them. >> that's a prime example of overreach in my opinion. >> that's where i'm headed. one of the things as a former regulator myself, to me as i go through this process of what you've detailed and the numbers of things you've listed here as causes, over and over again, it's not necessarily the lack of regulation, of a regulation that's there. it's the lack of enforcement of the regulation. then we go to daud if you have a fire department that doesn't work, instead of firing everybody and going out and putting in new group in charge to do the job. we put another department in place that unless we get done right tools they do the job you're not supposed to do and we don't improve ourselves. i asked the question, in dodd frank do you see solutions to

our problems not from the standpoint of more regulation but the standpoint that we will enforce the produce see a reason to believe this is a true solution from the standpoint of a willingness to enforce agencies you haven't seen before? >> in our conclusions we did say that there were powerful regulations on the books that were not enforced and i would hope the regulators have the political will or backing to enforce but i do believe there are big gaps that dodd frank does fill. it cuts off regulatory shopping and creates oversight over nonbank financial institutions. it fills some important holes but i will say that there were power is there. dodd frank helped make sure the gaps were closed, derivatives and shadow banking markets, credit rating agencies. >> if you could add to that do you see gaps we need to put in

as >> yes. [talking over each other] >> we can fill every gap and the next time it will be something we hadn't anticipated. when you talk about overregulation, this committee especially and others in the congress have an enormous responsibility in the oversight. yes, dodd frank has the call la but as the administration moves in the direction of regulation you ought to bring them in and examine it again because many of them overreach. more off-the-shelf concerns people are worried about for decades that may not directly apply to the concerns you might have. you do need to have oversight regulation. if you have so much that nothing bad goes on, you don't get the dynamic financial flow which has made this country what it is. it is always going to be -- >> one more question. with regards to all the hearings we had so far as we go through the review of dodd frank i have yet to see anything about

preapproved 0 of any new financial products. through the new financial products that have come to the marketplace and without regulation, most of its beyond the derivatives market, the regulation. do you believe in your discussion and your findings that we need to have a mechanism in place to preapproved new financial products? will you allow the market to continue to develop these products and after the fact regulate them? >> the most valuable thing rather than try to set up pre approval is have transparency. to let the marketplace see what the upside and downside is and make sure people can get the information so if you have full disclosure and transparency i do believe most of the problems that we face will be moved to minor items. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina 45

minutes. >> one quick question in response to mr. pierce's question a few moments ago. did you compare how well mortgages performed that were originated by institutions subject to the cra to the bar where is the cra would encourage lending to that were purchased by fannie and freddie versus mortgages to the same kind of borrow words originated by not other institutions, by investment banks, private security either is, government policy having nothing to do with that? >> did we compare the performance of loans made under cra by fannie and freddie -- [talking over each other] >> the same kind of borrow where is. >> i can't speak to that. we look that studies that showed

that approximately of the high cost loans, 6% of the high-cost loans were made under cra. they look that neighborhoods and found out that similar bar workers, cra loans performed better than those loans made by non cra regulate institutions. to your specific questions i have to get back to you. >> not much time but do you have an answer? >> a quick response. the overall portfolio wasn't all that bad for a period of time compared to the newer stuff coming on but once fannie and freddie became market commercial structures there was a drive to please their shareholders and they had to maintain not only the government number but a high enough number in terms of mortgages so in essence they were partially forced to go into some of these other areas and the insurer of last resort. when you look at the

relationship between countrywide and its willingness to supply fannie and freddie's willingness to use countrywide, that pulled the whole structure down. they were still buying even after we realized the market wasn't as bad as it was. >> you mentioned michael lewis earlier and his popular book. mr. lewis has been complimentary of the commission. he said it did an excellent job and found some nuggets of fact that were not available earlier. he said really to have a complete story you needed not just the subpoena power but water boarding power. he thought there were a natural limitations to what could be gained voluntarily. >> as a republican i assume that is a positive comments. >> without getting into that debate allow me to move on. one thing most people and certainly the rules of evidence allow you to consider whether to

believe a witness is is it consistent with what they said before? we are now hearing or have been hearing from september of 2008 government policies make all these bad loans and the banks never made those. i was right here as part of that debate. i remember what everybody said. i don't remember anyone being worried about that before september of 2008. i don't remember sitting in the office for that table, we shouldn't be making these loans. please let us stop. do any of you remember? what i heard from the banks was mortgages were a great thing. >> one of the real values of this commission notwithstanding any differences is we agreed early on to create a repository of all the information we gathered and there is going to be many interactive relationships and my hope is we use that as a resource and expand so we can do exactly that. this was what was said back then

in terms of the in depth testimony and congress needs to realize there is help in getting data that will lead to the best conclusions and one of those resources will be the commission's web site that will be located at the university. >> do you remember anything like that? >> i was a private citizen at the time but i will say this. the affordable housing goals set by had, we interviewed 46 people on this subject. only two folks said the affordable housing goal is what puts fannie and freddie to do what they did. the majority of evidence we gathered the personal documents and witness testimony said it was their drive for profit, there for compensation, regaining market share catching up to wall street that drove their activities but we did conclude the affordable housing goals went up above 50% in 2005,

did marginally contribute to fannie and freddie. it was called targeted loans. they did contribute to some of their losses that in fact when you move the goal above 50% it had a marginal impact. >> the chair now recognizess the gentleman from ohio for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thought mr. thomas's comments on transparency were a very important lesson and i hope phil angelides agrees that transparency was an important cause here and a lesson we can take in any market is investors need transparency about what is going on whether it is counterparties or what is going on in the marketplace. >> i absolutely concur. you can't have dark markets. you have to have reporting that

didn't exist for the repo market and derivatives market and there's a correlation between regulation and derivatives. you start by asking disclosure. very important. we agree on transparency as a key factor. >> with the rating agencies who today would design someone to provide a gold standard or good housekeeping seal of approval in which they earn their money by having people paid them for those ratings? >> that is my next question. >> and failure to appreciate how little they were worth. >> that is something we haven't addressed. the chairman talked about that. i do have a concern about issuers being able to pick their own credit rating agency and i prefer a blind draw. i don't prefer the method the senator from minnesota propose which creates a big government structure. i created a trust and they pay into the trust and it creates

more government with more efficient system. i do want to ask both of you quickly about the credit rating agencies because i think there is a view on some of this committee and other places that we need to reduce our dependence on the credit rating agencies and i believe that is partially true but also we can't go too far with that because so many things in our investment structure in this country and worldwide are based on credit rating so if we took away the conflict of interest and created something like a blind draw how would those of you view that as creating a system that would work better? i have one more question. >> one of the most important things in dodd frank is exposing the methodology. we had a whole team trying to figure it out. wasn't until 2006 that moody's had a model to analyze some prime lending. having sat on two pension boards i can say a lot of pension

boards don't have the capacity so ratings will be around. >> ratings are easy and have a history and what they gained that positive history overlooked nothing alike but they were reading at the time the world fell apart. i don't think you can create a government structure. happen to agree with you. it will always be $1 short and a day late in covering it but creating a system where people can't live up on their payment purses their operating is fundamental and you can do that fairly easily. >> i have just one more question for phil angelides. how is the bookselling? >> let me say something. this has been surprising. there's a tremendous hunger to have answers and while we have a debate going on i don't say this as a matter of who burst for the commission but this weekend will be listed as no. 10 on the new york times best-seller non-fiction paperback but what

that speaks to, a lot of anger and confusion. people want to know why so many people are out of work and why they lost their homes. that is a credit to all the commission's work that we put forward facts and debate. >> i have been told by a number of people that the 36 pages are definitely worse -- [laughter]] i do hope the taxpayers get their $10 million back. >> from the day we announced in this report two weeks after there were 330,000 unique visits to the web site. >> that kind of access is important. the fact that even though there is competing ideologies and report there's always going to be that and people get to see both and choose what they believe themselves. doesn't bother me that it was a partisan system. our country is a partisan system.

i appreciate that both of you were willing to be involved and the taxpayers and the citizens of this country are getting more information. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> i think the chair and the vice chair for the services you have rendered and i thank the other members of the committee because they too worked long and hard and it is worthy to note they should be appreciated as well. i would like to just for a moment peer through the vista of time and hearken back to that era before 1977 when we had in this country something known as redlining. redlining for edification

purposes simply means there were areas in the country where in lending institutions would not lend -- notwithstanding creditworthiness they would not lend to people simply because of perhaps the location and to a greater extent do they were. redlining was a dastardly, ugly thing to have perpetrated upon you. it usually happened to people of color usually. my suspicion is it happened to some others as well. in 1977 the cra was enacted and the purpose of the cra was to address redlining. for some of us when we talk of

the cra there is a much deeper meaning because of how it impacted us directly or indirectly and so today i approach the cra from the perch of a person who saw the actual devastation that was created by virtue of something known as redlining. i do not believe any other persons who are antithetical to the position that i approach, i don't believe any of them occupy their positions -- the honorable people who have a different opinion. but i know why my opinion exists. because i saw the devastation. so when i hear people make an effort to blamed the cra for the crisis, it has a greater impact

on me than it might have on some others because i knew what the cra meant when it was enacted and i know now what it means to people of color who try to have equality of opportunity. not to get more than you deserve but to do what others do to succeed on merits and have their credit worthiness the appraised just as everyone else's credit worthiness is appraised. so i ask this simple question. was the cra the major cause of the crisis? >> a large part of the debate and one of the fundamental causes and one of the causes but not a fundamental cause hand and let me hasten to tell you that i agree completely with those

early days. [talking over each other] >> time is of the essence and i beg that you forgive me. i don't mean to be rude or unrefined but i have to move forward and ask this. given what you said about it not being a fundamental cause would you eliminate the cra because of what happened with this crisis? >> i would talk about going back to what the cra was earlier. what happened -- [talking over each other] >> my question is would you eliminate it? would you do away with it completely? >> i would modify it. >> i must move to the chair. do you believe that the cra was the cause of the crisis? >> i do not believe it was. we found it was not significant to sub prime lending and not significant to the crisis.

many of the sub prime lenders were regulated by the cra. only 6% of the high-cost loans which is a proxy, were even originated by cra lenders. studies show that cra loans--loans made by cra regulated institutions in neighborhoods of similar borrowers but non cra regulations performed better so the answer from my perspective is no. [talking over each other] >> can i ask unanimous consent to thirty-second to respond outside the questions structure? >> 30 seconds. >> one of the reason that talk about modifying mr. green is we have a fundamental problem with our tax code. if you are able to own a home is you have many advantages under the tax code. we need to change the relationship between renting and ownership. there was much political thrust. both republicans and democrats to get people into their own

home for the tax advantages and that should not be the case. that is how i would change it in terms of modification. >> may i be recognized for a question? >> thirty-second. >> may i please ask that the chair respond to the comment made by the vice chair? >> first of all i started my career in the affordable -- housing arena and i do think we have to pay attention to the needs of renters in this country and i want to say one important thing. the tragedy of the crisis, was supposed to be about new homeownership. the home ownership rate peaked in the spring of 2004. from then on it was all about financial engineering, mortgage-backed securities, not about putting americans in homes. that is the real tragedy in this crisis. >> i now recognize myself for five minutes. the question i would like to ask, let me thank you for being

here and i appreciate your testimony today. goes to the heart of what has been discussed and what we're talking about as well seems to me the irresponsible lending is certainly played a role in where we are for shore so i find it interesting that in your report and testimony that use a government housing policies were not significant factor in the crisis and my question is are there any government housing policies that you think should be changed and how do you defend that statement in light of what i think we would all agree i think is a significant part of the cause by irresponsible lending. unlike to ask that question to you and have a comment -- >> i want to be very specific. we looked at the affordable housing goals of hud and they contribute to fannie mae and freddie mac's losses.

we look at reinvestment and found it was not a significant factor in some prime lending. clearly fannie and freddie were publicly traded corporations but with implicit government guarantee which became explicit with many subsidies from the federal government and clearly that model was flawed and broken and not to be returned to and we did say i will say a majority and the commission and the dissent by mr. thomas at all that they contribute significantly. we say that clearly. >> are there any specific housing policies you can recommend we look at to help prevent this from happening again? you said this was avoidable. we want to of wood in the future. >> the most important home ownership policy is to make sure we are always setting reasonable mortgage lending standards and anything government backs should

be on strongly underwritten loans in terms of quality and that was a major failing that we should never let happen again. dodd frank helped in that regard. i have to give some thought, i spent a lifetime on this but i agree that we have to pay attention to rental housing as an option so that we are not stretching to put people in homeownership who can't quite reach it by virtue of income. that is a very legitimate, and by mr. thomas. >> government housing policies did contribute to the problem. government tax positions also contribute to the problem. the real difficulty is in owning the home it was, quote, the american dream but it was also the source of what people believed were their primary savings by virtue of the inflation associated with the value of the home and so-called equity. we fail in the tax code to not let them cash in on that equity.

for someone who had been in a home for 28 you had the downturn they had virtually no equity in it because of the tax structure but ultimately everyone contributed because it had been so long since we had a difficult time and it was easy to make money but no question that a number of government policies including the drive at all costs to get everybody in a home of their own was one of the contributors. >> i would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from new york. >> i will be very brief. you mentioned earlier on the federal reserve could have done -- they have the power and authority but didn't act. specifically where it relates to overleverage. what could they have done? >> first of all i was commenting specifically on their failure to

adopt mortgage lending standards which they have full authority to do to apply to all institutions. they failed miserably. in 2001 they adopted leverage -- our the resort -- regulatory body had the ability, bank holding companies and other institutions to control leverage. as you know, these institutions levered up tremendously. the investment bank's, the fcc's purview, 2% drop in value could wipe out all equity. >> i understand there are multiple reasons that lead to this crisis. would it be fair to say an absolute major part of this crisis was overleveraging? >> absolutely. >> does that make the question that it is not a complete lack of regulation but a lack of enforcement and proper oversight? that is why i am perplexed by

the overreaching of dodd frank because a lot of this could have been avoided simply by enforcing rules we had on the books for years. >> we said there was a lot of power and was unused. we also note met there were significant gaps that were opened up and there was regulatory shopping countrywide. you can read how they don't want to be regulated by the fed. they want to go to the goatee s because they are the weakest. >> i can see -- doesn't prudence and common sense -- forget we're in the government and try to apply common sense -- doesn't it make sense to first fix the problem where rules and regulations exist so that we and forth that before we go ahead and go to the next step. then add any additional rules or regulations needed at that point. you have a set of rules we

didn't listen to because for whatever reason, on top of that, i would think they won't listen to the new rules either. >> i think you need both. more than most of my career has been in the private sector so i come at this with a belief in free market but the financial sector is so central is the heart of the system. we want to make sure -- you don't want to kill innovation. we said very clearly that we don't accept the view that regulators didn't have power but also there were big gaps but it was a dual problem. >> there is a real opportunity because clearly dodd frank was passed in a partisan environment and we have an opportunity. you folks do in the house to reviewed the proposed regulations in another partisan environment and make sure that some of the clear overreaching

is tempered. i really think this committee is absolutely fundamental to getting it right because yes, there were regulations that should have been carried out. have we gone overboard in dealing with them? we have seen testimony about certain derivatives. some derivatives need to be transparent and regulated. some are going to be killed, useful financial tool. you folks now in the majority have a chance to go back and revisit those proposed regulations, bring them in here, makes and explain why they need all the bells and whistles because my bigger concern is a choking up the financial structure in various ways to force creativity because creativity will move to areas you haven't anticipated. that is to keep them comfortable but under a structure. >> the chair notes some members have questions they wish to submit in writing. without objection the hearing

record will remain open for 30 days to submit written questions to witnesses for their responses into the record. let me thank phil angelides and mr. thomas for being here. we appreciate the dialogue. the first panel is dismissed and the second panel will quickly take their place. >> i want to thank the committee for your courtesy and thank all of my colleagues on the commission and staff for doing an excellent job. >> i want to echo my comments. thank you for your leniency. >> you can see this hearing with the financial inquiry commissioners in its entire the on line at c-span.org. you can see the commission's hearings that began more than a year ago. >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in for the day.

table workable reauthorize and federal aviation administration programs. the first vote is expected at 11:30 on an amendment to the f a bill regarding flight restrictions that ronald reagan washington national airport. harry reid has expressed hope that the senate to have a final vote on the bill today or tomorrow. before senators depart for the presidents' day recess. live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. you are awesome, o god. we acknowledge your sovereignty and might. give our senators a sense of

your nearness as you nourish them with the reality of your presence. take their human and finite minds and illuminate them with the light of your eternal wisdom. may their daily lives validate the faith of our nation's founders and all who have sacrificed for freedom. teach them to think seriously about the blessings of liberty and help them to be grateful for this land of freedom. we pray in your great 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., february 17, 2011. 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: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: following leader remarks the senate will resume consideration of the federal aviation administration bill. there will be up to two hours for debate equally divided and controlled between the proponents and opponents of the

inhofe amendment prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the inhofe amendment as modified. the filing deadline for second-degree amendments to this bill is 10:00 a.m. today. as a reminder, cloture was also filed on the bill. that cloture vote will occur upon disposition of the inhofe amendment. senators should expect roll call votes to occur throughout the day in an effort to complete action on the f.a.a. bill. i ask unanimous consent that the previous order for senator coats to be recognized at 1:00 p.m. be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: we are at a point where we can finish the f.a.a. bill after all these many years of trying to get this bill completed. we're going to have a vote in a couple of hours, two and a half hours; important vote dealing with the so-called slot arrangement. that is what companies get to

fly into which airports, what time and all that stuff. it's been very controversial. we have had two main issues that held thup legislation. one is the -- held up this legislation. one is the labor-management disagreement. that's gone away. now we have the issue dealing with the slots that will go away as a result of the cloture vote that will occur sometime in the next two and a half hours. we can complete this legislation today. there is no reason we can't complete the legislation today. we have a number of votes that will have to be cast. that's something that we will do. we are going to work to complete this legislation. it's thursday. it would be an appropriate time to finish that. as i mentioned last night, we have the president's day recess that we need to go home to our constituents. again, as i mentioned last night, i'm always amazed, we've

gone back for a break and oft times the press writes as if we're going to go back and leisurely hang around the house. the fact is when we go home we have a lot of work to do. our constituents throughout our states are there during the weeks. we have government buildings that are open. we can visit there and do all the many things we have to do. for example, i have to address the nevada state legislature next week. these are the things we need to do during the time we go home. i, like everyone else, would like to get back to my home in searchlight more quickly. but we have to finish this legislation. there is no reason we can't. everyone has had their opportunity to debate, to offer amendments. we have -- we could have as many as eight or nine amendments to vote on.

there is work being done with senator coburn to see if we can condense his five amendments. we're on a path to being able to finish this legislation, and i hope we can finish it today. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. mcconnell: yesterday republicans in the house and senate led by senator hutchison introduced a resolution of disapproval under the congressional review act to repeal the so-called net neutrality regulations recently adopted by the federal communications commission. we believe, as most americans do, that the internet has transformed our society precisely because people have been free to create and to innovate free from government intrusion. as americans become more aware of what's happening here, i suspect many will be alarmed, as i am, at the government's growing involvement in this area, in this particular area of our lives. we wonder if this is a trojan horse for further meddling by the government. we intend to use the tools available to us to push back against this meddling, and i want to thank senator hutchison for taking the first step in our effort. now, mr. president, on another matter, two years ago today at a

moment of deep economic uncertainty, the president signed a bill that he said would put us back on track. it was a plan, he said, that would save or create up to four million jobs over two years, a figure that he called his bottom line for success. a plan that was supposed to drive unemployment below 7% by now. and it was predicted -- and pras predicated on the -- it was predicated on the notion that government spending, spending borrowed money on government programs, was the recipe for a rebound, a plan that said if we invest in government, we'll get out of this mess. we were told that the bill included record investments. and then we learned what the administration meant by investment. a plant database project, a multimillion-dollar face lift for the sunset strip, a study of

the mating decisions of female cactus bugs, hundreds of millions of dollars to a solar panel company that was supposed to double its workforce, but ended up cutting jobs instead. massive bailouts for the states, turtle tunnels. you get the drift. within a year of its passage, the so-called stimulus bill had become a national punch line. nearly $1 trillion was added to the debt as a result of this bill in the name of investing in our future. and in a two-year span we've lost millions of jobs. and now they want to do it again. they're back for more. just as amazing as the fact that the same people who tout this had bill now refuse to cut spending. we learn about another wasteful stimulus project just about every day.

and they say they can't find a dime's worth of government spending to cut. it defies common sense. i mean, if you can't cut a turtle tunnel when the country's $14 trillion in the hole, you've got problems. it's time to turn over the credit card. the bottom line here is that two years after the president told us he was investing in our future, here's what we have to show for it: higher unemployment than was predicted and trillions, trillions more in debt. the fact is dangerously high debt has actually slowed the recovery, making it harder to create private-sector jobs. so in my view this, second debate was over before it started. massive government investment of borrowed taxpayer money as a tool for economic growth has been a failure.

finally, mr. president, i want to recognize the people of paducah, kentucky, for all the effort they've made to make their city one of our country's best places in which to work, visit or live. now that hard work has paid off. paducah has been recognized by the national trust for historic preservation as one of their dozen distinctive designations in america in 2011. the national trust for historic preservation seeks to recognize cities and towns and authentic cultural and recreational experience. they take into account a community's commitment to the historic preservation and revitalization of its downtown, its rich cultural history, attractive architecture and a town's core character. obviously i think paducah ranks

highly in all of these criteria and i'm glad the national trust for historic preservation after considering thousands of communities across the nation agrees. the history of paducah is a history of life on the river. paducah was originally settled because of its strategic position on the ohio river and traffic on the ohio and tennessee river drove its economic development. as rivers were america's original highways, paducah was founded on vital arteries of trade and commerce. that history is still alive in paducah because of the hard work of many to preserve their city's heritage. for years i've worked along with local leaders to enhance some of the city's greatest attributes, namely, paducah's downtown and riverfront. paducah is now a vibrant river town. i would encourage my colleagues the next time they're planning a vacation to keep paducah in

mind. the national quilt museum of the united states, the river discovery center, the lower town arch district, the upper town heritage walking tour and much more all await them there. i'll also point the national trust for historic preservation recently named paducah as having one of the most romantic main streets in america. the "paducah sun" published an article about this high honor received by this city. i ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: and, mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. cantwell: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 223, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 5, s. 223, a bill to modernize the air traffic control system and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the senator from washington is recognized. ms. cantwell: i ask that the time be equally divided in the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. cantwell: i ask that a quorum call -- i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. rockefeller: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia recognized. mr. rockefeller: i ask that the order of the quorum call be reunderstand ised. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. rockefeller: and i further ask consent that the filing deadline for second-degree amendments be extended up until the cloture vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. rockefeller: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. rockefeller: i thank the presiding officer. mr. president, i have 12 unanimous consent requests for committees -- the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia is notified the senate is in a quorum call. mr. rockefeller: the presiding officer is precisely correct. the senator from west virginia asks unanimous consent to rescind, call off and terminate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. rockefeller: i ask unanimous consent for 12 committees to meet during today's session of the senate.

they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. rockefeller: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mrs. boxer: mr. president? officer sphwer the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call being dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i just came briefly to the floor here to voice my very strong support for this f.a.a. reauthorization bill and to thank my chairman, jay rockefeller, for his leadership. many people have said this, but it's worth repeating: this is a jobs bill. the f.a.a. reauthorization act is going to modernize our air transport system, and as many have said far more eloquently than i could ever say, we're looking at a system that has really gotten its roots in the 1940's and 1950's and we need to

move beyond this and get a 21st century system. and that's what nextgen is going to do. give us a way better way to handle all those flights, all that congestion. it's going to be also, in addition to a jobs bill, 280,000 jobs nationwide, it's also going to be a bill that focuses in on safety. the growth that will be spurred on by this bill is crucial because this industry also accounts for nearly 11 million jobs and more than 5% of our u.s. g.d.p. i want to talk about two issues that i have a great stake in for

the people of california and, frankly, for the people of this country. and the first -- the first issue is a passenger bill of rights. and i am so grateful to our leader on the committee, senator rockefeller, and his ranking member, kay bailey hutchison, for ensuring that this bipartisan legislation -- i wrote it with senator snowe -- is included in the f.a.a. bill. we have all heard the horror stories of travelers trapped for hours, without adequate food or water, some not even able to access their medicines, planes filled with screaming kids, upset passengers, and unsanitary conditions, from overflowing toilets. in fact, it's a situation that, if anyone has ever been in it, it makes an indelible mark. and frankly, it makes you less

likely to want to fly in the american skies because you have a chance at being one of these unfortunate people to get trapped in a situation like this. i want to thank kate anaye, who is a constituent of mine from california. i would yield my friend. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized of the mr. reid: i appreciate my friend california yielding. we have a briefing by the secretary of state. we have votes scheduled, as i understand, at 10 until 12:00 noon, about, so i would ask unanimous consent that vote be extended to 10 after the hour of 12:00 noon. that will allow people to listen to the secretary of state and still move this bill along. the presiding officer: without t objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i've talked to the republican leader. he knows i've asked this consent. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i ask that the majority leader's remarks be placed immediately

after my comments in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: so where was i? i was talking about the need for a passenger bill of rights and i was thanking kate anayae, a constituent of mine that was drapped in one of these -- trapped in one of these aircraft for hours in the tarmac and got off that plane and said i need do something about this. and she is the one who really lobbied very hard, a citizen's lobby, to get a passenger bill of rights. now, i'm very grateful that the department of transportation under president obama took the first step by adopting key elements of our passenger bill of rights through regulation last year. secretary lahood, who heads the department of transportati transportation, sent a strong message and basically said airlines must give passengers the option of deplaning if they've been stranded on the tarmac for more than three hou

hours. according to the bureau of transportation statistics, there have only been 12 tarmac delays of more than three hours from may to october 2010 after the department of transportation put in this rule, and you compare those 12 to 500-plus in the same time period a year earlier. so just by putting in a regulation that says to the airlines, you cannot keep people on the planes past three hours, and if you do, you have to give them an option to get off that. has turned things around and we've seen 12 tarmac delays compared to 500. but we want to codify these consumer protections. we want a law. we don't know what the next president will do. we don't know what could happen. we need a law that says you cannot keep people on an aircraft for more than three hours unless you're about to

take off in the next 30 minutes or the pilot says there's a danger to taking them back to the gate. we have very commonsense loopholes there. but basically we don't have any loophole to this. you have to have adequate water, food, and access to clean restrooms if there's any type of delay. we also set up a consumer complaint hotline within the d.o.t. which will give passengers the means to communicate directly with the agency about delays. someone will be on the other end when people are exhausted and upset and need to have redress. this passenger bill of rights has broad bipartisan support. it passed the senate 93-0 last march and we believe we now have to see it through. now, i understand some of my friends on the other side of the

capitol in the house have said no to the three-hour time period. is that right? and we're going to have to fight hard for it, because the bottom line is, if you don't have an end time, we could go back to the same delays. and so the last issue i wanted to bring before the senate that's very important not only to my state but to every state is the issue of having more direct flight options into washington, d.c., reagan national airport, than we have now for many, many, many cities across this great nation. we have now 38 million people in california. 38 million people in california. we have an economy that's about the seventh large nest the world -- largest in the world in our state. we have one direct flight from los angeles into washington

national airport. so if you live in san francisco, sacramento, san diego, san jose, fresno, or any other city in our great state, you do not have an option of flying directly into our nation's capital. that is not good for business or jobs in california. it's not good for business or jobs in washington or virginia. now, we need to be encouraging more domestic tourism. that creates jobs for our communities. tourism in my state generated $90 billion and supported 881,000 jobs in 2009 alone. and, folks, it makes a difference flying into our airport right here in washington, d.c. when you could be at the capitol in 15 minutes depending on traffic, 20, compared to getting out in dulles -- great airport

but, let me tell you, not easy. once you get off the plane, you have to get into a special train and you walk and you go up escalators and you go on moving walks. and it's quite good for exerci exercise. but it is not good if you're interested in getting somewhere in a reasonable amount of time. and then the drive could be anywhere on a good night 50 minutes to an hour and a half. that is a difference to travelers, particularly travelers who are working and they have work in this area. i know that there's a compromise that my chairman and ranking member have been working on, on how to open up some more slots so we can get some more options in our state and other states

who are likewise deprived and i'm going to be supporting that compromise. it's crucial. so we need to have a bill that includes increasing service for cities beyond this kind of artificial perimeter that was set up, and we can't afford to wait any longer, as opportunity lies in the balance. we're not going to overrun washington national. nobody wants to do that. we just want to do some things that make some sense and allow more freedom for the airlines to pick the routes they really have the demand for. as i said, we have one direct flight into all of california. one. and, boy, you can never get on that either. it's just -- it just doesn't make any sense. we have multiple flights out of dulles. and so there's not a balance there at all.

so again, this is a jobs bill, this is a consumer bill, this is a bill that's going to help commerce. i strongly support it. and i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. rockefeller: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from west virginia is recognized. mr. rockefeller: i thank the presiding officer. i simply wanted to thank senator boxer. the presiding officer: the senator is notified we're in a quorum call. mr. rockefeller: yes, i note -- i ask unanimous consent the order of the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. rockefeller: i thank you for your distinct guidance, helpful approach to the rules of the senate. senator boxer -- and not everybody knows this -- but she really is the author of the bill of rights for passengers. it's been just a total obsession of hers. it's not about helping airlines. it's not about helping this or that.

it's about helping human beings. and that's been a long process on the committee. it's in the bill. it's a very, very good part. and really, she's responsible for all of that. secondly, when she -- when senator boxer talks about more flights to the west, she echoes my deepest thinking. i mean, this is -- this is -- it's hard sometimes for people to understand because we're in the east and you get the feeling that everything happens in the east, but the fact is that the west is growing and the east is not. and all of our sort of slots are predicated on the fact that everybody lives in the east and, yes, there's some people out west. well, there's a lot more people out west, and los angeles is just huge beyond belief. that happens to be senator boxer's home. but there's a lot of, a lot o of -- a lot of cities out there which don't get service who should have service. and we have tried to address that in this bill. the slots issue has been a very

difficult one in the bill, but we've tried address that. and we've also tried to address that by allowing the department of transportation to say, all right, well, now, are they getting enough? is d.c. overcrowded? or is it not? and if it isn't, then they allow more to come on. but i just -- i just enormously appreciate senator boxer in general. she chairs an enormous committee but she comes to our hearings, always makes enormous contributions, and on this bill of rights, she is the author, which puts her right up there i guess with the founding fathers. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: mr. president, in a few minutes i will ask the senate to proceed to the consideration of s. 380. s. 380 extends the andean trade preference act. but, first, i'd like to make a few comments about the importance of this trade preference act. now, mr. president, i'm very aware that a lot of things are going on in the world and

there's upheaval in the middle east and there's a lot going on on both sides of the aisle on spending and i'm very aware of what has dominated the news and the attention of the congress and the american people. i want to talk for a few minutes about the importance of the andean trade preference act and the need to reauthorize it. i remind my colleagues that the andean trade preference act was first enacted by president george herbert walker bawshes a way to -- as a way to boost the illicit economies of several andean nations that were major producers of illicit -- of illegal drugs. over the past two decades, this program has been supported by democratic and republican presidents. it's been reauthorized in democratic and republican congresses and it has been widely recognized as a success,

creating jobs for workers who can sell cheaper imports to american consumers as a result of these trade preferences while also supporting the economic development of strategically important countries in our hemisphere. one of these countries is colombia. we've listen rightly focused on other parts of the world over the past decade. but one of the untold success stories is colombia's transformation from a failed state to a thriving democracy has been one of the world's great stories. and one of the greatest bipartisan triumphs of u.s. foreign policy in recent memory. through the courage and perseverence of the colombian people, the government and armed forces of colombia took their country back from terrorists and krug drug traffickers -- drug traffickers and warlords and sold our society with illegal drugs. we were with them every step of the way.

it was president bill clinton, together with a republican congress, that first enacted plan colombia. and it was president george w. bush with a democratic congress that expanded plan colombia. over the past decade, the united states taxpayer has invested more than $8 billion to help colombia win its war. and it's been some of the best money we've ever spent on a national security program. and, remember, the plan colombia and the war that we helped the colombians take back their country from farc and the terrorist and drug dealers was to prevent drugs from coming to the united states of america where the demand was created. so i'm proud that as an activ active -- act of generosity and help of the american people that it was america's national security interest to see colombia not become a failed state, which it almost was 10 years ago.

the andean trade preference act has been a critical component of this effort. it's provided colombia, along with other andean nations, essential open access to our markets that has their success. the vast majority of the products these countries are exporting to us are things that americans barely produce at all such as cut flowers. so it provides a huge benefit for our partners with little competition or displacement for our workers. unfortunately, after the long record of bipartisan support for the successful and vital program, the last congress did something deeply shortsighted around terrible. rather than extend the trade preferences, as previous congresses have done, it made their passage and the passage of other vital free trade measures conditional on the sengs of a -- extension of a whole array of government spending. spending that our country can't afford. as a result