that will empower americans, as i've said, with critical in fact about their financial health. this makes common sense. let put -- let's put americans in charge of their financial future. as i close, i want to thank chairman dodd, senator lugar and senators levin, bond, schumer, begich, lautenberg, and all the 20-plus additional senators who helped push for this important reform. thank senator pryor who's worked with us to find something that everyone can agree on. i look forward to this amendment being called up later, and i urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense reform that will give americans control over their financial future. madam president, thank you, and i yield the floor, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. demint: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. demint: i ask it be suspended. i call for the regular order with respect to wyden apartment 4109 and call up my amendment as a second-degree amendment

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from south carolina, mr. demint, proposes an amendment numbered 3852 to amendment numbered 4019. at the appropriate place insert the following: section, border fence completion. a, minimum requirements -- mr. demint: madam president, i ask the reading of the amendment be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. demint: i thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. dodd: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. kaufman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. kaufman: madam president, i ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: madam president, i ask consent to speak as if in morning business for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: madam president, i rise today to speak once more about our nation's great federal employees. henry clay once said that government is a trust and the offices of the government are the trustees.

and both the trust and the trustees were created for the benefit of the people. every dollar of the taxpayers' money that we in congress spend on their behalf must be accounted for and every program rigorously audited to prevent waste and fraud. that job belongs to the tireless and persistent employees of the government accountability office. since its founding in 1921, the g.a.o. has been called the taxpayers' best friend. it is the people's watchdog. the home of over 3,000 federal employees whose main task is to save the american people money by analyzing how public funds are spent. they make recommendations to the congress on how best to eliminate waste and make programs more efficient. if our elected officials have an entrusted guard over public business, surely is the men and women of the g.a.o. who in the

words of the ancient watch over the guardians. today i want to highlight the achievements of two outstanding emploemployees of the g.a.o. clath lean burk has -- kathleen burk has spent her whole career with the government, first at pentagon and at the air force agency and later with the postal service and the g.a.o. she has been at the forefront of ensuring accountability. as manager -- she has led comprehensive analysis of potential security vulnerablities at the transportation security agency and suggested key improvements. in 2008, when assigned to review the plan for t.s.a. secure flight program which screens air passengers against terrorist watch lists, kathleen identified flaws an offered sound

recommendations. she also conducted studies and authored reports recommending more oversight in how we secure our nation's mass transit system and passenger rail. kathleen testified before congressional committees over 20 times and has proven to be an expert resource and policymaker. the second person whose story i will share is cynthia bashetti, she worked with the g.a.o. for 30 years when she was set to retire. however devastation wrought by hurricane katrina delayed her retirement and she decided to remain in public service. as the g.a.o.'s director for health care, sinltsdza leads two major reviews of public health infrastructure in new orleans to be sure that the recovery funds are being spent wisely and for the greatest benefit. in her three decades of service at the g.a.o. she fought to improve federal disability policies, urged making h.i.v.

treatment and prevention a national priority and recommended changes to social security to help beneficiaries return to work without losing health care benefits. one of the areas of focus throughout cynthia's career has been improving care for our wounded veterans. she testified at the first congressional hearing to investigate the conditions at walter reed medical center and her reviews were critical in understanding where changes needed to be made. since we passed the recovery act last year, the g.a.o. has been preparing reports every 60 days on how funds are beings used. cynthia has been working recently as the g.a.o.'s state lead in illinois, carefully reviewing every dollar from the recovery act being spent there. madam president, employees at the g.a.o. continue to ensure that government programs work for the american people. they remain ever vigilant to ensure that all of our public funds are spent wisely and carefully. i hope my colleagues will join

me in thanking cynthia burk, kathleen burk and cynthia beshetti and all of the outstanding servants at the g.a.o. office, they are all truly great federal employees. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. dodd: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. dodd: before our colleague from delaware leaves the floor, i said this once before, madam president, but i want to repeat it again. our colleague from delaware has only been here a few months, i guess, a little over a year now. it goes by very quickly stepping in after our colleague, joe biden, became vice president. senator kaufman, i believe almost on a daily basis, or something like that, weekly basis, takes a few minutes out to recognize people whose names or face i'm sure most americans have never seen and never know, maybe their families and neighbors are familiar with them, but he chooses three or

four people who have worked on behalf of all of us. in many cases for years without ever getting the kind of notoriety and celebration that people in elected office receive. and i just want to thank him for doing it. it's not a piece of legislation. it's not an amendment to a bill. it's not some ordinance or some treaty that this senate has an obligation to engage in. it's just taking a little time out to recognize some very fine americans. we all hear about the ones that mess up and do things wrong. they get the headlines. but every day, there are literally thousands of people in this country who go to work on behalf of the american public who do their jobs diligently and serve us all tremendously well, and the fact that one member in this body every week takes a few minutes out to say thank you is something i deeply appreciate, and i thank him for doing it. mr. kaufman: madam president, i want to thank the senator from delaware and just thank him for what he does and to say to all the world he is truly one of the

great federal employees that we have ever had. so i thank the senator from connecticut. mr. dodd: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: thank you, madam president. i want to rise to talk about senator specter's amendment numbered 3776 which has already been debated by the senator from pennsylvania, but i want to bring up the other side because it's a very technical legal issue which crosses professional fields of accounting, tax preparation and legal counsel. however, to understand where senator specter would take this amendment, i want to explain where we have been. in 1995, congress rightly decided that the securities and exchange commission, the s.e.c., should have sole authority and ability to prosecute criminals violating securities laws. the decision was made because we

knew that private sex lawsuits would lawsuits -- private securities lawsuits would be driven by the class action. we saw the class action lawsuits tying up the courts and tie up litigation for years for mere fluctuations in company's stock prices. private securities lawsuits would potentially open up small businesses to unwarranted liabilities. just as these small businesses are struggling to make a comeback and hope to hire more workers to stimulate our economy. 15 years later, in 2010, senator specter has introduced an amendment which would run contrary to congress' decision. senator specter's amendment would create what's called a private right to action, meaning trial lawyers are going to have a field day with this. what's worse, though, is that this legal standard included in this amendment just doesn't hold water. the standard for aiding and

abetting. that's aiding and abetting in this amendment has been adjusted three times in two weeks, and it still isn't right. the standard in this amendment requires actual knowledge of the improper conduct underlying the violation and the role of the person assisting in such conduct. the standard is only slightly better than the first two proposals discussed earlier in the debate. at first glance, this standard may seem like that's all that's needed to show that someone has aided another in the act of committing a fraud. it would seem if a person has knowledge of an improper conduct and knows they are helping that person, it would be a simple legal matter. however, it's absolutely not the case, and i'll explain why in just a minute. now, i'm not a legal mind debating legal standards or case law. however, i am a businessman and an accountant by trade, and i can see that this poor legal definition will do, not only to

the business of accounting but to our domestic securities industry as well. tinkering with this language of this amendment doesn't conceal the fact that the real world impact of this provision has not changed. i need to point out that the legal standard this amendment has still has holes. using the amendment laid out in the specter amendment -- here's another example. you notice this person running through the park. having seen the person, you now have knowledge that that person was running. as a passer-by, you got out of the way so that they could continue on the run. now, if we were to apply the specter standard, even if you never met this person, you would have knowledge of that person's action, you knew he was running, and you got out of the way so he could use the sidewalk, that's aiding. now, if this person just robbed

a bank under this standard, you could now arguably be considered a secondary accomplice. in another hypothetical example, if a lawyer reviews a client's statement to their investors, approves what has been written and the client falsified those statements, the lawyer is completely liable. despite not knowing that the client's disclosures were false. although changes from the first draft of this amendment to what is before us now are somewhat better, this amendment is still unacceptable. this amendment does not require that person in question has knowledge that the primary voorlt -- violator has broken the law. that's a very important part of this. you may have seen him, you may have moved aside for him, but you didn't know he was breaking the law. that's a very important requirement. the specter amendment just requires that the person is aware of the conduct itself, not whether it's illegal. in other words, one doesn't have to know that they are helping

someone violate the law, which is what aiding and abetting is. one just has to know that the conduct happened. i'll say that again. this standard only requires that one knows of improper conduct, not that he knows that the conduct is improper. this is a critical and unacceptable difference. to be clear, the standard does not even meet what is used by the s.e.c. to prosecute criminal aiding and abetting charges. the s.e.c. standard is significantly higher. because the standard in this amendment is so flawed, we would be opening up thousands of innocent small businesses to secondary charges of fraud. again, we're not talking about criminal charges here. these charges would be strictly considered in a civil court. keeping this standard would give profit-motivated trial lawyers a vague statutory standard to work from. not a good combination. they would be able to cast a wide net for defendants, and

this opens up professionals or their company to the costs of discovery and trial, in addition to potential liability for damages awarded in the rest of the criminal case. let's not forget we're talking about accountants, tax preparers and attorneys who aid everyday companies. this means these professionals would be faced with a standard of evidence they cannot refute or argue, and they would be likely facing unfounded charges. an accountant looks at the books, has knowledge of it, but that doesn't mean that he knows that it was improper, and most of the accounting audits are not of every single transaction. for a big corporation, an audit of every single transaction might take three or four years to cover one year's worth of transactions. it can be done. but under that circumstance, the

accountant might have knowledge. and because he signs off on the papers, might be aiding them under this definition. their option under this standard would be pleading out for millions of dollars, even if innocent, or losing even more in the long process of discovery and trial in order to defend themselves and their work. all this for someone who may not even know the criminal or known that the person's actions were criminal. is this how our country's legal system is supposed to work? are we going to incentivize frivolous lawsuits? the specter amendment standard may even go so far as to hold these professionals liable for not finding fraud. i also want to note that this proposed amendment also goes beyond just the actions of some accountants or lawyers involved in the securities industry. senator chuck schumer and mayor michael bloomberg of new york city commissioned a report which found that meritless securities

lawsuits are driving up the cost of doing business in securities and driving away foreign investors, making the united states less competitive worldwide. having a standard like the specter amendment proposal means foreign trading partners may be reluctant to bring business here right when our country needs the investment the most. foreign investors will not want to bring business here if doing so exposes them to the private liability standard that specter's amendment would create. as an accountant and former small business owner and for each of the reasons i've outlined, i urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-conceived amendment and would be happy to answer questions of any of my colleagues if they have any of these. i again ask them to just ask their accountant what they think about this particular standard which could lead to lawsuits, discovery, a lot of costs and

needlessly. we're trying to pass a law that would take care of 1% of the problem and penalize the other 99%, so i hope that we will defeat the specter amendment. i yield the floor. mr. enzi: madam president, i suggest the spence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much, madam president. i rise to speak to an amendment -- the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mrs. feinstein: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you, madam president. i rise to speak to an amendment

i have offered. it's amendment 3939, and i ask unanimous consent to add senator snowe as a cosponsor. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much, madam president. this amendment is cosponsored also by senators levin and cantwell. the dodd-lincoln bill, as currently drafted, takes major steps to reform the $600 trillion derivative market. i don't think people understand how big this market is. it would require every trade to be reported in realtime to the commodities futures trading commission. it would require that all cleared contracts be traded on an exchange or on a swap execution facility, therefore guaranteeing transparency. it would require that speculative position limits be set in aggregate for each commodity instead of contract by

contract. again, transparency. it would require foreign boards of trade to adhere to minimum standards comparable to those in the united states, including reporting requirements. the provision is designed to address the underlying problem of the so-called london loophole. i very much support these positions. however, i am very concerned that the bill doesn't go far enough to really address the london loophole. and this loophole has allowed for the trading of united states energy commodities, such as crude oil, on foreign exchanges without oversight from united states regulators. this means there's no cop on the beat to shield u.s. oil prices from manipulation or excessive speculation when they're traded in foreign markets, like commodities exchanges in london,

dubai or shanghai. the amendment i'm proposing along with my colleagues would allow the cftc to require foreign boards of trade to register with the cftc, which would give the commodities futures trading commission the enforcement authority it needs. it is supported by the chairman of the cftc, larry gentzler. this provision was in president obama's original proposed financial reform bill and i think it is critical to pass in this bill. now, let me explain what has become known as the london loophole. in the wake of the california energy crisis, we learned that most energy trading had been exempted from regulation by the commodities futures modernization act of 2000 at the urging of a company by the name

of enron. using the enron loophole, this firm pioneered over-the-counter energy derivatives trading. it set up enron on-line, an electronic market for trading physical and derivative energy contracts. it was a marketplace with no transparency, no paper trail that could be audited, no speculative position limits, and absolutely no government oversight to prevent fraud, manipulation, or protect the public interest. enron was a participant in every trade and only enron knew the prices. it used enron on-line and other trading forums to fleece california consumers for $40 billion over two years in increased energy prices. and shockingly, much of what enron had set up was legal

because congress had stripped the commodities futures trading commission of its enforcement power. terrible. from 2002 on, i worked with senators snowe, cantwell and levin and many others to restore regulatory oversight to energy derivatives. we tried in 2002 on this floor, 2003, 2004 to regulate energy derivatives but we were stopped and stymied. opponents, such as alan greenspan, have since said their opposition was mistaken. finally, in 2008, six years after we started, we were able to close this notorious enron loophole in an amendment to the farm bill, of all things. the amendment imposed meaningful regulation including speculative position limits and market

oversight, so the cftc began monitoring these markets for fraud and manipulation for the first time in ten years. but as congress took steps to establish regulatory oversight of domestic energy derivatives markets, wall street traders moved to avoid united states regulation. they began to turn to offshore markets. the successor to enron online, the intercontinental exchange in atlanta, bought a london exchange, converted it into an electronic exchange, and began listing american oil futures abroad. that's a way speculators could go right around american regulation and avoid it. west texas intermediate crude

has been one of the highest-volume contracts on this london exchange since 2006. this contract has what's called a price discovery impact because it's commonly referenced as the standard market price for oil. this new regulatory loophole has just become known as the london loophole. but firms also listed american energy commodity derivatives in yodubai and singapore and opened their electronic platforms to american traders. this new electronically traded marketplace allows american traders, simply put, to evade american market oversight and speculation limits. the practical implication of this is that united states traders can use offshore electronic exchanges to

artificially drive up prices of united states commodities without any consequences from our nation's market regulators. this is a big problem. a 2008 cftc report found that traders using this london exchange to trade u.s. crude oil futures held positions far larger than would be allowed by american regulators. in fact, from 2006 to 2008, at least one trader position exceeded united states speculation limits every single week on the london exchange, and british regulators have done nothing about it. the good news is that some steps have been taken administratively to address this loophole. in 2008, the commodities futures

trading commission negotiated an agreement with british regulators to bring greater oversight to american commodities contracts traded in london. the agreement called for speculation limits for the electronic trading of united states energy commodities like crude oil on foreign exchanges and required record keeping and an audit trail, so you can look at them for fraud or manipulation. without an audit trail, it's all in the dark. but cftc -- and here's -- here's the crunner: irk the cftc has limited legal authority to enforce this agreement. the bottom line: we need to make sure the cftc can oversee trading of american commodities, whether it happens through a computer server

located on wall street or in singapore. the dodd-lincoln bill currently before us includes some important provisions to help close the london loophole. as drafted, the bill will require foreign boards of trade that provide access to american traders to comply with comparable rules enforced by a foreign regulator; to publish trading information daily; to supply data to the cftc,; and to enforce position limits. however, the cftc is unable to force a foreign board of trade to comply with those requirements. and that's just fact. and this is because the cftc's current method of overseeing foreign exchanges has tenuous legal underpinnings due to a commodity exchange act provision

forbidding the cftc from "regulatorring" foreign boards of trade. so in many instances, our regulatory body, the cftc, can take action against a united states trader on a foreign exchange to prevent manipulation or excessive speculation only with the cooperation and consent of the foreign regulator. the other more controversial option is for the cftc to completely ban the foreign exchange from all united states operations. and, not surprisingly, they shoulshyaway from enforcing in e of these regulatory obstacles. so we have a bill here that still doesn't provide strong regulation. still allows american derivatives traders to avoid

american regulations by trading on a foreign electronic platform in dubai, in london, and in other places as well. that's why we, senator snowe, senator levin, senator cantwell, and i are offering a proposal to allow the cftc to require foreign boards of trade to register with the cftc, which would give them the enforcement authority it needs. now quickly, here are the benefits of the amendment: first, the registration process itself would give cftc the authority to oppose regulatory requirements as a condition of registration. secondly, a formal registration process would assure that foreign boards of trade all follow the same set of rules. and, thirdly, the registration

process would provide a much clearer basis for cftc decisions to refuse or withdraw permission to foreign boards of trade wishing to allow american traders on their exchange. finally and most importantly, all of cftc's existing enforcement authorities apply to registered entities under the commodity exchange act. so this amendment would allow the commodities futures trading commission to enforce its own statute with regard to foreign exchanges operating in the united states. now, this is a moderate, practical amendment to assure that we give our regulator the authority to enforce the statutory provisions already in the legislation. there are powerful interests out there that are opposed to this. they want to be able to avoid our law. they want to be able to trade

over the london exchange, and we negotiated with them to close the enron loophole. we had i.c.e. in our office. they agreed to it. it took six months of negotiation. and you know what they did? they then went offshore, bought the london exchange, changed it to an electronic trading platform to avoid the very agreement they had agreed with, that we legislated and enacted. and that's fact. and guess what? it burns me up. and i don't intend to quit, because i don't like to be duped that way, whether it's goldman sachs and i.c.e. or anybody else. you give your word, you make an agreement, you don't go offshore to avoid that agreement. so, now that i've cooled down, this is a moderate, practical

amendment to assure that we give the commodities futures trading commission the authority to enforce a statutory provision -- the statutory provisions already in the proposed legislation. why would we want legislation which can't be enforced? why would we want legislation that ties their hands? why would we want legislation that allows somebody simply to avoid this law by trading what amounts to $600 trillion of derivatives in dubai or in london or in shanghai or anywhere else? and guess what, mr. president? these electronic exchanges will be set up everywhere to avoid this bill, and that's why we have to give the commodities futures trading commission the authority to see that these foreign exchanges register with

them and agree to abide by the laws of the united states of america. i think it's really important that we do this, and i don't intend to quit one way or another, if it takes me six years to get it done, as it did the last one. i have no respect for traders that just look to go around united states law. so, as we crack down on traders in our markets, we must be ever-vigilant to assure that traders sitting on wall street do not avoid our regulations by trading on electronic exchanges with computer servers in london or dubai or singapore. i think this amendment is an improvement of the london loophole provisions in the dodd-lincoln bill by making these provisions easily enforceable. it is the final piece to go in,

to really close the london loophole, which should never have been in the first place, and to ensure that our government has what it needs to protect american markets from manipulation and excessive speculation, no matter where united states energy commodities are traded. i mean, i expect the big boyce to speck out -- i mean, i expect the big boys to speak out against t b it. but everybody to knows how they were fleeced by enron clearly will understand the value of being able to enforce the law of this country. we should ask for no less. i know i can't call up the amendment at the present time, but i hope i will have that opportunity to do so later. i thank the chair. i yield the floor.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. dodd: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut is recognized. mr. dodd: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. mr. dodd: mr. president, what is the pending question? the presiding officer: the demint amendment is pending for the dodd-wyden first-degree amendment. mr. dodd: mr. president, i now withdraw the wyden amendment. the presiding officer: the senator has that right. the amendment is withdrawn. mr. dodd: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate now resume consideration of the durbin amendment, number 3989 and the thune amendment number 3987, that the durbin amendment be modified with the changes at the desk, that the amendment be debated concurrently for a total of ten minutes, with the time equally divided and controlled in the usual form, with no amendment be in order, any of the amendments to this agreement prior to a vote, that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the

senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments, that the durbin amendment be subject to an affirmative 60-vote threshold, that if the amendment achieves the threshold that it be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, that if the amendment does not achieve the threshold that it be withdrawn. the durbin amendment number 3889 as modified, thune amendment number 3887. that after the first vote, the succeeding vote be limited to ten minutes, that two minutes of debate prior to each vote equally divided and controlled. the durbin amendment number 3989 as modified. thune amendment number 3987. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from new hampshire.

the senator is not on the floor. mr. dodd: mr. president, i couldn't hear. what is the situation here? the presiding officer: there is an objection by the senator from new hampshire. a [no audio] mr. dodd: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut, without objection. mr. dodd: i renew my unanimous consent request. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, it is so ordered. mr. dodd: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of the above-mentioned amendments the senate resume the collins amendment number 3879, that the amendment be considered agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered, made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. dodd: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the following be the next first-degree amendments in order: rockefeller-hutchison,

the f.t.c. amendment; senator crapo, the g.s.e. on budget amendment; senator mark udall of colorado number 4016 regarding credit scores; senator shelby of alabama's amendments consumer bureau; senator whitehouse of rhode island, the state usury laws; senator vitter number 4003, the manufacturing amendment; senator cantwell and senator mccain's stkpwhras steagall -- glass-steagall amendment. 3986. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. dodd: mr. president, i believe the senator from illinois -- mr. durbin: it's my understanding that under the unanimous consent request -- the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be ten minutes of debate equally divided. the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask that the chair inform me

when i have one minute left of my five minutes. i think this is an amendment that's well known to my colleagues. i've spoken on the floor several times. it is about the interchange fees charged to small businesses across america for the use of credit cards. this amendment does the following things: it directs the federal reserve to ensure the debit fees on debate cards are reasonable and proportional to processing costs. it stops visa and master card from imposing anticompetitive restrictions. it ends prohibitions on discounts for use of different network cards. ends prohibitions on discounts for cash, debtor credit. it ends prohibitions on minimum purchase levels for paying with a credit card. it does not affect credit card interchange rates. we do not establish a rate. that is left entirely to the federal reserve to review. we do not allow discrimination against small banks or credit unions.

the modification specifically prohibits any discrimination against an issue of a credit card. a merchant may decide to favor one network over another but cannot favor one bank over another that issues a card. there can be no discrimination against a credit union, community bank or large bank. it doesn't set interchange prices. and by putting a $10 billion threshold in terms of the bank's issuing the cards, we literally exempt 99% of all banks and credit unions from the application of this law. still, just going for the largest banks in america, 86 banks in america, we will cover 65% of all the credit and debit transactions in this country. so it's a significant amendment, and it protects the community banks and the credit unions. i will tell you that i'm very concerned and disappointed by the so-called independent community banks association which continues to oppose this

amendment despite my best efforts to exempt virtually all of their members from being covered. i understand they have a conflict of interest because they are in the top 25 issuers of credit and debit cards in the united states. they make a lot of money under the current situation. they may not want to change it. but it's not fair to small banks in illinois and across the nation for them to speak to this issue when they have this conflict of interest. the second thing i want to say to the credit unions, there are 8,200 credit unions in america. all but three are exempt from this law. 99.999% of credit unions are exempt from this law. and for them to be opposing it because of three of the biggest credit unions in america is unfair to the rest of their members and certainly unfair to the merchants that do business with them every day. this is the single-most important amendment for small business and retail business in america that we will consider on this bill. in a time of recession when we need small businesses to step up

to create jobs, this is a way to move forward. members have heard from all across the country, from small businesses and retail merchants who are asking for some fairness, some justice when it comes to these major credit cards that literally dictate the terms of their agreements with these small businesses. i urge my colleagues to support the durbin amendment, and i am going to reserve the balance of my time. the presiding officer: who yields time? if no time is yielded, the time will be charged to both sides equally. mr. durbin: mr. president, how much time do i have remaining? the presiding officer: a minute and 15 seconds. mr. durbin: i yield to the republican side if there's opposition to the amendment. mr. kyl: mr. president, as far as i know there is no one else on our side wishing to speak,

and therefore we can yield back time. mr. durbin: mr. president, let me close briefly. i would say to my colleagues, i know this is a complex and in some ways controversial amendment, but i can't think of a better way for us to establish a reasonable standard that debit cards, which are now becoming more common and are equivalent to a check, are going to be charged against the merchant that honors the card only in a reasonable and proportional way by the same agency we used under the consumer credit card reform bill of just last year. i urge my colleagues if they are listening to small businesses across america trying to survive, trying to add new employees, give them a helping hand by voting for the durbin amendment so they can have reasonable choices for the credit cards and debit cards at their establishment. i urge the passage of this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time.

the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. if all time is yielded back, the question is on the durbin amendment number 89 -- 3989 as modified. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does anyone wish to vote or to change their vote?

the presiding officer: are any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote?

the presiding officer: are any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 64, the nays are 33. under a previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: has the motion to reconsider been tabled? the presiding officer: that hasn't been made, mr. leader. without objection, so ordered. the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, if i could get everyone's attention? the presiding officer: could we have order in the senate, please. order in the senate, please. could we have order in the

senate, please? the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, we have had -- we have dealt with 31 amendments on this piece of legislation. until today, this last amendment, they have all been 50-vote margins. there have been no tabling motions. we now have six amendments pending. we have unanimous consent that eight more can be offered. there is talk between the two managers of the bill. there is democratic amendments that we think the republicans will agree to and republican amendments that we think we will agree to. we're moving toward wrapping up this bill. there will be a number of votes on monday night starting at 5:30. everyone should be aware of that. tonight the managers are here. they will try to work through a couple more amendments tonight. we have one more vote. after that, there will be no more votes until monday night. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the -- on the amendment 3987.

offered by the senator from south dakota. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote: "

" vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are wh 40, the nays are 55. the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, the question is on the amendment 3879 offered by senator from maine. the amendment is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.

mr. dodd: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: thank you. mr. president, i would ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: we've got a quorum call. mr. wyden: i would ask unanimous consent to vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. wyden: i would ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. wyden: mr. president and colleagues, the american people are furious at the way business is done in washington, d.c. today, on the floor of the united states senate, we saw a pretty good reason why. mr. president, for many months, a large group of senators on both sides of the aisle -- senator grassley, senator inho

inhofe, senator collins, among the republicans, a host of my colleagues on our side of the aisle let by senator mccaskill, senator bennet, a host of others -- have been working to try to eliminate the secret hold here in the united states senate, which is in my view one of the most pernicious, most antidemocratic practices in government. what the secret hold allows, mr. president, is for just one senator -- just one -- to anonymously keep the american people from getting any sense of a particular piece of legislation, someone who's been nominated for an appointment, really any sense of some of the most important business that is before the united states senate. the senator from missouri, who is here, has noted that at times

there are scores to scores of secret holds. i've point the out that this -- i've pointed out that this has happened for years on both sides of the aisle. so this has been an opportunity, when the country is crying out for bipartisanship, for democrats and republicans together as our large group as done, to fix this, to open up our government, to ensure that democracy is accountable and that public business is actually done in public. mr. president, until about an hour or so ago, i think we were -- i thought we would win a dramatic victory for the cause of open government. we had a good debate this morning on the measure. colleagues on both sides of the aisle talked about it. mr. president, not one senator

objected, not one was willing to say in public that they were in favor of secret holds. quite the opposite, we talked for sometime and no one objected at all, and we were under the impression that the matter would be scheduled for a vote this afternoon. given that, i was flabbergasted that right before it was time to vote, one senator -- just one-- without any lts whatever, mr. president -- no notice to me -- without any notice whatever mr. president, no bhats i whats, one senator sought to attach to our amendment, which would have received a resounding vote, senators are not going to vote in favor of secrecy when they're

on the record -- one senator attached completely unrelated matter, a very controversial matter. mr. president, i say to you, i say to all my colleagues, i never, ever would have done that to another colleague. i have felt for many years now that the great challenge here in the united states senate is to have colleagues work together, to have colleagues come together on both sides, because that's going to help us advance the cause of open government. it's going to help us to get the best possible policy. so if i had been in our colleague's shoes -- and i was interested in advancing this other issue -- i would have come to that particular senator and say, how can we work this out? that didn't happen. and so all of us at the last

minute, when we were looking forward to celebrating what, in my view, would have been an historic vote for open government, after all of these months of democrats and republicans debating secrecy in government, we now set here on thursday evening with secrecy having won once more. doing government in the shadows, winning once more. denying the american people the accountibility that this institution is all about, winning once again. mr. president, i think the american people deserve better. we spent a lot of time today bringing all sides together. the chairman of the committee, senator dodd, is here with us. the whole essence of the wall street legislation has been to

ensure more openness and more accountability in these essential financial transactions. chairman dodd has done a superb job in advancing that case. what senators on both sides of the aisle sought to do, until there was an objection from one senator at the last minute with no notice, what we sought to do was to say, if we're going to open up our system of financial transactions so there'd be more transparency and more accountability, let's also open up the way we do business in the united states senate so the american people aren't kept in the dark any longer about major judgments with respect to legislation or nominations. one senator, just one, without notice, kept us from bringing that new accountability and openness to the united states senate. mr. president, i know colleagues

want to bring up other matters. i simply want to say, i think i've been in this body now for a little over a decade, i can't recall another instance where the cause of open government took a beating -- took a blindsiding, mr. president -- like the cause of open government took this afternoon. and i just want to tell my colleagues, i intend to come back to my post here again and again and again until we abolish the secret hold, until we ensure that the american people see that government is being brought out of the shadows and debates are out in the open where they ought to be. we didn't win this afternoon,

because i think we got knee-capped, mr. president. i don't know how to describe it any other way. but i don't think at this time in american history where the american people are this angry, this angry at the way washington, d.c., does business, that those who advocate secrecy are on the right side of history. i don't think they're going to be able to defend in broad daylight opposing a bipartisan coalition. mr. president, senator grassley has worked with me on this for a decade. he has again and again championed the cause of transparency and openness in government, not just on this question of apolis abolishing st holds. these are colleagues, democrats and republicans, who want to show the american people that they're going to stand for open government and that they're

going to do it in a way that the american people will say, those folks finally get it, instead of spending their time in these petty food fights, there are a group of democrats and republicans who acted like aduments and got together and -- adults and got together and solved a major problem by eliminating secrecy and making government more open. so, mr. president, it's my intent to come back here, if possible, day in and day out until this changes. i think this is unconscionable. i could tell you, i've never seen anything like this in my time in the united states senate. one senator coming in at the last moment with no notice, trying to derail the cause of open government. i'm not going to stand for it. i don't think the american people are going to stand for it. and we will be back here for as long as it takes to bring some real sunshine to this cause of

the senate doing its business in public rather than in the shad doassments mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. mccaskill: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator mo is h recognized. ms. mccaskill: mr. president you i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. mccaskill: you know, mr. president, i know that someone is going to be able to use the fig leaf and stand behind the argument that the amendment that was offered at the very last moment this afternoon was about something they cared about and that it's something that we need to vote on. and it is a subject matter that we care about, that we need to work on, but, really, it's pretty transparent what's going on here. that at the very last moment, when all of a sudden we were this close for everyone having to go on record about secret holds, that someone shot it out of the sky like a clay pigeon,

and that's what this amendment did. now, -- so the argument is, well, you know, the wyden-grassley amendment on secret holds isn't really about financial reform bill. why does it get a chance to be voted on? it's very simple, mr. president. the reason the widen-grassley amendment should be considered germane to every bill we debate in this body is because it's about the way we do business. every day that goes by that we do not try to reform this nasty habit of secret holds, we diminish the shine and the glory that is our democracy. we diminish what this body should stand for and what our priorities should be. every day that we allow the secret hold process to continue to take root and grow and flourish, we are failing in our

job. as senators that are here to do the public's business. we're not here to go in back rooms and get something for our secret hold. we're not here to go in back rooms and leverage our secret hold for something else we want. we're not here to go in back rooms and have secret holds to keep this administration from succeeding or filling the jobs that need to be filled. we're here to be accountable. all the amendments that are out there that could be second degree. this amendment that would reform our process is selected. to slow it down and obviously hopefully kill it. well, i've got bad news for my friends across the aisle that want to kill the long-standing attempts of senator wyden and grassley to reform this, and my

recent attempts along with senator bennet, senator whitehouse, senator udall, senator warner and others that have come to the floor and spoken on secret holds. we're not going anywhere. you know, i -- i -- probably it's a fault i have, but i'm pretty darned stubborn. in fact, i'm probably stubborn to a fault. and i think this is something that we all ought to be stubborn about. we have different kinds of senators here. we have some that are kind of feeling like they are being marched to the gallows as they grudgingly support cleaning up secret holds. we have others that want to pound their chests and shout from the rooftops about trying to get rid of secret holds. and we have others that are hiding in the creeks, the crevasses, the little bitty tiny dark places that are trying to keep secret holds without anybody knowing who they are. well, i will say this. i think you can make the assumption that whoever offered the amendment to try to kill

this amendment probably is a big fan of secret holds, because it seems to me if they wanted this amendment to pass, they would at least have talked to the sponsors before they offered the second-degree amendment. that's the common courtesy around here. they would have at least given everyone some notice, but they saw this amendment speeding towards the finish line. they realized that they were going to be called for the yeas and nays on reforming the senate, and they decided to take the path of least resistance and that is try to kill the bill another way. but along with my colleague and mentor on this subject, senator wyden and senator grassley who i have met with a number of times over the last week, we are -- we are going to stay with this. and i know i speak for my colleagues that have been here four years or less, the freshmen and sophomores in this body. i know how strongly we feel about this, and i want to remind my colleagues, if i'm wrong

about you, if you are against secret holds, the letter is still open. we have 60 members who have signed a letter, 60 members of this body, all of the democrats but one, both of the independents and now two republicans have signed the letter saying we will not exercise a secret hold and we want to abolish secret holds, so i look forward to seeing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, more republicans join this letter. it is available. i hope they will contact us. senator warner, senator whitehouse and i are the lead signators on this letter. but it's time for everyone -- by the way, if we get to 67 signatures, guess what we could do? we could amend the standing rules of this place. we could say objection would not be in order if it's anonymous. we could do that with 67 votes. and what a great day that would be. wouldn't that be a wake-up call to the american people that maybe we get it, maybe we get

why our approval ratings of congress are near historic lows. for all the nonsense, ridiculous games that get played around here. let's do the public's business and let's do it in public and let's end the secret hold. this is a nasty habit we can no longer afford. i look forward to visiting with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and see if we can prevail upon them to withdraw their second-degree amendment so we can go forward or find some other way forward. but make no mistake, we will find a way forward and we will end the secret hold. i'm confident it will happen. so you can fight as long and as hard as you want, but we're not going to give up. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i will take a couple of minutes here. i have been here a less -- a smaller amount of time than anybody that's on this floor. the chairman has been here longer than i have been here, senator wyden, senator

mccaskill and others. it's been about 15 months. what i can tell you is this place doesn't operate like any other place in the universe. the secret hold business that we're talking about right now just so people understand allows a senator to be able to hold up a nomination or piece of legislation without having to tell anybody who they are. now, i spent half my career in business. no business i have would have ever tolerated a tool like that. i have worked in local government. no local government that i have ever been part of would have tolerated a rule like that. there are city councils and state governments and county governments all over this country right now. by the way, they are probably still at work, unlike us, trying to figure out how to balance their budgets in the most savage economy since the great depression. they are not using secret holds to stop their ability to respond

to the american people, and we shouldn't either. one of the things that i want to say here is that senator wyden should be congratulated because this is not a partisan piece of legislation. the number one thing i hear from people when i go home is why can't you guys work together? we lack confidence in what you're doing. these democrats, republicans, unaffiliated voters say why can't you work together? it looks like a partisan food fight back here because it is, but it's a little more complicated than that. in this case, we have a bipartisan piece of legislation that has broad support in this chamber. just like the nominees that are being held up that we brought forward. we haven't brought forward nominees that just got democratic votes. they are nominees that were passed out of the relevant committee of jurisdiction on a bipartisan basis, and somebody has decided that they want to hold these people up for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the nominees or

because they were passed out in a partisan way, which they weren't. they are bipartisan. so this isn't about everybody on the other side of the aisle holding up this legislation. this is bipartisan legislation. we should be here tonight -- it's only 7:30. we should be here tonight debating this amendment, allowing people to come together in a bipartisan way to support the amendment, just like we should allow people to come together in a bipartisan way to support the nominees that have come forward and been passed out of committee. there is no difference. the difference is that this rule allows some individuals to bring all of that to a grinding halt, to create more division rather than less division, which, at least in my view, is what we need as a country. my state, no matter where i am, in blue parts of the state, in red parts of the state, my sense of it that people have a pretty common set of aspirations for our state, for our country, for their kids, for our grandkids,

and they expect us to act on those aspirations rather than on the divisions that are so easy to create for just a political gig. and that's what's been happening when it comes to these secret holds. there are other issues as well that relate to the rules of this place that need to be changed, but this is one that really is a defense of -- mr. president, i came to the floor this morning and i said, you know, it reminds me a little bit of a car trip with my three little girls that are 10, 9 and 5. it happens every single time we're in the car, which is the first hour goes great, everybody is fine. then they start to fret with each other, they get frustrated with each other. you can hear it. any parent knows it. the hair on the back of your neck starts to rise, and you know something bad is about to happen, and it does because usually somebody slugs somebody else. and then you look behind you and everyone -- no one will admit what they have done, no one will

take responsibility for their bad act. we don't tolerate that in my household, by the way. we try hard to get to the bottom of the truth. we don't always, but we usually do. this is the same thing. i'm not saying people shouldn't be able to hold things up on the merits, but they ought to have to come to the floor and tell the american people who they are and why they are holding it up. they may have good arguments to make, and that's what this is about, is about debate, and that's what we need more of in this country because we're wasting the american people's time, we're wasting the american people's money, and we can't even get a debate on a lot of the issues that this country faces. so i'm going to try hard to do everything i can to contribute to a civil debate rather than an uncivil debate, and i think getting rid of these holds is going to be one of the ways forward. it's not the only thing we need to do, and i just want to thank senator wyden for all of his good work on this issue, senator

whitehouse for his good work and the chairman's indulgence for letting us have this conversation tonight. thanks for everything you have done to advance wall street reform this week. by the way, just on that, the american people should know that this bill, the wall street reform bill, is a very good bill, and unlike some other work that we have done recently, actually has the benefit of being worked on in a very bipartisan way with a lot of amendments from democrats and republicans that i think have improved the legislation, and i can't predict the future but my guess is it's going to pass with broad bipartisan support. so i congratulate chairman dodd on your leadership in getting that done in a way that gives the american people confidence that we're actually doing their business. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i want to rise and join my

colleagues in expressing our support for senator wyden's continued efforts to get this rule changed. the circumstances in which these secret holds take place are really quite remarkable. over and over again, you see a committee vote clearing a nominee for the floor. often unanimous or by heavy, huge bipartisan majorities. clearly qualified candidates, clearly candidates who enjoy bipartisan support. in many cases, candidates who are unanimously supported, even in this contentious and cantankerous time in this body. they come through the committee with that kind of support. and then they come to the floor and they come through the floor in some cases 98-0, 100-0. but between that unanimous committee vote and the unanimous floor vote is an endless,

endless, endless delay. and many of them stack up and never get that floor vote. we have had as many as 100 stacked up waiting for that floor vote on the executive calendar. what is happening between a unanimous committee vote and a unanimous floor vote that creates all this hassle and delay and leaves people in limbo for months and months, 100 at a time on the executive calendar, all of whom are in responsible positions in our federal government that, you know, we need to have staffed? it's the secret hold. it's the secret hold where you don't have to disclose who you are so you don't have to disclose why you're holding. and because you don't have to disclose who you are or why you're holding, you don't have to have a good reason. you could have a down right nefarious reason, and you could still use the hold. it's pretty widely known that deeds that are done in the dark are not the deeds that we are

proud of, and this is a deed that is by definition always done in the dark, and senator wyden and senators grassley's long efforts to get rid of it are very commendable, and we are going to work very hard to make sure we have their back on this rule. in this particular circumstance, senator wyden has been here 14 years. he has never seen a stunt like this one. i have only been here three years. i can't say that. but 14 years of service in the senate, never seen a stunt like this particular one. the -- the idea that this is on the merits, the idea that this is about trying to get a vote on that second-degree seems mighty improbable. of all the amendments on this bill, of all the amendments that we have had voted on, of all the amendments that are pending, of all the amendments that people are arguing to get on the floor, which is the one amendment that

somebody chose to drop this second-degree amendment on and jam up its passage through this body? which is the one? it's the secret hold amendment. and in a kind of perverse way, it's actually sort of appropriate that a vehicle -- a procedural vehicle, the secret hold that has such an odor of mischief around it, that the reform of that should itself be blockaded by a device, a procedural trick that also has that same odor of mischief about it. but what we want to do here is to get through that mischief so that the business of this body no longer reeks of the odor of mischief but instead gives off the healthy air of open debate and public process and

transparency. so thank you, senator wyden. senator grassley's not on the floor and i thank him, and whoever ever from his office is listen, and we will continue to push on this. if i could change to a different piece of business, i would like to take this opportunity to call up my amendment 3746 and thank senator dodd for it and say a few words about it. but first if i can just call it up. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from rhode island, mr. whitehouse, for himself and others, proposes an amendment numbered 3746. mr. whitehouse: may i ask that further reading of the a.m ament be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: i don't want to speak long on this but i first of all want to join senator bennet's appreciation of senator dodd for the long and successful way in which he has managed this bill. it has not gone unnoticed by the american people how contentious and cantankerous the environment is around the senate, and

notwithstanding that inhospicable -- inhospitable environment, senator dodd has done a great job bring this go legislation -- bringing this legislation through, amendments being debated, votes being taken. only one amendment has required so far 60 votes. it is going by the regular order of the senate and not by the unusual procedures that often have been forced by the recent obstructionism that we have se seen. so i really want to commend him. i want to thank him for allowing this amendment to be called up and to go forward. and i just want to add an additional sponsor to it, if i may, senator tom udall of new mexico has asked to be added as a sponsor and i'd ask unanimous consent to add him as the amendment's 15th cosponsor. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: for my colleagues, i very much hope that this can go with bipartisan

support. senator cochran on the republican side is a cosponsor as well. it is a bipartisan bill. this is a situation the congress never voted on, the situation that this is here to cure. we never made a decision that an out-of-state bank should be able to come into your state and violate your state's law about interest rates. we could have. that's within congress's power to say, but we never did. we never did. we are in that circumstance, however. we're in that circumstance for an unusual reason, because many years ago, 30 years ago the supreme court made a technical decision about the national banking act, determining that when you have a transaction between a bank in one state and a consumer in another state, where is the transaction located for regulatory purposes? they decided located where the bank is. they had to pick one or the

other. didn't seem very systemically important at the time, but the big banks, the big wall street banks have very crafty lawyers. and the very crafty lawyers saw the loophole that this innocent technical decision opened up and so they started moving their credit card businesses, their divisions into states that had the worst consumer protection laws. the ones where you could charge any interest rate you wanted, where there was the worst protection for the consumer. and from that base of the worst consumer protection in the country, they could move out and sell their product and do business in all the other states whose laws were still on the books, whose laws still protected their citizens, whose

laws had stood since the founding of the republic, since the establishment of the state. and they could get around those laws. they could get around those laws because of this loophole that the supreme court decision opened up. it is way past time that we close this loophole in illinois, in connecticut, in rhode island over and over and over again we hear from people who are suffering because they were late with a payment or fell into one of the tricks and traps in their credit card contract, or for absolutely no reason at all, just because they can do it, their credit card company jacked the interest rate up to or over 30%. and suddenly, boom, there they are in what one expert has called the sweatbox. they can't pay down what they owe, the interest is killing them, it's the most they can do to stay even all the time, and the big company milks them and milks them and milks them, charging an interest rate that would be illegal under the laws

of that home state. before 1978, the solicitation for that credit card that had those tricks and traps and that hidden 30% penalty rate would have been a matter for the authorities. now it's the way they do business. well, this amendment will put that back. for 202 years of this republic, that was the way things were, states could protect their own citizens from unfair and excessive interest rates. and that's the way it should be. that's what federalism is all about. that's what states' rights are all about. and so i hope that my amendment will go forward. if people believe in that history, more than two centuries of solid history of states protecting their consumers and a tradition of protection against abuse of interest rates that goes back before the founding of the republic, back into ancient roman law, back into all of the world's major religions.

this is a long-standing tradition with a very strange little loophole that's created a prospect historic anomaly that allows these -- a peculiar historic anomaly that allows these big, big, big corporations to take terrible advantage of ordinary americans. not only are ordinary americans taken advantage of this by this, but local banks suffer as well because they have to play by local rules. if you haven't played that little stunt of taking your bank and headquartering it in another state so you can work your way back and narcotic that very sam- and market in that very same state but under the consumer protections of the home state, then you're stuck, and it isn't fair. so i ask my colleagues to protect consumers in your home states, to be true to history and to states' rights, to protect your local banks who have to follow your local state's laws, met let's, pleaset this brief moment in history into the ash heap of history where it belongs, as an anomaly,

where americans for the first time had no protection from giant corporations that were gouging them with 30% and higher interest rates. that is not the way america was founded. that is not what we stood for for centuries. it is only because of this peculiar loophole that we have this situation now. we have it within our power to change it. we have within our power to go back to our home states and to say to the people in our home states, we have done you a real good deed. we have allowed your state government, your governor and legislature, the home state to protect its home citizens against abusive out-of-state interest rates. mr. president, a lot of this bill is very technical. it's preventive medicine to rebuild the glass-steagall fire wall, to regulate collateralized debt obligations, to enhance leverage requirements, things that are hard for people to

grasp if they haven't been steeped in these technicalities for these many weeks. important stuff. but if you want a clear deliverable to explain about this bill when you go back to your home state, when senator cochran, my cosponsor, goes back to his home state of mississippi if this amendment passes, he'll be able to say to his fellow mississippians, ladies and gentlemen, the state of mississippi is empowered now to protect you. and an out-of-state company can no longer take your interest rates and for a lousy reason or for no reason at all suddenly jack them up to 30% or more. it's simply wrong to leave ordinary americans subject to that kind of abuse, to all the crafty, heavily lawyered, carefully designed, socially engineered tricks and traps that they have built into these

complicated, complex, tricky credit card agreements. now 50 states can stand up against it, attorneys general can proceed to defend these la laws, and it puts the government of this country back where it should be, in the hands of the people. some people here i think would rather have the big corporations rule over the states. i believe that the states should trump even the big corporations when it comes to matters of protecting their own citizens and consumers. that's the way it should be. that's the way the country was found and if this amendment passes, that's the way it will be again. i thank you, mr. president mr. d i yield the floor. -- i thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut is recognized. mr. dodd: mr. president, first let me thank my colleague from rhode island for his very generous comments. i appreciate it very much. we've worked closely together.

he hasn't been here a great deal of time but i had the privilege of -- he was an invaluable asset last year about this time we were spending an awful lot of time together as i had become sort of the acting chairman of the health, education, labor, and pensions committee, mr. president, and when my dearest friend in this chamber became terribly ill, senator kennedy. he asked me to take over that committee for him during his illness, and of course we were charged with the responsibility of putting together a sizable portion of the health care proposal. and the senator from rhode island was an invaluable asset in that process. at some very critical moments, which i won't go into at length this evening, but at critical moments played a remarkably important role. and someday -- and i'll have some time in the coming months to maybe spend a little more time going back and writing or talking about those days, but i can point to several moments when, in the absence of senator

white house's involvement, i'm -- senator whitehouse's involvement, i'm not sure we ever would have concluded the process as successfully as we did. i'm eternally grateful to him for that. he has since moved off that he and is doing other things but has also been terribly interested in this subject matter and that is financial reform, and i want to commend him for his passion and his determination to have these issues raised and i thank him very much for that. mr. whitehouse: well, if i could just reply briefly, let me say as a new senator in this body who had not had legislative experience, i came out of an executive and law enforcement background, to have enjoyed the privilege of serving on that committee under your leadership and now to have had the privilege of seeing you work this bill on the floor, for a new senator like me, it has been a master class in leadership and legislation and i will never forget it and i feel very privileged to have had that experience. so i thank you, mr. chairman. mr. dodd: thank you very much, senator.

mr. president, i'm going to be very brief. our wonderful staff here has been very patient all week here this week and -- and you only get to see them i guess when the cameras pull back and we're in a quorum call but these wonderful floor staff people just do a remarkable job. our stenographers over here do a terrific job day in and day out recording the words of every senator that get spoken and i'm very grateful to all of them. i just want to really briefly say, mr. president, we've now i think done some -- somewhere between 30 and 35 amendments on this bill over the last -- we've really been in session -- we've been at this a couple of weeks, legislative days i think are six days, working days, maybe seven if i'm wrong, which doesn't seem like much but it's an awful lot. important amendments have been debated, accepted, rejected by both sides of the aisle. i was determined at the outset, i think i said this, that i was determined to prove not only that we could pass important legislation but we could do it with a -- with a strong dose of

civility in the process. that while we have strong views and we speak, as i certainly do from time to time, with some degree of emotion and passion about things i care deeply about, that no issue be -- that in no way should be a reflection of my feelings about my colleagues. and too often what's happened in recent years is we've allowed i think the lack of civility in this process to -- to make it difficult or more difficult for us to get our jobs done. and we didn't get elected here to, in my view, to let those emotions dominate our -- our jobs on behalf of the people who send us here. and this last couple of weeks has produced i think a good bi bill, a stronger bill but also we've been able to do it in a way that the american people i think can take some pride in how their senate has operated. so i'm very grateful to all, not just my colleagues but the sta staffs and others who make it possible for us to do this. the people who are knowledgeable about what needs to be done, to work out language, that allows us to move forward.