communities, infrastructure, and ecosystems, so this challenge is very real for my home state. climate change, sea level rise, and ocean acid if i ration are challenges that require smart leadership and initiative. we need to take action to bolster our infrastructure, fortify our coasts, and help communities prepare for those challenges on the horizon. instead, in this administration, we get the likes of perry, pruitt, and white. i wish ignorance were what's driving these administration officials. ignorance can be rectified with education, with information. we could assign them to read the climate science special report,

for instance. they might find it illuminating and realize that what they have been saying is factually false. unfortunately, it's a much more nefarious condition than ignorance that afflicts this administration on climate change. and it is a condition that cannot be cured with facts. this is about fossil fuel money. the malitty is what prevents the stark warnings in the climate science report from being a call to action in congress. mr. president, at the cop-23

gathering, we saw that the rest of the world is not turning a blind eye to climate change. the rest of the world is confronting it head-on, along with many american states, major american corporations, and virtually every major american university. those are all very hopeful signs. and while our president and his administration have bound themselves to the fossil fuel polluters, the american people have not. rhode islanders and americans everywhere care deeply about getting ahead of this problem, about achieving the goals of the u.n. framework, and the american people will carry forward american leadership in combating climate change no matter how

evil the continuing influence of the fossil fuel industry in congress. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i note the absence of a qoar. the presiding officer: -- of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming.

mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, the senate finance committee is working this week on tax cuts and jobs act, a very important piece of legislation. the country is looking forward to having passed. this a republican plan to give tax relief to the american, just like the name of the legislation says, it actually addresses both issues, tax cuts and jobs. first of all, the legislation will cut the taxes for american workers. one of the biggest cuts in the plan is that it roughly doubles the standard deduction that people take. right now the standard deduct for a married couple is about $$12,000. if we double it, people won't pay any federal income taxes at all on the first $24,000 that they earn. that's a big tax cut, and it is aimed squarely at lower and

middle-income families. a lot of people will decide to take this deduction instead of going through the painstaking process of itemizing on their income tax return. it saves them time and the costs of lawyers and accountants. republicans are also working to preserve other deductions important to american families. when we put all of these together, we're going to cut taxes for people and put money back in their pockets instead of sending it to washington. the second thing to know about this tax relief legislation is that it is going to be a big boost for jobs in america. in fact, it will help america create more than 900,000 new jobs. it's also going to lead to higher pay. that's because the legislation will cut the taxes that small businesses have to pay. small businesses create most of the jobs in america. if we let them keep more of

their money -- if we let americans keep more of their money, they can hire more people and grow their businesses. that's how our economy works. people hiring people matter to grow the economy. they could give workers a raise, offer them better benefits. when washington takes less and businesses keep more, workers are better off every time. now, republicans also want to bring down the rates that washington charges other businesses. a lot of people work for small businesses, but a lot of people also work for large businesses as well. so if we're able to cut taxes force those businesses, then those workers can get the same raise. how much more money are we talking about? well, according to the tax foundation, it amounts to about $2,600 for a typical middle-class family. that's what you get when you combine the tax cut and the pay raise that people will see across the country.

for that family an extra $2,600 is going to be a very big deal. a majority of americans say that they don't have enough savings today to cover a $50 emergency expense -- $500 emergency expense if one came up. millions of american families will be far better off because of the tax relief that americans are working on this week. if boasts the economy, helps individual workers, helps their families. it's about tax cuts and it's about jobs, that's how we keep the economy growing. that's how we keep american families in arriving. mr. president, i ask that the remainder of my comments appear in the record in the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: i also want to speak about an issue that is very important to the veterans in our country. the 2013 national authorization

conference report allows veterans memorials to be used as a bargaining chip. i think that is a bad idea. there is a specific provision that allows the secretary of defense to dismantle a veteran memorial and move it to the foreign nation. we have one in cheyenne, wyoming. this memorial honors soldiers massacred 100 years in a town in the philippines. on september 28, 1901, a group of 400 filipino insurgents attacked american soldiers in company c of the ninth infantry. it was a sneak attack while the americans were mostly unarmed and having breakfast. the insurgence signaled the attack by ringing the bells of a local church.

company c had 75 soldiers, 48 of them were killed in this attack or died of their wounds or went missing in action. it was the worst defeat for the american army since the battle of little big horn in 1876. these bells were used in an act of war against american soldiers. the army legally brought the bills back to america to honor the troops of company c who were lost in this massacre. the 11th infantry regiment brought them to cheyenne, wyoming, and today the bells are part of the memorial at the air force base. over the years the department of state and state department have tried a few times to move these bells to the philippines. in 2012, president obama's

department of defense even tried to cover up the fact that it was secretly making plans to move the bells. i have opposed these efforts every step of the way. the majority of veterans in wyoming oppose dismantling this veteran memorial, the wyoming veterans of foreign wars and the american legion have filed resolutions against moving the bells. the american legion has taken a stand on the national level. it has proposed the removal and encouraged congress to pass legislation to protect veteran memorials. during the confirmation hearing for secretary of state rex tillerson, i asked him specifically about the bells. he made a commitment to me that he would include congress and our veteran organizations in any conversations regarding war memorials. i recently received a ler from the state department -- a letter from the state department and they said they are unaware of

any plans to move the bells to a foreign country. we need to make sure that no plans ever develop. this conference report will take away any lines of communication between the administration and the congress on this issue. america needs to make clear that we will never stop honoring our war dead no matter where or when they sacrificed. to dismantle this memorial would be an insult to the memory of the men who were massacred that day in the philippines. wyoming is a strong -- has a strong tradition of honoring our veterans, especially those who gave their lives. the united states should not be using our veteran memorials as bargaining chips to negotiate with foreign nations. for this reason, i oppose section 2864 of the conference report of the national defense authorization, and i will continue my work to protect our

veteran memorials. i will continue to use my voice for the soldiers of company c who have no voice of their own. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to submit for the record the names of the 48 soldiers who were massacred in 1901. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: i also ask consent to submit a letter from the wyoming veterans of foreign wars. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: and a resolution from the wyoming american legion in opposition to moving the bells. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: the national american legion in support of barrasso amendment number 738. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: a letter from the state department saying they are currently not planning to move the bells. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: and secretary tillerson's commitment to include congress and our veterans in any discussion of our veteran memorials. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you,

mr. president. 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. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: and consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i came to the floor yesterday to speak on the devastating impact that the republican tax plan would have on working families in my home state of illinois and other states across the nation. it's no secret take the republican plan would finance massive tax cuts for the wealthiest people in america. they just can't help themselves. every time they look at the tax code, they think there has to be a way to help the wealthiest

people in our country. they usually look at the estate tax which is paid for by one out of every thousand americans and say we've just got to spare these poor people who have a net worth of over $11 million from paying any taxes to the government. we've got to spare them from paying this government for the benefits this great nation has brought to them and their families and businesses. and that's where they start. then they do the alternative minimum tax which was a tax that walls created -- was created so that if your accountants and book keepers and lawyers were the sharpest on earth and ended up with finding that you had no tax liability, you still paid a fair share for sustaining it great nation that you call home. they want to get rid of that, too. or at least dramatically modify it. so they start off with the premise of making these tax cuts for the wealthiest people in america the beginning point of tax reform, these giveaways to people who are not even asking

for them. they can't help themselves. they always start there and the american people know it. when you ask the american people, what does is this tax re-- what is this tax reform all about? it's tax cuts for the wealthy people. that's where it starts and it does when the republicans are the authors. that's what we face again. they try to argue it's going to help working families and it will help some. let me be honest about that. and, yet, you're going to find many working families who are going to pay more instead of less because of this so-called tax reform. why would we ever do that? why would we give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in america, permanent tax breaks and then turn around and say to working families, sorry, some of you will get help but many of you won't. in my home state of illinois, the elimination of the state and local tax exemption is going to be devastating to our state. you see, we're in the top five of states where our people in my state who pay income tax, sales tax, property tax can deduct those taxes from their federal

income that's subject to taxation. that's not a new idea. it's been around for decades and it really is premised on the following: americans should not have to pay tax on a tax. if i pay $100 a month and i pay more for my local property tax, i shouldn't be taxed on that $100. it's a double hit. it's not fair. mr. durbin: but the republican plans believe that's what we should do. i will just tell you for seven republican congressmen in my state, they ought to go home and ask the people they represent what they think about this one. the idea of double taxation, that they would vote for and then go home and try to defend? i think it's going to be tough, very tough. it's no secret that these tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations will end up raising taxes on a lot of americans and blowing a massive hole in the deficit. i'm going to quote a fellow who's been retired a few years from congress but he was a congressman from wisconsin.

david obey used to say over and over again and i'll repeat it and credit him with it, too many times politicians are posing for holy pictures. well, when it comes to the deficit and the debt, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle pose for holy pictures about the national debt whenever there's a democratic president and then get a swift case of amnesia whenever there's a republican president. and here we go again. they are ignoring the reality that the tax cuts they are promoting for the wealthiest and biggest corporations are going to end up blowing a hole in the deficit, a hole in the deficit which will have to be paid for by future generations. i used to watch as my republican colleagues would get red in the face talking about our national debt, but that, of course, was under a democratic president. under a republican president, it doesn't seem to be a major issue. oh, incidentally, there is a way to plug that hole and somewhere along the way someone slipped and told us what it was. if you want to plug the hole of $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to

wealthy and big corporations, they propose cutting medicare benefits and medicaid benefits, cutting the basic health insurance plans that seniors and people in low income categories use. is that a sound policy to try to patch a hole in the deficit by taking health care protection away from senior citizens in america, the 40-plus million who count on it or those who are under medicaid? i think it's not. well, it turns out that chairman hatch had a new surprise for us this week. at 10:30 p.m. last night, chairman orrin hatch released additional changes to this bill, which is evolving before our eyes, a bill which was not publicly announced until last friday currently being debated in the hopes that when we return a week after -- our thanksgiving recess, we will take it up and vote on it. seems like its -- seem like a hurried of course?

of course it s. they know if these bills sit out long enough and people read them and consider them, there will be a lot of questions asked that they can't answer. but chairman hatch released additional changes to the bill, and they decided to fund permanent tax cuts for some corporations. that's a high priority for the republicans. wealthy people, big corporations. so how do they pay for permanent tax cuts for the biggest corporations? turns out that in addition to raising taxes on working families, the senate republican tax bill would also raise health insurance premiums on middle inn com-- middle incofamilies. that's right. the republicans propose their tax bill will also repeal parts of the affordable care act. as a result, the congressional budget office tells us that an estimated 13 million to 14 million americans will lose their health insurance protection because of the republican tax giveaway plan.

i thought that plan was supposed to help working families. it ends up taking away their health insurance. and for those who can still remain in the market buying health insurance, they can anticipate their premiums for health insurance going up 10%. what kind. tax cut is this that ends up raising the cost of health insurance for working families and ends up eliminating health insurance for many middle-income families. i find it hard to believe the satisfaction that so many republicans take to be able to boast and brag that they passed a bill that took away health insurance there americans. you're proud of that? i wouldn't be. we should be doing the opposite, expanding the reach of health insurance, making sure every american has the peace of mind and health insurance coverage they need for them and their families. remember when republicans campaigned on the promise of increasing the number of people with insurance and decreasing premiums? this tax bill does just the

opposite. haven't my republican colleagues learned the lesson on a.c.a., the affordable care act repeal by now? we spent the whole year in a vain effort by the republicans to repeal and barely replace. the american people don't want it. overwhelmingly they're against it. hospitals, my hospitals in illinois and across this nation don't want what the republicans are proposing in their bill. patients don't want it. nurses don't want it. clinics don't want it. the disabled community doesn't want it. the republicans are determined to do it anyway. senior leaders are against it. faith leaders are against it. the american people are against it. but this is going to be the feather in the cap for the republican majority, that by the end of this year they hope to pass a tax reform bill that's going to give tax breaks to the wealthiest, give a permanent tax break to the biggest corporations, make the middle-income families pay for

it, eliminate 13 million to 14 million americans' health insurance and raise their premiums. what a package. you have to work overtime to put together a package that damaging to working families in america. but that's what they're pushing. that's what they're determined to do. mr. president, i ask that the following statement be placed in a separate part in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, maybe it's the time i turn on my television, but it seems to me that i just can't escape drug advertising on television. it just comes one after the another, all kinds of drug, many of which i couldn't even pronounce their names. can't remember their names, can't remember why they're being advertised. and then i listen to all the things that follow when all these drug ads come on. my favorite, favorite of all time is one of these drugs in which it says, be sure and tell your doctor if you've had a liver transplant. be sure and tell your doctor if

you had a liver transplant. imagine going to the doctor for a checkup, a physical, talking about your condition and failing to mention you had a liver transplant? that's what one of the ads says and many of the ads are just as baffling as to the warnings and side effects. don't take disor rel toe if you're -- zorelto if you're allergic. how do i know i'm allergic if i don't take it? so many questions, so many warnings. how many other questions in the world do you think go through this? how many other countries in the world where you turn on the television and you get ads for drugs? must be a lot of them, right? no. turns out there's only one other country in the world that does this. new zealand. the united states of america and new zealand are the only two countries in the world that allow direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising. you ask yourself when did this come about. it seems relatively new and it is. it was legalized in 1985, this

direct to consumer advertising, but it didn't take off til 1997. that's about 20 years ago when the food and drug administration eased the requirements for detailing the side effects of the drugs that were being advertised. and the drug companies after the f.d.a. made that ruling decided to dive into this in a big way. now you see these fancy commercials with popular music, celebrity actors, golf clubs, lofty treatment promises. every hour on television, every hour on television, an average of 80 drug ads are aired. the average american sees nine of these pharmaceutical ads every day, nine of them. in fact, drug companies spend more each year on advertising and sales than the entire budget of the food and drug administration. these ads saturate our airwaves so much that there's now a national conference on drug ads and a hall of fame for the best

drug ads. can you believe it? as common as these direc direct-to-consumer ads are, drug companies spend four times as much as the cost of these ads on an army of sales representatives who target doctors who write prescriptions. these companies in america spend $20 billion a year trying to get these drugs into the doctors' offices and get the doctors to prescribe them. i once talked to a young lady who did that for a living for a while. i said how did that work? she said i knew the birthday of every nurse in every doctor's office in my territory. i had a standing order every day for birthday cakes which i delivered on behalf of my drug company in the hopes that my -- that doctor, that nurse and that doctor would prescribe my drug and, therefore, i would be financially rewarded. i said how did you know if they ever prescribed it? well, it turns out the drug companies can go to the local

pharmacies and although they can't get the names of the people arriving them, they can test the volume of sales at each of the pharmacies close to the doctors' offices. and that's one of the ways they measure their success. so let me ask and answer an obvious question. why do the biggest pharmaceutical companies in america spend billions of dollars to promote and advertise their drugs? for one reason. it increases sales. it increases their profits. you see, patients are more likely to ask their doctor for a specific drug when they've seen the ad for it, whether they need it or not. that's why most countries ban direct-to-consumer advertising. as i mentioned only new zealand and the united states make it legal. why is it a problem? one reason is that it promotes overuse of medication for often benign conditions. that bit of dry skin that you have on your elbow, that little stiffness in your knee, jorge,

there's a -- hurray, there's a drug for it and you're going to find out on your television set tonight exactly what it is. they push pills for every natural condition or cosmetic issue and we waste money on unnecessary drugs, costs that every one of us pays for when the overall cost of health care goes up. over the past 20 years since these direct-to-consumer ads have been allowed, the number of people with five or more prescriptions, five or more in america, has nearly tripled. but al primary problem with these ads -- but a primary problem with these ads is they steer patients toward the most expensive drugs, and that raises the cost of health care. drugs with ads have nine times more prescriptions than those without. it just stands to reason. and what are the most advertised drugs? let's take a look at a couple of them here. humira, incidentally a

prescription for humira from the disclosure of the drug companies costs $3,743 a month. here's one you probably had to write down three times before you can pronounce it. xeljanz,'d 3,100 per month. humira, xeljanz, both are for rheumatoid arthritis. the drug industry spent more understand that $100 million in advertising for each of the top 16 brand-name drugs in 2015, meaning 50% of all direct-consumer advertising was just for these 16 medications. do you ever see an advertisement during the super bowl for a generic, lower-cost medication? of course not. it's the same story when it comes to the $20 billion the same companies spend to butter up the doctors so that they'll prescribe these drugs. doctors are more likely to

prescribe a specific brand-name drug if they've been marketed by drug companies. while they're more likely to prescribe cheaper generics if not targeted with these ads. these ads often urge you to, quote, ask your doctor if this drug is right for you. well, we asked the doctors whether direct-to-consumer drug advertising was right for the health of america. we went straight to the american medical society. they've called for a ban on direct-to-consumer tieing. direct-to-consumer tieing inflates the demand even when these drugs may not be appropriate. if a patient finally figures out how to spell xeljanz or xarelto on the third time and comes to these doctors, the doctor has a choice.

he or she can spend valuable time explaining why the patient doesn't need the drug or why there is a cheaper generic or just write the prescription. and, sadly, too many doctors just write the prescription. sometimes with these drug ads, it is hard to tell whether they're commercials for a pharmaceutical or a sports car. except you know the price of a b.m.w. before you go to buy it. with billions in targeted spending, patients are bombarded with information, all those side effects. be sure and tell the doctor if you had a liver tax but they're kept in the dark about one major element. what do these drugs cost? ultimately somebody is going to pay for it? maybe your insurance company, if you are lucky. if not, maybe you and your family. price disclosure is absent from virtually all of these drug ads. so when a patient sees an advertisement for xeljanz or

xarelto or his family doctor writes a prescription for it, the patient fine l lally sees for the first time what they're facing when they go to the pharmacy. no other industry conceals its prices when it comes to consumer goods this way. that needs toy. irthink the american consumers have a right to know in front, on the ads. today i'm introducing a bill. drug price transparency and communications, d.t.c., to require the disclosure of prices in direct-to-consumer ads and motions to doctors. the american medical association recent adopted a resolution supporting me. my bill is endorsed by the american college of physicians and the consumers' union. it is a simple thing. do american consumers have the right to know when this comes to the cost of these drugs, the right know that if you take xeljanz for rheumatoid arthritis

that you're going to spend $3,150 a month doing that? this bill would have the f.d.a. and the federal trade commission oversee these communications and require drug makers to disclose the whole aqui -- the wholesale acquisition cost known as the wac. i'm sure the response from big pharma that makes a lot of money will be to say, that he just not the right price for every patient. i agree. when we asked the pharmaceutical companies for better price information, they claimed up. they won't answer. as long as they refuse to disclose the true cost of drugs and refuse to provide any transparency in the shell game they run between charging different patients different amounts, we have to stick with the one industry reports, verified number, the w.a.c., and that price is what we have put in as the required advertising on each of these drug ads on

television. i have a asked a lot of stakeholders about their suggestions for other approaches. but everyone understands this price establishment, this price bottom line. that's why we used it. further, my legislation allows drug companies to explain if patients would pay less than the amount we advertise. er but let's also remember somebody is going to pay this high price. if patients don't pay the w.a.c. price out of pocket at the pharmacy, they are insurance company just might which is why health premiums keep going up. blue cross blue shield of illinois told me that they spend more on prescription pharmaceuticals than they do on inpatient hospital care. this is one of the big drivers in the cost of health care. is it important that we disclose to consumers what the real costs are of the drugs that they're being bombarded with on television? i think so. doctors, patients, and families aagree, if drug makers are are

going to fill the airwaves with pharmaceutical ads, they must tell the whole story and provide full information about drug costs. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you. our constitution starts with those three beautiful and powerful words, we the people. our foundersen vision add nation, the form of government that wouldn't result in government of, by, and for the powerful and privileged but instead would really deliver for the american people a form of government that provided a foundation for every american to thrive. quite a contrast to many of the governments of europe that they had seen function on behalf of the privileged and the powerful. well, we have an issue before us

that certainly is about government of, by, and for the people. it is the issue of the children's health insurance program, often referred to as chip. this program has expired for 46 days. 46 days, putting children's health care at risk throughout our country. why isn't this bill on the floor right now? why isn't it being passed by unanimous consent right now? or at least being debated and amended and passed. we have five states, five states, that are running out of money in this quarter -- oregon, my home state one of them. going to be out of money next month. we have another 25 states that are going to be running out of money in the first three months of 2018.

disrupting the continuity of essential services for our little ones. for 20 years, the children's health insurance program has ensured that no children fall through the cracks of our health care system. they have covered checkups, i am immunizations, dental visits, doctor visits, assisting our struggling and low-income families who make too much to qualify for medicaid but not enough to be able to actually purchase health services or health care for their children. every single state in america -- 50 states out of 50 -- has a program. now, they tend to operate at different levels. 46 cover children up to or above 200% of poverty. we have 24 states that cover families up to incomes of 250%

of poverty. we have a handful of states that expand coverage up to 300% of coverage. in my home state, oregon, 140,000 children rely on the children's health insurance program. it's just not acceptable that members of this body come to this floor to talk about how to do trillions of dollars of tax benefits for the very wealthiest of americans while we're failing to get a bill on the floor for health insurance for america's poor and struggling children. there is a lot i could say about that tax bill. it's really a bank heist. it's designed to deliver trillions of dollars to the

richest 1% of americans while doing virtually nothing for the middle class and absolutely nothing for the bottom third of americans. doesn't there seem something wrong in a we the people democratic republic to have a bill on the floor that is a bank heist on the federal treasury to deliver benefits, trillions of dollars to the richest americans and we can't have a debate on this floor on health care for the poorest children in america? well, certainly i think it's a perversion of the principle of a government serves the people, to put the privileged and powerful ahead in line. we have seen certainly many renditions of this, including a broader bill, a set of bills,

the trumpcare zombie health care bill. it came to the floor and was going to wipe out health care for 2 million americans. then it came back in a different form. it was kind of the fake insurance form. understand and it was defeated again and then it came back as the skinny bill, and it was defeated again, all wiping out health care for millions and millions of america's families. well, now we have a tax bill coming to the floor that once again has a provision put in it to wipe out health care for millions of american families. that's why we call it the zombie bill. the fact that we killed this thing, tried to put a stake through its heart knowing that we're supposed to be here serving the people -- not the most privileged. the people. that's what's in our constitution. that's the vision of this nation. but apparently it's not the vision for those who control the

bills who come to this floor, because this bill has been waiting for 46 days to be addressed. now there is a bipartisan bill ready and waiting to be brought to the floor right now. senator hatch and senator wyden have worked together. they passed this bill out of their committee. it would extend the children's health insurance program through 2022, and we could take that bill up right now and pass it. it had the full support of committee. it had the republicans on board. it had the democrats on board. so why isn't it here? why are we disrupting health care for america's children? so to mile -- my colleagues, set aside your ambition of

ripping off the federal government to deliver benefits to the top 1% of americans and pay some attention to america's children. that's our responsibility. that should be our mission. that's the purpose of our constitution. and let's get it done. nine million american children are waiting. thank you, mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. brown: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. today i rise to speak in opposition to the nomination of joseph otting to be come croarl of the curntion -- comptroller of the currency. i appreciate his interest to

enter public service. in a -- that said he is not the person we need in this very important financial watchdog role. we have learned lessons from the attitude and the work of the person in this office, and i'm sure he's not the right person here. we' we have made a lot of progress in the last seven years since we passed wall street reform. the last thing we need is someone leading the office of the controller of the currency who works to eliminate or weaken safeguards instead of looking out for workers and borrowers and the stability of our financial system. the financial watchdogs, including the previous controller thomas curry, took the right steps, took significant steps to right the wrongs that led to the 2008 financial crisis. it's important that we not have this collective amnesia that seems to permeate this body about what happened to this

country ten years ago. working together, controller curry and other financial watchdogs strengthen rules for the largest banks. independently, the o.c.c. enhanced the supervision and examination of these banks. they took enforcement actions against bad actors. they took steps to address concerns that the agency -- concerns that the agency had been captured by -- had been captured by the industry, and there was clear evidence for that in previous people in this job. but this administration's putting the bank industry -- putting the banking industry back in charge of policing itself. we should have learned from that a decade ago. mr. otting is yet another bank executive who profited off the financial crisis who is being rewarded by the trump administration with a powerful job overseeing our nation's banking system. this is a man, mr. president, who worked at one west, making a

fortune kicking military servicemembers and seniors and working families out of their homes, all while pocketing $2.5 billion -- that's billion with a b, $2.5 billion from the fdic to protect his bank from any losses. the bank one west in this behavior, in this action of kicking military servicemembers and seniors and working families out of their homes, this all might sound familiar to my colleagues. it certainly sounds familiar to the people in the finance committee and the banking committee. it's the same place, doing the same -- the same place that correct -- that mr. mnuchin, now secretary of the treasury, where he worked, committing the same kinds of -- of -- doing the same kinds of things at work that mnuchin did. mr. otting and his former boss, secretary mnuchin, refused to provide senators state-by-state data on one west foreclosures on

senior service members and other borrowers. they refused to answer questions about one west loan modifications. i think ohio wants to know, ohioans, and i would hope enough of my colleagues to constitute a majority would want to know what they're hiding. it was pretty amazing, mr. president, to sit in the finance committee and listen to secretary mnuchin and watch secretary mnuchin, then-secretary designee mnuchin refuse to release information, refuse to disclose. in fact, he had forgotten about a $100 million investment he had when he testified in front of the committee. we found out later that he had this investment, that he forget to disclose. $100 million, that's a lot of money. even to secretary mnuchin, i think that's a lot of money. even to this administration, i think that's a lot of money. now, what we do know, thanks to important work by our independent press, is not pretty. what we do know about what one

west is, is not pretty. back in january, the "columbus s dispatch," the most conservative newspaper in my state, the second largest paper in our state, ran a front-page story on that bank's abuses. their investigative journalism found that one west used so-called robosignings on mortgage documents. according to the dispatch in this fine investigative work, under mr. otting's watch from 2009 to 2015, nearly 2,000 ohioans in just our six largest counties were foreclosed on by one west. the abuses were so bad, the abuses were so bad, mr. otting signed an o.c.c. consent order, a legal agreement a bank and its regulator enter into when the legal practices of the bank force the government to step in. if you're signing an o.c.c. consent order, it's pretty clearly a pretty serious problem. in any other administration, this would have been disqualifying. in any other administration, mrr

mr. mnuchin, who was engaged in the same kind of practices, would have withdrawn their name in any other administration if the nominee didn't withdraw his name, the administration would have told them to withdraw their name, but not in this white house. not in this white house. frankly, when you walk into this white house, it looks like -- it looks like a retreat for wall street executives, and people like one west executives and people who foreclosed on home after home after home and, frankly, paid almost no -- have almost no contrition and paid almost nothing, suffered almost no consequences for their action. the consent order documented one west's breath-taking list of foreclosure abuses. gouging borrowers with excessive fees, unfairly ee convicting service members on active duty. think about that. they not only evicted service members, they evicted service members on active duty in some cases where the wife was serving

overseas and the husband -- the husband was evicted because he couldn't make the payments partly because his wife is paid so little as a member of the armed forces. mr. otting was held accountable for one of the major abuses, robosigning by the banks in 2014. but during his senate banking confirmation -- my colleague from massachusetts has just joined us. she heard this -- he continued to deny wrongdoing. even when faced with a legal document that proved otherwise. mr. president, one of the things that just amazes the american public is first that nobody went to jail for what they caused in the last decade, what they caused in 2007 and 2008 and 2009 and the pain and the hardship, the pain of plant closings and lost jobs, the hardship of losing your home, the terrible consequences of losing much of your retirement savings. the people that caused this suffered -- they suffered almost no consequence. the american public, first of all, can't believe none of them went to jail.

even a little bit -- maybe they are not so surprised anymore that there is no contrition. and then, then we reward these people by making them secretary of the treasury or controller of the currency. so mr. otting was held accountable, but in all of these legal proceedings, too -- and i'm not a lawyer, mr. president, so maybe i don't exactly understand this. but these people, these people signed some document, but they never really admit they did anything wrong. well, mr. otting followed that process. he -- he continued to deny, even though we had this documentation, he continued to deny wrongdoing even when we faced -- we presented him with that legal document. so instead of helping families -- instead of helping families recover from the financial crisis, as c.e.o., secretary mnuchin -- not secretary then, but secretary mnuchin one west bank, mr. otting contributed to the devastation. so this administration has chosen him to be in charge of one of the key agencies protecting ordinary americans from wall street. so say that again.

he was a big part of the problem as c.e.o. of one west bank. the administration, he has committed wrongdoing. we have presented him with a legal document proving that. yet the administration chooses him to be controller of the currency. it's a job most of america doesn't know much about. i didn't either until i came here, i acknowledge that. it's a job that most americans don't think much about. it's a job that most americans don't think maybe has a great impact on their lives. but americans know what happened ten years ago. mr. president, i live in zip code 44105, cleveland, ohio. my zip code in 2007 had more foreclosures than any zip code in the united states of america. and i can barely -- i can't leave my house. if i go more than about 300 yards without seeing the devastation caused by people like mr. otting, people that lose their homes, people that lost their jobs, people who have suffered and lost their life savings because of wall street malfeasance, because of companies like one west.

mr. president, i'm sure that -- i'm guessing that mr. otting doesn't think about this, and i'm guessing that most people here don't think about this, but there is a -- there is a -- pope francis soon after assuming the papacy admonishes parish priests to go out and smell like the flock. it wouldn't hurt all of us to do that a little more around here, to talk to somebody who has lost a job. you know, it typically will happen where -- in my neighborhood, near slavic village, cleveland, ohio, where first somebody -- first the spouse lost her job and then the husband's plant closed and then they couldn't keep up with the payments, and then they had to tell their daughter, their teenaged daughter, honey, we're going to lose our home. first they had to give away their family dog probably because owning a dog costs money and they were squeezed and they knew they were in trouble. then they have to explain to their daughter we're going to go to a different school district. all the things how life turns

upside down, how your life turns upside down if you're foreclosed on or if you're evicted. i'm guessing mr. otting doesn't think a lot about that. i'm guessing secretary mnuchin doesn't think a lot about that as he travels on private planes and his wife brags about her expensive clothes. i'm guessing very few in this white house who, again, seems like an executive retreat of goldman sachs executives, i'm not sure many of them think about that, but maybe they should, and maybe if he's confirmed -- and i assume he will be because the republicans in this body do whatever -- generally do whatever wall street and whatever companies like one west want them to do in confirming nominees like mr. otting. but i wish mr. otting would think about it a -- a little bit more about the devastation he contributed to. right now at the o.c.c., mr. president, keith durika, previously a big bank lawyer, has spent his time rolling back rules to protect americans from predatory payday lenders.

he has worked against a consumer financial protection bureau rule that would have allowed customers to take their banks to court when they get cheated. mr. nurika has done all this as acting controller. he wasn't confirmed by this body. get this, mr. president. his temporary role as a special government employee means he doesn't have to live up to the same ethics or conflict of interest rules as everyone else. so he takes this job as acting cooler while we wait for mr. otting, he takes this job as acting controller. he does the bidding of all of these financial service interest groups, all the payday lenders and all the people that are preying on working families and preying on low-income people. he leaves and he goes and joins some of these companies, and he doesn't have to live under any ethics rules. think about that. mr. president, watchdog agencies, the people who run them are supposed to be independent voices that protect workers in the economy from financial crisis, not banking industry lap dogs who help their

former board room buddies on wall street. and if his record's any guide, certainly mr. nurika didn't serve the public. he served as a lap dog, he served the banking record. if his record is any guide, i'm concerned mr. otting will be no different, that the o.c.c.'s independence will be compromised under his leadership. he works side by side with secretary mnuchin at one west bank. mr. mnuchin handpicked mr. otting for this job. we're already seeing since of wall street influence at some of the agencies consistent with secretary mnuchin's agenda. they have pulled back on wall street reforms. they have attacked other agencies for doing their jobs. for wealthy bank executives and private investors like mr. otting, the crisis wasn't a life-changing event. think about that. the crisis for mr. odding wasn't a life-changing event. those people who live in zip code 441 in slavic village in cleveland, those people whose homes i drive by every day, people who lost jobs because of the financial crisis, people who lost homes because of the

financial crisis, people who lost their life savings because of the financial crisis, those weren't just life changing. those were life destroying. those were life-destroying kinds of things, events. yet, mr. otting, mr. mnuchin, they go forward, they pocket their tens of millions of dollars, and then they are appointed by the president of the united states to watch over and be financial watchdogs. they saw the crisis. the crisis was life changing to my neighbors. they saw a crisis as an opportunity to profit by flipping failing banks bought at rock-bottom prices, but not before foreclosing, as the "columbus dispatch" said on thousands of working families, all while raking in taxpayer dollars. if confirmed, mr. otting will be in charge of ensuring that all national banks, including wells fargo, we certainly heard about wells fargo abuse. millions, literally millions of its customers. his job will be to ensure that all national banks, including banks like wells fargo, are

complying with the law, that they operate in a safe and sound manner, and they protect customers. mr. president, i mean, to be real, can we really, really -- do we think that we can trust him to do that after the worst financial crisis since the great depression, a financial crisis that devastated ohio and colorado and massachusetts families. after people lost their jobs and their homes and their savings, mr. otting clearly isn't the right person for this job. yesterday, the chair of the federal deposit insurance corporation, marty griewnberg, said i confess to having a certain sense of deja vu. banking conditions are strong. the possibility of a serious downturn any time soon is generally viewed as remote. that was certainly true during the precrisis years as well. if if i have one key point to make today, it's that we should guard against the temptation to become complacent about the risks facing the financial system. and i would commend on mr. gru

mr. gruenberg's comments that 10 or 11 or 12 years ago, it didn't seem all that likely to many, at least those in the bush administration, that there would be an implosion of the economy, an implosion of the banking system, a crisis. that there was, in fact, the new head of supervision at the federal reserve -- at the federal reserve pretty much said, as late as 2007, we really shouldn't be concerned about a housing crisis. it will only hit the upper-end homeowners. those are the people that this president has put in charge to be the watchdogs of our financial system. again, mr. greenberg said, if i have one key point, we should guard about becoming complacent about the risks facing the financial system. we need to take jared greenberg's warning seriously. confirming a banker to the o.c.c. is a high price for working families still feeling

the impact of the last financial crisis. it's a high price for them to pay. mr. president, i urge my colleagues to vote no on mr. otting. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i want to thank the senator from ohio for his leadership in pressing the american people to take a look at mr. otting, who has been named to be the head of the o.c.c. i want to rise and join my voice with his in saying that this is a bad nomination for america. donald trump promised during his inaugural address to fight for, and i want to quote, the forgotten men and women of our country. but even before his bags were unpacked at the white house, he started bringing wall street to washington, importing the worst of the worst bankers who had gambled away the economy,

putting them in charge of regulating the same companies they once worked for. it is a long list. former goldman sachs president gary cohen to lead the national economic council, wilbur ross to lead the commerce department, randle quarles went straight from his private equity fund to the federal reserve where he is now responsible for regulating the biggest banks. maybe the most important and most ridiculous of all the wall street imports is treasury secretary steven mnuchin. he spent 17 years at goldman sachs as the financial crisis swept across the country. he had billionaires to purchase indy mac bank and rebranded it onewest and put himself in charge and then mr. mnuchin and

onewest acted swiftly and -- and decisively to boot families out of their homes all over the country. the senate should have never confirmed that person -- that kind of person to run the treasury department. now he leads the council responsible for making had sure that wall street doesn't blow up or economy again. i know, it actually sounds like a joke, but the risks for the rest of us are way too serious. republicans don't seem to have a problem with any of this. in fact, they are doubling down. today they plan to confirm mnuchin's former onewest business partner, joseph otting to lead the office of the comptroller and take another seat on the same council. the o.c.c. is one of the most important regulators that you probably never heard of. they are the main bank overseer

of the united statesle. -- states. they write rules to make the economy more secure and it puts examiners inside big banks to catch new tricks and scams before they harm consumers, or worse, before te crash the economy -- they crash the economy. when the banks mess up, it is the o.c.c.'s job to enforce the law. mr. otting is buddies with the treasury secretary from his days at onewest bank. if you care about making sure thatting regulators look out for families, for businesses, and for our economy, i think it's hard to think of anyone who is worse for this job other than steve mnuchin. we all know a segment of the banking industry specialized in squeezing american families, particularly after the financial meltdown, but onewest may have

been the worst of the worst, especially when otting was president and c.e.o. from 2010 to 2015. what happened on mr. otting's watch? well, onewest ran a notorious foreclosure mill that through thousands of families out of their home and illegally, under line illegally, foreclosed on dozens of service members. onewest did not just destroy families, they foreclosed whole communities, and made it harder for families to start over and rebuild. onewest stole homes out from underneath families, lying to homeowners who were legally entitled to modify their mortgages and keep their homes under a government program, telling them that the only way

forward was foreclosure. onewest treated all of its homeowners like garbage, but its treatment of minority homeowners was particularly disgusting. onewest was nine times more likely to foreclose on a homeowner in a community of color than offer them a mortgage and all of this went down while the bank was busy vacuuming up more than $1 billion in taxpayer bailout money during the financial crisis. they devastated a lot of american homeowners and at the same time put mr. otting in the same room with a lot of regulators. after an investigation by the treasury department found that onewest systematically cheated in foreclosure proceedings, including by lying in sworn statements to judges, cutting corners and failing to check to

make sure they had the right documents before foreclosing on families, mr. otting signed a consent decree with the government agreeing that onewest would pay more than 10,000 people for improperly throwing them out of their homes. but that's not all. in 2015, onewest forked over more than $89 million in fines to the department of justice for defrauding the government and illegally putting taxpayers on the hook for the loans if they went bad. so what happened to mr. otting after hurting all those families, after lying to judges, after admitting to defrauding the united states government? well, he got a nice $12 million severance check and a call from donald trump asking if he wanted a corner office right here in washington. it is crazy to expect a banker

who has broken the law to turn around and fight to enforce it. it's like putting criminals in charge of the police station and expecting them not to look the other way while their buddies keep stealing. there is nothing in mr. otting's record that suggests that he would protect consumers from financial fraud or take the steps needed to rein in the banks or avoid future financial meltdowns. you may not have heard of the o.c.c., but i promise you that when this agency refuses to stand up to the big banks and enforce the law, american families get hurt. it is as simple as that. before the financial crisis, the o.c.c. buddied up with banks that they were supposed to regulate and everybody knew it. the result was the 2008 financial crisis that cost our economy $14 trillion. millions of families lost their

homes, millions lost their jobs, millions lost their savings and their retirement money, and nearly a decade later many american families are still hurting. now the trump administration is ready to take us back to the bad old days where banks make gobs of money off risky bets while regulators just look the other way. confirming mr. otting is kicking dirt in the faces of every one of onewest victims. it is a gut punch to every american who was hurt in the financial crisis. and even if none of that matters to you, it is a terrible idea because leaving mr. otting in charge of bank regulation will endanger our economy. american families and businesses need and deserve a cop on the beat who will fight hard to keep them safe. everything we know about

mr. otting says he'll be out there fighting for the big banks. i will be voting no on mr. otting's nomination and i urge all of my colleagues to do the same. thank you, mr. president. i yield.

blume -- mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: no. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. we are at a critical point in our investigation in russia with their meddling and obstruction of justice that may have occurred. those issues are under investigation by the judiciary committee which has a unique responsibility because we

exercise oversight concerning the department of justice and the f.b.i. so the firing of james comey, among other actions that raise issues regarding potential collusion and obstruction of justice is very much appropriate and necessary for our inquiry to determine. and we also have a unique responsibility because only the judiciary committee can make public for the american people to know and understand what happened that may involve obstruction of justice and equally important, what can be done to prevent it in the future. the committee on the judiciary of the united states senate can legislate. there are other investigations swro going -- ongoing involving the special counsel who will

determine criminal culpability, the intelligence committees of both the house and the senate which have a counterterrorism responsibility, but they really legislation -- rarely legislate in the way that the judiciary committee does. i'm proud to serve on the judiciary committee. i greatly respect the leadership of our committee, chairman grassley, who is a straight shooter and cares deeply about the integrity of our judicial process as well as a long-standing and distinguished record of protecting whistle-blowers, and our ranking member, senator dianne feinstein of california who has been a steadfast champion of judicial integrity. but every week we are seeing cascading disclosures that

reflect potential collusion or cooperation between the trump campaign and russian officials. and these disclosures reflect as well on the obstruction of justice that is front and center for the judiciary committee's investigation. just this week through a stunning expose in the atlantic, later confirmed by donald trump, jr., himself, the american people learned of secret exchanges between wick can i leeks -- wikileaks and donald trump, jr., during the 2016 presidential campaign. the exchanges began in september, 2016, two months before the election. over the course of those exchanges, wikileaks sent literally dozens of messages to trump, jr., who sent back at least three messages. he acted at wikileaks' behest at

least one time tweeting out a link to john podesta's e-mails at wikileaks' suggestion. he told other high-ranking officials on the trump campaign that wikileaks had reached out to him in an extraordinarily revealing message. at no point did he rebuff these advances. in fact, just the opposite. at no point did he reject those overtures from wikileaks and what we are seeing, particularly in the familiar tone, almost intimate nature of these exchanges back and forth is the possibility that we may have before us just the tip of the iceberg in those exchanges. these revelations are stunning.

they're jaw dropping. the son of the president of the united states, then a candidate, actively engaged and may have been coordinating strategy with a group that the current c.i.a. director has called a hostile intelligence service. the present director of the c.i.a. appointed by the president of the united states donald trump characterized wikileaks as a hostile intelligence service, and that's a direct quote. and then observed that it's often abetted by hostile nation states, like russia. without subpoenaing donald trump, jr., to testify in public, we cannot be sure we have the full record. one of the most stunning aspects

of this exchange, indeed, was its very personal tone and many who read the coverage may sense and feel understandably and rightly that we're reading fragments of a longer and larger conversation that may have involved other participants or relied on other means of communication. and we are left inevitably with some very, very key questions. how did donald trump, jr., know of wikileaks' plans to leak pa podesto's e-mails before they were leaked. why did they feel confident that they had informed trump, jr., that they hacked e-mails without

worrying that he would turn this information over to law enforcement? hacking is a crime. how could wikileaks be in the least bit confident that donald trump, jr., would not report that crime to proper authorities? and he did not. perhaps most crucially, why would donald trump, jr. -- coordinate efforts as anything other than an inappropriate, unethical and potentially illegal act? given the stake, my expectation was and the american people could likewise expect the same that our committee would act quickly and transparently to answer those questions raised by these messages as well as the interview conducted by our committee staff of donald trump, jr. that's what i was expecting when

these messages were first provided to the judiciary committee roughly two months ago. my expectation was that donald trump, jr., would be compelled to testify, that he would be subpoenaed to provide a full record of his communications relating to russian interference in our elections. surely those subpoenas that were discussed, even issued over the summer would now be reissued and enforced. the lack of action has been frustrating to me and likewise, i have been disappointed that we've made virtually no progress towards scheduling a public hearing with donald trump, jr., and other key individuals involved in this investigation.

the subpoenas have not been reissued. i've called repeatedly for that action to be taken. the documents have not been subpoenaed. those key documents that are so relevant and necessary to our investigation have not been subpoenaed as i have asked to be done repeatedly. and that's why i'm here today to raise concerns about the senate judiciary committee's investigation into russian interference in our election, possible conclusion by the trump campaign, and obstruction of justice. the threat is that that investigation is stalling. the danger of lack of progress is depriving the american people of information they deserve. i recognize that congressional

investigations must operate methodically and systematically and in some cases confiden confidentially. until the committee is ready to release its findings. but that confidentiality can serve an important purpose if it aids an investigation, not if it engenders the kind of lack of trust that is clearly a possibility here, not if it engenders that trust or lack of trust, not if it endangers confidence and trust in the process. there may be a need for

confidentiality to encourage cooperation of witnesses, but ultimately the american people deserve disclosure. there is a need for impetus and urgency in this investigation. the american people must be made aware of key facts and issues raised by these documents and the interviews conducted so far. and my hope is that colleagues will join me in asking for more progress, more disclosure, more transparency because the american people need and deserve that kind of disclosure. without the exposure provided by a free and independent press, justice delayed could have extended into justice denied.

that's the danger. secrecy threatens to stall the investigation and my hope is that we will have the kind of transparency in greater measure that is necessary for trust and confidence in this investigation. i hope that my colleagues on the senate judiciary committee will join me in demanding that donald trump, jr., and other key figures in the investigation testify under subpoena in public under oath and that documents be subpoenaed as well. the senate judiciary committee has a particularly critical role in exposing the truth. even if criminal charges are never brought, the american people have a right to know whether their public officials have held themselves to a standard of honesty, loyalty, and integrity that they have a right to expect. this body is in the best

position to provide that measure of truth, hopefully the whole truth to the american people. there are many members whose leadership on this issue i appreciate. as i mentioned, senator feinstein who is sending a second traunch of letters this afternoon on this investigation. but we are allowing time to pass without progress that opportunity once lost cannot be recovered with the measure of importance that it deserves. we must issue subpoenas. we must hold public hearings. we must get to the truth. and it must be done now. thank you, mr. president. i will refer these remarks to my colleagues with great respect

for them and for the leadership of this committee. and i will come back to the floor. i will return to this subject because i think it is so critically important and the american people deserve more information and they deserve better. thank you. thank you, mr. president. the presidin -- the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: you know the senate and the house -- the presiding officer: the

senate is in a quorum call. mr. van hollen: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. president. we're having a chance now look at the house and senate republican tax plans. both of these plans were cooked up largely in secret, and as more information comes out, we see more and more how much damage they're going to do to our country. and the plans have many features that overlap, and one of those overlapping features is both of them provide a massive tax giveaway to big corporations and powerful special interests. the "wall street journal" in an article just a little while back was looking at the house plan, talked about a provision that's also in the senate plan, and they said, a 20% corporate tax rate -- at a 20% corporate tax rate, banks stand to be among the biggest winners from tax

reform, according to an s&p global market intelligence. the five biggest diversified u.s. banks alone might have had tax savings of $11.5 billion in 2016 at that rate. in other words, if that 20% rate had been in place back in 2016, those big banks -- the biggest banks -- would have seen that huge windfall, that huge additional profit. a recent analysis from bloomberg law estimates that banks could see a 12% drop in their effective tax rates and an 1% increase -- and an 18% increase in their profits. mr. president, this at a time that banks in the united states -- the biggest communities, not the community banks but the biggest banks in this country are already making huge profits,

and this just provides them with an extra tax windfall that's going to be paid by millions of middle-class taxpayers, paid by increasing our national debt and, of course, as the national debt goes up, people will come around and say, okay, let's also pay for them by cutting medicare and medicaid. in fact, that's right there in the senate republican budget. so bottom line is that both the house and senate republican tax plans, big giveaways to big corporations, paid for by many other americans. now, this is not the only way the trump administration is working to provide big giveaways to the biggest banks. we remember back during the financial crisis and meltdown that taxpayers had to be brought in to save big financial institutions in order to protect

the larger economy. it was a terriblely difficult decision people had to make to protect the economy. and at that time we said, never again are we going to allow the big banks on wall street to gamble in a way that leaves taxpayers, all of our constituents, on the hook. they can take risks, but they shouldn't be taking risks with taxpayer money. and that was the whole purpose of wall street reforms. now comes the trump administration, in addition a tax plan -- in addition to a tax plan that wants to provide big corporate breaks to the biggest banks, they want to take down a lot of the guardrails that prevent banks from taking big risks that taxpayers will end up paying for. and one of the ways they're trying to bring down those gua guardreconciles is rails is --

those guardrails is appoint people to very important positionpositions within the got that oversee the big banks but people who have a history of very cozy relationships with those big banks so that they can bring down the guardrails which once again will expose taxpayers to the risks of gambling on wall street. mr. president, that brings me to the nomination that's before the senate today, the nomination of goas of otting to be the next comptroller of the currency. with so much going on right now, i want to take one moment to step back and talk about what the comptroller does. because the comptroller of the currency plays a critical role in ensuring the stability of our national banking system. it is there to make sure that our banks don't blow up our financial system in the kind of

way we saw happen in 2008 and the years leading up to that. the o.c.c. has been an independent agency since the civil war. the comptroller has to be confirmed with the advice and consent of the senate, and the reason that process was put in place was to make sure we preserve the agency's independence and safeguard our financial system from the whims of the executive branch. you don't want somebody at the head of the o.c.c. who is simply the lackey for the administration, whatever administration might be in power. now, the o.c.c. is responsible for the supervision of more than 1,400 national banks and federal savings associations and about 50 federal branches and agencies of foreign banks in the united states. and these institutions together

comprise nearly two-thirds of the assets of the commercial banking system, and they require prudent, smart, reasonable regulation to ensure that they comply with the laws that congress has passed to prevent another financial crisis, to prevent another financial crisis where it is not wall street executives who at the end of the day were left holding the bag, it was the american people who had to pay the bill and who took it on the chin in the form of of a collapsing economy and lost jobs and wages. and yet we see this president, the secretary of the treasury, secretary mnuchin, continuing down the path to lower those guardrails and expose taxpayers to greater risk. and one of the things they need to do that is to have somebody at the head of o.c.c. who is not going to be an independent

person but somebody who's willing to do the bidding of the secretary of treasury and the president of the united states. and, as i said, normally the o.c.c. leader is supposed to go through the confirmation process to preserve that independence. but under the trump administration, they wanted to get going right away in lowering the guardrails and giving big banks more running room, even if that put taxpayers at risk. so rather than offer a senate nominee early in the year, the president and secretary mnuchin used an underhanded tactic to install a person by the name of keith noreika as comptroller. by using this procedure, they sidestepped the senate confirmation process and by the way also allowed mr. noreika to sidestep the trump administration's ethics pledge

and ethics requirements. so that's who's there right now. mr. noreika. and he has spent most of his career prior to taking that position telling big banks how they can avoid regulations that are designed to protect taxpayers and protect the economy. in fact, if you look at the ethics forms that he did file, he had to recuse himself from virtually all of the major banks that the o.c.c. regulates. his work in the private sector created an unprecedented series of conflicts of interest, far more than any other person in that position, and underscoring the need for someone to have to go through the senate confirmation process rather than trying to-circuit that with under-- to shortcircuit is that

with underhanded tactics. i was very concerned about this runaround and asked the secretaries and inspector general to initiate an investigation into the means that have aappointment of because what happened was mr. noreika was designated what's called a special government employee, an s.g.e., and when you use that mechanism, you're only supposed to have the person serve in that position for 130 days of the year, a very unusual type of appointment, and almost never used when it comes to the head of an agency. in fact, this may be close to the first time. well, that 130-day deadline, if you count by calendar days, it expired in september. and yet now we have a new interpretation of the law, which is a wild stretch, saying, well, it's not calendar days. we're going to count it as business days. but the whole point here is that

this mechanism, this underhanded mechanism has been used to allow this new person, mr. noreika at the o.c.c. and in that period of time, by looking at what he's done, we can see he wasn't installed there just to be a caretaker. he's been very active in those early months in working very hard to lower many of the protections we've put in place for taxpayers and for our financial system. he was in the middle of the effort to repeal the consumer financial protection bureau's mandatory arbitration rule, roll back the o.c.c.'s community reinvestment act supervisory guidance, and eliminate the deposited advance guidance rule, which is a rule that makes it more difficult for national banks to provide payday loans at

outrageous rates. -- that are unaffordable to the people who take them out. since mr. noreika was there, he's also been involved -- let me put it this way. since he's been at the o.c.c., the o.c.c. has been involved in helping one of his former clients circumvent federal guidance intended to prevent banks from shopping around for hands-off regulators who will in the scrutinize their activities. in other words, forum shopping for bank regulators. just this morning, mr. president, "the wall street journal" reported that on november 7, the bank of tokyo converted the license of its new york state branch from a state license to a federal license. so why did they do that? why did they do that at this

time? well, this decision to change regulators came in the middle of an ongoing investigation by the new york department of financial services into that bank's lack of scrutiny of its clients, some of whom are suspected of evading u.s. sanctions on iran and north korea. now, the o.c.c.'s licensing manual says that it draws heavily on information received from the office's current u.s. supervisor and other confidential and supervisory information available to the o.c.c. when considering application from a financial institution that wants to switch from state supervision to federal supervision. mr. president, that courtesy, that guideline was not applied in this case. that information, that notice was not provided to the new