Floor Statements

Madam President, I wish to thank my colleagues from the bottom of my heart for this vote. This was, in many ways, a turning point for the Senate, because what was before us was unprecedented, the first time we had ever been asked to repeal a health finding, a scientific finding, a finding that was made by scientists and health officials in the Bush administration and the Obama administration.

That finding, as we know, is the predicate, is the basis for curbing pollution, carbon pollution, that we know is harmful to our families. We see what carbon pollution is doing in the gulf, to the wildlife. We know what it is doing to an entire way of life. We know what it is doing to the fishermen, to the people who rely on recreation for jobs, to the people who rely on tourism.

Tonight we had a choice. We could have decided to stand with the polluters, big oil mostly, who were behind the Murkowski resolution, or we could have decided, which we did, to stand with those who are looking out for our kids, the doctors, the physicians who treat them, the pediatricians, the Lung Association, the public health agencies in all of our States.

We did the right thing, and this was important. It also means we are going to move to alternative energy. We are going to move to the millions of jobs that will come about when we have technologies made in America for America. I want to see the words ``Made in America'' again. So we are on that path right now.

I want to thank the extraordinary leadership of our leaders, Senators Reid and Durbin. They went that extra mile. I want to thank the staff of the Environment and Public Works Committee, headed by Bettina Poirier, extraordinary staff. I want to thank the cloakroom here and all the people here who helped us make sure that every Senator was able to be heard.

Senator Murkowski and I worked very well together debating this in a civil manner. I want to say, as I note Senator Lautenberg standing here, I felt the moment this debate came together was when he came to the floor to make a statement, brief though it was. He talked to us not from his notes but from his heart, about what it means to him as a grandparent to watch a grandchild suffer and struggle through asthma, and as he has noted on this floor on more than one occasion, his family making sure that when this child plays in an athletic tournament or goes somewhere, how close is the emergency room.

This is what we are dealing with today, pollution. And today we said: We stand with the physicians, we stand with the scientists, and we are going to move forward toward a clean energy economy and all of the jobs that will come with it, and all of the technologies that will make America a leader in the world.

At this time I yield the floor to my friend Senator Durbin.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of Dorothy Kamenshek who passed away on May 17 at her home in Palm Desert, CA. She was 84 years old.

Dorothy Kamenshek was born in Norwood, OH, on December 21, 1925. Her gifts on the diamond were evident from the time she attended the tryouts for an all women's baseball league in Cincinnati while she was a high school senior. Her performance at the tryouts earned her an invitation to participate in the final tryouts that were held at Wrigley Field in Chicago. From the Wrigley Field tryouts, Ms. Kamenshek would emerge as one of two women from Cincinnati who were selected to play in the fledgling All-American Girls Professional Baseball League.

The All-American Girls Professional Baseball League was the brainchild of Chicago Cubs owner, Phillip Wrigley, who sought to fill the void that had been created by the disbanding of many minor league teams as a result of young men who were drafted into the armed services during World War II.

The existence of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League nearly paralleled the span of Ms. Kamenshek's playing career from 1943- 1954. During her career, Ms. Kamenshek all-around excellence on and off the field earned her the admiration of many fans and the respect of her peers.

Ms. Kamenshek was undoubtedly one of the finest players in the All- American Girls Professional Baseball League. The league's all-time batting leader with a .292 average, she had a smooth left-handed swing that earned her consecutive batting titles in 1946 and 1947. The leadoff hitter for the Rockford Peaches, she used her speed on the base paths to create havoc for her opponents as she compiled 657 stolen bases during her career. An all-around baseball player, Ms. Kamenshek's work with the glove once prompted former New York Yankees first baseman Wally Pipp to observe that she was ``the fanciest fielding first baseman that I've ever seen, man or woman.''

Ms. Kamenshek would lead her team, the Rockford Peaches, to four championships before her career was curtailed by a back injury. A driven person who was not going to rest on her laurels, she earned a bachelor's degree in physical therapy from Marquette University after her baseball career. In 1961, she moved to California where she worked as a staff physical therapist, supervisor and chief of therapy services for the Los Angeles County disabled children's services agency. After her retirement from Los Angeles County in 1980, she continued to treat patients in acute care on a part-time basis for the next 6 years.

In 1992, the story of Ms. Kamenshek and the other women who played in the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League was introduced to a new generation of Americans by the popular movie ``A League of Their Own.'' In the movie, the character of Dottie Hinson, played by Geena Davis, was presented as the best player in the league and was named Dottie as a tribute to Ms. Kamenshek, who was affectionately known as Dottie to her friends. In 1999, Sports Illustrated named Ms. Kamenshek one of its top 100 female athletes of the 20th century.

On the field, Dorothy Kamenshek is widely regarded as the greatest female baseball player ever. Off the field, her legacy will be one of a pioneer who, through sheer talent and determination, achieved excellence in a sport that was once deemed to be beyond the physical capacity of females. Dorothy Kamenshek inspired generations of Americans to chip away at the glass ceiling to follow their dreams and pursue endeavors and careers of their own choosing.

She will be dearly missed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2010, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The U.S.-China Economic Relationship: A New Approach for A New China.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2010, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Strategic Arms Control and National Security (Treaty Doc. 111-5).''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Production over Protections: A Review of Process Safety Management in the Oil and Gas Industry'' on June 10, 2010. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized

to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2010, at 3 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2010, at 10 a.m. in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2010, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Deep Impact: Assessing the Effects of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on States, Localities and the Private Sector.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Julie DeMeester, a fellow in Senator Durbin's office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the Murkowski resolution debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of Senator Baucus, that a fellow, Andrew Erickson, be granted the privileges of the floor during the consideration of this resolution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for 5 minutes at this time.

Mr. President, thank you very much.

Mr. President, there are so many issues on our plate this week: do everything in our power to work with our President to stop the oilspill in Louisiana, to rescue the fish and wildlife, to try to help the fishermen and the people who are so economically hurt by this, in my view, unnecessary tragedy. We are also working on jobs and the tax extenders bill which is so important so businesses can create jobs. So we know we have a lot on our plate.

I take a couple of minutes to rise in support of a wonderful judicial nominee we will be voting on, Judge Lucy Koh. She has been nominated by the President to the Northern District Court of California.

I thank Chairman Leahy and his committee for their work in approving this highly qualified nominee, who will be an outstanding addition to the Federal bench. I also thank my dear friend, Senator Feinstein, for her support of Judge Koh.

I was so proud to have recommended this nominee to President Obama. This nominee was interviewed by my Northern District Judicial Advisory Committee, and you can see, after you hear about her, why they were so clear she would make a great Federal judge.

Judge Koh is the daughter of two proud parents who risked much to come to this country and provide for their children. Her mother escaped from North Korea at the age of 10 by walking for 2 weeks into South Korea--a dangerous trek that required her to hide from North Korean soldiers along the way. Her father fought against the Communists in the Korean war and later immigrated to the U.S. of A. Her dad worked as a busboy and a waiter in Maryland while attending Johns Hopkins University, later bringing the rest of the family here.

Judge Koh is the first member of her family to be born in the United States of America. It is a fantastic example of the great American dream that we try to protect here, hopefully, every day. Her family moved to Mississippi, where her mother taught at Alcorn State University--the Nation's first historically African-American land-grant college. During this time, Judge Koh was bused to a predominantly African-American public school, where many of her classmates lived in poverty. Her childhood experiences provided inspiration for her to pursue a career in the law and work for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund during law school.

She attended Harvard-Radcliffe Colleges as a Harry S. Truman Scholar, graduating magna cum laude. After college, she attended Harvard Law School, where she was awarded Best Brief in the school's moot court competition.

Judge Koh has had a diverse career in the practice of law that makes her uniquely qualified to serve as a Federal judge. She has worked in policy, serving as a fellow for a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and in policy positions at the Justice Department. She served as a Federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, where she handled financial fraud, narcotics, public corruption, and violent crime cases. She received awards for her work as a prosecutor, including a Sustained Superior Performance Award and an award from then-FBI Director Louis Freeh for her prosecution of a $54 million securities fraud case.

She was a litigator in private practice prior to becoming a State court judge. During her time in private practice, Judge Koh worked on complex litigation matters involving securities and intellectual property, primarily appearing in Federal court. She led the trial and appellate team in the landmark intellectual property case In re Seagate, where a new legal standard was established.

With these credentials, it is easy to see why Governor Schwarzenegger appointed her to the California Superior Court in 2008, where she once again excelled as a judge, handling a docket of both criminal and civil cases.

Today, she is poised to become the first Asian-American judge in the history of the Northern District of California. She will also become the first Korean-American woman in U.S. history to serve as a Federal judge. A family's dream is poised to become a part of American history this very day.

To Judge Koh and to her family, I extend my most heartfelt congratulations on this important and historic day. I know I speak for many Californians, especially those in the Korean and Asian-American communities, in expressing our great pride in her.

Support for Judge Koh is diverse. She has been endorsed by a wide group of supporters, such as our Governor and former Massachusetts Republican Governor William Weld; former Presiding Judge Priscilla Gallagher of the Santa Clara County Court; Santa Clara County District Attorney Delores Carr, Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith; former Bush Office of Legal Policy Director Viet Dinh; the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association; and the Asian American Justice Center.

I close by congratulating Judge Koh and the other nominees and their families, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote to confirm these nominees to the Federal bench.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, what is the order now?

Madam President, would it be in order for me to speak against the Collins amendment, No. 4253, at this time?

Madam President, I hope we are going to defeat the Collins amendment, No. 4253. Let me explain what the amendment does. I want to describe why it is wrong and why it should be defeated.

The purpose of the Collins amendment is to prohibit the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, from ensuring compliance with Federal safeguards to protect pregnant women, infants, and children from lead poisoning related to repair and renovation work involving lead-based paint. I think everyone agrees--I don't think there is any dissent-- that lead is very dangerous and lead poisons children. We know it is imperative to remove the lead from the child's environment in order to make sure they do not get brain damage.

This amendment is designed to stop the EPA from enforcing that very important safeguard of removing this lead even if businesses were criminally negligent, even if businesses were willfully breaking the law's safeguards. If children were lead-poisoned and had permanent brain damage as a result of inadequate care being taken to protect the public health, EPA still couldn't enforce this law and get rid of the lead. Even if a child died as a result of severe lead poisoning, this amendment says EPA cannot enforce the law here.

The reason that is given by Senator Collins for her amendment to prohibit EPA from enforcing this law to protect our kids from lead is that there are not enough trainers available at EPA to train businesses so they are properly trained to do this work. Later on in this statement, I will show why that is false. But let me say that we ought to know what we are getting into here if we start doing things like this. Whose side are we on, anyway--the side of our families or the side of some businesses that do not want to do what has to be done and are using any excuse to get out of doing what needs to be done, which is to get rid of the lead.

On April 22, 2008, EPA issued a rule requiring the use of lead-safe practices to prevent lead poisoning. The rule requires one contractor in a renovation or repair job site to be certified in lead safe job practices. This one contractor can oversee or conduct the work. The rule covers projects at childcare facilities, schools, and homes that were built before 1978, and any facility that contains lead-based paint.

The Bush administration's EPA promulgated this rule after then- Senator Obama worked to get the Agency to conduct the rulemaking. When the Agency started the rulemaking in 2006, the EPA was a decade behind the schedule Congress had set out. Imagine this: It took an extra 10 years to get this regulation in place, and Senator Collins wants to stop the enforcement. This is a bad amendment.

Let me tell you about the public health threats EPA's rule is designed to protect. According to the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control, lead is a dangerous toxin that can harm almost every organ and system in the body, and there is no known safe level of lead in children's blood. About 250,000 U.S. children age 1 to 5 have blood lead levels greater than 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood, the level on which CDC recommends public health intervention. When children have that much lead in their bodies, they may have to undergo painful treatments to quickly reduce their blood lead levels. According to the EPA, lead can damage the nervous system, including the brain, which can harm mental development, and it can cause permanent injury to hearing and visual abilities.

Pregnant women, infants, and children are especially at risk from exposure to lead. Exposure before and during pregnancy can harm prenatal development and cause miscarriages. Large exposure to lead can cause blindness, brain damage, convulsions, and even death. The long- term effects of lead exposure in children include higher school failure rates and reduction in lifetime earnings due to permanent loss of intelligence and other impacts.

Let me tell you, Madam President, this is a proven scientific fact. Exposure to lead in children--in all of us is a real problem but especially in children. If we are not on the side of the children in this Senate, I don't know whose side we are on.

This is a very unwise amendment. According to the EPA, 40 percent of homes have some lead-based paint, and annual renovation, repair, and painting projects may impact 1.4 million children under the age of 6. Lead-based paint repair and renovation activities can significantly increase the risk of elevated blood lead in our children. An EPA study found that children living in residences during renovation and remodeling activities were 30 percent more likely to have elevated blood lead levels than children who lived elsewhere.

States from coast to coast recognize the threat lead poses to infants and children, and they recognize that trained individuals should do lead paint repair and renovation work.

In Maine, the State government recognizes that more than 60 percent of Maine homes may contain lead paint. Home renovations caused over half the childhood lead poisonings in Maine.

This is a statement from the Maine government:

It is very important that home repairs in an area with lead

paint be done safely and correctly. Improper removal of lead

paint can poison you and your children.

This is from the State of Maine. They go on to say:

Every year, hundreds of children in Maine are found to have

elevated blood levels. Most children are poisoned by lead

hazards in their homes. To protect yourself, your family and

any tenants, you can use a licensed lead abatement contractor

with workers who have been trained and certified in lead

abatement.

In Tennessee, we have a similar warning:

A common source of high-dose lead exposure to young

children is deteriorating paint in homes and buildings.

They say:

Hire a certified lead-based paint professional to remove

lead-based paint from your home.

In Oklahoma, they say:

Lead poisoning is the No. 1 environmental health hazard for

children. Remodeling a house covered in lead paint will

create dust and paint chips that can cause lead poisoning if

inhaled or ingested. Protect your family from lead during

remodeling.

The State says:

If you hire contractors, make sure they understand the

causes of lead poisoning and how to stay safe.

In my home State of California, this is what they say:

Lead in paint chips, dust, and soil cling to toys, fingers,

and other objects children put into their mouths. This is the

most common way children get lead poisoning.

Many construction professionals today still do not know about the harmful effects of lead. They may not even know that simple painting, remodeling, or renovation projects can cause lead poisoning.

I think it is very important to note that industry has had years to understand and prepare for this rule. EPA

began the rulemaking in 2006, and contracting organizations and other stakeholders met and talked with the agency. EPA issued a final rule in 2008. The rule did not go into effect until 2010.

EPA got hundreds of comments during the rulemaking process. The agency has joined with the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Ad Council to sponsor a nationwide public advertising campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of lead poisoning to children.

Advertisements are being distributed to more than 33,000 media outlets, and workers are already trained and more workers are receiving training in order to ensure compliance with this rule's safeguards.

Let me tell you, Senator Collins has stated on this floor that she supports getting the lead out of our homes, that she supports training the contractors. The reason she is stopping this--and make no mistake, stopping this program, which means more lead poisoning in our children--the reason is, she says, there is not enough trainers.

So we called EPA. I spoke to Senator Feinstein about this, and we find no such thing. According to EPA, States across the Nation have more than enough trainers to handle renovation needs at this point in the year. In areas of States that may be harder to get to the agency has traveling trainers who go from State to State giving classes.

EPA has stated the number of renovators needed to implement the rule during the first full year will be achieved in the next 2 months. They will have trained 363,000 renovators. This means training is ahead of schedule. It is ahead of needs since we are only halfway through the year.

As of May 19, there are 223 accredited training providers offering training across the country; 119 are available to travel to provide training in any State--your State, my State, any State. Most of these trainers are offering multiple training courses each week.

As of May 19, 2010, these training providers have offered over 12,000 renovator certification classes and trained 200,000 to 250,000 renovators. Further, 238 additional training providers have applied to become accredited. When approved, these trainers will more than double the Nation's training capacity.

Let's take a look at Maine. According to EPA, this State is estimated to need 1,300 renovators trained in this first year that the Federal rule protecting people from lead poisoning is in effect. As of May 19, Maine has at least 2,686 trained renovators, and there have been 158 classes provided in the State.

Again, there are 119 traveling providers who can travel anywhere in the country to offer courses. EPA told Senator Collins' staff, and we found this out from EPA, that the agency would send such trainers to northern Maine to offer classes in Bangor, where staff said there was a need for more trainers.

EPA asked staff for contact information on the individuals who had called the Senator asking for assistance in getting trained. So far EPA has not received a response. In Maine, believe it or not, there have been cancellations of training classes, and 32 classes have been canceled. EPA believes cancellations occur because they are just not enrolling. So to come here and say there are not enough trainers, when her State has canceled training, just does not add up.

EPA's rules already provide exemptions for emergency situations. For example, the recent floods in Tennessee have damaged many homes that must now undergo renovation. On May 14, 2010, the EPA sent the State of Tennessee a letter announcing that emergency exemptions from the agency's lead paint repair and renovation rule applied in 42 counties that had experienced serious flooding. EPA stated:

It is permissible for individuals to perform immediate

activities necessary to protect their property and public

health. These actions may include the removal of surfaces

containing lead-based paint. Further, these actions need not

be performed by a certified individual. To the extent

necessary to alleviate the concerns associated with this

emergency.

So EPA is being very flexible. They are not saying to people who are trying to recover from a flood: You need to remove the lead. If you need to deal with your home, deal with it. Do not have this added worry. So they are flexible.

Lead hazard information: having a sign to warn people about lead dust hazards, containing lead dust in the work area by using such materials as plastic and tape, lead dust waste handling requirements and certain training and certification requirements. This also has been waived in this Tennessee circumstance.

EPA has said some safeguards still apply to these renovations. But they have exempted them from quite a few. They do not want to see our children exposed. EPA's rules require a simple, commonsense action such as using plastic and tape to control the migration of lead dust, the use of HEPA vacuums that can be purchased at department stores to clean up dust, and a prohibition on certain actions that create extremely serious lead dust hazards. According to EPA, these safeguards add only $35 to the cost of renovation.

I have letters from public health organizations that oppose this amendment. I also have a letter from the EPA explaining why it opposes this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that these be printed in the Record at this time.

I think it is important to take a stand for our children. This would completely shut down this important program. It would say it is put on hold, even in the worst circumstances.

The National Center for Healthy Housing sent a letter: ``Protect Women, Infants and Children from Lead Poisoning--Oppose Amendment 4253.''

Let me tell you, it is signed by some important organizations: The National Center for Healthy Housing in Maryland; the Healthy Homes LLC, in Cincinnati, OH; Childhood Lead Action Project in Providence, RI; Division of Public Health in Madison, WI; Children's Health Forum in Washington, DC; Parents for Nontoxic Alternatives, Washington, DC; Healthy Homes Collaborative, Los Angeles; and Bay Area Get the Lead Out Coalition, CA; Fresno Interdenominational Ministries in Fresno. The list goes on and on, many from California.

Interstate Property Inspections, Inc., in Rochester, NY; Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, Oakland, CA; Jackson, MI, a facility manager says no to this amendment. The Coalition for Economic Survival says no. Riverside, NJ, we have a letter from them. We have a letter from Kansas. We have more from Cleveland, from Minnesota, from Florida, the American Management Resources Corporation; Healthy Homes Coalition in Michigan; Environmental Education Associates in Buffalo; Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning in Baltimore, MD. Here is an interesting one. The Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies in Las Vegas, NV. We ought to make sure our leader knows they have taken a stand here.

The Rhode Island Lead Techs, in East Providence, and from Niagara County, Childhood Lead Poisoning Program.

This is where we stand. Finally, we have a rule in place, and it happens to be that President Obama, when he was a Senator, pushed hard for that rule. It made it through, and there has been long lead time. We are ready to go.

Whenever there is a renovation now, and we know there is lead involved, we have to make sure somebody is trained.

EPA has the trainers. The fact that someone stands on the floor of the Senate and says they do not flies in the face of what I read. We know how many we have. We know there are many who would come on and go anyplace across the country. These training sessions take about 8 hours, and then the person is licensed to do this removal.

That is it. Let's not turn back the clock. Let's not go back to the time that we did not know lead caused these problems. Lead is poison. Lead is poison. We are ready to get it out of these old buildings. We are ready to do it, and I do not see why we should turn the clock back to another time and place and say we are doing it for the reason that there are not enough trainers when there are enough trainers.

That is not right. So I will say at this time, I do not see anybody else here. I hope we will vote down the Collins amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, first, let me say to the Senator from Tennessee, in his State all the counties that had flooding are exempt from this rule. I have the letter from the EPA, and I spoke with them about it.

Secondly, let us not go back on this important issue. Lead is very dangerous, particularly for pregnant women, infants, and children. This amendment would stop any funds in this bill from being used to enforce the EPA's lead paint renovation program, which was put into place by President Bush's EPA.

There is a training program, and my friend from Maine says there are not enough trainers. There are so many trainers that there are 119 of them who are ready to travel to each and every State, and already they are ahead of the training. Mr. President, 360,000 people will be trained in the next 2 months.

What this amendment does is rewards the contractors who did not get the training and it hurts the others. I urge a strong ``no'' vote.

Will the Senator yield?

I thank the Senator from Florida. He represents a State that relies on a beautiful coastline, beautiful ocean, the ability for the fishermen to earn their living, the ability of the tourism industry to thrive, the jobs that are related in both of our States.

I see Senator Cantwell and Senator Feinstein in the Chamber. The six Senators from the west coast came together in an unusual press conference, an unusual moment to say: We don't want to put our coastlines at risk. We can't afford to do it, let alone our moral responsibility to future generations.

What we are seeing here are the limits of the technology. I know the Senator saw the words BP wrote on the permit application when they wanted to move forward with this exploratory well. They said the chances of a spill were remote. But even if there would be a spill, they said the technology was up to the task. After the spill, the first thing they said was: We have never had experience in cleaning up a spill in this deep water.

Doesn't this strike my friend as something the Justice Department ought to look at, which several of us on the Environment Committee have asked for? Did they, in fact, tell the truth on their permit application or did they not? I ask my friend to respond to that.

One more thing--and I thank the Senator from Florida so much. We are a good, strong team. It is a good east coast-west coast team. When we looked at that riser, the technique that is kind of a straw that they say is siphoning off the oil, they claimed it was taking out 1,000 barrels a day. Then they said 2,000 barrels a day. Now they say it is 3,000 barrels a day. Remember, they told us it was 5,000 in total that was being spilled. Now they are claiming 3,000. When we looked at that--and now the American people can look at this--didn't you see what I saw? It is a fraction of the oil that is being siphoned off. In fact, most of the oil is gushing like mad out there, with just a little bit being siphoned off, which tells us there is a much greater volume than BP said.

If I may ask my friend to answer the two questions. Does he believe the Justice Department ought to take a look at these reassurances BP gave before they got the permit and then what they said after, and also comment on this whole notion of siphoning off the oil that they said was successful.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of Margaret Joan Morgan Foley. Mrs. Foley passed away on May 9 at her home in Visalia. She was 87 years old.

Margaret Foley was born in Dawson Springs, KY, on November 5, 1922. After obtaining her registered nursing license at the age of 21 from the Salem School of Nursing, she enlisted in the U.S. Army in the fall of 1943. During World War II, she would serve in the Philippines and Nagasaki, Japan.

Upon her return home, Mrs. Foley settled in Los Angeles where she worked as a surgical nurse at Saint Luke's Hospital. During this period, she met and married James Foley. A person of remarkable character and determination, Mrs. Foley was undeterred by a bout with tuberculosis that required a 23-month stay at a sanitarium in Altadena, as she fought valiantly to full recovery and continued her education at the University of Southern California.

In 1955, the Foleys moved north to Tulare, where Mr. Foley accepted a job as a reporter for the Tulare Advance-Register. Spurred on by a lifelong passion to improve the education, health and welfare of children and the poor, Mrs. Foley generously lent her time and considerable talents to a number of important community causes; the Parent Teacher Association, the Tulare Mental Health Advisory Board, Tulare County Legal Services, Tulare County Health System Agency, and the Porterville State Board Hospital.

In 1969, Mrs. Foley resumed working as a part-time nurse at Kaweah Delta District Hospital. For the next 21 years, she successfully served as a nursing supervisor for neonatal care and eventually becoming the perinatal manager for the hospital until her retirement in 1990.

Mrs. Foley continued her commitment to help those who are less fortunate during her retirement. In 1990, she was elected to the Kaweah Delta Health Care District Board of Directors. For the next 20 years, she would leave an indelible impact on the board through her tenures as its secretary, vice president, and president. As someone who was always willing to lend a helping hand, she also served on the College of the Sequoias Nursing Advisory Committee, the Good Samaritan Board, and as a staff nurse at the Good News Clinic. Mrs. Foley embodied the best ideals of volunteerism and public service.

A person of great warmth and humility, Mrs. Foley was admired by those who knew her for her kindness, compassion and decency. She was the inaugural recipient of the Tulare County Bar Association Liberty Bell Award in 1976, the 1980 Visalia Chamber of Commerce Woman of the Year, 1983 College of the Sequoias Nursing Faculty's Nurse of the Year and, most recently, the 2006 Rose Ann Vuich Ethical Leadership Award, a well-deserved and prestigious award that celebrates excellence and integrity in public service.

Margaret Foley devoted most of her life to making a positive impact on the lives of others. Mrs. Foley's generously gave her boundless compassion and precious humanity to uplifting and empowering those who are most often neglected in our society: the young and the poor. Mrs. Foley has left behind a legacy of service and the admiration of those whose lives she touched over the years. She will be dearly missed.

Mrs. Foley was preceded in death by her husband Jim; her parents William Roderick and Florence Pugh Morgan; two brothers, Roderick William and John Paul Morgan; and a sister Ann Trader Schweiger. She is survived by her children, James and his wife Penelope Applegarth; John and his wife Anne Bird; Morgan and his wife Sandra Platt; Sara Foley Fox and her husband Michael; and Patricia Foley Teaford and her husband Elliott; seven grandchildren; and two brothers, William Radtke and James Trader.

Mr. President, I am honored to recognize undersheriff Valerie Hill as she retires from the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. Undersheriff Hill, the highest ranking female in law enforcement in Riverside County, has served the people and the county of Riverside for over 30 years.

When Undersheriff Hill joined the Riverside County Sheriff's Department in 1977, she was assigned patrol duties in Lake Elsinore and later worked in the Riverside and Moreno Valley stations. As a sergeant, she served in Corrections and also at the Moreno Valley station. Over the course of her career she has had many other assignments within the Sheriff's Department. As assistant sheriff she was responsible for Corrections Division, Court Services and CAL-ID. Her numerous assignments over the past 30 years have given her the opportunity to become actively involved in the changes occurring in Riverside County.

Undersheriff Hill was the department's first female hostage negotiator, first female field training officer, first female assistant sheriff, and first female undersheriff. She was also one of two individuals instrumental in the development of the Special Enforcement Team (S.E.T.), which is a highly successful enforcement team in Moreno Valley.

Believing that community service extends beyond her duties in the department, Undersheriff Hill serves on numerous boards and committees, which include: Operation SafeHouse (board president), Riverside Area Rape Crisis Center (2006 and 2007 board president), Southern California Jail Managers Association (2006 president), YWCA (Evening of Achievement chairperson), and is an active member of the Kiwanis Club of Riverside. She volunteers two Sunday evenings a month through her church at a ``hot meal'' program that feeds the needy. She believes ``We make a living by what we get but, we make a life by what we give.''

Undersheriff Hill was honored by the YWCA in 2002 as a Woman of Achievement and in 2004 by the Inland Empire Magazine as a ``Woman Who Makes a Difference.'' In 2005 she was presented the Gold Key Award by Soroptimist International and in 2007 she was presented the Lifetime Achievement Award by the Law Enforcement Appreciation Committee (LEAC).

It is my pleasure to recognize Undersheriff Valerie Hill as she prepares to retire from the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, though I hope she continues her fine service to her community.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, what is the pending business, or the order?

Mr. President, I want to take some time to speak out against the Shelby amendment and urge that it be defeated. If that is appropriate at this time, I will use as much time as I may consume.

Mr. President, this is a pivotal point in the debate on Wall Street reform. We never want to see what happened to this country happen again, where they essentially crashed the stock market. People had been talked into very difficult to understand and exotic subprime mortgages. We had such greed running rampant on Wall Street, and instruments were created that were even difficult for the Secretary of the Treasury to explain--derivatives that were so complex they were in about the third order.

If we were to adopt the Shelby amendment, we would weaken this bill. As a matter of fact, we will weaken current law, and not only will consumers be hurt but they will actually lose ground--when the purpose of the Dodd bill--our bill--is to elevate consumers, give them protection from these kinds of schemes that brought our economy to its knees and resulted in 700,000 jobs a month being lost then, and the wealth of the average American, who had even a 401(k), was down 20, 30, 40, and maybe 50 percent and, as a result of that, the lack of consumer confidence that followed.

We know our economy is based on consumer confidence. Seventy percent of our economy is attached to consumer spending. When people see the stock market and their wealth going down, and see neighbors losing their homes and jobs, they feel threatened and they pull back, and rightly so. It started from deregulation on steroids on Wall Street, where the regulators didn't even use the powers they had to protect consumers. An essential part of this bill is putting a cop on the beat for consumers, finally. So whether you are a consumer of credit cards, or a consumer in terms of the housing market, or a consumer in terms of the stock market or the commodities market, you are finally going to have a watchdog.

We know the regulators didn't care about consumers. We know that. We know, for example, that the Fed had the authority to intervene in the housing market, if they felt these subprime loans were wrong, and stop them. They didn't do it. We know the SEC was warned about Madoff. There were whistleblowers to that Ponzi scheme, and many more Ponzi schemes were going on. They didn't even follow the lead.

We need to have a strong, independent consumer agency that says to the regulators: You are not doing your job. We are going to make sure you do it.

That is what is in the bill before us. But the Shelby amendment takes us back. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will enforce existing consumer protection laws--those same laws that went unenforced by current regulators. I gave you the example of the SEC and the Ponzi schemes, and of the Fed overlooking the mortgage crisis, and there are many others. It would also ensure clear disclosure to consumers of all the terms and conditions of the financial products they buy.

Believe me, you would have to have a degree in economics and finance and everything else to understand some of the fine print in a credit card bill. People are stunned to know they are paying 20, 30-percent interest rates on their credit cards, because there is no clear way of knowing.

In this bill, that is over. You have to know the terms and conditions of the financial products you buy. This bill will bring protections to home buyers from the kinds of exotic mortgages that led to the current crisis.

Let me give you an example. People were offered mortgages at a teaser rate--a very low rate--and were not being told in clear terms that in a couple of years that teaser rate would go up and go up and go up.

I have to say, some in the mortgage business were paid more commissions to put unsuspecting consumers into these exotic mortgages. So they pushed those mortgages. That is wrong. We need a consumer protection agency that notes it is wrong and puts a stop to it.

We have a situation that weakens the current law. If you think that is right, if you think, for example, that consumers caused the Wall Street meltdown--I think you are living on another planet--vote for this amendment. We know who caused this crisis. We know the greed on Wall Street. We know even while these companies were getting bailed out, they were paying their people huge bonuses. The word ``outrageous'' really can be defined by what these people did.

If my colleagues want more of the same--I cannot understand why they would--but if they want more of the same, if they do not want to strengthen consumer protection, then vote for the Shelby amendment.

Let's be clear. This amendment is a gutting amendment. Instead of creating an independent consumer watchdog, the Shelby amendment creates a weak sister, a weak division of the consumer protection in the FDIC. This new idea of Senator Shelby's, this new division of consumer protection, would no longer be independent. It would be under the FDIC. It would not have any authority to adopt any rule without the approval of the same bank regulators who have routinely ignored or opposed the needs of consumers.

Let me repeat that. The weak consumer protection agency created in the Shelby amendment would have no authority to adopt any rule without the approval of the same bank regulators who have routinely ignored or opposed the needs of consumers. It even would give bank regulators a veto over consumer protection regulations. That is totally unacceptable.

If my colleagues are for Wall Street reform, they have to vote no on the Shelby amendment. This is the moment of truth. Either my colleagues are going to stand with the people of this country who are innocent victims of greed on Wall Street or they are not. If they want to stand for the greed on Wall Street, if they want to stand for no protection for consumers, a weakening of the protections they already have, which are far too weak, vote for this amendment, and let's go forward with a Dodd bill which has a strong independent consumer protection agency.

I would add that the Shelby amendment would burden the new consumer protection division that he has in his amendment with incredible procedural hurdles--hurdles that have effectively

prevented the FTC, that has similar rules, from writing any new rules protecting consumers since 1984.

Mr. President, 1984 was an interesting year for me. It was a long time ago. I was a lot younger. It was before my hair turned blond. In that year, I was in the House of Representatives, and I was pushing the Federal Trade Commission to help consumers. They had too many hurdles. They have not done anything in all those years. Yet this is the template that Senator Shelby is using for this watered-down consumer protection division.

I see Senator Merkley on the floor, and I am going to yield in a minute. He is such a leader on all these issues and such a great populist leader in this Senate.

Maybe my colleagues who support this amendment think the regulators who allowed all of these abuses to happen under their watch, despite repeated warnings, did a fine job and are the best protectors of consumers.

But even if those regulators have somehow had a change of heart and are determined to change their ways, this amendment would leave them with even fewer powers to protect consumers than exist under the current system..

The Shelby amendment would burden the new Consumer Protection Division with the same incredible procedural hurdles that face the Federal Trade Commission--hurdles that have effectively prevented the FTC from writing any rules in the consumer finance area since 1984.

In addition, the amendment would actually prohibit the proposed consumer division from doing any rulewriting under the FTC Act for payday lenders, debt collectors, foreclosure scam operators, mortgage brokers and other nonbank consumer finance companies.

If the new division did somehow manage to get new rules written, the amendment would make sure that they could not be enforced.

Under this amendment, the new weakened consumer division could do examinations of some finance companies only after consumers have been harmed repeatedly.

This after-the-fact authority closes the barn door after the horse is out, and handcuffs regulators from protecting consumers until the harm is already done.

Some of my colleagues want us to believe that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that we have proposed in our Wall Street reform bill would harm small businesses.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Merchants, retailers, and sellers of nonfinancial goods are specifically excluded from the oversight of our proposed new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

This includes retailers who provide ordinary credit to their customers to buy their goods.

Even for small businesses that do sell financial products--including community banks and all kinds of small lenders--the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will have no direct enforcement authority. Enforcement of rules will be handled by the current regulator or State attorneys general.

I will give one more example I think is very important. I told you the template for Senator Shelby's new consumer protection agency is the FTC. I told you under those rules, the FTC has not done anything since 1984. Let's say they were able to get new rules written. Let's say they were able to do that. Senator Shelby ensures that the rules they write could never be enforced.

How does he do that? Because he says the only time the weakened consumer division could do any examinations of some financial companies would be after consumers have been harmed repeatedly. This is after- the-fact authority. I have seen too many people crying because of what happened on Wall Street. I have seen too many people crying because they lost their jobs because of what happened on Wall Street. I have seen pictures in the paper of Americans crying because of what Bernie Madoff did to them and their children.

I want this stopped. I do not want it stopped after the fact. Yes, thank goodness Bernie Madoff is in prison where he belongs. But it is very difficult to make the people whole who were harmed by that Ponzi scheme.

We do not want after-the-fact authority; we want before-the-fact authority. We want this consumer protection agency to be on its toes, to intervene, to see if there is a scam going on; to see if there is a credit card scam that leads to 30, 40, 50 percent interest rates; to see if there is a scam on mortgages where people unknowingly walk into a mortgage where the rate goes up to 12 percent.

At the end of the day, we know consumers were hurt hard by Ponzi schemes, by markets in the dark, confusing mortgage options, some bordering on fraud by credit card scams and worse.

Let's take a stand in a bipartisan way and vote no on this amendment and support the consumer protection agency, the strong one that is in this bill. I can tell my colleagues, if we do that, the American people can take a deep breath and know that they will be protected.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the great work and remarkable accomplishments of El Camino Real High School's Academic Decathlon team for winning the 2010 Academic Decathlon and its sixth National Championship. Members of the National Championship team include: Vivian Cheng, Daniel de Haas, Evan Edmisten, Andrew Fann, Audrey Goldbaum, Jessica Lin, Daniel Moreh, Adriana Ureche, Michael Walker, and team coaches John Dalsass, and Stephanie Franklin.

With this win, El Camino Real High School has earned the distinction of becoming six-time Academic Decathlon National Champions and nine- time State Champions. This milestone gives El Camino Real High School the distinction of being the Nation's all-time leader in national academic decathlon championships.

Competing in an Academic Decathlon is a daunting task. The Academic Decathlon's intense two-day national final competitions include multiple-choice testing in seven different events, speeches, essay writing, and interviewing exercises. Students spend many hours studying, practicing, and competing, often away from their family and friends. I invite all of my colleagues to join me, the Woodland Hills community and the State of California in congratulating California's El Camino Real High School Academic Decathlon team for becoming 2010 National Academic Decathlon Champions.

Mr. President, I would like everyone to take a look at these headlines from September 2008: ``Nightmare on Wall Street, Where Do We Go From Here?'' All of us who went through this, whether we were in the Senate or we were looking at what was happening to our investments on Wall Street, we saw over 3 short days in September of 2008, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and AIG collapsed and the stock market plunged. Seniors lost their retirement savings, and families lost their jobs and homes. Small businesses stopped hiring. It was a nightmare. That is what it was. If there is one thing we should all be able to agree on, it is this: The American taxpayer should never again have to bail out Wall Street firms that gambled away our savings and wreaked havoc on our economy.

My amendment is very clear. It is not a sense of the Senate. It has the force of law. It is straightforward. It is an ironclad assurance that a failing, insolvent Wall Street firm must be liquidated, and the cost of that liquidation must come either from selling off the firm's assets or from industry assessments of the big Wall Street firms.

I will retain the remainder of my time in case there is a debate. I hope this is close to a unanimous vote. It is clear, and I hope we will agree.

I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I am delighted to be here this morning. I am anxious to get started on voting on amendments so we can tackle the issue of Wall Street reform. We have to keep an eye on what happened to our economy, because Wall Street had no reasonable regulation. Markets were operating in the dark. There was very little fiduciary responsibility involved. There was all of this gambling with credit default swaps and CDOs. I am reading a book called ``The Big Short.'' If anyone wants to try to understand what happened, read that. It is unbelievable what happened with derivatives, all operating in the dark.

I wish to say to Senator Dodd how much I appreciate the work he has put into this bill. To put it simply, what the bill does is it ends taxpayer bailouts, flat out. That is why I was shocked when Members of the Senate on the other side of the aisle came down to the Senate floor and started criticizing the bill, saying it didn't end taxpayer bailouts, when that is what it does. That led me to think I would like to work with Senator Dodd on an amendment that clarifies this main point in the bill.

Senator Dodd and his staff--and I worked with the Obama administration on it as well--said let's sit down and work it out. So we have a very strong amendment here that is not a sense of the Senate; it is real law. It is strong law. I hope it passes. I say to my friend Senator Dodd I hope this passes by a huge number of votes. What we do here is summed up in part C:

Taxpayers shall bear no losses from the exercise of any

authority under this title.

This isn't saying they shouldn't bear a loss; it says taxpayers shall bear no loss. They shall bear no loss. The rest of it basically says: No company is going to be kept alive in this bill with any taxpayer money. If a company is in trouble and they need to be liquidated, then the funds that are used will be recovered from the disposition of assets of such financial company or shall be the responsibility of the financial sector, through assessments.

It is very similar to FDIC. As we know, when we put our hard-earned dollars into the bank, we are covered now up to $250,000 because there is an insurance program which is paid for via an assessment on the banks. It is called the FDIC, and we all know because we worry about that. If there was anything that was learned from the Great Depression, it is that there was a run on the banks, and guess what. The banks were out of money. People literally lost their world. So after those years a long time ago, FDIC insured. It is very important.

We are doing the same thing here. We are saying that if there is a liquidation required of some of these hot-shot firms that continue to gamble, that continue to take risks and something goes wrong, they are not going to be kept alive, they are going to be put to sleep and the money that is expended to do that will come from the financial sector itself, and taxpayers, again, shall bear no losses from the exercise of any authority under this title.

What else does the Dodd bill do? It ends taxpayer bailouts and, with my amendment, that is going to be even clearer. It puts a cop on the beat for consumers. Why is this important? Because the people who were trampled upon during the whole Wall Street crisis were middle-class families who depended on these big firms to protect their pension funds, to protect their assets that they might have had in mutual funds. Instead, all of that went out the window.

We need to also have a cop on the beat to look at credit card companies and the kinds of things they do that harm our people.

The third thing is it brings disclosure to dark markets. The bill eliminates loopholes that allow reckless speculative practices to go unnoticed, and it brings real regulation to the derivatives markets and the shadow banking system that grew up around it. These kinds of instruments, as they are called--derivatives--they are based on--let's take an example of a bunch of mortgages that are packaged together and sold. Somebody came up with the great idea: Well, maybe we should take

insurance against them going broke, and they played both sides of it. They had derivatives on derivatives on derivatives. The house of cards came down. We want disclosure for these dark markets; otherwise, the regulators simply don't know what is going on.

Risky behavior on Wall Street will be curbed. There are strict new capital and borrowing requirements as financial companies grow in size and complexity. There are restrictions on proprietary trading, which means a bank trading for their own interests. We had circumstances where a bank was telling its customers to buy a stock or a bond and they were shorting. They were making a bet that it would go down while they were selling it to people and saying, Oh, it has a great future. There is something so unfair about this and, frankly, corrupt about this. Where is the fiduciary responsibility? How do you go out and tell your best customers: Hey, this is good. We are going to go forward. Buy this. Then they go back to their office and short it so they can make money on it collapsing. There is something very wrong with that. We have lost our way. They have lost their way.

We have protection against securities market scams, improvements at the FTC, where we will have the Office of Credit Rating Agency that will strengthen the regulation of credit rating agencies, many of which failed to correctly rate risky financial products. My colleagues know that Moody's is one example, Standard & Poor's is the other. They said, Oh, this is a AAA. These assets that are based on all of these mortgages, this is a AAA, feel comfortable with it, when they knew, frankly, it wasn't. It was a conflict of interest. They were getting paid by the people who wanted them to come out and say they were rated AAA. There is something awful about this. If we cannot trust a rating agency, how are we going to know what we want to buy for our portfolio? I don't care if you are a very small investor or an institutional investor, an investor who is investing say for a pension company that you work for. I think we have to have even greater oversight over these rating agencies than is in the bill. I applaud what is in the bill. I am going to be offering something that holds these people accountable. Again, if my colleagues read the book I am reading, they realize how the people who work at these rating agencies were doing the bidding of those who wanted to get a AAA rate.

So we end taxpayer bailouts in this bill. The Boxer amendment is going to ensure that is so clearly stated. We put a cop on the beat for consumers. We bring disclosure to these formerly dark markets. We curb risky behavior on Wall Street because we require them to have more capital, less gambling. We create an early warning system with a financial stability oversight council to make sure we see trouble coming before it hits. We protect against securities market scams by going after these rating companies and saying, Hey, you have a responsibility to be honest when you rate an instrument; it shouldn't be rated a certain way because the person who is paying you wants it rated a certain way. That should be criminal.

I think it is going to be very clear as we get into this bill.

I am a little surprised it is taking so long. I say to Chairman Dodd, I am a little surprised it is taking so long to get a vote on the simplest amendment of them all.

Let's put this chart back up. What is the problem here? If people want to talk about making this stronger, let's talk, but don't hold us up. I would ask my friend, do we have any agreement yet on voting on the Boxer amendment, which is so clear? Here it is on one board. This is the whole amendment. Do we have an agreement yet?

I will yield.

Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague. I would say the reason I think it is important to have a vote is because for days and days and days, my friend, the Senator from Connecticut, and my friend, the Senator from Virginia, were down on this floor defending this bill and making it clear that this would finally put an end to too big to fail; that, in fact, taxpayers are not going to be on the hook. We are going to wind these companies down and they are going to have to be gone. They are going to go to sleep. They are going to be gone. They are going to be liquidated, and then taxpayers are going to be made whole. This is clear.

Our colleagues on the other side were all over national television. I don't know how many times they said this bill is ensuring that there will be more taxpayer bailouts. That is why I wrote this. It seems to me a little odd that we are waiting and waiting. Since our friends say they want an amendment such as this, why don't we get started.

There are lots of amendments on both sides of the aisle, some of which will make this bill stronger, in my opinion, and some of which will make this bill weaker, in my opinion. We will do what the Senate does. We will debate these issues. I know my friend is waiting. It seems to me that if we are going to this crisis--and I ask to show the charts--we cannot sit around here day after day and waste time.

These are some of the headlines we had: ``Economy In Crisis.'' ``What Now?'' ``Tax Problems.'' ``This Is A Nightmare.''

This is what we saw.

We have another chart that shows the headlines.

``U.S. Consumer Sentiment Decreases to 28-year Low.'' ``Jobs, Wages Nowhere Near Rock Bottom yet.''

What a mess.

``Wall Street Crash Leaves New Yorkers In The `Eye Of The Hurricane.' ''

This is just a smattering of these headlines.

We have some more to share:

``Where Do We Go From Here?'' ``Nightmare On Wall Street.''

This is what the country went through. I know we want to forget it. We never want to have it happen again, but we can't wish it away. ``Nightmare On Wall Street.'' ``Where Do We Go From Here?''

Today we are ready to answer the question. No more nightmares and no more taxpayer bailouts, and no more gambling.

Will this bill solve every single problem? No. There will be people who think something else up. But here is the good news about this bill: It puts a cop on the beat, so any of these new ideas that come to the forefront--these new instruments, these new derivatives--will finally be under the watchful eye of a consumer regulatory agency that has only one thing on its plate: protecting consumers from the rip-offs and the gambling and the callous disregard for morality that we saw on Wall Street.

So I say to my friends on the other side: Let's go. Let's do this. Let's get started. Let's have the Senate work its will, and let's be able to tell the people of this country that in a bipartisan fashion, we took a stand against the nightmare on Wall Street and we basically said those days are gone and we will get back to sensible rules of the road.

I will close with this. A lot of us I think were interested in watching the Kentucky Derby, a few minutes of the most exciting sport. I thought to myself as I watched that there are rules of the road in this sport. It is all about gambling. People out and out gamble. There is no hiding it.

They just go out and gamble. They put the dollars on the horse they choose. But there are rules of the road. You can't have a horse running that has been drugged. You cannot do that. You cannot have a jockey in the race who uses foul play to knock over another jockey or run in a fashion that would disqualify him. So even in a sport like horseracing, which is out-

and-out gambling, there are rules of the track, rules of the road.

It seems to me that on Wall Street, where you are dealing with the life savings and the hopes and dreams of our people, our businesses, and our children, that there need to be reasonable rules of the road and no more taxpayer bailouts. Let's get started and vote aye on the Boxer amendment and make this bill even better. It is a terrific bill, but we can make it even better.

I yield the floor.

I thank my colleague. The reason I did this, frankly, was because the other side seemed to be misunderstanding what this bill did. So I was hopeful that they would just say: Terrific; now it is clear. No losses to taxpayers--``taxpayers shall bear no losses from the exercise of any authority under this title.''

I understand Senator Kyl said yesterday this was a sense of the Senate. It is clear. It is not a sense of the Senate: liquidation required, recovery of funds, taxpayers shall. There is no ``should.'' It is real. So that is why I am hopeful that if we can get started with a bipartisan vote, it will make the life of our chairman a lot easier because at least we would come forward with something on which we can stand together.

I thank the Senator so much for working with me to make sure this is clear as a bell. As the Senator says, bills are complex. And people say: Why is this bill 800 pages? Well, it is complicated because we have to amend language in so many parts of the Federal law. But this is clear. We sum it up. We sum up the title in this way.

I am excited about voting on this. I will be back after the luncheon hour to--if I need to--make the case again--not that my colleague hasn't done it for me, but I want to lift a little bit of the burden off his shoulders.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Dodd for all his work on so many issues. Just the way things worked out, he has been so pivotal in health care reform and now in Wall Street reform. This is an era of reform. My friend should be very proud that he happens to be here at this time, because we can't go back to the days we left. As a reminder, I will show you some of the headlines. It is worth a minute of looking at these headlines. This is taken from 2007 and 2008, some of the headlines we had to face in those times: ``U.S. unemployment rate hits 10.2 percent, highest in 26 years.'' How about this one: ``Nightmare on Wall St.'' ``The bailout to end all bailouts.'' ``Wall Street's latest downfall: Madoff charged with fraud.'' ``Credit crunch continues as lending rates climb.'' ``Jobs, wages nowhere near rock bottom yet.'' ``Where do we go from here?'' ``The Nasdaq in biggest fall since the dot.com crash.'' ``Dow dives 778 points.'' ``U.S. loses 533,000 jobs in biggest drop since 1974.'' We can see the look on this man's face. He is obviously standing in the middle of the New York Stock Exchange. That explains how everybody felt as our constituents lost their wealth. They lost their wealth and with it their confidence in America.

I want to continue with one more chart because all of us want so much to put this behind us. That is what we will do with this bill. But we have to remember. ``Economy in crisis, what now?'' ``U.S. pension insurer lost billions in market.'' ``Housing prices take biggest dive since 1991.'' ``Full of doubts, U.S. shoppers cut spending.'' ``Wall Street employees set to get 145 billion 2009,'' the bonuses during this time. ``How low can they go?'' ``Home prices drop 42%.'' ``Carnage continues: 524,000 jobs lost in December.'' And from the San Jose Mercury News: ``Foreclosure Wave, San Jose Fights to Protect Neighborhoods.''

What we are doing here is so important. I am so proud of the work Senator Dodd did in his committee that has brought us to this point. I am grateful that our Republican friends let this bill move forward. We will have our debates. That is fine. But we can't afford to go back to those old days. Those old days could happen unless we act, as the President has stated.

I want to take the time to thank Senator Dodd in particular for working with us, as well as to thank the administration for working with us, to come up with an amendment which will synthesize exactly what the bill does.

The purpose of this amendment--which is pending at the desk, which I am hopeful we will vote on Tuesday--says in its purpose: ``To prohibit taxpayers from ever having to bail out the financial sector.''

When I heard my colleagues on the other side say Senator Dodd's bill would ensure taxpayer bailouts, I knew it was false, and I went to Senator Dodd and colleagues on the committee and said I did not understand why these comments were coming from the other side, as if saying this glass of water on my desk is a cup of coffee. No. This glass of water is a glass of water. It is not coffee. And if you say seven, eight, and nine times that it is coffee, somebody might believe it. That is how I view the comments from the other side that this is guaranteeing bailouts, when in fact it is not.

So I said to Chairman Dodd: I have an idea that we should put together a very simple amendment to the bill that basically says what we know is true:

All financial companies put into receivership under this

title shall be liquidated.

No company is ever going to be kept afloat. No taxpayer funds should ever be used to prevent the liquidation of any financial company under this title, that all funds expended will be repaid to the taxpayers by the financial sector through assessments or the sale of the assets of the company.

Then, we repeated at the end:

Taxpayers shall bear no losses from the exercise of any

authority under this title.

I am going to put up the Boxer amendment. It simply fits right on this chart, I say to my friends. It is very simple. If a company is taken into receivership, liquidation must follow. Nobody is being kept afloat. No one's

business is being kept afloat. They are liquidated.

Recovery of Funds.--All funds expended in the liquidation

of a financial company under this title shall be recovered

[either] from the disposition of assets of such financial

company, or shall be the responsibility of the financial

sector, through assessments.

Lastly, just in case people really wanted it stated--and I see some smiles on faces because we worked together to make sure no one could turn this around--

No Losses to Taxpayers.--Taxpayers shall bear no losses

from the exercise of any authority under this title.

So let there be no mistake. Senator Dodd's arms were open to this amendment. He said this reflects exactly what we have done. But he said: Senator, if you feel better if we put it in one place, we will do it.

I think it is important for the American people to understand the simplicity of the approach: No loss to taxpayers, period, end of quote. So if somebody goes on TV this weekend and says this bill is about bailing out companies and keeping them afloat with taxpayer funds, it cannot be done under the bill, and this amendment certainly brings it home in a very simple, plain English fashion.

I am proud to be working with my colleague Senator Dodd. I used to sit on the Banking Committee, and I was kind of lured off the committee because the people in California said: We have to have somebody on the Commerce Committee. We have so much at stake there. So it was tough for me to walk away, but I did walk away. But I still retain the relationships.

I am going to go through what is in the Dodd bill that I think is so terrific--then I am going to yield the floor--because Senator Dodd has been talking about this by himself, and I think he deserves to have a bit of a rest and the rest of us should come over here and talk about it.

Again, taxpayer bailouts are done. We know the bill itself does it, but we have made it clear. Taxpayers are covered. We will have a cop on the beat for our consumers. We will know that a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has only one job, and that is the job to look after our consumers so they are protected from the kind of deceptive and abusive practices that fueled this crisis.

Let's face it, this crisis was fueled by Wall Street, by speculation, no leverage requirements--lots of things--dark markets. This bill takes on these issues.

We see another part: brings disclosure to dark markets. The bill eliminates the loopholes that allow reckless speculative practices to go unnoticed. It brings real regulation to derivatives markets and to the ``shadow banking system.''

I think we are probably going to have some debate over this. But I can say right now, when I worked on Wall Street so many years ago, I have to say--too many years ago to remind myself of, but let's say it was a long time ago, and it was in the 1960s--those were the years when a $12 million share day on Wall Street was breaking all the records. Now a $1 billion share day isn't that much. We did not have these kinds of instruments. We did not have these kinds of toxic instruments that were so complex.

When I asked Treasury Secretary Paulson about it--he was George Bush's Secretary of the Treasury--he essentially held his head in his hands and said: You know, it is hard for me to explain this to you. That is a fact. It did not build up my confidence very much. I have to say, we need to have a financial system that is understandable by everybody. But certainly the Secretary of the Treasury should not have to hold his head in his hands and say: I can't explain it. We have to end those days, and the best way is sunshine.

So I say to Senator Dodd, you did a great job in working to bring disclosure to the dark markets. Senator Lincoln, working through the Agriculture Committee, I think brought us even more protection, and that is very good. Because I think the President said it well. The President said: We want everyone to prosper. We want everyone to be innovative. But we do not want to put our people at risk. When people start losing in the ways we were losing--20 percent of our net worth; 40 percent, 50 percent the market went down--50 percent of its value--a lot of people lost their dreams, and it was unnecessary. But it happened because there were markets that were in the dark, and there were people who were not fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to their clients.

What else does the Dodd bill do? It curbs risky behavior on Wall Street. The bill provides for strict new capital and borrowing requirements as financial companies grow in size and complexity and pose a risk to the financial system.

Regulators will restrict proprietary trading--speculative gambling-- by critical financial firms. We have situations where a firm is advising a client--and we know this happened with Goldman Sachs-- advising clients to buy a particular instrument which happened to be worthless. And I cannot use the word the traders used to describe it because this is a family audience. These were junk, and they called them worse than that. They were junk. They were being sold to the customers of Goldman while Goldman was taking a short position--in other words, a position that bet on these instruments' failure. The kind of e-mails that came out were reminiscent of the e-mails that came out during the Enron scandal, bragging about how widows and orphans were going to get hurt.

Well, if there is anything we should do here, it is to protect our people, not put them at greater risk.

There is going to be an early warning system created to prevent a future crisis--the Financial Stability Oversight Council--to focus on the risks before they lead to a crisis. As a last resort, the regulators can break up a company that is too big to fail.

Lastly, of the big accomplishments of the bill, the bill protects against securities markets scams. It mandates management improvements and increased funding for the SEC. The bill creates a new SEC Office of Credit Rating Agencies to strengthen the regulation of credit rating agencies, many of which failed to correctly rate risky financial products.

I have to say, I am working on an amendment that is even stronger because, for me, as someone who relied on, so many years ago, the honesty of these rating companies--these are the companies that say: This is AA, this is AAA, this is A, this is B, this is bad--they are getting paid by the people who have an interest in them giving a good rating. That is wrong, and we have to do something here to insert some type of responsibility to the public. These rating agencies have a responsibility to the public. I am working on some approaches. We do not have it ready. We are going to talk to Senator Dodd, and we hope he will be amenable to it. But we have some thoughts about it.

In this area, the people of this country are putting their hopes and dreams into the financial markets. It has been a great thing, in general, over the years. It has been a great thing because America is a great country, and we have innovation and innovators, and we have venture capitalists who put it all on the line, and they hit, and we can all do very well if we invest, even if we do it through our 401(k) or our company does it through a pension plan.

We know most Americans have a stake in these markets. I heard some things from Goldman Sachs--they said something like this: Well, the people we were selling to were sophisticated, and they should have known better. But they stop short of the truth. Maybe they were sophisticated, and maybe they were not doing their job either; therefore, it trickles down to the people who were relying on that so- called sophisticated investor. All we are saying is, we need reasonable rules of the road. We want to know a rating agency is giving it their best shot to tell the truth about a security. We want to ensure that. If there are new, exotic instruments being traded, that is fine, but let's take a look at them in the light of day so people are fully informed. Then, if you take a gamble, if you are fully informed, that is one thing. But if you do not understand you are taking a gamble, that is another.

So again, I am very pleased we are at this point. Somebody said the only reason we got here is we threatened to work through the night. Maybe there is some truth in that. Frankly, it does not matter to me. We are at this point. We can get to this bill. My Republican

friends who say they want to improve it--they did not try to do it in the committee, is my understanding--but if they want to do it now, I welcome that because I am sure I will support some of their amendments if they are in the spirit of this bill. The spirit of the bill is protecting consumers, protecting taxpayers, making sure taxpayers are never on the hook, and stopping a situation like this one, as shown on this chart, where every newspaper had pictures of people like this who were at a loss to understand: How could this happen in America?

I get the chills thinking about the conversations many Democratic Senators had. I know Republicans had the same conversation with the Secretary of the Treasury and with Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, in which they basically said: We are on the brink of collapse. We may never come back from this situation.

We cannot forget that. If we do not move to correct the system in ways that are not overly burdensome, but we get it right--and I think Senator Dodd pretty much has gotten to that sweet spot on this thing; we may want to move here or there with an amendment--if we can do this, if we did nothing else--and, by the way, we have done other things, and we will do more--this is crucial. It is crucial to consumer confidence. Consumer confidence fuels 70 percent of the market. Let's do this right.

I thank my Republican friends who decided to work with us. I thank Senator Dodd for his patience, for his passion, and I am very happy he is leading us because he is so effective and he knows what he is saying.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Feinstein, to introduce legislation to honor recipients of the Distinguished Flying Cross--the oldest military aviation award created by Congress.

This bill would designate the Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial at March Field Air Museum in Riverside, California as the National Distinguished Flying Cross Memorial. Companion legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Ken Calvert and recently passed by a vote of 410-0.

The Distinguished Flying Cross honors members of the armed forces who perform an act of ``heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight.'' Since it was established by Congress in 1926, tens of thousands of brave Americans have been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, including Wilber and Orville Wright, Charles Lindbergh, Amelia Earhart, former President George H. W. Bush, Senator John McCain, former Senator John Glenn, Chuck Yeager, General Jimmy Doolittle, and Admiral Jim Stockdale.

More recently, it has been awarded to a number of American men and women serving our Nation in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am proud that so many of the service members who have received the prestigious Distinguished Flying Cross are from my home State of California.

This legislation has the support of the Distinguished Flying Cross Society, the Military Officers Association of America, the Air Force Association, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Association of Naval Aviation, the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association, and the China Burma Indian Veterans Association.

This is a fitting tribute to those who have served our country with honor and distinction. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring these brave service men and women by supporting this legislation, and I look forward to seeing it enacted into law.