>> i mean, you are sort of answering my question with a statement that my question is valid, but what i want to know is what can we do. i'm not asking you to make recommendations, or maybe i am. but what can we do to reduce these backlogs? >> senator, first of all, allow me to apologize for my initial answer. i didn't mean to repeat your question. either way of of a declaratory statement. if the senator is interested in actually our best thinking on this subject, then i would like to speak with the subject matter experts within the agency and our department, and circle back with the senator. >> okay, that would be great. if we can get that in writing or get a briefing. in 1996, congress barred people from applying for asylum after

one year of their arrival. nodes they had been here a year, they couldn't apply for asylum and less they could show extraordinary circumstances that prevented them from doing so or that circumstances had changed in their country of origin. this allowed judges to allow asylum to pro-democracy activists, religious leaders and victims of torture, even after they found that they would be harmed if they return to their home country. they just didn't have an extraordinary excuse. do you think we should change or do away with the standard? >> senator, i know there is legislation i believe that has been proposed to limit that one year waiting period. >> is not a waiting period. as the period after which you can't apply anymore for the asylum. >> correct. and i know that are subject matter experts are considering

that provision. and i would really differ to the judgment and their continued analysis, and some of to the prior question, i would welcome the opportunity to brief you on their thinking subsequently. >> okay, thank you. we will do that afterwards. and advocacy group in minnesota told me a story that i want to share with you. a woman from nepal recently came to them to seek asylum in the u.s. because maoist insurgents have kidnapped her son. now, she ultimately decided not to apply for a sideline because under current law she would be inadmissible because of her -- she is considered a supporter of terrorists because she paid her son's ransom. and do you think there is a place for a derisive exemption, or exception in such a case of?

>> senator, while i can't comment on that case specifically, i do want to note that within, i believe, the first two months of my tenure as director i had opposed the visiting our office in st. paul and meeting with the advocacy community there to understand their concerns. but there is a supreme court case that leads it to the department to exercise its discretion in finding a derisive exemption that might not otherwise apply, i believe we are utilizing that exemption on a case-by-case basis. >> thank you very much. , mr. director. thank you, mr. chairman. >> good point, mr. director. thank you for coming. i wonder if you could comment on

i guess at this point there are discussions were hearing reported about the use of parole, which is as i understand discretionary judgment made by you and perhaps the secretary of homeland security, to use parole on an expansive basis to legitimize the presence of people who have entered the country with a visa, and overstayed the visa. and i guess i put the correct term is deferred action. use of some means to allow people who have come into the country illegally but have overstayed or some other category of person who is here without proper legal opposition -- authorization. is there any discussion in your agency or at the secretary of homeland security level to use

deferred action to change the status of people who have in any of these categories? >> thank you, senator. our use of deferred action and humanitarian parole are utilized on a case-by-case basis. when a significant public benefit or extreme hardship would so warrant. i am not aware of any sweeping determination to move from the case-by-case analysis to a categorical framework. and so i am not exactly sure of the concern that i think underlies your question. i will say that we are particularly focused on using our discretionary authority when it pertains to the spouses of our service members in the military, by virtue of the

public benefit that we achieve in that way. >> well, i appreciate your answer. and so if i could summarize, you're aware of no discussions to use this for deferred action on humanitarian parole on a categorical bases, as opposed to a case-by-case basis? >> that is my understanding. >> i understand that senator durbin and senator lugar wrote a letter to you about this topic on april 21. do you recall that letter? >> i do not as i sit here spent i am sorry to pop it on you but maybe you can take a look at the. i would be interested in, first of all, whether you have responded to the letter. we're not aware of a response but i would be interested if you have responded to get a copy of that response, and to learn of your views. so again, you're not aware of

any discussions, any deliberations with regard to the categorical use of deferred action or humanitarian parole as opposed to the case-by-case determination process that you described, is that correct? >> senator, i'm sorry. i may have misunderstood your question. the question that you pose is, are we utilizing those mechanisms on a categorical bases as opposed to a case-by-case basis? i know of -- >> i'm not asking notches are you, but are there any discussions or plans to do so? >> i don't know if any plans. i think we have discussed, as we always do, the tools available to us and whether the deployment of any of those tools could achieve a more fair and efficient use of or the application of immigration law. so i would hesitate to say that we have never, we are not at all considering these deferred

action or humanitarian parole on an expanded base is being i think we consider the tools available to others on an everyday basis. >> for example, let me give you some more precise examples. for example, children might otherwise benefit from passage of the dream act. >> yes. >> or individuals who might be covered by any potential ag jobs sort of immigration legislative. avidin specific discussions in your agency or in the administration that you are aware of india with the use of deferred action with regard to either of those categories of individuals? >> i believe that we have discussed those issues, and just about every issue that comes within the purview of the immigration system when it comes to the tools available to us and the application of the laws that congress has passed. >> but to use your terminology earlier, heretofore, those have been done on a case-by-case

basis, correct, and to do so on a categorical basis would represent an unprecedented use of those authorities, wouldn't you agree? >> whether it's unprecedented or not i can't comment, but it certainly would be a deviation from the case-by-case application of those discretionary authorities spent by the use of unprecedented, in other words, it's not happen before, it's never been used for that purpose before, correct? >> i'm not aware of that. >> fair enough. now, when i was in el paso recently, i learned that as a result of the humanitarian parole practices of the united states government, that a number of individuals, i think some in the order of 150 individuals who have been injured as a result of violence in juarez have been paroled to be treated united states medical facilities in el paso, and that has resulted in the uncompensated care provided by the hospitals

there in el paso range in a 3 million-dollar range. i believe silvestre reyes, the congressman from the area, has written to the president about that when my secretary napolitano here. i asked her about that and introduced copies of those letters into the record. i know there's also some additional uncompensated care that the united states -- that medical doctors have provided in addition to the hospital facilities themselves. if the policy of the nicest government is such that these individuals are going to be given humanitarian parole for purposes of medical treatment, wouldn't you think it should be the financial responsibility of the federal government to pay those bills rather than the local taxpayers of el paso county or the city of el paso? >> senator, i understand the concern. it is a concern that we actually confronted following the tragic

january 12 earthquake in haiti when we and in collaboration with customs and border protection, our sister agency, were bringing in people for emergency medical care. and the question arose as to funding for that care, and it is a bit outside my area of expertise to the source of the optimal source of that funny, whether federal or state. i know there are in some instances programs in place to provide funding. i can't speak of whether any such program exists to address the situation that you identified. >> in conclusion, because i see my time is up, let me just say that i think in our conversations between you and me, i told you i am a supporter of sensible comprehensive immigration reform to deal with all aspects for our broken immigration system to hopefully make your job easier to

emphasize legal immigration, and to encourage that and to discourage illegal immigration. but i think it would be a mistake for the administration to use administrative action like deferred action on a categorical bases to do with a large number of people who are here without proper legal documents to regularize their status without congress' participation. i would just say that to you for what it's worth. thank you by much for being here. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you very much, good to see you can. i gather you move vigorously within 11 months and reviewed the department and making some changes, and i think that's all to the good. i also have the pleasure of suggesting him for the united states attorney in los angeles many years ago. and i can only say --

>> good suggestion -- >> he had much more hair than. [laughter] >> when i came from the senate, i did too. [laughter] >> director mayorkas, it's my understanding that current law states within five years of naturalization, any affiliation that would have precluded citizenship like membership in a terrorist organization is premeditation evidence that the person can have their citizenship revoked after the fact. in the absence of countervailing evidence, the statute, section 1424, says that a terrorist affiliation is enough to authorized revocation. we're having a robust debate in congress because a member has introduced legislation which some of us believe in view of this section is really not necessary and here is a question. i'm not going to ask you to go

into the shahzad case, but i am going to ask this question. you have an attempted car bombing, a connection to the pakistani taliban, a guilty plea, all of which could certainly be construed that mr. shahzad was not attached to the principles of the constitution, and, therefore, should have his citizenship revoked. it's my understanding that within five years this section, five years of naturalization, this section would allow such a revocation your is that not true for mr. shahzad? >> senator, thank you very much. let me first, if i may say, that the fact that it was you who recommended me back in 1998 to be the united states attorney is

an everlasting source of pride for me, and something that i remember each day. >> for me, too. >> thank you, senator. i am myself standing, not with respect to the shahzad case specifically, but if i may generalize it, the application, the naturalization process, the application itself and the relevant law. and as i understand the law, and please come if i may, my study is only preliminary, as i understand it, citizenship may be revoked if the individual to gain that citizenship through fraud or misrepresentation, or was an eligible at the time of naturalization. and it is an evidentiary question whether information obtaining subsequent to the naturalization or events

unfolding subsequent to the time of naturalization speak to and and eligibility at the time of the application itself. >> i would just call your attention to subsection c., u.s. c. usea section 1451, subsection c., if a person who shall have been naturalized after decembe december 241952, shall within five years next, following such naturalization become a member of or affiliated with any organization membership in or affiliation with which at the time of naturalization would have precluded such person from a naturalization under the provision of section 1424 of this title, it shall be considered prima facie evidence that such person was not attached to the principles of the constitution and was not well disposed of the good order of happiness, et cetera, of the

united states at the time. and then in absence of countervailing evidence, you can cancel -- it seems to me that mr. shahzad eminently figures right within that definition. >> as i read that, as i hear that statute, as you read it, senator, that is an evidentiary provisions that speaks to a prima facie case that may indeed, if i are static correctly, shifts the burden to whether or not the shahzad case triggers section 1424 or not is a question i cannot answer us. well, look, i'm not asking you to get into the shahzad case, but it seems to me that any naturalized citizen who is within five years of naturalization, commits a terrorist crime, associates with

tears, engages in bomb making, clearly with the intent to do great harm to the people of this country, and pleads guilty to it, is covered by this section. you don't want to sink in, you don't have to. but i mean, it's clear on its face, at least to me speak it would seem so to me as well, senator. >> thank you. i am particularly concerned about fraudulent immigration specialists, so-called, who misrepresent themselves as attorneys to defraud individuals who seek a immigration assistance. last year i introduced a bill, the immigration fraud prevention act, which would penalize and prevent this kind of immigration fraud. given the enormous amount of applications that come across your section each day, how does

uscis detect when a phony immigration specialist files and application? >> senator, thank you very much for your question, and also for your work with respect to that act. we are actually as an agency going to be launching an initiative to address the unauthorized practice of law, and the tour to fraud, other efforts to pray upon the global immigrant population. that is going to be, consist of robust communication with the immigrant advocacy committee and the immigrants they serve to raise awareness of the unauthorized practice of law and fraud, to discuss with the advocacy community and other stakeholders, and accreditation service, and what we as an agency can give as a conduit

between the immigrants we serve and the government to stamp out this. this is a real problem, and we recognize it and were developing and initiative to address it. >> thank you. please be vigorous in that regard. i just hate people take advantage of very vulnerable people. i mean, to me there is no excuse for this. so i would welcome your most vigorous approach. >> and we will employ it and i will say, senator, that when i was united states attorney we had a very significant investigation and prosecution of the tour de france that was the largest of its kind in the nation. >> i want to ask you just quickly with, when my time has expired, do you mind? >> not at all. i think it is just the two of us and i mature as far as i'm concerned here. [laughter] >> ask whatever you want. >> that's just fine.

i wanted to talk to you about a paragraph in your written statement, which is on page seven, and you mentioned that you're working hard to improve e-verify ability to detect fraud. and in this paragraph more or less make the judgment that a photograph offers a biometric comparison. i really don't agree with that. i think only real biometrics offer full fraud prevention. you and i i am sure -- i have, and i'm sure you have been to our for a to street and los angeles. you know the quality of documents, fraudulently, that can be produced inside 20 minutes or 30 minutes, and how easy it is. and it seems to me the picture is very easy to falsify.

i happen to believe that people have a responsibility to be who they really are, not to pretend they are somebody else, particularly when they are in this very permissive and yet fragile state of a work visa in this country. i think the government and the people who hire them are really entitled to know that, in fact, they are who they say they are. therefore, it seems to me that a place to really start with true biometrics is in the green card. and it also seems to me that we're going to do a comprehensive immigration bill, and i very much hope we are, that one of the criteria is going to have to be positive identification. >> senator, i think that my written testimony to which you refer speaks the use of photographs as an improvement.

while photographs are not as a surely accurate fingerprint, they are an improvement over the lack of photographs. and i should say with respect to the legal permanent resident card, known as the green card, we are unveiling this week for the first time quite a number of years a more secure green card that has state-of-the-art security features so that it is more difficult to counterfeit and we can more easily detect identity fraud, so we are making strides. >> are you prepared to say to me it cannot be counted -- counterfeited on alvarado street? i would knew that if i were you. >> without admonition -- [laughter] >> i will say that -- [laughter] -- i think based on my

experience that's treating within the jurisdiction the central district of california, and i dealt with counterfeiting permanent resident cards as an assistant in a state as an asset united states attorney i think this card would be very difficult to counterfeit. >> you do speak as i did not say impossible, but i do think it is much more difficult, and i query whether the one-stop shopping on a street corner that used to counterfeit this green card, have the level of sophistication to counterfeit this card. >> may we see one of those cards when you have them ready for distribution? >> most certainly. >> thank you very much. thanks, senator. appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you.

mr. director. a couple weeks ago, senators reid, durbin, senator feinstein, menendez and senator schumer release the conceptual proposal for comprehensive immigration reform as invitation to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to come to negotiate and enact bipartisan legislati legislation. one criticism, however, that is repeatedly made about enacting registration reform, is uscis does not have the resources at this time to effectively process immigration reform legislation because it typically receives four to 6 million applications for benefits each year, and will be receiving millions more applications when legislation is enacted. my question is, is your agency prepared to handle comprehensive immigration reform? can you share with the american people your plan for how you

would process these applications ,-comcome in a vision and effective manner, and the work that has gone into developing your plan? that's a big question i know. we will end with a spectacular much, senator. i welcome the question. let me say that our agency will be prepared to implement comprehensive immigration reform. when the legislature passes it, we will require funding to implement a plan, should the plan include a path toward legalization for the more that approximately 10 million people in this country, according to studies. and what we have done, senator, is we are passionate each and every day redoing our processes and developing greater efficiencies.

and these inefficiencies will serve us in the application of any reform legislation that is passed. and i think the best example of that is with respect to the unanticipated volume of applicants for temporary protected status following the genuine 12 earthquake in haiti. because of the operational improvements that we made and enlisted, we develop and always try to improve our system. we will be able to take on the anticipated volume of applications. we have addressed the applications with tremendous dispatch. our security mechanisms are as robust as they ever were with respect to that population, as they are with all the populations that come before us. so i say with confidence that we as an agency will be ready to implement comprehensive immigration reform legislation. we will need the opportunity of

funding and time to implement. >> thank you very much for all your testimony today, director mayorkas. the record will be kept open for a week. this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you, senator. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up in a moment live coverage of the u.s. senate when members return to work on the financial regulations bill. at 10 each of the chamber is expected to begin voting on three amendment related to the bill including one offered by tennessee bob corker that would require a 5% down payment for residential mortgages. we expect of the votes and

debate on amendments to continue throughout the day. majority leader harry reid has expressed hope the measure can be completed by the end of the week. now live to the floor of the senate here on c-span2. senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. lord of life, in whose will is

our peace and who is worthy of a greater love than we can either give or understand, accept the gratitude of our thankful hearts. thank you for protecting us from seen and unseen dangers and for being our shield in dangerous times. we praise you for life and health, for sunshine and shadow, for peace in the midst of life's storms. lord, we're grateful for our

lawmakers and rejoice that your providence will prevail. keep our senators firm and steadfast as they put on your whole armor of faith, hope, and love. fill this chamber with your presence and our hearts with your magnanimous attitude toward others. 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 12, 2010. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: the senate will resume consideration of the wall street reform legislation, with the time until 10:00 a.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. at 10:00 a.m. the senate will proceed to a series of three roll call votes in relation to the following amendments. merkley regarding underwriting standards, corker regarding underwriting standards and hutchison as modified regarding

the board of governors. additional votes are expected throughout the day. mr. president, i am told s. 3347 is at the desk and due for its second reading. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the clerk will read the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 3347, a bill to extend the national flood insurance program through december 31, 2010. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserveder te 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. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 10:00 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees. mr. reid: the note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, we've only had a few days to consider the president's latest nominee to the supreme court, but a few things are already

becoming clear about the administration's approach to this vacancy. as solicitor general, ms. kagan is a member of the president's administration. the president on monday also said that we're friends. and the vice president's chief of staff who helped oversee her nomination is evidently hard at work convincing members of the president's party that they will have nothing to worry about in terms of ms. kagan's possible appointment. but in our constitutional order, justices are not on anybody's team. they have a very different role to play. as a supreme court justice, ms. kagan's job description would change dramatically. far from being a member of the president's team, she'd suddenly be serving as a check on it. this is why the founders were insistent that judges be independent arbiters, not advocates. as one of the founders once put it, "under a limited constitution, the complete

independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential. and further, there is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from legislative and executive powers." so it's my hope that the obama administration doesn't think the ideal supreme court nominee is someone who would rubber stamp its policies. but this nomination does raise the question. and it's a question that needs to be answered. americans want to know that ms. kagan will be independent, that she won't prejudge cases based on her personal opinions, that she'll treat everyone equally, as the judicial oath requires. that's the defining characteristic of any good judge, much less a judge on the nation's highest court. and the simple fact is her lack of a record, especially her lack of a judicial record, and the fact that she doesn't have much of a record as a practicing lawyer either, gives us no way

of answering that question at this particular point with any degree of comfort. she's never had to develop a judicial habit of saying "no" to an administration. and we can't simply assume that she would. later this morning i'll have an opportunity to meet with ms. kagan and to mention some of the concerns i've raised with her personally. we'll welcome her to the capitol and congratulate her once again on her nomination. this is not an easy process for any nominee, but it's an important one. on another matter, mr. president, president hamid karzai will visit the capitol today to discuss the situation in afghanistan. his visit reminds us the force in afghanistan is not complete. president karzai's visit also reminds us of the importance of completing our work on the war supplemental. we must complete this bill to fund our forces in the field, to

help general mcchrystal in his efforts to ensure the taliban do not return to power, and to ensure that afghanistan does not again become a sanctuary for terrorists. let's remember that the 9/11 attacks were planned in afghanistan and that it was because of this attack and al qaeda's many other attempts to kill innocent americans that president obama implemented a strategy for reversing the momentum of the taliban in afghanistan last disease. this is why it's so worrisome and frankly baffling to hear the attorney general say that the administration's views on issuing miranda warnings to terrorists are now under reconsideration because of a new threat and because we are now dealing with international terrorism. perhaps it's the reported involvement of t.t.p. in the times square attack that the attorney general believes is new, but most people have been aware of the terrorist threat of international terrorists to the

homeland since september 11, 2001. the fact is the clear purpose of many of the antiterror policies of this administration in its first days tried to undo through executive order were created to deal with this threat that the attorney general is now calling new. these threats didn't begin with the times square bomber any more than they ended on 9/11. they have been with us for a long time now, and they are as urgent today as they were nine years ago. now, mr. president, i also would like to note some news that might have slipped past some people yesterday in the midst of everything else that's going on. i'm referring to the congressional budget office report that the health care bill is now expected to cost $115 billion more than the administration said it would, wiping oeuftry penny of -- wiping out every penny of savings they claimed the bill would produce. here was one of the democrats' primary arguments in favor of

their health care bill, that it would lower the deficit. yet now we're learning that it won't. but you won't hear a word about it from the people who made that argument day in and day out for more than a year. the fact of the matter is the list of failed promises is growing every day. they called us alarmists for saying businesses would dump employees from their insurance plan, yet now it's being reported that some of the nation's biggest employers are seriously considering cutting employee health care and paying the lower cost penalties instead, just like we predicted. there goes the president's vow that if you like the plan you have; you can keep it. another thing we heard is that the health care bill would slow health care costs for families, businesses, and government. an analysis last month by the obama administration's own actuary found that this bill will actually increase cost and the national spending on health care alone could go up by a third of a trillion dollars.

the president and the democrats in congress said time and again that their health care bill would strengthen medicare. yet the administration's own experts say it will drive nearly one in six hospitals into debt and threaten access to care for seniors on medicare. they said the bill wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class, but congress's own bipartisan scorekeeper on legislation said that the american taxpayers will pay billions more in taxes as a result of this bill. millions more will get hit with a fine for choosing not to buy government-approved insurance. they said health insurance premiums would fall, but we've learned from the administration just this week that even some of the smaller reforms in bill will actually drive up premiums. so when speaker pelosi said we'd have to pass this bill -- pass this health care bill to find out what was in it, she knew what she was talking about. and what they're finding out is

that republicans were right all along. for every promise that crumbles, another one of our warnings is vindicated. day after day republicans said the health care bill would raise taxes, raise premiums, and cut medicare for seniors. we said it would increase costs because it didn't take an actuary to figure out that you don't save money on health care by spending more on it. and, yet, even in the face of the clearest proof that we were right on every single count, the people who forced this bill through congress against the will of the people continue to call us alarmists and quo our motives. -- and to question our motives. all these headlines are confirming what the american people already believe and what republicans said all along, that more government isn't the solution to out-of-control health care spending any more than spending money on projects that we didn't need was the secret to robust job growth. the american people are tired of the reckless spending and the

failed promises and tired of representatives who won't own up to their mistakes. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois is recognized. mr. durbin: mr. president, america was alarmed to learn that times square was closed for business because of the potential of a bomb threat. a vehicle was discovered with smoke coming out of it, some alert people on the sidewalk, some surrenders called it to -- vendors called it to the attention of some police, and determined that the contents of the vehicle included elements that could have killed many people. all they had to go on was the vehicle itself and the fleeting glimpse of the person who might have been responsible, leaving, changing his shirt as he left that vehicle. it was a frightening situation where many innocent people who were visiting our largest city in america could have been killed just as in 9/11. what happened?

53 hours later our government arrested the prime suspect, the man who has conceded that he was responsible for that vehicle in times square. 53 hours. i listened to some of the criticism from those who come to the floor and say we should do this better. we should be more vigilant. we should change our approach. and i would concede that we need to learn from every single incident how to make america safer. how to avoid those vehicles even being in times square in the first instance. but, let's be honest, to arrest the person responsible for it within 53 hours is an indication of some pretty good work by law enforcement and intelligence officials. and then comes the argument about miranda rights. should we be treating terrorists as enemy combatants or as criminal defendants? should they be sent to military commissions for trial or to our courts?

well, the fact of the matter is the person involved in the times square bombing incident was an american citizen. he cannot be tried in at military commission under existing law. there is a recourse for him and that is in the courts of america. and if he is to be tried in the courts, the ordinary process of due process suggests he'll receive a miranda warning. in this circumstance, after a number of hours of interrogation, the suspect was given his miranda warnings. we hear them often on television. it didn't deter him from continuing to offer information literally for days to our law enforcement and security officials. many have come to the floor and suggested that it is a bad policy for us to consider giving miranda warnings to those suspected of terrorism. what they fail to know -- and i've never heard one of them concede -- is this policy is a policy created by george w. bush

and his administration after 9/11. they decided that it would be the basic standard when it comes to interrogating suspected terrorists, particularly those who are american citizens, that a miranda warning would be given. now, this past weekend, attorney general holder said that he believed that we should consider some other elements in terms of when the miranda warnings would be given and when a person would be presented before a court. i think that's a reasonable challenge for us to look to. but, remember, that the last time that congress tried to change basic miranda warnings, a very conservative supreme court across the street said, no. they said, in fact, that this is part of due process in the united states of america. so let's approach this carefully. let's try to take the politics out of it for a moment. let's concede that the former republican president made miranda warnings part of his ordinary process in dealing with terrorists, and let's also acknowledge that a lot of

hard-working men and women in the 53 hours after the discovery of that vehicle did everything in their power to find the person responsible and were successful. let's give them some credit. these are men and women who work night and day virtually unheralded who in this instance did an extraordinary job and should be acknowledged in a positive way and not in a negative way. there's also been conversation on the floor this are morning about the health care reform bill. make no mistake, not a single republican senator voted for it. the in fact, they virtually boycotted the efforts to build this legislation, to write this legislation, given ample opportunities to produce their own amendments or a substitute bill. they did no. when they were offered a few amendments, they turned out to be amendments primarily designed to protect health insurance companies from -- from a program known as medicare advantage. and, so at the end of the day, only the democrats voted for health care reform.

immediately -- immediately we heard from the other side of the aisle and many from the united states say repeal it. well, the american people see it differently. if the republican senators are going to come to the floor and talk about polls, they should acknowledge the polls show clearly that the american people believe that health care reform should be given a chance. i think the senator from kentucky was suggesting this morning we need to pull the plug on health care reform right now and stop. so does that mean that he wants to eliminate the small business tax credit included in health care reform to help businesses with fewer than 25 employees pay for health insurance premiums? does that mean the senator from kentucky wants to eliminate the $250 to be given to those under medicare who use the medicare part-d prescription drug program to fill the so-called gap in coverage called the doughnut hole. does he want to eliminate that. does the senator from kentucky want to eliminate our efforts to

move forward to children and a family up to the age of 2 26 wil be covered by family plans while finishing college and looking for a job. does he want to eliminate and repeel that? is that what he's looking for? well, i hope this. -- i hope not. the fact that we can't revisit this bill in the future is just plain wrong. as i said on the floor before, there are few perfect laws that have been wraind not many by u.s. senators. in this case -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent for five additional minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: i'll be glad to concede the floor to one of my republican colleagues if they come during this five-minute period. i would say when we wrote the health care reform bill, we relied on the best experts we could find. we were dealing with one-sixth of the american economy which is the sum total of the cost of health care in our nation and we did the very best to move

forward. it would have been an easier task if we had the cooperation and the joint efforts of the republican side of the aisle. but they decided to step away and say no. the last point i want to make, mr. president, is we have reached a historic milestone in the united states senate with the executive calendar. at this time point we have over 100 nominations to the obama administration for positions, large and small, that have been held up by the other side of the aisle. i want to salute senator claire mccaskill, senator sheldon whitehouse and a number of my colleagues who have come to the floor and challenged that this calendar is glutted with over 100 nominees who can't be brought for a vote. now let's put a historical parallel here. at the same time in president george w. bush's administration, there were 20 nominees being held. now over 100 are being held. and overwhelmingly these nominees have passed out of committee to the senate floor

with unanimous, bipartisan votes or overwhelming bipartisan votes. they're not controversial. these men and women deserve an opportunity to have an up or down vote. what's happening here is that these nominations are being held as bargaining chips. bargaining chips for projects, for -- i'm not sure. what but it's unfair to these men and women who have said they will offer sometime in their lives in public service and will go through the rigors of being examined and questioned and then stand up and help try to make this a better nation serving in a government post. there's nothing wrong with that, whether it's a republican or democrat. and many of these are republicans, they should have that opportunity. i would suggest to the republican side of the aisle, let's not use these good men and women of both political parties as bargaining chips for something else. let's eliminate the so-called secret holds where senators can, in fact, hold up these nominees

without ever disclosing publicly that they are responsible. if they have a legitimate grievance against a nominee, make that grievance known publicly. argue it on the floor. but to hold up innocent people, to leave them stranded on the executive calendar for weeks and months is unfair to them, certainly unfair to this administration. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois -- mr. durbin: i see the senator from tennessee on the floor and i yield the floor to the senator from tennessee. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. corker: thank you, mr. president. and i thank my friend from illinois. i want to speak for a moanlt the corker amendment -- for a moment on the corker amendment. waipt to thank senator gregg, senator lemieux, senator coburn for being cosponsors. i want to thank senator shelby for all he has done to help support and make this amendment possible. and also senator isakson who is just a wealth of experience, brings a wealth of experience to this body as it relates to real

estate lending. i want to thank all of them for this support of this amendment. it is a basic, commonsense amendment. i think everybody in this body knows that we, as a country, are going down a pretty slippery slope. that we, as politicians, act as enablers. weep don't tell people -- we don't tell people what they need to hear. instead we try to give them what they wish without any degree of discipline. and what this amendment does is try to restore within the housing market a focus on the core issue that took us into this crisis. something that many people in this body do not want to discuss, than is a fact that there were a lot of loans written to people that had no ability whatsoever to pay them back. and so this amendment does some very simple things. number one, it requires a very modest 5% downpayment for new home mortgages. if someone borrows more than 80% loan to value, it requires a

credit enhancement, something that's been part of the american psyche for a long, long time. believe it or not it asks that there be fully documented income including credit history and employment history. gosh, what a -- what a -- what a big issue that would be just to know that someone had the ability to -- to pay back the loan. and then a method for determining the borrower's ability to repay including consideration, which is very important of their debt to income ratio. so, mr. president, this would be done by banking regulators. it does not apply to v.a. or rural housing administration mortgages. it does give an exemption for organizations like habitat an enterprise and others that allow homeowners to use sweat equity to actually build up a -- some equity in a home. mr. president, this is a commonsense amendment. and while i respect senators on the other side of the aisle, senator merkley and koa klobuchr

that have worked on a side by side, i do want to say to the people in this body that while that is a good-intentioned amendment, what it does -- what it does is build on the construct of the dodd bill where, in essence, we are giving to this new consumer protection agency the ability to look to do loan underwriting. i think that's a dangerous path for our country to go down. mr. president, i thank you for letting me give an overview to this amendment, and i urge everybody in this body to support it. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent that a statement of phaoeupbl supporting the america -- mine supporting the merkley-klobuchar amendment be printed in the record at this time. many of the provisions are strongly supported by the hearings on permanent subcommittee on investigations

held. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent that there be two minutes prior to the first vote equally divided between the two sides. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. merkley: colleagues, today we have two amendments that address integrity in retail mortgage origination, and i'm certainly encouraging you to place your vote squarely for the merkley-klobuchar amendment. this is critical to end no-document liar loans, a big factor in the meltdown that occurred last year. second of all, it establishes

underwriting integrity so that underwriters will look at loan to value, look at credit history, look at current obligations. again, integrity in mortgages. that integrity allows the moons to be securitized and creates liquidity. third, the merkley-klobuchar amendment ends steering patients. some have been made bonuses for making a deal not in their clients' interest -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. merkley: thank you very much. the presiding officer: who yields time? time is yielded back. the question is on the amendment. under the previous order, the question occurs on amendment

number 3962 offered by the senator from oregon and the senator from minnesota. a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or to change a vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 63 and the nays are 36, and the amendment is agreed to. under the previous order, there are two minutes of debate prior to a vote on amendment number 3955 offered by the senator from tennessee, mr. corker. the senate will come to order. the senate will come to order. the senate will come to order. the senator from tennessee. mr. dodd: mr. president, the senate's not in order. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the senate is not in order. the senator from tennessee is

recognized. mr. corker: mr. president, i think everybody in this body knows that the core of this last financial kraoeufgs was there were -- crisis was there were a lot of loans written in this country people couldn't pay back. the dodd bill deals with a lot of things, but it doesn't deal with that basic core issue of loan underwriting. this is an opportunity for people on both sides of the aisle that is a commonsense amendment that requires a 5% down payment, fully documented credit income including credit history and employment history, which i think all of us would like to see and a method of determining borrower's ability to repay, put in place by bank regulators -- this -- mr. dodd: the senator cannot be heard. i can't hear. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. corker: -- this commonsense amendment which should be supported by both sides of the aisle excludes, gives the ability for habitat, for enterprise, those organizations that use sweat equity to be excluded. this is something we all know

needs to be common practice. let's put it into law and let's ensure that another financial crisis doesn't come on the backs of homeowners who borrow money, by the way, irresponsibly and we enable them to do it. let's vote something that ensures that common sense is in place in loan underwriting. this is a good amendment. i hope you'll support it. mr. dodd: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut is recognized. mr. dodd: first of all, let me thank my colleague from tennessee. he's been a very positive, constructive member of this effort before us. i oppose his amendment for two reasons, mr. president. first of all, it creates a very bright line of mandating 5%. every nonprofit, all f.h.a. mortgages would be subject to that rule which would exclude an awful lot. the merkley-klobuchar amendment establishes underwriting standards. further, what the corker amendment does is strip out skin in the game. we learned because brokers and mortgage dealers had no skin in

the tkpwaeufplt they were selling off items and didn't care what was in it because they were being paid. under an amendment adopted after the corker amendment is considered is the isakson-landrieu amendment which will set standards allowing for the option of that skin in the game. i appreciate senator isakson and senator landrieu offering that idea to this bill that will come right after this. for those reasons, i'd urge my colleagues respectfully to reject the corker amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: are the presiding officer: are interest -- are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change a vote. if not the yeas are 42, the nays 57. mr. dodd: november reconsider -- move to reconsider. move to lay on the table. the presiding officer: there are two minutes of debate on 3759 offered by the senator from texas, mrs. hutchison, and the senator from minnesota, ms. klobuchar. mrs. hutchison: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from text section recognized. -- from texas is recognized. the senate will come to order. mrs. hutchison: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas deserves to be heard. the senate will come to order. the senate will come to order. the senator from texas is

recognized. mrs. hutchison: i ask to be notified after 30 seconds to that my colleague, senator klobuchar can speak. the presiding officer: the chair will do so. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, this is the amendment that reinstates the federal reserve as the regulator for small banking companies and small chartered banks much the state banks and the smaller banks have asked to stay with the capability to be members of the fed. they want their input into monetary policy. over half of the federal reserve bank presidents have also weighed in saying this is essential. for instance, in the dallas fed it would go from over -- the presiding officer: the 30 seconds is expired. mrs. hutchison: only the biggest banks would be heard. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota is recognized. ms. klobuchar: this ensures that the monetary polls is a connection to main street and not just wall street. a as a president of the grand rapids state bank said recently,

all senators should be reminded that the federal reserve system was created to serve all of america, not just wall street. as you talked to the regional federal reserves all over this country, they need this information. this amendment makes a difference. the presiding officer: time has expired. ms. klobuchar: from the lone star state of texas to the state of minnesota, i ask for your support. mrs. hutchison: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: who yields time? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut is recognized. mr. dodd: i yield back my time. i'm going to oppose the amendment, but i'm not going to speak against it at this point. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

a

the presiding officer: any senator wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 90. the nays are 9. the amendment is agreed to. a senator: move to reconsider. mr. dodd: lay that on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dodd: mr. president, what i'd like to do at this juncture if i could is we have an amendment being offered by our colleague from louisiana, senator lan tkraourbgs and our colleague -- senator landrieu, and our colleague from georgia,

senator isakson. i'm a cosponsor of their amendment. i think it strengthens our bill. i want to thank our colleague from georgia very much who has forgotten about real estate more than us will know, having spent a good part of his life involved in the business. we've worked on related matters to real estate. i thank him for his contribution with this amendment he offered along with senator louisiana. i yield the floor to them. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i thank the chairman for his acknowledgement and his work with us on this afrpltd it has -- on this amendment. i offer it on behalf of myself and the good senator from georgia, senator isakson, whose expertise on housing matters is well known. also on behalf of senator warner, senator hagan, senator tester, lincoln, levin, burr and hutchison, we have broad and deep bipartisan support for this amendment. the reason we do, mr. president, is because it is a good amendment and it more specifically addresses the risk

retention provisions currently in the bill by helping to eliminate the excessive risk-taking we saw in the home mortgage market between 2004 and 2007. without raising interest rates for those home buyers who have maintained good credit, document their income assets and finance their home the old-fashioned way, back to the basics with savings. so i'd like to call up this amendment, mr. president. it is number 3956; at this time, and offer it for the senate's consideration. i would like to also give a minute on our side to the senator from virginia, senator warner, and then send it over to my colleague from georgia. but we're proud to offer this amendment for the senate's consideration this morning. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, ms. landrieu, for herself and others proposes amendment 3956 to amendment

3739. ms. landrieu: i ask to dispense with the reading of the amendment and ask if i could yield a minute to senator warner. mr. warner: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: mr. president, i want to commend the chairman of the small business committee, my colleague and friend, senator landrieu and senator isakson for this amendment. i'm proud to be part of it. i think, as those of us on the committee, when we were drafting the legislation, we wanted to make sure that the mortgage securitization process, the originators of mortgages had skin in the game. and i think as we went through this process and working particularly with the expertise of the senator from georgia, we realize while skin in the game is important, it is more of the underlying quality of the mortgage. and if we've got mortgages that have that 20% down with a high fico score, the same level of skin in the game is not required. i think this amendment stays true to the intent of the banking committee bill.

i'm glad the chairman of the banking committee is supportive of it. i think this is an amendment that refines and improves the legislation. i'm proud to be a cosponsor of it and grateful for the expertise of the senator from georgia and the senator from louisiana. i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: first of all, i appreciate the kind remarks of the senator from connecticut, the senator from louisiana and the senator from virginia. i would like to ask unanimous consent, if it's okay with senator landrieu, that senator grassley of iowa be added as a cosponsor of the amendment. i appreciate that sponsorship. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: the committee did a great job by requiring some loans would never occur again. the only problem is you wouldn't have good loans because you can't make it work with a 5% risk retention. as i've cautioned all of my colleagues, in the 1980's when the savings and loan industry failed, they had 100% risk

retention. risk retention is not the cure-all to good lending. underwriting is. the senator from louisiana and the other sponsors of this bill are ensuring that people who have incomes that are verified. they'll ensure they have ratios that meet the tolerance levels for a qualified loan. many are not borrowing more than you can pay back. they will ensure that there is equity of 20% in every loan made either through the down payment being 20% or through whatever down payment's made having mortgage guarantee insurance on the amount above 80 and up to the down payment, which is the way things used to work. in other words, the underlying lender is never at risk for more than 80. more than 80 is made by the borrower, there is mortgage guarantee insurance which means if there is a default, that insurance is made immediately. what senator landrieu is saying is we're not going back when we

make zero down, interest-only, reverse amortization loans anymore. but we are going to make the good old days loan, where there is a down payment, where there's skin in the game, where there's an income-to-debt ratio and where the borrower is qualified to borrow the money that they're borrowing. the only risk retention that will be required is when somebody is making a bad loan which means people will stop making bad loans which means this bill in this amendment will address the measure that led to the failure in the housing market. i commend senator lan tkpraour her original -- landrieu for her original offer of the amendment. i yield back. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i'd like to ask for immediate consideration of the amendment if it could be voice voted at this time. and if not, scheduled for the earliest possible vote.

i ask for immediate consideration of the amendment by voice vote if porks and if not -- voice vote if possible, and if not scheduled for the earliest possible convenience. mr. dodd: i appreciate that. let me suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. dodd: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dodd: mr. president, what we're going to do is i'll ask consent to lay aside the

landrieu-isakson amendment so we can allow the senator from maine to offer her amendment. i ask consent to temporarily lay aside the landrieu-isakson amendment. ms. snowe: thank you. i ask that the -- i call up the snowe amendment 3918. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from maine, ms. snowe, for herself and ms. landrieu proposed amendment 3918 to amendment 3739. ms. snowe: i want to thank senator dodd for a number of the amendments i offered with respect to small businesses and making sure that there aren't unintended consequences as a result of this legislation that requires more regulation on their part. mr. president, i also want to thank the chair of the small business committee, senator landrieu, for cosponsoring this amendment and for her amendments

and being a champion on behalf of small businesses and for offering this amendment as well. again, i want to thank the chairman for working with me to forge a compromise on this particular amendment that gives small businesses certainty that they will be exempted from the consumer financial protection bureau to the degree that they're not involved in financial products that will be regulated under this legislation. this amendment will modify a provision in the underlying legislation that could unintentionally ensnare small businesses within the financial protection bureau if they were to have engaged in financial products and services such as selling goods, services or credit through an installment program. the term significantly, mr. president, is unclear. certainly could potentially lead to main street enterprises such as jewelers, orthodontists being

roped into a bureau for those to provide financial services. chairman dodd has been clear through his interpretation that small business owners specifically excluded that they were never intended to be placed within the bureau itself. yet the bill's use is significantly vague. perhaps an article entitled "to protect consumers to be regulated," which "the new york times" published on april 30th, captured the issue, a review of the consumer protection provisions that accounted for 335 pages of the 1,365 page bill shows the intent of this legislation is not to cover main street businesses. but the ambiguity of some terms like the word significantly leaves the regulations open to broad interpretation. end quote. so, mr. president, accordingly while i believe congress should pursue the providers of abusive and predatory financial products that harm americans, we must be

careful not to inadvertently target main street small businesses. given the state of the economy and the plague of small businesses trying to keep their doors open, entrepreneurs have enough to be concerned about. we should not inject more uncertainty on the enterprise with the eight million job losses that we have experienced in this recession and create opportunities for the more than 15 million americans that remain unemployed. additionally uncertainty will make small firms to take risks and make new investments. i believe we make clarity to this provision. we prevent the overregulation of small business that's may result if regulators interpreted this statute too broadly. my amendment creates a quick an easy brightline test for small businesses. one, firms that fall under the small business administration classification system, the classification small businesses

use to file their taxes and qualify the s.b.a. programs and services would be exempt so long as the small business extends credit for the sale of nonfinancial goods and does not securitize its debt. it means that a doctor's office would be exempted if it has less than $10 million in revenue. a jeweler would be exempt if it has revenues below $7 million. and a grocery store would be exempt if it has revenues unde under $27 million. as a result of this modification, business owners would know for certainty if they were defined as small businesses by the s.b.a. standards, they would be exempt. in addition, if a business is in its first year of existence, it would be considered a small business if it's reasonably expected to fall under the s.b.a.'s size standard. this simple measuring stick provides objective criteria for small firms and has also been endorsed by the national

federation of independent businesses, the largest organization and voice for small businesses. it has also been endorsed by the american dental association and the american association of orthodontists. finally, the u.s. chamber of commerce has indicated that although it continues to have concerns with the consumer financial protection bureau, it views this amendment as an important step forward. in this past year, mr. president, the economic recession and the radical overhaul of the nation's health care system has sewn the -- sown the seeds of doubt. small business owners are concerned about the future and worried about the growth of government. adding another regulator with ambiguous powers is not the answer to small businesses an mainers are looking forward to enable them to make their plans about their futures and about potentially adding jobs and make future investments. this bipartisan amendment was crafted in consultation with small business stakeholders. is a commonsense solution to

this problem. given that stability is in the title of this legislation, i urge both members -- all members to support the amendment. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: mr. president, if i could just add a word of my own here, and, first, i want to add senator burris who has asked to be added as a cosponsor. i ask for unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank senator snowe who smawld the -- chaired the small business committee for many years for her dogged determination to make sure that the language in the underlying bill to make necessary to curb abuses in the financial market do not unintentionally do harm to the small businesses that are the small engines of growth to pull us out this recession. i think that her amendment and the amendment that we joined

together helps in a significant way to do that by drawing fine lines and clarifying definitions. i want to thank the small business, the american dental association and the american association of orthodontists and other organizations that support this clarifying language and i thank the chairman of the committee to allow us to offer this amendment and urge my colleagues to look at it as a cosponsorship opportunity as well. mr. dodd: mr. president? the presiding office the senator from connecticut. mr. dodd: mr. president, i want to thank the -- my colleague. both of my colleagues, not just for their work on this particular amendment, but for the way that they've approached the bill and been tremendously constructive in offering solid ideas. this is one amendment that does a great deal of surface to the legislation. the senator from maine pointed out, it was certainly always our tint not to include merchants under the auspices of the

financial safety bureau or commission. and this language now that they worked so very hard on makes it abundantly clear, beyond, frankly, some of the opaque language there was an opaque word, no matter how much i tried to make clear the language, this amendment does strengthen it tremendously. as i said repeatedly, this has never intended to affect main street merchants at all. i'm delighted that the national federation of independent businesses, along with the american dental association, and the american association of orthodontists, because they were two groups that raised the issue as to whether or not they would be included. as far as what we've been able to craft as far as senator snowe and senator landrieu, we have their support of this effort. so i thank them. and unless there's some reason to have a roll call vote, i would ask for a voice vote on this. ms. snowe: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. snowe: i just, again, want to express my appreciation to the chairman for working so constructively to develop this amendment, to build a consensus, and to give a strong measure of assurance to the small business community throughout the country about the intent of this legislation so it doesn't create the unintended consequences. i appreciate all that you've done, mr. chairman, to make sure that this amendment is considered and hopefully adopted. mr. dodd: we're not going to have a vote on this right now. i apologize. dipt mean to push things along. so we'll set this aside and my colleague from illinois is here. won't set aside. i'll yield the floor and hopefully the chair will recognize the senator from illinois. mr. burris: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. burris: thank you. i'm pleased to join the distinguished senator from louisiana in supporting this small business legislation on

our bill. mr. president, there's a growing course in washington today of national leaders and advocacy groups and concerned citizens who have all come together to call for financial reform. across america folks are demanding the return to accountability, commonsense regulations and fair business practices. each of us has been touched by the this -- by this economic recession. every member of this body has heard from countless businesses and families back home who have had to tighten their belts and brace for th the worst. we've all seen the raw numbers, heard the statistics over and over again, but too often we forget what's behind these numbers. real folks experiencing real

pain. this economic crisis is far from abstract. it has touched millions of american lives. it's made people wonder when or even if our economic future will be secured again -- secure again. it has shaken us to the core, mr. president, but things are finally starting to look a bit better thanks to the bold we've taken at the national level america's back on the road to recovery. key economic indicators are turning around. but we're not out of the woods yet. the national unemployment rate stands at almost 10%. our economy is growing, but more slowly than we had hoped. some people, especially the elderly and the racial and ethic minorities remain especially vulnerable.

their pain is real, mr. president. that's why, as this senate considers financial reform legislation, we need to make sure they protected. we need to make sure our recovery continues along the right path and that at the same time we need to stand up for these folk who -- and prevent this from happening again. mr. president, that is why we need to create a consumer financial protection bureau, a strong advocate standing warily on the side of the -- squarely on the side of ordinary americans. defending them from abuse at the hands of large corporations. this new bureau must be at the center of our financial reform package. it must be empowered to set and enforce strict consumer protection rules.

mr. president, we should start with the mortgage industry. for years banks have allowed to relax their standards. they've made bad loans to people who have never been able to make the payments. as a result, foreclosures skyrocketed, almost no community in america was immune to the subprime lending crisis. but minority populations were hit the hardest. at the height of the subprime boom, 54% of the loans made to african-americans were high-price loans. the recession has caused these borrowers to come under severe stress, and, as a result, the black homeownership rate has decreased. mr. president, we need to stop this kind of predatory lending and restore the basic principles of fair play to the mortgage industry.

that's why our consumer financial protection bureau will take a hard look at the way the mortgage brokers operate. it would ensure that borrowers have access to loans that they can afford and it would shut down scam operations, end abusive practices, and keep all brokers honest. but it doesn't stop there, mr. president. i believe we should extend many of these same protections to the student loan industry. today, young people represent the best that america has to offer. they are our future, and we need to invest in their education. so we can make sure that they have the tools that will help them succeed in the global marketplace. that's why our consumer protection bureau would have the authority to set basic rules of

the road to make sure students are empowered to make smart choices. the bureau would provide assistance to borrowers and institutions alike, increasing the flow of information and bringing transparency back into the complicated system. this would provide significant benefit to young people across america, but it would have the strongest impact on minority households. 49% of which currently have installment loans, including student loans. finally, mr. president, we must task our new bureau with increasing financial literacy among consumers. today, far too many americans get caught up in the fine print trapped by the deceptive practices of major financial institutions. so if we pass finance reform that includes a consumer protection bureau, these folks will have access to clear

information in plain english. and if they are still confused, they would be able to call a consumer hotline. this would connect them directly with experts at an office of financial literacy so that they could get their questions answered and make sure they are getting a fair deal. mr. president, this will empower consumers to make smart choices and would prevent big financial institutions from taking advantage of ordinary americans. it would ensure that we stay on the road to recovery and extend a helping hand to regular folk who need it, especially the disadvantaged communities that have felt the worst effect of this crisis. most importantly, mr. president, the consumer financial protection bureau would help prevent this kind of crisis from

ever happening again. we must never forget the statistics and wall street balance sheets do not tell the complete story of this financial meltdown. it's important to think of real human beings, individuals and families who are behind these numbers, the ordinary folk who continue to suffer. i believe it's time to stand up for these folk, mr. president. that's why i'm glad that a consumer financial protection agency is at the center of our wall street reform bill. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: are we in a quorum call at present? the presiding officer: we are. mr. corker: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. corker: mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to come back down and speak on financial regulation. i think you know -- first of all, i want to thank -- i want to congratulate the presiding officer from colorado for being very successful yesterday in passing an amendment that i think is going to be good for our country. but, mr. president, i rise to speak about an amendment that i had earlier today, it was an amendment that i think was very common sense and i think gets at the heart of this financial crisis. it didn't pass but it was an amendment to put in place underwriting standards to keep

the kind of crisis that we just saw that happened in our country over the last couple of years from happening again. i think we all realize that the base of this crisis, which the dodd bill does not address, at the base of this crisis was the fact we had a number of loans, large numbers of loans written around this country that people couldn't pay back. the underwriting standards were poor, credit was extended to people that couldn't pay the mortgages back and those were passed throughout the world and $600 trillion worth of notional value, derivatives, that were based on, again, these underlying bad mortgages and so we created -- we had a systemic crisis, not only in this country but around the world. and so what i attempted to do with my amendment was to put some appropriate underwriting standards in place where everybody who purchased a home would have to put a 5% down payment. 5% down payment. that if they borrowed more than 80% loan-to-value, there would

have to be some credit enhancement up to 100% to ensure it, in fact, was a safe loan, that they had to fully document their income. what a breakthrough. they'd have to have -- they'd have to include their credit history and employment history. and then we'd have to determine the borrowers' ability to repay, including consideration of their debt-to-income ratios. this was just a basic underwriting guideline. i think we know, again, at the base of this problem that we just went through was the fact that we had a lot of bad loans written. i had a number of democratic colleagues come up after the vote and they said, or actually during the vote, and they said, i support what you want to do but the provision striking the 5% retention, which we did have in this same amendment, dealing with the securitization was what kept me from voting