apologized to this. mona, i'm glad you're back with us again. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. >> mona, i put you last in the rundown because i have this feeling that when you speak about social networking media in the middle east, you actually will be able to draw together some of the themes that we've heard from our previous three speakers so take it away. >> thank you. good evening, everyone. and i'm delighted to be back because as ralph said and i won't speak for an hour like i did letter. i will speak for 10 minutes. this is the birthday of the president of my country. not that i'm a huge fan of president mubarak but president mubarak has been in power for 29 years. that is longer than the life

span of most egyptians because the majority of people in the middle east are younger than 30 years old. so where are those young people going? in the face of a dictatorship essentially that's been in power for 29 years. and the other number that i'll throw in is that egypt ranks number one in terms of users of facebook in the arab world and 23 worldwide. but there's something quite bizarre happened regarding facebook and egypt. in kuwait of all places -- we know kuwait and the country that we liberated from saddam hussein, of course, kuwait deported 47 egyptians in april. because these egyptians had joined a facebook group for a group, which is the former head of the u.n. nuclear watchdog, the iaea. i always get those letters wrong. and he is back in egypt at the

behest of thousands of young people. went on facebook and published a letter and said please come back to egypt and run for president because we're sick and tired of the president we've had for our entire lifetime. and so when he resigned and went back to egypt and he said i want reform, i want democracy. i can't run for president because the egyptian constitution essentially bars independent candidates from running for president. so i will campaign for reform and to change that constitution and also to end the state of emergency under which egypt has been living for those 29 years that mubarak has been in power. now, the state of media -- we've heard about the media and who controls the media and what jacqueline said about malaysia. it was even more controlled than the maylasian media.

but because the state of media tried to discredit by saying he's this upper class aristocrat and out of touch and he just appeals to the internet kids. we had this bizarre situation where elbaradei was campaigning for president. not for president because he can't run for president. and little collecting petitions. he's collected 30,000 petitions from egyptians of all walks of life and political backgrounds for that reform and changing the constitution. so he was on the campaign in outside of cairo in a town -- he actually said we're only popular online but we show we are popular in the real world as well. he was actually -- >> sorry. [laughter] >> i thought that was an earthquake.

[laughter] >> its the epicenter -- >> i got stranded in london because of that bloody volunteer so sounds scare me. one of the things that were being held against him is that he only existed on the internet. but he was saying here i am. i exist in the real world as well. that speaks to this wonderful interaction that young people in the arab world generally but especially in egypt because as i said egypt is the country that ranked number one in terms of facebook users in the arab world. so what else is happening on facebook? so if you think of mohamad elbaradei as basically a candidate who was created by young people who are fed up of the political system in egypt, there's also something called the political party that was created on facebook. and this was by a group of young people on april 6th, 2008. what happened on april 6th, 2008, in egypt was there was a

huge strike by textile workers in a town. egypt has seen at least 2,000 strikes in the past two years. this is unprecedented labor unrest in egypt. it's part of a kind of general overhaul political and social upheaval in egypt. and so these young people went on facebook and said let's report this strike by going on strike and not going out to our university on april sixth. and within two days they had 70,000 members of their facebook group. in two days, 70,000. today they organize strikes, they organize political protests. and in my new york apartment i can follow what's happening on their protests through twitter because they organized at least two protests in april both of which were broken up quite violently by egyptian security forces. and i was sitting in my apartment in new york reading tweets about the news of people who were detained, the names of people who were arrested. i was watching youtube footage

of students and young people being beatened by the egyptian police, some of them unconscious. so this is all part of this kind of -- again, the cross-pollination that steve was talking about but here between facebook, youtube and twitter. and this applies across social levels, religious levels everything. and even crosses over into opposition politics. because elbaradei is the largest political party. they hold the largest number of opposition seats in the egyptian parliament. now, i know several young members of the muslim brotherhood -- their politics are completely opposite to mine. but the reason we've become friends is that i follow them online and i follow their blogs and their tweets. and they again of proof of how potent they are online they were giving either stop blogging or leave the muslim brotherhood because they were criticizing the leaders of the muslim

brotherhood on facebook and twitter. and they suspended their membership to the muslim brotherhood. and this new element in the egyptian politics i met one of those bloggers who left the muslim brotherhood because he does not want to stop blogging. and he told me -- excuse me, he was one of the people who went to the airport to meet him from switzerland after he retired. now, this young man i'm talking about is 29, 30, again that generation that has grown up under mubarak's rule. and he was really impressed by mohamad elbaradei and he was seriously considering following him because he's created this coalition now called the national coalition for change and his facebook group has 200,000 people in ejust a minute. -- egypt. i'm really worried that he's surrounding himself by all these old faces from political parties that don't deserve any attention right now. so when he comes back to egypt because elbaradei, i'm going to

tell him this. and if he doesn't get rid of these old faces, i'm just not going to support him anymore. stop here for a minute. this is a 29-year-old egyptian who is saying, you know, this nobel peace prize laureate who we hope is, you know, our new hope in egypt, he's doing politics as usual. and this is what facebook and twitter are doing for young people in egypt. malaysia and other countries where we don't have the kind of arguments you would have on tv. in this country people from the mainstream media -- and i consider myself one of them, you know, always think back, you know, the good old days when we were in control. when told everybody how to think. there were no good old days when it came to the media in the arab world. because the golden age is now. it's being created. because the more we think in the past the more we remember how it was the government not the mainstream media that controlled everything. and so facebook, twitter and

youtube are basically making those changes and allowing those people to have a direct conversation amongst themselves but also to challenge directly nobel peace prize laureates and the egyptian president himself. for a while one of the popular tweets was of a song that was made by a musician poet few years ago called mubarak is debt. and mubarak is not dead. the song was so popular that they thought mubarak was debt. this happened three or four weeks ago. and there were urgent tweets saying is this true? is mubarak dead? it was the song that was making the rounds on twitter. to end, to show you kind of where the future, you know, is continuing, i was in egypt last month to train citizen journalists. it was a program by the international center for journalists that is funded by the state department. so the u.s. administration recognizes the power and the necessity of social networking in countries like egypt and others where the government has

controlled the message. and i would have these classrooms full of mainstream journalists and citizen journalists engaged in the most amazing discussions over who is controlling the message. where the bloggers were saying to the mainstream media you guys don't count anymore. i went on my blog because i'm sick and tired of you thinking you run the show. and the mainstream media saying to the bloggers, yeah but who trusts you anyway? and the analogy many of them use came from these citizen journalists. one of them a 20-year-old has been expelled from two universities because he has gone to places and taken pictures of things that the state-owned media denies happens. he takes these pictures with his mobile phone and sells them to cnn and reuters. and so the administration at his university tell him, we have instructions from the state security that you can't study at this university anymore. he's 20 years old. mubarak is 81. whose side would you take? [laughter] [applause]

>> mona, just a follow-up question there. is the mubarak administration engaging in this facebook technology -- >> they're intimidating, torturing and bloggers and citizen journalists. this 20-year-old is an example. for a while president mubarak's son known affectionately as jimmy tried to have news conferences and create facebook groups but people just laughed him out. it's this cat and mouse games that the young people are always winning. they haven't figured out yesterday. you see people like the queen of jordan and she won an award for youtube journal and she's beautiful and sexy and the other guys aren't. they are definitely losing that one.

>> jacqueline, i saw you laughing at that question of the government using the technology. is the government in malaysia attempting to use the technology to fight fire with fire in effect? >> absolutely. they're -- they're trying to employ the same social networking technologies to fight fire with fire to court you. but i think this is something that steve had mentioned earlier as well. you know, you need to be true and you need to be authentic in your mentaling just because the technology is there. and it doesn't mean people will immediately buy into your message. and so after we saw what happened in the general election in malaysia was the ruling position suddenly employing a lot of these social technology media. they set up their own blogs. they started going on facebook. and twitter. except that there was such a lack of authenticity in their messaging that people just make

fun of them and so there's a huge gap between really knowing how to be authentic online and to have the ability to be online. >> okay. we're going to take your questions in a moment. if you have a question, please come up to the front over here. and i'll turn around and grab you in a minute if you'd like to line up. but i'm going to throw another question at the panel in the meantime while you're thinking about your own question. to steve and david, maybe each of you could comment on the question of government use of the technologies. you both talked about it from the point of view of being on the outside, if you will, to try to attain the governmental power. is it as easy or is it more difficult when you're in power and maybe, david, you could comment on that. i know you're not in the government. but is it something easier that's for oppositions to use than institutions to use? >> i think there's a lot of energy when you're the insurgency.

you know, in government, one thing -- in our campaign i think we had 90 or 95 people in our new digital strategy and in the white house they had 10. you know, there's a resource question. but i think, you know, the white house is trying to reach people where they live essentially, which is why you see i think a vastly improved white house website with a lot more tools for people to use. the president has done some online exclusive town halls, still communicating for a lot of these people through video and emails and things of that sort. so i think you have to understand -- and there's a lot of progress in transparency where people -- american taxpayers can now go online and have a lot more information about how their tax dollars are being spent. the recovery act is very transparent about how many jobs have been created and who got the money. and that's what people demand. that's another part of this

revolution is people are expecting transparency in more and more avenues of life. and, you know, it wasn't too long ago in this country, a couple generations ago, that politics was bags of money, okay? so we made a lot of progress since then. but i think we're on a path towards maximum transparency. i think our leaders ought to lead that parade. and so one of the ways you rebuild that trust is to provide more transparency. and i think that -- you know, there's more of that happening and i think that's good. people expect to get -- should i go to this restaurant? let me see what people have said about it. should i go to this movie? and so, you know, should i vote for this candidate? they want information right away. if they go and try to find out information about the recovery act and it's just a series of press releases and it's not the real story and the real data, they're going to be very

disappointed and angry about it. >> steve, any comment on the government versus opposition of the use of the technology? >> i would ask david to correct me if i'm wrong, i think one of the -- there's -- having to worked in the white house there's a lot of rules what the white house can and cannot do at that make it difficult to have 200 people in a social media office and to do all the things and all the clearance through the white house council. the white house is a little bit of a different case. but correct me if i'm wrong, there's been some controversy on the part of the press being angry with the white house press secretary, robert gibbs, because he releases information on twitter. not going through the traditional avenue which is i white house press secretary will make an announcement and will tell one of the three wires who will then announce it. the white house, like any institution, is now its own broadcast platform. because of these technologies.

and have an ability to communicate directly. and that drives a lot of the mainstream news organizations insane. and it's like being the last guy who made buggy whips next to the ford plant, you know, back in the earlier part of the century. i mean, they're just out of luck at the end of the day. [laughter] >> but you'll see government -- you'll see government, you know, i think -- whether it's a white house or whether it's the democrat or republican, you know, majorities or minorities, whatever the case may be in any given year is, you know, being able to be their own broadcast platform. and to communicate directly, you know, not even going around the filter. there is no more filter. and for a long time the politics, it was how do you communicate, over, around, under the media filter and it just doesn't exist anymore. >> okay, but mona, why can't the mubarak regime use -- steve's

formula the buggy whip formula we'll call it and say never mind the traditional media. we'll go direct to the public? why can't the government exercise the power that you ascribe to the opposition? >> 'cause no one will believe them. it's that simple. they already do through their state-owned media and through the tv channels that they own. and really no one will believe them. >> it's not the technology. it's credibility that everybody has mentioned in a vital factor in use of the technology? >> over the past decades you've seen people -- not just slowly but very quickly. this is why al-jazeera kind of was took people away from the media they believed. and out of al-jazeera came twitter and facebook. >> make your way to the microphone, i'm going to ask you to please keep your questions concise. we want to hear mostly from our panelists and leastly from you.

how about that from being blunt? [laughter] >> please identify yourself. >> i will. i'm a proud graduate of the university from 1975. i'm reading on one of the old brochures, world class political communication research by world class faculty. well, before i go out and buy a book these days, i go to the library and read the book to see if i want to buy it. judging where it where it came from i went to the wilmington library if i get get david plouffe's book "the audacity to win," i mean, something basic -- why don't they have your book in their libraries?

is this an environment -- >> well, my sister worked the there -- >> i didn't know if you wanted to reveal that. there's other copies in the library. come up. >> i'm a freshman here at u.d. and i had a question. i worked on a couple municipal and state campaigns. and it's a question about blogging. it's something i think you all touched on a little bit. how do campaigns treat blogging? or how should they treat bloggers? i know on state campaigns it appears a little bit more because the scope is less and bloggers are usually local. but how do you treat bloggers? >> okay. as a campaign operative how do you treat bloggers, i guess, outside of the campaign you're asking about, right? >> first of all, you need to

have your own campaign blogging strategy. so we did a lot of blogging and still do. steve's right. there's a tremendous amount that the white house can and cannot do. we have 13 email addresses and 9 million facebook fans, 4.5 million people following twitter so it's another way to get out messages. and we still blog. so you've got to have that. then obviously there's -- but, you know, there's a degree of propaganda associated -- this is one of the things we saw on the campaign. even our supporters had a great relationship with our campaign but things that really took off and you mentioned obama girl, i didn't. there was a yes we can video that will.i.am put together. sarah silverman did a video down in florida. that was highly effective and part of it it wasn't campaign-produced. even though our supporters -- we had a great relationship. the fact it didn't come from the campaign and it had a level of

authenticity. there's also obviously professional bloggers out there that happened to be treated no differently than most recently journalists at cnn and the "new york times" that you've got to answer questions and do interviews with. but more and more it's just citizens out there. because of the lack of trust out there in government, in academic institutions, faith institutions, business institutions is what people trust is each other, right? this is someone from your town who's blogging even though you may not know that person, they're not an expert on energy policy or health care, you trust what they're saying, that they don't have an agenda. and that is so powerful. whether it's a blog, a human being talking to a human being, a facebook conversation, an email, in this digital world we're living in, but this lack of trust kind of combined with that, the power of an individual's voice is so very, very effective. in our campaign in 2008, lots of african-americans registered to vote for the very first time.

lots of young people got involved. they had to have some interest in barack obama and believed in him. it's almost someone in their circle who said hey i'm going to rental and vote for the first time. why don't you. i'm going to go down to the volunteer and why don't you too. some of that was personally and some is digitally. it's just one part of it. there are still campaigns today who will say, well, that's just an attack on a blog. well, next thing you know, it can consume the campaign. so you better treat that as seriously. even if it's on an established person. in politics today that's why you got to put out all sorts fires. it's not mainstream news media. if something is percolating with misinformation you better deal with it. >> steve, did you want to comment on that? >> i would echo that. >> let me ask jacqueline a question about this. do you consider yourselves what steve -- what david referred to as a professional blogger? and more importantly than whether you consider yourself that way, how does the

government in malaysia refer to you -- are you treated especially because you're a professional blogger or do they respond at all to your commentaries and your output? >> we consider ourselves a news site primarily because i see the difference between blogging and being a journalist as the blogger being able to self-publish without any kind of editorial vetting and at least three sets of eyes which look at copy before it gets published so there is a very stringent check that happens with a high level of verification that happens and we have a very clear, for example, corrections policy as well. and we put out our policies about ethical reporting very clearly for the public. and a lot of bloggers don't necessarily have to do that. there are bloggers out there who do do that. i think that would be how i would differentiate myself from a blogger. just the fact that there are so

many levels of verification within the newsroom. in terms of responding, they have been slow in responding to the online media. what has happened was the online media was seen as being in support of the opposition. so oftentimes online media was seen as being to opposition and for the longest time they refused the power of the internet. until the last general election two years ago when they saw the power of the internet. and so slowly they're being is forced -- they're being compelled to engage with the online media. they're not doing a very good job of it. we'll see individual governments who may be more tech savvy. and who may be more in tune with what young people want, engaging with the online media. but you also have very old established ministers who will refuse to have anything to do with the online media. so i think there's a change happening but i think it's slow in government. primarily because this

government has been in power for 50 years and i think it's hard for them to imagine that they can be easily ousted because of technology. >> mona, real quickly from you, how do you interact with the egyptian government? do they respond to you when you -- when you write something? do you get a back-channel feed of some sort from somebody in the government that tries to argue your way out of it or do they respond to you? in some kind of published form? are you considered a professional at what you do by the government? >> well, i know that if i were to go back to egypt now and try to practice journalism i would not be able to get a press card because i don't work for a recognized news outlet because we have ministry of censorship who controls who gets press cards and who has access to the president as well. and you have to go through very, very rigorous security check obviously to get a presidential press card. but where i get feedback from the egyptian government is, for example, i published an opinion piece in the "washington post" last year against the nomination

of the egyptian culture minister for the head of unesco. and when he lost i was very happy. but one of the independent newspapers actually asked him, did you read mona eltahawy's op-ed and what did you think? and they mentioned it by name and he said and this is to show how they respond to the kind of criticism i give, he said, yes, i read it and where she published it shows you she doesn't have an egyptian bone in her. he was accusing me treason in the "washington post." this is how the government deals with opposition. >> just for the record a white house press corps member that steve and david both know also have to get a press card. >> do you have censorship too. >> i don't know if i characterized it that way. they can simply skip that and just do it on twitter -- >> i wouldn't say skip it necessarily. i still believe that it's important in our democracy and in our government. but also you still have a lot of

people that still consume mainstream news media. i really think it's additive. but in the campaign, you know, we did -- you mentioned vice president biden. we did this from time to time. >> did i? >> no, no. >> the university of delaware is vice president biden. >> we would release news first to our supporters which, you know, was a list of 13 million, which is about 20% of the vote we got. it was a big group of people. and we didn't do that simply, you know, because we wanted to ignore the news media or to get the message out directly. part of it was these people are working their hearts out for the campaign and we wanted them to hear about important things from us first. and that -- you know, it seems like a small thing but it matters. you know what? that strengthens the relationship. no, i think -- you know, i think that it's -- it's not an either/or necessarily. but i do think it is something that as steve pointed out is going to increase the ability to get your message out directly to

a growing number of people without that first media filter is only going to increase. >> okay. let's take another question, please, step forward. >> hi, thank you for taking my question. my name is laurie bic. i'm a marketing and communications professional here in the wilmington area. i was curious about president obama's popularity numbers as they currently stand. it seems that his campaign ran on a certain level of transparency and authenticity. unfortunately, the office itself begs security and prevents a lot of that from actually following through. social media seems to be an obvious tool to help rebuild those numbers. but i can see the problem with clearing every tweet and probably having a huge backlog for pretweets that have to go out on a timed basis and losing some authenticity. so with his popularity rating as

it is, i'm curious as to how you would rebuild that stance in the public eye is in front what strategies you would use? how would you go about doing that? with social media as a tool today. >> would it be perverse for me to direct that question to steve? >> yes. [laughter] >> look, i think that -- i disagree with large parts of the president's agenda, obviously. but what i would say is that one way for sure that you don't, you know, rebuild or grow a president's approval image -- and you know, look, if you look at -- if you look at poll numbers, a great predictor of your chances to be re-elected, if you're an incumbent president of the united states and where you are in your gallup approval

and the president, despite all the narrative, you know, that his numbers have tanked, you know, that he's become deeply unpopular -- i believe the last gallup poll number is at -- >> he's around 50. >> he's around 50. so it is not as if, you know, his numbers have gone into the -- you know, into the 30s, you know, or into the 40s. he's in a, you know, structurally stable position heading into a midterm where i believe the democrats are going to do poorly because of trends and a bad economy and a number of other things. but as you look at his re-election and if you're a president of the united states, the way you impact your poll numbers is by executing your agenda and communicating clearly what your priorities are in a way that can -- that can -- that can garner -- you know, that can garner mass support. now, if you get down into the

30s and you can only do this once, but the secret ingredient for politicians who want to have a comeback, who have fallen into the 30s or into the, you know, low 40s and want to get re-elected, they have to go out and say i'm sorry. they will go out and say, look, i'm sorry. i shouldn't have did that. i overreached. this is one of the fundamental premises i ran arnold schwarzenegger's campaign in 2006. we started out saying governor arnold schwarzenegger had a 34% approval rating and he was very, very sorry and calling this special election. and it cleared it all away. i remember, you know, telling him, it's okay to stop apologizing now. [laughter] >> everybody has heard it. they have forgiven you and your numbers -- and your numbers rise back up. but, you know, but i don't think the president's in that position. >> no, and i would -- and steve and i talked about this earlier.

we got 53% of the vote. his approval rating is of more like 51, 50, think about that. pretty much everybody who voted for him in the worst economy we've had since the great depression and all the narrative coming out of washington, so -- and one of the reasons -- by the way, ronald reagan continue with a tough economy not as bad as this was heading to his way of a approval rating of 34% in 1982. is social networking, people are having discussions. particularly a lot of the people who supported him online and off-line about let's talk about the reality of health care. let's talk about the reality of why we're beginning to see some economic progress and what the president did. so i had argue, in fact, one of the reasons -- i think if you ask a lot of people who are students of politics who said with the economy the way it's been for as long as it's been, they would have predicted that his approval rating would have been in the 30s. and one of the reasons it isn't is a lot of the people who voted for him are communicating with

each other about, you know, the truth is there's a lot of good things that have happened, a lot of good things that he's being true to himself. things he's going to do in the campaign, whether you like them or not, he's doing. the health care plan he signed was what he said he signed. some people in his party don't like he sent more people in afghanistan. that's what we said we were going to do. the troops are coming home from iraq. so the truth is that's one of the reasons i think that despite the terrible economy, he's held up. but there's no doubt -- listening aswe get into 11 and 12, that's where so much of the campaign is focused. and the republican primary. that's going to be fascinating because our primary with hillary clinton, the republican primary social networking was factor it wasn't a dominant factor. and i think they will see in the republican primary a great laboratory about the power of social networking and what it means in a election. >> if i'm hearing you correctly, if i may, i'm hearing you say basically social media is doing what it's supposed to do which is basically having the public

relations aspect of it being taken care of organically at a congratulations level? >> there's just a lot of that happening. there's a lot of that happening. and i think it's been in our case a positive development. >> i would add, too, you know, on the president's approval numbers that the peg was -- when the senator became president-elect and as he transitioned from being president-elect to president, his approval numbers, you know, like they often are for new presidents were in the high 60s. but it's simply not an enduring number if you seek to implement the agenda as david said for better or worse that, you know, he has gone out and, you know, done things that are impactful. to pass things. but it's wrong to judge the number which is now like around 50 as having fallen from 67, the right peg is the actual election number which is 53. >> thank you. >> i'll take another question. please step forward.

>> hi, i'm from jordan and i'm a second-year graduate student here at the university. my question is for you, mona. i attended your talk last year in which you mentioned how bloggers had an impact on sexual harassment laws in egypt. i was wondering have there been any significant impact on government laws or social norms then? >> on the topic of sexual harassment? >> yes. >> yes, the egyptian parliament is expected to discuss a law that will, a, define sexual harassment and, b, criminalize it. and this is the first time we have it. right now egyptian law similar to the laws in many countries that are basically post-colonial countries punishes sexual harassment or sexual assault according to laws that the british put in the egyptian legal system. and so it has to do with honor and all this other stuff that people think are organic to arab

culture but came from british colonial times. we don't have a law that says, you know, if you grope a woman in public, you will go to jail for "x" number of years. and this is what women's rights groups -- because of pressure from bloggers are campaigning for. this is again another direct result of, you know, people asking is there any impact, you know, this is all great in the virtual world. this is proof of how it can impact what's happening in the real world as well. >> and jacqueline, are you seeing that kind of impact as well in malaysia, not so much at the macrogovernment level but at the individual issue level? >> yeah. i think what we saw very specifically with a political case with the tribes in borneo island there were reports of reigns and sexual molestation of girls and women. and the government -- they broke

out on the blog sites from the west. and the government acknowledged that there was a problem and they then set up a task force. what happens subsequently was that the government refused to release the findings of this task force. and for an entire year they went up to the minister in charge. this is the woman and family development minister and consistently badgered. we will stake her office and we would call to her events and we consistently demonstrated that the government was not wanting to release this task force report which was publicly funded. in the meantime, there were reports that the rapes were continuing in the interior. i don't have any quantative data to prove that it was because they were keeping up the pressure that the government of had to release that report. but i remember thinking that when the mainstream media -- the traditional media was not applying the pressure for whatever reasons, where the

rapes was happening so the local media was there probably afraid to push the envelope with the state government there, but because we're online and we're not dependent on any kind of publishing permit, we just went all out to push this particular issue. and for me it was just really gratifying to eventually to see that the task force report being made public. >> thank you. another question. please step forward. >> hi, my name is amanda carlson. i'm a junior communications major here. mr. schmidt, you said with the obama campaign did well was harness the energy, that grassroots people already had using social networking, do you feel republicans have done their best to harness the current energy with people who are part of the tea party and just people who are unhappy with health care? do you think they view social networking to harness that energy that's right now? >> you know, out of the republican national committee, certainly not. you know, on a campaign by

campaign basis, it depends. but about you're in a minority party and your leadership, elected leadership, is the minority congressional leaders, it's very difficult to imprint a personality or a leader, you know, on the psyche of the country. that this is the republican leader. so it's very diffuse right now. until we really have a leader emerge, like we will not be fully, you know, at our potential as an institution, right, in order to do that. now that being said, a lot of this activity that we're talking about here tonight, doesn't need to have a central institution to be taking place or to be organized. it's decentralized. it's democratic. it's going to be impacting as people talk on facebook and social media sites and congressional district level or municipal level.

and it will be -- you know, it's the next iteration forward in the evolution of this. you know, so we're -- you know, we're really in unchartered territory. you saw it being used effectively in a presidential campaign and you're in the first midterm and the party out of power is the party at this point, you know, 170 some-odd days away from the election, i guess, is, you know, the party right now that is up in intensity. and there's a lot -- there's a lot more activity that's -- you know, there's a lot more activity taking place. but it's not out of a central hub. >> okay. is there another question? >> good evening. i'm carolyn, communication faculty here. i have a media filtered disintegration question. and sort of old media pundits

they're less but still influential but i think david they're not getting your idea being in every space. so is that first year criticism of president obama that he was overexposed goes counter to the premise which i assume was your strategy there is no, quote, overexposure if you're in those key spaces because you got to be everywhere and not everyone in all those spaces. i get that. if you're like george will and you're on abc every week and you're pounding that message all the time, does that mean that they're just riding their dinosaur into the future and they're becoming obsolete? or does that mean there's still people that's influencing that are still singing the same song? where does that disconnect actually totally become unfunctional for them? >> well, you know, i think -- i mean, again i think all of this kind of works together. obviously, you know, mainstream news programs like, you know, the morning shows on sundays, you know, the evening msnbc and

fox cable lineup, you know, traditional newspapers which more people are reading them online, they all work together -- i don't think -- you can't really compartmentalize. i do think generally -- you know, this is one of my concerns about washington as i think that, you know, the sunday round tables fox and msnbc -- listen, fox's average prime time number i think is 3 million maybe on a good night. think about that. that's only 3 million people out of 140 million people voted in that election much less 350 million people. so the punditry, whether some of that is online pundit tree, some of it traditional media punditry. as if the rest of the nation is viewing and consuming. the truth is most people who aren't terribly active in politics never watch any of that. and never watch any of that. so i think sometimes -- it's like you're in a fun house. where in washington that's kind of considered -- whatever the

kind of argument on cable is that's reality. that's where we got to respond to but that's not how people are living their everyday life. now i do think -- obviously, ratings for shows have been diminishing. they still sell decent advertising because they are reaching an important opinion market. diversification is the key. that's what sarah palin does. glenn beck does. they've become media conglomerates. they've got their books, they've got their tv interviews. they've got their websites. and i think -- and you see more and more newscasters doing that. where, you know, whether it's david gregory or -- they're on their sunday show but they're tweeting 24/7, okay? and that's what you have to do. >> i'm going to follow up on that just briefly. and i would like to ask -- whoever wants to answer. david, you mentioned in your opening remark that in a future

election, maybe not the 2010 election, maybe 2012 or 2016, there will be a lot of people for whom the exclusive source of information about the campaign will be coming from these kinds of -- what we're calling social networking technologies. that's a little hard for me to swallow. and steve mentioned the information divide. the gap when people don't have access to this. is it possible that we could be making decisions in this country and perhaps in others as well on the basis of only those who have access to the fast-moving portable technologies and that people who are riding the dinosaur as carolyn mentioned are simply going to be left out of the political process? >> well, i'll just briefly end -- no, i think -- no, obviously if you're a political campaign you know that there's some people that you're never going to reach them digitally. you're going to have to go to their doorstep and be on the local radio stations. a good campaign will figure out how to reach the people they

need to reach. and if you go too far -- what is it is balance. you have to have a sense, okay, here's the people we're trying to reach. here's our sense how they are living their lives and getting information and we're going to reach them in that way. ideally we reached them a number of ways we catch them when they happen to watch the 6:30 news on abc. we got someone knocking on their door and talking to them. the divide is a serious one. and it's just not about politics. people are economically less viable if they do not have access to broadband. you are going to see more and more people using devices like ipad and other slate devices and mobile technology as computers exclusively but you're going to still have parts of the country that still don't have broadband for their four-year-old laptops and desktops. it's a huge issue for the country. >> steve, you want to comment on that exclusive source question? >> i think it's individually determinative, right, in the same way you divide, you know -- all of us decide, you know, as individuals what we're going to

eat, you know, for breakfast or lunch or dinner or snack on during the day. it's the same way that you consume news. and at the end of the day, one of the things that nobody knows is who's watching what. and who's getting their information from where. and it's something that people work in our profession or, you know, who advise corporate america, you know, as well are in a race to figure out, you know, how to do it. you know, at a personal level, i now consume my media -- i have apple tv. the only thing i watch on television live is sports. i read the "new york times" in the morning. i will watch, you know, segments off -- [inaudible] >> off the kindle. you know, i don't touch a physical newspaper. i, you know, watch segments on the nightly newscast but i pick and choose, you know, off a menu if you will in a way that works for me. and more and more people -- you

know, i don't think i'm in the vanguard of this. but, you know, i'm certainly an early adopter, you know, about how i consume information and i think within a few years time, everybody will be doing that. so people have criticized, for example, the white house communications strategy is someone -- a question mentioned about the yoefsh exposure. -- overexposure. i felt the criticism was totally based on a total misunderstanding of how people consume news. white house communication strategy has been brilliant. because, you know, whether it's the president on a "sports illustrated" or in a parade magazine or a "people" magazine, there are fewer and fewer areas of common touch points in the country, which means you have to spread out over all of them. and so you'll see more and more of that as it comes up. but the real issue here is

nobody knows, you know, who's reading what and watching what and how to measure it. because those measuring -- you know, those metrics really don't exist. they will eventually -- >> live now to the u.s. senate where members open the day with an hour of general speeches before returning to work on the financial regulations bill. at 11:30 eastern the chamber plans to begin voting on two amendments including one offered by vermont independent bernie sanders that would allow the government accountability office to audit financial records of the federal reserve. after voting senators recess at 12:30 for weekly party lunches. live now to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer.

the chaplain: let us pray. our father in heaven, you have already endowed our senators with abilities they can use in faithful service to you and country. make them faithful stewards of your gifts, as they live to bring glory to your name. lord, undergird them with your enabling might so that their labors will produce a rich harvest of meaningful accomplishments. may they be your candles, illuminating the world around them with the light of your grace and peace.

empower them to persevere and to fight the good fight of faith. help them to be open and honest with each other, to mean what they say and to say what they mean. we pray in your sacred 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., may 11 2010. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jeanne shaheen, a senator from the state of new hampshire, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following the -- not following anything. today the senate will resume consideration of wall street reform legislation. there will be up to 80 minutes for debate with respect to the sanders and vitter amendments. we'll vote on those matters around 11:30 today. the senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 to allow for the weekly caucus luncheons. madam president, this past sunday a young pitcher from the oath land athletics threw a

perfect game. the oath-- the oakland athletics is a baseball game and throwing a perfect game is a big deal. such a big deal this is only the 19th time this happened and baseball starting keeping records in 1880-something. and this is the first time it happened on mother's day. it did, though. that is someone did throw a perfect game on father's day. it was that sunday more than 45 years ago one of our colleagues made history by accomplishing one of the most remarkable, most elusive and most coveted accomplishments in all of the athletics, throwing a perfect game in major league baseball. that pitcher was the junior senator from kentucky, jim bunning. he threw his second no hitter in his hall of fame career. and i repeat, this time a perfect game. to show how stupendous this game bunning pitched, understand that

this young man who pitched the perfect game last sunday did so, i think he threw 108 pitches; something like that. jim bunning threw 90 pitches. this is unbelievable. nine innings someone could throw a whole baseball game and throw only 90 pitches. it's a rare thing in modern-day baseball for someone to complete a game, but to complete a game and a perfect game in 90 pitches is really amazing. madam president, sometimes in this body, the senate, our political passions, our legislative objectives get in the way of our personal relationships and the respect we show for one another. when that happens, we do a disservice to the citizens we serve. the senate was created as a place for leaders to work for the american people. the only way to do that work is to work together, not against each other. we surely have our differences, just as those we represent do not see eye to eye on every issue. that's inherent in a

representative democracy. and none of us is perfect. senator jim bunning once said -- and i quote -- "everybody makes mistakes. the only time i've ever been perfect was for about 2 hours and 10 minutes on june 21, 1964." close quote. we should also be able to appreciate those differences and appreciate the distinguished men and women who make up this body, the united states senate. we have here combat veterans. we have a man that has won the congressional medal of honor for his valor in combat. we have doctors. we have teachers, farmers, entrepreneurs, governors, cabinet secretaries. we have an astronaut, the senator from florida. and we have a hall of fame pitcher that i just talked about. the day before the perfect game on this past sunday, a story appeared on the front page of "the washington post."

the story began this way -- and again i quote -- "something unusual is taking place on the senate floor. republicans and democrats are working together on a major piece of legislation." close quotes. it's a shame that bipartisan cooperation passes for news these days, not to mention that front-page news is one of our nation's largest newspapers. we hope collaboration continues this week as we vote on amendments from both sides as we move closer to a final vote on this very important piece of legislation. reforming the rules of the road on wall street is critical for our nation's future. we need to restore the american people's trust in our financial system. and the american people demand that we act. families demand that we safeguard their savings. seniors demand we protect their pensions. they've seen big bankers gamble away so much of their money. not the bankers' money, but our money. retirements and their home equity has been shaken. the last thing they want is for

their leaders to waste their time also. so i still hope that we can pass wall street accounting reforms this week. i'm going to do everything i can to see that that happens. now, let's talk about the supreme court for just a short time, madam president. we've accomplished much in the first few months of this year. it's been difficult, but we've done a lot. but we have so much more to do. on that list is one of the most important responsibilities as united states senators: giving our advice and consent to the president's nominees for the court. and in this instance, the supreme court. in a day or so, since president obama asked our solicitor general, elena kagan, to serve as the court's 112th justice, she received bipartisan praise for intellect, dedication to public service and her ability to bring people together, especially when they disagree. she's produced impressive work in academics and lifesaving

legislation as a lawyer and been at policy at the highest levels. she's inspired students as the dean of harvard law school and made our country and fellow citizens stronger as solicitor general. so i commend president obama for choosing her to serve on the supreme court. madam president, my number-one goal for this supreme court justice, i've stated publicly before the judiciary committee, i've told the president himself; let's stop having judges on the supreme court. i wanted someone who had not worn the robe, someone that had a little common sense, set apart from the supreme court. i know those judges have common sense, but they've worn those robes a long time and i think it's good to get a fresh insight into what's going on in the world. elena kagan is a lawyer, a scholar so respected because she knows the values of listening to

all sides of an argument before making a judgment. in that sense, she's a good role model for her own confirmation process. let's listen to what she has to say, what those who know her have to say about her and to the american people who demand the supreme court puts rights of people ahead of the wallets of corporate america. now, my republican colleagues, i've heard some in the media say she's not experienced enough. i developed a personal relationship with chief justice rehnquist. i developed that respect for him for a couple reasons. number one, i, when i was chairman of the democrat policy committee, i did something that people said why are you bothering? he will never do that. i called him and said mr. justice, would you come over to the senate and talk to my democratic senators? he said i'd be happy to. over he comes. what a wonderful meeting we had. he had a great sense of humor.

he handled all the questions with ease. and then shortly thereafter, presided -- he was sitting with the presiding officer is now sitting as we did the impeachment trial of president clinton. and again, he had such a good sense of fairness aes worked his way -- as he worked his way through these proceedings. he had a bad back and he had have to get up once in a while and stand where the presiding officer is now sitting. when the breaks would be taken, he would go back in one of the rooms back here. and wield would -- we would all go visit with him. a terrific man. you may not agree with a lot of the direction of his opinions, but they were brilliantly written. he had no judicial experience. zero. madam president, one of my favorite supreme court justices

in recent years has been sandra day o'connor not because she's a republican, but because she was a good judge. i think one raoepblg she was a good -- one reason she was a good judge is she had no judicial experience. she served in the legislature in arizona. that is why she could identify with many of the problems created by legislators. and she could work her way through that. i think elena kagan will bring a lot of those same views of these two republicans to the bench. that is, she has fresh ideas. she's been out in the real world recently. i think she's going to be just a terrific addition to the supreme court. would the chair now announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 3217, which the clerk will report.

the clerk: calendar number 349, s. 3217, a bill to promote the financial stability of the united states by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, and so forth and for other purposes.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. vitter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana mr. vitter: madam president, if there is an ongoing quorum call,

i ask consent that it be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. i now ask that the vitter amendment at the desk be called up. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, mr. vitter, proposes amendment number 3760 to amendment number 3739. mr. vitter: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to waive reading of the whole. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator controls 20 minutes. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. i'd ask the president's notification after 15 minutes have been used. the presiding officer: the senator will be notified. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. madam president, i call up vitter amendment number 3760, which is verbatim, word for word, the ron paul language that was added to the house bill in committee by a strong bipartisan vote. and in doing so, madam president, i also ask unanimous consent to add the

following senators as coauthors: senator demint, grassley, hatch, mccain, bunning, crapo, and risch. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: madam president, here on the senate side, i have been a strong cosponsor and supporter of s. 604 and senator sanders' amendment on this bill. i present this different amendment because senator sanders decided to modify his amendment late last week, and i thought there was a continuing need to have this language exactly as it now appears in the house bill as it was included in the house bill by a strong bipartisan vote in house committee. first of all, madam president, let me say that i support the sanders amendment. i will volt for it. it is a very -- i will vote for it. it is a very important and useful look in the rear-view

mirror, if you will. a onetime audit of significant federal reserve activity, particularly in 2008 and 2009. and i welcome that. madam president, that should not be the end of the matter and it should not be recognized as all we need because it clearly isn't. we need to look back in the rear-view mirror as those important events. that was a very significant period. but we also need to look forward, because these events and these debates and these opportunities for bailouts and other action absolutely continue. and so the vitter amendment addresses that, a look forward as well as that important onetime look back. madam president, if we needed any reason to think we need this ability to continue to look forward and look at the detailed provisions of fed activity, it's

in the news right now. absolutely right now in terms of the greek and european economic crisis. although chairman bernanke assured congress in recent testimony that -- quote -- "we have no plans to be involved in any foreign bailouts or anything of that sort," very recently, in the last few days, the fed has announced the opening of significant facilities to central banks in europe that certainly involve it, at least at the margin, in that activity. madam president, i don't know enough about those recent deals and currency exchange swaps to comment on whether they are a good idea or a bad idea or to comment a clear conclusion about the extent to which they put u.s. taxpayers at risk. but clearly, madam president, they're a significant event.

clearly there is significant action of the fed. and clearly they are a perfect and very, very recent example of why we need to look at what the fed is doing on an ongoing basis in detail. with greece and portugal and spain all possibly on the cusp of the financial crisis with this significant decision of the fed, we must go beyond the sanders amendment. we must look forward and not just one time back to ensure the american people that we all know what our federal reserve is doing and exactly why it's doing it. so this amendment, this vitter amendment, madam president, does that. it brings real reform and accountability to the federal reserve. and that's essential, given the historic, major actions the fed has undertaken in the last few

years and continues to announce even as we speak activities that were not, would not be covered by the sanders amendment. madam president, there's been a lot of rhetoric about all of the evil and dangerous things my amendment would do at the fed. and let me directly address and dispel these notions. first of all, madam president, there's been a lot of suggestion that this will politicize individual monetary policy decisions, that this will have individual members of congress bringing undue influence on those decisions. madam president, i truly think there are enormous protections in this amendment that will clearly avoid that. let's start, madam president, with the clear language of the amendment. quote -- "nothing in this subsection shall be construed as

interference in or dictation of monetary policy to the federal reserve system by congress or the government accountability office." close quote. a very khraoerbgs very broad -- a very clear, very broad, very strong statement. madam president, the amendment clearly goes even further. the other specific language of the amendment is very careful to ensure that the audits that the amendment will require will not include unreleased transcripts or minutes of meetings of the federal reserve board of governors or of the federal open markets committee. and in addition to the extent that any audit deals with an individual market action like a change in interest rates, the audit will only be released 180 days after the action occurs. so, madam president, if this is an attempt for any members of congress, any individuals to

control individual decisions to have a direct impact on an individual decision like an interest rate decision, it's a pretty dumb, ineffective way to do it because the audit won't be out for half a year. clearly it will have no impact on that decision. clearly, under these protections, the federal reserve will still operate monetary policy independently, but it's reasonable that those actions, after an appropriate lag of time in some cases will be transparent, will be fully understandable and fully open to the american people and to congress. again, madam president, i think it's very important to dispel these notions that are flying about that are just untrue. i've talked to chairman bernanke several times about these proposals. always invariably his stated

concern is the opportunity for an audit to try to impact an individual decision like an interest rate decision. we've addressed that very directly in the way of explain. in addition, the g.a.o. cannot review many actions like discount window lending, direct loans to financial institutions, open market operations, any other transactions made under the direction of the federal open market committee. g.a.o. also, under the clear terms of this amendment, cannot look into the fed's transactions with foreign governments. this, again, is plenty of protection against the concerns enunciated prior to this debate and vote. madam president, what this really comes down to is do the american people deserve full information about federal

reserve decisions, or is somehow this beyond the capability of congress and the american people to digest? you know, in federal reserve board minutes that were only recently released -- these minutes go back to 2004 -- alan greenspan said this -- quote -- "we run the risk by laying out the pros and cons of a particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the debate. and in this regard, it is possible to lose control of a process that only we fully understand." close quote. madam president, somewhat amazing to me, but that is a verbatim direct quote. and more than any statistic, more than any other quote, more than any fact, that direct quote is about what this debate and what this amendment is about.

is this an area of governance that affects all of our daily lives that we should leave purely up to the elites without ever having full transparency and a full opportunity for debate? or alternatively, is this still america, and is congress and the american people deserving full openness? let me read this quote again, madam president, because, again, it goes to the heart of the issue. quote -- "we run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the debate. and in this regard, it is possible to lose control of a process that only we fully understand." close quote. if you adopt that offensive, in my opinion, elitist attitude, vote against the vitter

amendment. if you think we should have much greater openness and transparency and the opportunity for a full debate, with all of the protections to protect individual interest rate, other decisions that i have laid out, please vote for the vitter amendment. again, madam president, i will support the sanders amendment. it's an important and appropriate onetime look back, onetime look in the rear-view mirror about a very important period of time, particularly 2008-2009, when the fed was busier and more active with more aggressive policy than ever before. but the opportunity for that aggressive policy is not over. we see that this week with the fed participating with european national banks in the crisis in europe. we need this opportunity on an ongoing basis.

we need the vitter amendment. in addition, we need a full audit. and with all of the protections included we need that opportunity for full openness and transparency. thank you, madam president. with that, i yield the floor. mr. sanders: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. the senator controls 20 minutes. mr. sanders: thank you. madam president, let me begin by thanking my colleague from louisiana, senator vitter, not only for his remarks today, but for his excellent work throughout this process. and i've enjoyed working with him. and one of the things that we have tried to do in this whole process is to bring together people who come from very different ideologies to basically make the point that the time is now that we have got to end secrecy at the fed.

madam president, i should also -- i should also say, madam president, i would like to yield myself 15 minutes. if you can let me know when 15 minutes has expired. the presiding officer: the senator will be notified. mr. sanders: madam president, at a time when the federal reserve has provided the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world, the largest financial institutions in this country, trillion dollar institutions, without the approval of congress, without the real knowledge of the american people, this amendment makes it clear -- the sanders amendment makes it clear that the fed can no longer operate in the kind of secrecy that it has operated in forever. under the sanders amendment, for the first time the american people will know exactly who received over $2 trillion in zero or virtually zero interest loans from the fed and they will

know the exact terms of those financial arrangements. under this amendment -- under the sanders amendment, for the first time, the g.a.o. will be required to conduct a top-to top-to-bottom comprehensive audit of every single emergency action that the fed has undertaken since the financial crisis began. under the sanders amendment, for the first time, the g.a.o. will investigate whether there were conflicts of interest surrounding the emergency actions of the fed. madam president, the fed has been fighting all the way to the united states supreme court to keep this information secret. well, madam president, this amendment says in no uncertain terms that this money does not

belong to the fed. it belongs to the american people. and the american people have a right to know where their taxpayer dollars are going. that is not a difficult concept to get one's hands around. the american people have a right to know. specifically the sanders amendment does two things. first, it requires the fed to put on its website by december 1, 2010, the names of all of the financial institutions, corporations, and foreign central banks -- let me repeat -- foreign central banks that receive trillions of dollars in taxpayer assistance from the fed since the beginning of the financial bailout period. second, the sanders amendment requires the g.a.o., the government accountability office, to conduct a

top-to-bottom comprehensive audit of all of the emergency actions the fed has taken since the beginning of the financial crisis with a particular focus on all of the potential conflicts of interest within these secret deals. and that, madam president, is an extremely important point, which, by the way, was not in my original amendment. madam president, the fight for a g.a.o. audit of the fed and to require more transparency has been a long and arduous struggle. there are many people to thank for being at the point where we are today. partisan politics aside, this has been a joint effort on the part of some of the most progressive members of congress and some of the most conservative, some of the most progressive grassroots organizations in this country,

and some of the most conservative. i specifically want to thank here in the senate, majority leader reid, majority whip dorgan, senators feingold, boxer, leahy, and many others on my side of the aisle and vitter, demint, brownback, mccain, and others on the other side of the aisle. now, last week, madam president, a number of senators, democrats and republicans, indicated to me that they were uncomfortable with my original amendment which they believe would have allowed congress to be involved in the day-to-day monetary operations of the fed. that has never been my intention and i still do not believe that original amendment would have done that. but, nonetheless, that is what a number of senators believed and were concerned about and came to me about.

chairman of the banking committee, senator dodd, indicated to me that if we could clarify this issue, he would not only be supportive of this amendment, but he would cosponsor, and that's exactly what he did. and i very much appreciate his support. let me just, very briefly, speak to what the principles of this amendment are. number one, the sanders amendment in terms of transparency, it is clear that we need to make sure that the federal reserve releases the names of every single financial institution, corporation, and foreign central bank that the fed provided over $2 trillion in taxpayer assistance to since the financial crisis started. and what the exact details of those arrangements were. this information, as a result of this amendment, will be on the

fed on december 1, 2010, and every single american who has a computer will be able to access that information. that is a major, major step forward. secondly, in terms of the audit, i have always believed that the main purpose of this audit was for the g.a.o. to conduct a top-to-bottom comprehensive review of every single emergency action the fed has undertaken since the start of the financial crisis. and that is exactly what this amendment does. in addition, madam president, let me be clear the modified amendment -- the amendment that i am offering today -- is stronger than my original amendment in one very important point, a point that i think millions of americans are concerned about, and that is the sanders amendment of today requires the g.a.o. to

investigate whether there were conflicts of interest in the establishment of the emergency lending programs at the fed. my original amendment would have allowed the g.a.o. to look into conflicts of interest at the fed, but did not require it. this amendment requires it. we're very specific about that. for example, madam president, i want to know, and i think the american people want to know why lloyd blankfein, the c.e.o. of goldman sachs, attended a meeting at the new york fed when the federal government decided to bailout a.i.g. to the eventual tune of $82 billion, allowing goldman sachs to pocket $13 billion of that money. my original amendment would have allowed the g.a.o. to look at this -- this new amendment makes it clear that this kind of conflict of interest must be looked into by the g.a.o. further, i want to know, and i think the american people want

to know, why the head of the new york fed, stephen friedman, was allowed to serve on the board of directors at goldman sachs and allowed to purchase over 37,000 shares of goldman stock at the same time that the new york fed was approving goldman's application to become a bank holding company. my original amendment would have allowed the g.a.o. to look into this. the new sanders amendment requires the fed to investigate whether conflicts of interest existed in these types of financial deals. madam president, some 35 members of the fed's board of directors are executives at banks which received over $120 billion in tarp money. i want to know, and i think the american people want to know, how much these financial institutions received from the fed and if this represents a conflict of interest. my original amendment would have allowed the g.a.o. to look at

this. the new sanders amendment requires the g.a.o. to take a look at those potential conflicts of interest. madam president, what is important to point out is that in terms of transparency, i am not the only person of the members of the senate -- the members of the senate are not the only people who are demanding that the fed tell us whom they lent money to. i would point out that bloomberg news has gone to court and it's, in fact, won two federal court decisions against the fed in which courts have said that the fed has got to release that information, but the fed persists in saying, no, they want to keep that information secret. so that is where we are today, madam president. we are on the verge of lifting

the veil of secrecy, and perhaps the most important government agency in the united states of america, an agency which has control and expends trillions of dollars. they do it behind closed doors. they do it in ways that the american people know very little about. so i would ask for strong support for the sanders amendment so that we can go forward and break this veil of secrecy. and, with that, madam president, i would reserve the balance of my time. mr. dodd: how much time remains? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut controls 20 minutes. the senator from alabama, 20 minutes. the senator from vermont, 8 1/2

minutes. and the senator from louisiana, nine minutes. a senator: madam president? mr. dodd: how much time does my friend need? mr. gregg: i'd ask for five minutes. mr. dodd: five minutes, and if he needs more, the senator from new hampshire. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mr. gregg: madam president, i want to congratulate the senator from vermont. his original amendment, i had very severe preservations about. he sat down and worked with members on this side of the aisle, with the chairman of the committee and members of the administration and the fed, andh gets to the issue transparency and to make sure that the fullest extent possible the american people know what's happening with this significant agency which impacts our lives, but we really don't know that much about it, a lot of americans don't, but it impacts our lives pretty directly, and that's the federal reserve. and, chairman bernanke, i also wish to congratulate he and his

staff for stepping forward an progressively -- aggressively pursuing this which will be positive for both sides. so i intend to support the senator from vermont's amendment as amended and appreciate his offering it and appreciate his responsible effort here. i have, however, deep and severe reservations and strongly oppose the senator from louisiana's eavmentd the issue here isn't -- amendment. the issue here isn't transparency with the senator from louisiana's amendment. the issue is whether or not we have a federal reserve that can function an pursue its primary purpose which is maintaining the integrity of the currency of the united states. when the federal reserve was created back in 1917, there was a huge debate -- huge debate -- excuse my voice, i'm getting over a little cold here. there was a huge debate in this country since the great depression of 1897 and 1907

about how you managed the currency of this country. and the central figure in that debate was william jennings bryant, a man of immense proportions in our history. he was a populous in the extreme. and he believed genuinely that there should be a monetary policy in this country that allowed for free money to be produced essentially. his speech was historic. his view was that basically those who were control of the -- of the government, public elected officials should have control of the currency. but what had been learned over time is that if you turn control of the currency to elected officials, the currency becomes at risk because there is a natural tendency by elected bodies to want to produce money arbitrarily to take care of spending which they deem to be

in the public interest. and thanks to the leadership at that time of a number of thoughtful people, including people like woodrow wilson, the decision was made to create a separate entity called the federal reserve which would manage the currency of the united states and decide how much money was printed. and the printing presses would be taken away from elected officials. this decision has probably been one of the best decisions we ever made as a nation in order to determine a strong fiscal future and a strong economy, because it has allowed us to have a currency which has basically been protected from the winds of the politics of the day. and that is absolutely critical. it's even more -- it's as important today as it was when the federal reserve was created, if not more important today. we are seeing a world where there is a tremendous amount of pressure on the currencies of

almost every nation, certainly every developed nation with the exception of a few. and that pressure inevitably leads to popular outrage on occasion or popular decisions which request that the currency be devalued in order to produce what some people see as a better lifestyle or address some concerns that a nation may have. but you can't do that at the whim of elected officials. it is absolutely critical that a currency of a nation be protected from the day-to-day activities of politics. and so we have created this federal reserve system which accomplishes that. at the essence of that system is the open market committee which decides essentially how much money is going to be in circulation in this country. and we have always felt that that system should have

integrity, be kept separate from the political process, that members of congress shouldn't have the ability either directly or indirectly to influence the decision of the printing of dollars in this nation. it's a good decision, and we should not abandon that course of action. and yet, the vitter amendment couched in all sorts of -- the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire has used the five minutes he was yielded. mr. dodd: senator shelby has time too. mr. gregg: i would ask for four minutes off of senator shelby's time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gregg: senator vitter's amendment, unfortunately, has as its basic purposes the disas sepl pwhrelg of -- disassembling of independent. it would have the congress the authority through the g.a.o. to go in and investigate what happens with the open market

community. that is clearly going to create consequences which would be inappropriate in the decision-making process of the federal reserve. it would influence their ability to make decisions in the sense that they would be concerned about congress coming in and investigating. it would open up activities which, if they are not done in some level of confidence, inevitably end upl disrupting the markets -- up disrupting the markets. so it is critical market not be allowed to go into the market committee and audit that part of the federal reserve committee. absolutely critical if we are going to maintain the integrity of the dollar. remember, this is about main street. whether that dollar you take on main street to buy clothing or food or a car, whether that dollar has the value, has the value that you think it has depends entirely on whether or not there's confidence that it's not going to be inflated arbitrarily. and if the political process starts to influence the decision

as to how much money is printed in this country and, therefore, affect the inflationary value of the dollar, you will see your dollars as you try to buy things on main street devalued, and the effect of that will be devastating on your ability as an american citizen to have confidence in the dollars which you earn and what they're going to buy and what they're going to mean when you save them which is even more important. so we cannot have a system which allows congress to influence the decisions in this critical area. all the rest of the activity in the federal reserve, that the federal reserve undertakes should be open, should be audited by the congress and should be available for public inspection on a regular basis. essentially what senator sanders' amendment does, there's already a lot of activity opbd fed but what it does is expand that and make it more available to the american people.

this one area which congress has exempted for review with a logical and appropriate reason that we do not want the politics of the day to enter into the decision as to the value of our currency, in this one area we need to keep the exception and give the fed that type of protection. so i strongly oppose the vitter amendment, and i hope that those who are concerned about having maintained integrity of our currency will also oppose this amendment. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. dodd: mr. president, i yield myself ten minutes of my time, if i may, and reserve five. if the chair would kindly let me know when that time has expired. the presiding officer: the chair will do so. mr. dodd: first of all, let me thank my friend and colleague from new hampshire. i appreciate the history lesson as well. it's always important that members understand the genesis and history of those decisions. it is important to the contribution this morning of what we're trying to achieve. let me say quickly as well how much i appreciate the efforts of the senator from vermont.

occasionally around here you get to make an historic contribution. and i don't want to engage in hyperbole here, but this is an historic moment that the senator from vermont is providing, to be able we've to* do something we've talked about. i want to tell my colleague from vermont, not only are we going to achieve what he wants here with this amendment, but we had a meeting with the chairman of the federal reserve to brief us on the events in europe over the weekend and the chairman of the federal reserve is going to put up on its web site as soon as possible the contracts between the fed and any other central banks that occurred over the past weekend. he's also committed that the fed would report weekly on the activity on each of the swap accounts by the federal bank, not simply the aggregate. the legislation is going to do a lot, but you already have an influence on the conduct of the fed in terms of the transparency issues. so i appreciate very much the efforts of senator sanders.

he's not new to the issue. he's raised this repeatedly since he's been a member of the body. i also want to associate myself with the remarks of the senator from new hampshire regarding the vitter amendment. again, this is the central question in many ways is exactly as he described it. that is the independence of the central bank, the most important central bank in the world to be be able to operate devoid of the kind of political influences that can ultimately change that federal reserve board from the, making the kind of decisions that are going to protect the integrity of our currency. and the open market committee's functioning absolutely is critical. this is a well-crafted proposal, in my view, because it goes to the heart of the issue of transparency, including the expand, including the requirements now mandated by the sanders amendment, the previous incarnation of this amendment was a request which as all of us know where requests can end up

if there's no will on the other side to engage them. but now mandates in fact we can have potential conflict of interest examined as to when these decisions were made. i might point out, mr. president, that our bill today includes language, if adopted, that will change how the new york fed president is chosen; presently is chosen by the very institutions that that office is designed to regulate. in a sense we change all of that because that on its face seems to be an inherent conflict. you get to choose your regulator. one of the complaints we've had legitimately about regulatory arbitrage is that institutions were going around and sort of picking their regulator of least resistance and that contributed to some of the problems we've been through. under the present construct, without the changes included in our bill, of course that goes on. imagine that you could sit around and choose your own regulator if your lending

institutions, financial institutions, and that presently is what happens with regional banks. so the very banks that are the subject of the federal regulation decides who the regulator would be. our bill changes that, and that's a major step in the right direction which goes to the heart of exactly what the senator from vermont is talking about. so, mr. president, i hope my colleagues, i urge my colleagues to give strong support to the sanders amendment. i'm a cosponsor. i don't cosponsor many amendments, for the obvious reason. we've got a lot of them. some i'm supportive of, maybe not as strong as others. i'm a strong supporter of this amendment and i appreciate my colleagues' efforts in putting this forward. i'm strongly in opposition to the vitter amendment because it undermines what the sanders amendment accomplishes. that would be a tragedy, in my view. the fact that we're going to do something that has needed to be done for years, and that is to get the transparency of what occurs at the federal reserve

but not engaging in the kind of damage that could occur, particularly at this moment. we all understand, i think we made the case over and over again over many, many days, we're no longer talking about a financial system that is in jeopardy because of what happens in terms of mismanagement of major financial institutions here. we now know that events thousands of miles away from our shore in nation-states that have no direct bearing necessarily on, or directly affected by decisions we make here can cause the kind of disruptions economically around the world. it's that kind of a world we live n. i remember a few years ago, a very small exchange, relatively small exchange in shanghai, china, had a decline of about 12% one more than. that exchange represented about 5% of the volume of the new york stock exchange in shanghai.

and yet that action in that relatively small exchange caused within a matter of hours all over the globe exchanges in reaction. my point simply being, without going into the details of what occurred there, events that occur in one part of the world can have a huge implication here as well. at this very important moment to be able to undermine the kwr-pdz of the federal reserve -- the independence of the federal reserve could do great damage to our country. i urge my colleagues to be supportive of the sanders amendment and join with senator gregg and i and others in opposition to the vitter amendment because it undercuts exactly what in a sense we're trying to achieve here with this legislation. with that, mr. president, i reserve the balance of my time. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mint -- mr. demint: mr. president, i ask to yield under senator vitter's time.

without objection. mr. demint: thank you, mr. president. there are few things more important to this country. it represents our life's work, savings, investments. when the founders of our country put the constitution together, they gave the congress the responsibility to protect our currency and the value of our money. this is a responsibility that decades ago the congress delegated to the federal reserve to operate as an independent institution responsible for protecting our monetary system as well as overseeing employment in our country. congress has not paid much attention to what the federal reserve has done. in fact, we have little idea now what they're doing. we do know that they're doing many things now that they didn't do even a few years before. trillions of dollars buying toxic assets from various financial institutions.

we know that they're doing business all over the world, lending money with international banks, but we don't know exactly what they're doing, why they're doing it or how they're doing it. we don't know if a lot of these activities could eventually bring down our financial system. we need to be concerned because it is our responsibility as a congress. and if we allow our currency to be undermined anywhere in the world, it's detrimental to every american family, everything we have worked for, everything we've saved. we can't pass this off. this congress has established other financial institutions such as fannie mae and freddie mac to supposedly facilitate the mortgage industry and make it easier for people to buy homes. we were told there was no problem with subprime lending and all the things fannie mae and freddie mac were involved

with. but as a congress, we didn't do our job overseeing, asking enough questions. and then when fannie mae and freddie mac created this huge housing bubble and brought our economy to its knees, millions of americans lost much of what they worked for and saved. but what happened with fannie mae and freddie mac is small compared to what could happen if the federal reserve did something to undermine the confidence in the dollar worldwide. congress should not be managing our monetary system. i don't think we could do it in the current political structure, but is it our job to provide accountability and transparency to what's going on at the federal reserve. last week i spoke in support of the sanders amendment. and i still plan to support it today. but that amendment has been changed and it air inos the scope of -- narrows the scope of a complete audit.

it really can't be called a complete audit anymore. it's really more disclosure in various aspects of what the federal reserve does. it doesn't include now what they would refer to as monetary policy. my understanding was that's pretty much what they cat the federal reserve. -- did they cat the federal reserve. cutting that out cuts out a big part of what we need to know what they're doing. it blocks us from finding out what the federal reserve is doing with banks all around the world. it would block us from finding out a lot of things that could give us indication whether or not the federal reserve is putting our monetary and financial systems at risk. i think it is important, at least at one point in time, for us to find out what the federal reserve is doing. disclose it in a way to the american people that they will have confidence that's what's happening with the federal reserve and with our currency is going to create a stable

currency out into the future. senator vitter has offered the original amendment before it was changed, the same amendment that was passed in the house by an overwhelming majority, which will include all aspects of the federal reserve. not in real time, but there will be a delay so we can't meddle in what they're doing. but it opens up a full audit of the federal reserve so that this congress can make good decisions about any needed reforms and certainly keeping some accountability over the federal reserve. it makes absolutely no sense to create, really, the most powerful agency in the world over the reserve currency for the world and for there to be no accountability over what they're doing. we know they think we're not smart enough to understand what they're doing. and we may not be. but based on things they've told us in the past, they're not

necessarily as smart as they think they are either. because only a few months before fannie mae collapsed, the federal reserve told us there was no problem. now they're telling us there's no problem now and we don't need to look at what they're doing. i think it's important that we have full disclosure and accountability and transparency at the federal reserve. it's important that the american people trust the people that are managing their currency, and right now they don't. a full audit would help restore that trust and help congress do its job to oversee the federal reserve. the federal reserve can maintain its independence, but it doesn't have to be independent in secret. because if they're operating secretly, congress is not doing its job. i encourage my colleagues to support the sanders amendment, but also the vitter amendment so that we will have a full audit and that -- and know for the

first time what our federal reserve is doing with our money. thank you, mr. president. i reserve the balance of senator vitter's time. the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. shelby: mr. president, i yield myself five minutes. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. shelby: mr. president, i rise today to support the sanders amendment to bring transparency to the federal reserve. this amendment, i believe, is need because the federal reserve has abused its independence. the federal reserve has repeatedly assumed and exercised vast fiscal powers under the guise, mr. president, of monetary policy. it has sought to escape accountability for these actions by claiming that its independence places it beyond the scope of congressional oversight. to allow any agency, including the federal reserve, to exercise the immense powers now we woulded by the -- wielded by the fed with so little

accountability is to incompatible, mr. president, with our constitutional system of government. mr. president, congress granted the federal reserve independence with respect to monetary policy on grounds that monetary policy was a technical, nonpolitical task that did not put taxpayers at risk. unfortunately, mr. president, the fed has failed to stay within the limits envisioned by congress. over the past three years the federal reserve's balance sheet has explodedded to more tha than $2.3 trillion with much of the increases related to actions that had little no do with monetary policy and more to do with bailouts, fiscal policy, and plain politics. although the fed likes to pretend that it's independent and removed from politics, the reality here is that the board of governors of the federal reserve -- reserve is one of the biggest political players in

town. ironically, while the fed is fighting this amendment, the fed remains silent about other measures that would compromise its independence. why? the answer is politics. when it serves its politics, the fed's happy to selectively sacrifice its independence. for example, the dodd bill xre compromises the fed's independent by having the fed directly fund the democrats' new consumer bureaucracy. this establishes a dangerous precedent. any time congress needs a funding source, it can now go outside the budget process and have the fed print money. yet, mr. president, the fed has remained remarkably quiet. why again? politics. the fed's silence should come as no surprise given the close political ties between the board of governors of the federal reserve and the obama

administration. the board of governors has clearly decided to help the obama administration advance its legislative goals. mr. president, the fed cannot have its cake and eat it too. if the fed wants to be independent, the federal reserve should defend its -- its independence consistently. but, otherwise, should stay out of politics. on the other hand, if the federal reserve wants to be political, it should not expect congress to treat it as a so-called independent. nor should the fed expect that its nonmonetary policy actions are exempt from oversight. these even when conducted by the ofmc involve taxpayer dollars and policy judgments. mr. president, there are no -- they're no different from other policy difference -- decisions made by the executive branch. congress has a constitutional

duty to oversee these activities. unfortunately the fed often acts like congress should be kept in the dark. it uses its independence as a shield to hide its actions from congressional oversight, including its bailout of a.i.g. and bear stearns. no agency should have the fiscal and regulatory powers exercised by the fed and not think that it has -- it has to be fully accountable to congress. it should. it is my hope, mr. president, that this amendment will be the first step in moving the fed back to its more limited and traditional role in our regulatory and constitutional system. thank you. the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. dodd: i would inquire how much time remains to get a feel for that.

-- for that? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut controls 13 minutes. the senator from alabama, four minutes. the senator from louisiana, three minutes. the senator from vermont, eight minutes. mr. dodd: well, mr. president, i'm kind of done. i don't know if my colleague from vermont wants to add any words to all of this or whether or not -- i don't even know if the leaders want to be heard on this amendment or not or other amendments want to be -- members want to be heard. i would just -- unless -- what i'll probably do is propose there's an absence of a quorum and the time be equally extracted from all members who control the time. is that -- is there a fixed time for the vote, mr. president?

the presiding officer: the vote will occur at the expiration of the yielding back of time or the yielding back of time. mr. dodd: well, let me note the absence of a quorum and have the time equally extracted from all three of the members who control the time at this point. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. shelby: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from alabama's recognized. mr. shelby: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that after the mccain amendment is disposed of, that the next amendment in order will be the corker amendment, dealing with underwriting. the republican amendment dealing with underwriting standards. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. dodd: reserving the right to object. just so we're clear, when we dispose of the mccain amendment and related amendments to it. there may be a side by side. the next republican -- there there be a democratic ready after the -- after the mccain amendment, and then the next

amendment after that will be the corker easmed. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. sanders: i would yield to the senator from tennessee. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. corker: just as far as other amendments, i just have an inquiry. as far as other amendments, i have a number of what i would call surgical amendments, some of which -- some of which may be -- i think -- i'm -- i just have an inquiry as to other types of amendments. i know we're going in order, republican, democrat, i just thought we might talk for a minute. i have a number of surgical amendments that improve the bill. some of them i think are going to be taken in a managers' amendment. but i would inquire as to what

the manager of the bill, what his thinking is as it relates to time limits and how we might move through some of these other amendments that are here strictly to try to improve the bill and may have strong bipartisan support. mr. dodd: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut's recognized. mr. dodd: i have yet to meet a member who offered an amendment who didn't think it would be included in the bill. first, i appreciate him raising the issue, because it is an important question. i've raised with my colleague and the former chairman of the banking committee, senator shelby, a package of amendments, technical or others, where we think there's agreement. obviously he'll have to take a look at that to make that determination. not a final managers' amendment but to clear out amendments we think can be adopted without taking time out here to vote on individual amendments. and i'd invite any member who has amendments, including my colleague from tennessee is one of them, to give us these amendments you have or to show

them to senator shelby, however you want to do it, and we'll try and accept where we can these amendments you've offered. and if there's some problem with some we can't resolve it, then we need to provide the time between now and the conclusion of the bill to consider them and i'll do my very best to see that that happens. and let me take advantage of the question to make the plea to my colleagues. obviously there's not an unlimited amount of time to debate this bill. we've got other matters that obviously we're all painfully aware of that have to come up here before we adjourn for the year, and my hope is that members will provide the time and come forward and we'll get short time agreements for some amendments, maybe a bit longer for others that are more -- may be a bit more substantive and require more debate, but we need to move on this. as i said earlier, we've submitted already several days ago a package of what i thought would qualify as -- in a managers' amendment and we need to get some answers on that so we can try and accommodate provisions of this bill that i think are good contributions

between -- offered by republicans and democrats, in some cases both, so that we can actually add to the product of this legislation. so i appreciate my colleague's suggestion, and if we can see them here, and obviously however you want to proceed, we'll try and either agree to all of them, if we can, if there's any problem we'll let you know and then either thin out that list so we can get to them. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. sanders: let me just summarize again what the sanders amendment does, and let me take you back to a meeting of the budget committee on which i serve about a year ago. chairman bernanke came before that committee and i asked him, will you tell me, will you tell the committee, will you tell the american people which large financial institutions received trillions of dollars of zero or near zero interest loans? i thought that was a reasonable question. mr. bernanke said, no, i won't do that, he will not release

that information. on that day, i introduced legislation to compel him to release that information. this amendment, if passed, on december 1, 2010, would, in fact, contain that information. it is a major, major step forward. second of all, i think many american people are beginning to catch on and some of the senators have referred to that today of the immense power of the fed. and people are demanding transparency at the fed. people want to know what happens behind closed doors when some of the leaders of the largest financial institutions in this country sit down with the fed and lo and behold, programs are developed which benefit those very same large financial institutions.

wouldn't it be nice, wouldn't it be great if small businesses in vermont can end up with zero interest loans? well, they can't. but somehow or another, some of the largest financial institutions in this country managed to do that and we don't know how this process goes on. so, mr. president, i think passage of the sanders amendment is a step forward. again, i want to congratulate all of those people from both political parties with very different political ideologies for coming forward, for pushing this issue forward. this is not the end, this is a beginning. and i think, as senator dodd said a moment ago, this is historic. we are beginning to lift the veil of secrecy on what is perhaps the most important agency in the united states government. i urge passage of the sanders amendment, and i would reserve the balance of my time, would yield the floor.

mrvitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana is recognized. mr. vitter: mr. president, i stand again to join with a bipartisan group of colleagues supporting senator sanders amendment and also supporting the vitter side-by-side amendment. these are not mutually exclusive alternatives. both senator sanders and myself and many others will strongly support both, and i urge all of my colleagues, democrats and republicans, to do the same. mr. president, particularly since the financial crisis, the american people have been demanding several things, and one of them clearly has been openness and transparency about u.s. economic policy, including at the federal reserve. that has been a major theme particularly since the financial crisis, that has been a clear demand of the american people, certainty of louisianans

particularly since the financial crisis. and most of us have voted and have spoken in strong support of that. and if we truly want to make it happen and if we truly want to preserve that record, we need to vote for the sanders amendment and the vitter amendment today to get that done. if you want to continue to support the same push as in the stand-alone sanders senate bill, you need to vote for both amendments. if you want to continue to support your position if you voted for the sanders budget amendment a few months ago and - and a strong majority of this body did -- you need to vote for both amendments. if you want to support the position of the house, which in a bipartisan way supported exactly the same language as contained in my amendment through an amendment in the

banking committee, a strong, bipartisan vote, you need to support both amendments. supporting one, walking on the other is not good enough and will surely be recognized as not good enough. so i urge all of my colleagues, democrats and republicans, to support both amendments to have full openness and accountability and transparency with all the protections that are included against politicizing individual fed decisions. mr. chairman, in closing, let me say this. excuse me, mr. chairman, i'm just trying to find one quote. in many ways, mr. president, i really think it comes down to this one quote by alan greenspan from 2004. quote -- "we run the risk by laying out the pros and cons of

a particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the debate, and in this regard, it is possible if lose control of a process that only we fully understand." manager congress, the american people joining in on the debate, god forbid, imagine the moneyedy let's losing completed elites losing control of the process. if you share that alan greenspan view of democracy, vote against my amendment. but if you share a very different view, which i believe is embodied in this institution and in our constitution, please support both the sanders and the vitter's -- the vitter amendments. i yield my time. the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. dodd: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut is recognized. mr. dodd: let me look to my friend from louisiana. the senator from louisiana, i believe there's no more time, has that time all expired on the

senator from louisiana's time? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana has consumed his time. the senator from alabama has 4 1/2 minutes. mr. dodd: well,less nls -- we're prepare, unless -- we'repreparee on our side, as i understand it. mrdodd: i gather the senator from alabama is prepared to yield back his time as well, and the question now is i'd ask for the yeas and nays on the sanders amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. mr. dodd: yield back all of our

time. mr. sanders: ask for a roll call vote. mr. dodd: ask for a roll call vote. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. mr. dodd dodd: and there's beena roll vote requested and agreed to on the sanders amendment? the presiding officer: yes. and the vote will now occur the clerk will call the roll. vote: