Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am deeply concerned because this is a matter that, unlike an awful lot of the subject matters that we bring up and engage in, has bipartisan support in this Chamber; that is, the ability of our first responders to be able to collectively bargain in the workplace. These are our firefighters, our police officers, and our emergency personnel.

This is a bill that was championed by Senator Kennedy before he left us--a bill that has been introduced by our good friend and colleague from New Hampshire, Judd Gregg, along with five other the Republican Members of this Chamber, along with many Democrats. In fact, it goes back over a decade, this issue of seeing to it that these, the most celebrated, the most highly endorsed and supported of public employees, would have the right to collectively bargain.

This is not something guaranteed in all States. Many States do it, but many do not. So I am terribly disappointed that once again, just days away from the adjournment of this Congress, these individuals who consistently enjoy the outspoken praise of public officials for their work, when it comes down to actually doing something on their behalf we find the Congress missing the opportunity to step up.

I hope I am wrong about this. We have a lot of issues to grapple with in the coming days, I know. But my hope is that the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act will be an item we can pass before the adjournment of this Congress. As I mentioned, Mr. President, this is a bipartisan measure that would guarantee our Nation's firefighters, our law enforcement officers, and our emergency medical personnel the right to bargain collectively with their employers.

Again, I thank Senator Gregg, who is a champion of this proposal, for his longstanding commitment to this critically important piece of legislation, which was originally championed in the Senate by our good friend, Ted Kennedy. We ask our Nation's first responders to put their lives on the line each and every day in our country. What they do is more than a job. I think most of us appreciate that it is a calling. It is a vocation. Throughout my career in public service, I have had the privilege to meet and work with, as I know most of my colleagues have, countless first responders--police, firefighters, emergency medical personnel. They do exceptional work under the most difficult of circumstances, and the American public appreciates their service more than they do any other people in public life.

In particular, I have come to appreciate the unique and multi-faceted challenges faced by firefighters.

We have all felt our chests tighten and our pulses quicken with anxiety at the sound of a fire engine screaming through town.

We have seen the determination on the faces of the people on those rigs. For them, all the commotion is just another day at the office.

When the unthinkable happens--a devastating hurricane, industrial accident, terrorist attack, or three-alarm fire--these brave men and women are the first on the scene, hurtling into danger, to save lives.

Just this past year firefighters in my home State of Connecticut have been faced with many serious challenges--and have met them every time.

In February, when a massive natural gas explosion at a power plant under construction in Middletown, CT, killed six people and injured more than two dozen others, firefighters from eight surrounding towns rushed to the scene.

They remained for hours and days afterwards, searching for victims and working to ensure that all the plant workers were accounted for.

When massive flooding hit several parts of my State, local firefighters

worked around the clock responding to calls from panicked residents. They dealt with hazardous materials and even helped to pump out flooded basements.

They are committed to keeping our communities safe, even when that means putting their own lives at risk for the sake of protecting ours.

In the abstract, this can be hard to keep in perspective.

But unfortunately, the community of Bridgeport, CT, was recently reminded just what this commitment means.

A week ago, two firefighters, Lieutenant Steven Velasquez and Michel `Mitch' Baik, were killed while fighting a fire in a home in that community. Three of their colleagues were also injured.

All of these individuals were incredibly brave--they entered a burning building to search for survivors and try to prevent the emergency from spreading.

This tragedy highlights just how selfless and courageous these people are each and every day.

And it should remind us all that, just as they have made a solemn commitment to us, so too must we affirm our commitment to them.

Part of our commitment is to ensure that they never, ever, put their lives at risk on our behalf without the proper equipment and training.

I have worked tirelessly over the years to ensure that this commitment is kept.

That is why I authored the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement--FIRE--Act back in 2000. This legislation created the first competitive grant program to assist local fire departments in addressing a wide range of equipment, training, and other fire prevention needs. Senator John Warner, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, was my partner in that effort, making it possible for it to become law.

To date this program has provided more than $5.2 billion directly to fire departments.

And these grants have not just gone to the largest metropolitan areas. Fire departments in small and medium-sized communities across the country have received funds through the program--including departments in 150 of the 169 towns in my home State of Connecticut.

In 2003, we built on the success of the FIRE program by passing the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Firefighters--SAFER--bill, which I also authored.

This program provides funds to ensure that fire departments are adequately staffed. Too many of these rigs go out with only two or three people on them when a minimum of four is required to make sure that they are safe doing their jobs. Since the program began, more than $1.1 billion has helped to put over 75,000 additional firefighters in our Nation's firehouses.

I am extremely proud to have been able to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get these important programs enacted.

But our commitment to our public safety community is still not complete.

As the Presiding Officer knows, the bipartisan Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act is a critical next step towards fulfilling our commitment to the men and women who keep us safe.

As we know, firefighters, police, and emergency medical personnel have a special place in the workforce and in society. They are respected for what they do. But they are also respected for doing it no matter what they face.

Once they get the call, they don't get to decide whether to take it or not--they just go.

We depend on them every day, and they respond with unquestioned dedication.

They are looking out for our well-being. Do we not owe it to them to look out for theirs?

In many States these brave men and women are deprived one of the most basic rights that workers in America have--to bargain collectively with their employers.

The right to collectively bargain has been proven over time to improve cooperation between employers and employees.

This cooperation leads to better, fairer compensation and benefits. It contributes to improved work conditions and safety. And it makes the quality of services better and more efficient for everyone.

Quality and efficiency is vitally important in the field of public safety. It can be the difference between an emergency and a tragedy.

I know that improving public safety is a goal that I share with every single Member of this body.

The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act is a carefully crafted bill that grants these rights to all first responders, without disrupting their vital role in emergency response.

While it requires that all States provide public safety workers with the most basic of collective bargaining rights, it also gives States the flexibility to implement plans that work best for them.

These include the right to form and join unions, and to collectively bargain over wages, hours and working conditions--rights that many States, including my State of Connecticut, already provide to these workers.

The bill also allows States with right-to-work laws--which prohibit contracts requiring union membership for employment--to continue to enforce those laws.

Importantly, the bill explicitly provides for safeguards against the disruption of emergency services. It does this with strong language explicitly prohibiting any strikes, lockouts, or other work stoppages.

Of course this legislation is about more than negotiating wages, hours, and benefits. For our Nation's first responders, this cooperation means so much more.

It means that the men and women who risk their lives every day keeping us safe can sit down and relate their real life experiences to their employers.

It also means that their on-the-ground expertise will be used to help public safety agencies improve services in the community.

When tragedies have struck us, from the September 11 attacks to Hurricane Katrina, to the house fire in Bridgeport, CT, just last week, these workers were the first on the scene and the last to leave.

We owe them everything, and all they ask in return is the dignity and respect in the workplace that all workers deserve.

The legislation before us is important to them; therefore, it should be important to us, regardless of panty and ideology.

As I say, this legislation already has strong bipartisan support in this Chamber. All we are looking for is the opportunity to bring it up and vote yes or no. After almost 20 years, with a well-crafted bill that protects against work stoppages and strikes and respects so-called right-to-work States--can we not guarantee this basic right of collective bargaining?

I hope before we adjourn that, after 20 years and at a unique opportunity, after all the speeches that have been given in praise and gratitude for the service of these men and women, we can give something back to them. This is the one thing that our first responders--our police, our emergency medical personnel and our firefighters--have asked of us. They appreciate all the wonderful speeches, all the great remarks, all the accolades, all the commendations. But what they would like to have, more than anything else, is for us to recognize their right to collectively bargain. That is something we ought to be able to give these fine men and women who serve our country every single day.

I urge my colleagues to give us one chance to vote on this legislation and decide whether we want to say to them how much we appreciate what they do. That is what we are asking for before we adjourn in this Congress.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, August 3, immediately after the opening of the Senate, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 1001, the nomination of Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and that during Tuesday's session, the time be divided as follows: Chairman Leahy, first 30 minutes; Senator Sessions, second 30 minutes; with the time from 10:30 to 11 equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees; the time from 11 to 12:30 equally divided and controlled, with the majority controlling the first 45 minutes; the time from 2:15 to 8:15 p.m. divided in 1 hour alternating blocks, with the majority controlling the first block, with any additional time beyond 8:15 p.m. continuing to be divided in 1 hour alternating blocks of time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1055 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Boxer amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate and that any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2097 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3689, introduced earlier today by Senators Leahy and Sessions.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no interviewing action or debate, and that any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 604 submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 5901 has been received from the House and is at the desk.

I ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, August 3; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the United States, as provided for under the previous order; and that the Senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

Tomorrow we will begin debate on the Kagan nomination. Debate will be controlled in alternating blocks of time.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as in morning business.

Mr. President, I wish to make note of the fact that a young man who has worked with me for 3 years in this body and who is present on the floor today will be leaving to go to graduate school.

I thank Ben Weingrod for his tremendous service to the Senate. Maybe this will be his last opportunity to be a

staff member in a floor proceeding. I express my gratitude to him for his service to our country and as a member of our staff over the past 3 years. I thank him very much.

Free-Trade Agreements

I rise today to talk about the importance of our relationship with Latin America and the role that free trade plays in those relationships. In particular, I wish to emphasize the need for action, in my view, by the Congress to implement free-trade agreements signed with the nations of Colombia and Panama. President Obama described the importance of these agreements in his State of the Union Address earlier this year. I know the President and the U.S. Trade Representative are currently working on the remaining details, and it is my hope that the President will soon submit legislation to the Congress to implement these agreements.

While the recession has been a challenge to economies across the globe, it also has given us the opportunity to soberly reevaluate our global relationships and look to build stronger partnerships in places we may have overlooked in the past. The most logical place, in my view, to start that review is Latin America.

For too long, American policy has treated Latin America as our backyard, and our policies toward the region have run the spectrum from shortsighted and unsophisticated to arrogant and paternalistic. The narrative of our relationship has been based on the negative, often ignoring and glossing over the important economic, political, and social advances that have been made in the region. The truth is that Latin America is not our backyard at all but part of our common neighborhood. We share far more than a hemisphere with our neighbors in this region. We share a common history, common goals, common opportunities, and a common future.

From my time as a Peace Corps volunteer in the Dominican Republic to my current chairmanship of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee in the Senate, I have had the opportunity to watch this region change dramatically over almost the last half century. Thinking back over the past three decades of my service in the Senate, the progress in many ways has been astounding, and it is time our regional policies reflected these changes.

Embracing these free-trade agreements is an important first step to achieve these goals. They will help to cement our regional partnerships and make important strides in shifting the story of the United States and Latin America from conflict to engagement, from division to empowerment.

I had the opportunity to visit almost every one of these countries in the region over the last 6 or 7 months and have seen these changes firsthand. In my conversations with numerous leaders and citizens, I have come to see not just problems and conflicts but, rather, remarkable, positive changes and opportunities.

Panama, for example, has been a critically important strategic and commercial partner of the United States. The United States, in fact, helped Panama gain its independence, and in 1914, the construction of the Panama Canal, as my colleagues will certainly recall, was completed.

Since that time, Panama has developed into an advanced economy based on professional-level services and is currently a destination of $4.4 billion worth of American goods. Despite its small size--3.4 million people, smaller than the population of my State of Connecticut--Panama rates in the top 50 of our trading partners globally.

Panama has also made important strides in building democratic institutions. Over the last 20 years, five civilian governments have been elected. With each new election, its commitment to human rights and respect for the rule of law has grown stronger. Challenges, obviously, still remain, particularly in the areas of human trafficking, violence against women, and increasing transparency in the banking and financial sectors. But Panama has made progress--great progress--and I am confident that the Martinelli government is committed to continuing this trend and to implementing solutions.

Mr. President, Panama is focused on becoming a financial and economic hub in Latin America. Passing the Panama Free Trade Act would give American businesses access to Panamanian markets. Today, tariffs and barriers remain on all goods and services sold in that country. By eliminating those barriers and tariffs on the overwhelming majority of goods and services, we could increase tremendously the job opportunities not only in my State but others around the country, and it would allow us to take advantage of the economic dynamism occurring in that country.

It is estimated upon implementation of a free-trade agreement with Panama, nearly 88 percent of U.S. commercial and industrial exports to Panama would become duty free, and Panama would be required to phase out tariffs on over 60 percent of all U.S. agricultural exports. This would lead to more U.S. exports to Panama and more jobs at home in the United States. This is good news for American workers, for farmers, and for small businesses and consumers alike.

Yet strengthening our partnership with Panama is not the only opportunity for increasing our engagement in Latin America. Our pending agreement with Colombia presents, as well, a chance to move forward in our renewed commitment to engagement and empowerment in Latin America. I believe this will have significant positive benefits over time.

Colombia has weathered a civil war that has lasted longer than most Colombians have been alive. Fueled by narcotrafficking, this war has claimed the lives of thousands of innocent Colombians, from farmers and shopkeepers to judges, elected officials, candidates, and community leaders, and has left countless more homeless in that country.

In fact, there are nearly 3 million internally displaced persons living within the country of Colombia today. Colombia still must improve its human rights protections and strengthen its commitment to the rule of law, but great changes have occurred on the positive side.

I understand why, of course, some may question moving forward with this agreement. I firmly agree we must not ignore these very real challenges in Colombia. But I also recognize that tremendous progress has been made in Colombia. I recently spent time there, as I did in the neighboring Andean countries, and the common belief is that great steps have been made in moving in the right direction. Mechanisms are in place today that will strengthen the rule of law, protect human rights, and Colombia recently held, as we all know, its most free and open election in decades.

In just 1 weeks' time, Colombia will mark a historic, dramatic transition to power from President Uribe to President-elect Santos. This peaceful democratic transition is an important marker in Colombia's history, and the President-elect has committed himself to strengthening Colombia's judicial system and working to reduce violence against labor leaders and others.

The Colombian people have pursued a fresh start, and we must recognize this and be willing to do the same. By passing the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, we have a historic opportunity to do just that.

This agreement, with its strong commitment to labor standards, environmental protections, and human rights will help shape Colombia's course to encourage its move toward a more open and democratic system and to build a relationship based on common values and not common enemies. This is an important opportunity that continues on the heels of the nearly 10 years of U.S. support for Colombia, including billions of dollars in aid through Plan Colombia.

Allowing this agreement to continue to languish now poses a significant roadblock, in my view, to continued reform in Colombia because it calls into question our Nation's commitment to a sincere and ever more important partnership. We need to act now, in my view, to affirm our commitment to the Colombian people, to show them that we recognize the hard work they have done and to signal that the United States will be a strong partner in their continued improvement.

Over the course of my career in the Senate, we have considered a number of trade agreements. I have evaluated each one, as I know my colleagues have, on its merits. Some I have supported strongly, and many others I

have opposed just as strongly, including ones for Latin America. A poor free-trade agreement can undermine very important protections for workers, human rights, and the environment. So I opposed the Central American Free Trade Agreement much to my pain and disappointment. But that was a weak agreement which did not deserve the support of this body.

These two agreements are different because since May 10 we have strengthened those labor protections, environmental protections, and human rights protections. I believe this agreement is deserving of our support. In the case of these two agreements, they are a commitment to our allies, and a signal to our friends that we value our partnerships and will continue to work with them to promote our shared values of democracy, the rule of law, and economic opportunity. As such, what they represent is much more significant than simply the exchange of goods and services between nations.

Trade agreements such as the ones before us represent opportunities to build long-lasting partnerships as well. I believe that is the case with the Panamanian and Colombian agreements before us. With the inclusion of the provisions of the bipartisan May 10 agreement on labor, environmental, and human rights standards, I believe we have addressed some of the most significant concerns about these two trade agreements. I also believe that because these trade deals and agreements have languished for so long, they have turned some opportunities into roadblocks to the success of our bilateral and regional relationships. It simply makes no sense to continue the delay. It is time to pass these two trade agreements in order to help move our economy forward as well.

Passage of these agreements is not just a good foreign policy decision; they also make strong economic sense as well. Currently, goods from Colombia and Panama flow north largely unhindered. Yet American businesses and American workers and the jobs, products, and services we provide are subject to significant duties and tariffs when we export goods to the nations of Panama and Colombia.

For example, while the vast majority of goods from Colombia enter the United States duty free, American goods exported to Colombia face average duties of 12 percent and, in some cases, as high as 20 percent. This is costing America jobs and American business. If we implement this agreement, we would eliminate many--as I mentioned earlier, almost 90 percent--of these duties and tariffs on these services and products nationwide, and U.S. exports to Colombia would increase, we are told, by a projected $1 billion annually.

In 2009, more than $14 billion worth of goods were exported by Connecticut firms to markets all over the world. According to the latest available data from my State--the Department of Economic and Community Development--Connecticut firms exported about $91 million worth of goods to Colombia and roughly $15 million of goods to Panama. Connecticut businesses export a variety of products to these nations, particularly chemical products, manufactured machinery, transportation equipment, computers, electronic products, and paper goods.

Under the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, 80 percent of all consumer and industrial goods, which include the categories I just listed, become duty free immediately. In addition, 88 percent would become immediately duty free once the Panama agreement is ratified as well.

What can this mean for the future? Well, certainly jobs. The International Trade Administration calculates that nearly one-third of all manufacturing workers in my State depend on exports for their jobs, and more than 4,000 companies engage in exporting some kind of products to these nations. Of those firms, 89 percent were small or medium-sized businesses--precisely the firms that President Obama's Export Initiative targets--that will be well positioned to take advantage of these agreements once they are ratified. This means expanded economic opportunities for workers in our own country and businesses in our various States across the Nation.

The Panama and Colombia Free Trade Agreements were established over 2 years ago. They have been the subject of intense scrutiny and public debate. They have benefitted by the input of the Congress, through the historic May 10 agreement, which I described earlier, that saw the inclusion of binding, enforceable, and meaningful labor, public health, and environmental standards. These discussions have allowed the Congress and the American people to critically examine the importance of these trade agreements and our partnerships with these key allies.

I urge support of these trade agreements before us not in spite of our current economic situation but because of it. This recession demands bold moves and innovation. It requires us to strengthen our key economic partnerships and to expand into new markets where we can. Now is not the time to close our borders to nations with whom we already have strong ties. History shows that erecting barriers to trade has the potential for deepening the global recession. Conversely, these agreements mean more economic opportunities for American workers and our families.

It is time for us to change the way we relate to the world, particularly in Latin America. For too long we have used our differences in this region with our allies as an excuse not to act, as a reason to disengage. These agreements offer us a chance to refresh that paradigm, to make the United States a proactive partner in fostering economic opportunity by bringing us closer together and promoting our shared values.

It is time, in my view, for the United States of America to lead a global economic recovery. A small but important step down that road is the passage of the Panamanian and Colombian Free Trade Agreements, and I urge my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to support these agreements. I hope we can do so before we adjourn this session of Congress.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I honor the life and career of George J. Ritter, who passed away on July 18, 2010, at the age of 90.

George was a remarkable public servant and a person of great principle and energy. His commitment to helping the less fortunate and for advancing social progress through the law made a lasting impact on the city of Hartford and the lives of many working families.

He grew up in New Jersey, raised by the children of German immigrants who were the very embodiment of the American dream. His grandfather had been sent to this country--alone--as little more than a child and began working full time to build a new life at the age of 12. His parents both began working when they were very young as well.

Their lives and the values they espoused had a deep impact on George, and it should come as no surprise that he would become a stalwart advocate for advancing the economic opportunities of all Americans, particularly for working families and minorities.

This clearly defined sense of social justice and the value of equal opportunities no doubt contributed to George's lifelong captivation with the law and the Constitution. He even hitchhiked as a teenager all the way to Washington, DC--just to observe the U.S. Supreme Court firsthand.

In our Nation, the will of citizens is the strongest force for social change. But building the coalitions necessary to make change happen is a difficult task and requires a common vision and commitment, and lots of energy.

George certainly had energy, and got to work building coalitions to push for change at a young age. As a student at Rutgers University, he worked to organize the nonfraternity members of the student body into a cohesive voting

block--which in turn, elected him to serve as the first nonfraternity student body president in the school's nearly 200 year history.

After college, his passion for the law took him to Yale Law School, in my home State of Connecticut. His legal education was interrupted by his distinguished service to the United States in the Pacific during World War II. Upon finishing his degree, he became active in the U.S. labor movement. He and his wife and partner in social activism, Patricia, had the opportunity to travel the United States and Europe studying unions and the labor movements that were beginning to gain steam and become a force in politics and society all across the globe. As a young labor attorney he worked to organize some of Connecticut's first municipal unions, and also served as an attorney for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

At the ripe old age of 36 he became Hartford Corporation counsel, which launched a career in public service that continued until 1980. He served on the Hartford City Council from 1959 until 1968, and in 1969 was elected to represent Hartford in the Connecticut General Assembly. During his time on the council and in the general assembly, George worked to highlight and pursue progressive solutions to issues that were not yet part of mainstream concerns; from civil rights, to elder and juvenile justice, to government accountability, and of course, working to provide equal opportunities for all.

He was truly a pioneer when it came to raising concerns about and finding solutions to address the issue of civil rights and equal opportunities. In fact, in the early 1960s--prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act--he and Patricia started the Connecticut Housing Investment Fund to help finance minority home-ownership and integrated housing. This organization became a model for subsequent national programs to support affordable housing.

Throughout his career he fought tirelessly for the rights of workers, and the advancement of housing, employment, and other opportunities for minorities--including by recruiting and managing the campaigns of the first minority candidates for the Hartford City Council and Board of Education.

He was also the first man ever appointed to Connecticut's Permanent Commission on the Status of Women, an honor that always gave him a smile, and spoke volumes of his commitment to equal opportunities for all Americans.

Even outside of public life, George continued to work to help others. After retiring from the general assembly in 1980, he cofounded the Independent Energy Corporation. One of the projects of Independent Energy helped to streamline the electricity usage of the largest business in the Caribbean region. The electricity savings from that one business helped to lower the foreign exchange bill of the entire nation of Jamaica--a truly notable achievement.

By any measure, the life of George Ritter was an utter success. In business, in public life, and as the loving father of five children, George led a life of principle and purpose. His work benefitted his community and helped to expand opportunities for the less fortunate.

Even though he has passed, George's spirit of public service lives on. His sons Thomas and John have both served in the State legislature, and his grandson Matt is a member of the Hartford City Council and is running to fill the general assembly seat George once held.

I am confident they will continue to build on George's legacy, and am proud to call them my constituents. I wish them the best of luck, and hope that they will continue to pass George's values and character on for generations to come.

Madam President, I rise today to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The enactment of this important legislation was a significant milestone in our national journey to perfect our Union, uphold our founding values, and reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that the rights enshrined in our Constitution are truly available to all of our citizens. I was honored to have been able to support this bill in 1990, and am proud to be here today to talk about what its enactment means to millions of our fellow Americans, as well as to celebrate the contributions of those whose tireless work, and undying support, made passage of this bill a reality.

Thanks to this landmark law, our country has made progress in eliminating the historical stigma previously associated with mental and physical disabilities. It is also a critical step toward guaranteeing basic civil rights for an entire population who, for much of our Nation's history, have faced incredible unfairness and isolation. For decades, we have fought for the civil rights of people with disabilities, combating the antiquated mindsets of segregation, discrimination, and ignorance. Our Nation has come from a time when the exclusion of people with disabilities was the norm. We have come from a time when doctors told parents that their children with disabilities were better left isolated in institutions. We have come from a time when individuals with disabilities were not considered contributing members of society.

Those times have thankfully changed. The passage of the ADA in 1990 provided the first step toward that change our country so desperately needed, and 20 years later, many of these individuals are thriving in ways that a few short years ago, would have been unthinkable. More and more, individuals with disabilities are able to integrate into communities across America. Thanks to the ADA, they are finding employment, buying their first home, and enjoying our public parks,

transportation, and other civic facilities far more successfully than ever before.

Just as I was a proud supporter of the ADA then, I was a proud supporter of the resolution which the Senate passed last week, introduced by my colleagues Senators Harkin and Hatch, commemorating the 20th anniversary of that historic achievement. I would like to thank Senator Harkin in particular for his leadership on the passage of the ADA.

I would also like to thank my former Connecticut colleague, Lowell Weicker, who, as a Senator in 1988, was the original sponsor of the legislation that went on to become the Americans with Disabilities Act, and is still a national leader in advocating for individuals with disabilities.

Without their tireless efforts and support, it would not have been possible to pass this legislation those 20 years ago.

Equal protection under the law is not a privilege in the United States of America--rather, it is a fundamental right due every citizen, regardless of race, gender, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability. It is unacceptable to deny any individual his or her right to those protections because of a disability. Our country has an obligation to its citizens to ensure that their fundamental rights are protected, and, if those rights are violated, that the appropriate recourse is available.

In 2008, the overall percentage of people with a disability in my home State of Connecticut was 10.4 percent; approximately 350,000 residents. That is 350,000 reasons why 20 years later, I am proud of-- and somewhat awed by--the impact this bill has made. And that is just in my home State. Across the entire country, more than 50 million people have been aided by the passage of this historic legislation.

The resolution that we passed in this body last week honors and commemorates the 20th anniversary of the ADA. We passed it 100-0. This strong, bipartisan statement underscores the far reaching importance of this landmark law. I am proud to not only have been able to vote for its passage those 20 years ago, but also to have been an original cosponsor along with several of my colleagues still present in this body, including Chairman Harkin.

As we take this opportunity to commemorate the tremendous advances the disability community has made, we must not forget the steadfast support of the wide network of groups and individuals who have made it their mission to help every single American, despite his or her disability, reach his or her fullest potential, and which made this extraordinary achievement possible.

I have worked closely with these groups throughout my tenure in the Senate to ensure they have gotten the support they need from the Federal Government, especially the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities. I thank them for their support and assistance, and truly value the working relationships I have established over my entire career.

In my capacity as a senior member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, I have spent my career fighting alongside my colleagues to improve the lives of people with disabilities. Some of the most important pieces of legislation I have introduced or supported throughout my career have been to further that goal. From the Disability Savings Act, a bill I introduced in 2008 which would encourage individuals with disabilities and their families to start disability savings accounts for their unique disability- related needs, to the Best Buddies Empowerment for People with Intellectual Disabilities Act, a bill I introduced earlier this Congress with Senator Hatch which promotes the expansion of that acclaimed program. I am hopeful we can pass this important legislation this year.

I am also pleased that the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act makes further progress toward meeting the needs of the disabled community. That legislation incorporates an important idea known as the CLASS Act, which creates a voluntary disability insurance program designed to pay for nonmedical and support services so that persons with disabilities are able to live independently. Getting this program started was a remarkable achievement, and something many of my colleagues and I had worked for many years to accomplish.

Of course, none of the important advances we have made, legislatively or otherwise, would have been possible without the tireless work of one of the great advocates for equal opportunities for individuals with disabilities that the Senate has ever seen--my dear friend, the late Senator Ted Kennedy. For Teddy, the issue of fairness and empowerment for individuals with disabilities was always in the forefront of his mind and legislative agenda. Along with his late sister Eunice Kennedy Shriver, his commitment to this issue, which touches so many of our fellow citizens, is a legacy that we must seek to preserve and to continue.

On this, the 26th day of July 2010, I urge my colleagues and fellow citizens to celebrate the freedom and opportunities provided by the Americans with Disabilities Act, and recognize the strides we have made to raise the employment and graduation rates, increase self- sufficiency, and very simply, lift the self-esteem of those who for too long were denied these opportunities.

As we strive to perfect our Union, we must remember that we are a just society. We are a society that has enshrined the notion of equality, both in rights and opportunity, for all in our very founding documents. We must continue to reaffirm the promise made in those documents to each citizen, no matter their race, creed, or circumstance.

The passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act is one example of how we have worked to keep those promises. It represents a successful step toward fulfilling our Nation's goals of equality of opportunity, independent living, economic self-sufficiency, and full participation for Americans with disabilities. It has been a tremendous honor to have been able to support this law, and as I look back on the good it has done, 20 years later, I am confident that future generations will continue to build on its success as a cornerstone to ensuring that all Americans have equal access to the American dream.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, before my colleague leaves the floor, let me thank him as well. Of course, hope always springs eternal. The vote hasn't occurred yet, so we never know. We might get his vote yet.

I don't serve on the Agriculture Committee with him. Senator Chambliss was a very valued member of this conference. Obviously, a lot of work took place in the Agriculture Committee dealing with areas of the bill that he has spent several minutes talking about. He raises very good points. I would be the last person to suggest as a coauthor of the bill that we have crafted the perfect piece of legislation. As he points out, these are highly complicated areas. One of the reasons we tried not to write a series of regulations far beyond the competency of those of us in this Chamber is because it is complicated. Obviously, we have delegated the ultimate responsibility that we now have, which is to watch, the oversight, to the regulatory community, to make sure they do this right.

I pointed out yesterday, and he has pointed out again today, when we get into a situation such as this crisis, certain words become pejorative, and ``derivatives'' unfortunately has become that, and it shouldn't. These are very critical components for capital formation, job growth, and wealth in our country. Hedging against risk is absolutely essential. So they are vitally important elements in our economy. I hope people, when they hear the word ``derivative'' being spoken won't assume this is somehow a bad idea. One almost gets the sense that people feel that way. I don't at all.

I look forward in the coming weeks and months, as regulators begin to work with this bill if, in fact, it passes, that we will do that. A lot of the record has been established in this area, and through no small measure due to the Senator from Georgia, and I thank him for his work as well.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum, and I ask that the time be equally divided on both sides.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Alabama. Once again--I say this with the respect--I feel as if I am listening to the first speech back in November when I offered the original proposal of this bill and wonder if we have been in the same

Chamber and same city over the last several years.

I am not going to use the time between now and 11 a.m. when we are going to vote on the cloture motion. I will not go through the long list, page after page of amendments that were adopted as part of this bill offered by my good friends on the minority side.

We had 80 hearings held over 2 years, with countless efforts to reach out and bring in people. One can make a lot of accusations about the bill, but this was a very inclusive process. Half the amendments adopted on the floor in this Chamber during consideration of this legislation over 4 weeks were ones offered by the minority and were accepted and bipartisan amendments. There was never an alternative offered. There was never a substitute offered. It was a question of whether people wanted to amend this legislation.

It is not a perfect bill, I will be the first to admit. We do not know ultimately how well the ideas we incorporated will achieve the results we all desire. It will take the next economic crisis--as certainly it will come--to determine whether the provisions of this bill will provide this generation or the next generation of regulators with the tools necessary to minimize the effects of that crisis when it happens. But we believe we have done the best we could under the circumstances to see to it we never have another bailout of another major financial institution at taxpayer expense.

In fact, it was the Shelby-Dodd amendment adopted in this Chamber--it was the second amendment we considered--that actually completed the process of seeing to it there would be bankruptcy or resolution of financial institutions that got themselves into so much trouble that they put the entire system at risk. We set up an oversight council to make sure we could observe what was occurring not only here at home but around the globe--matters such as Greece or Spain that could put our economy at risk. So it isn't just one set of eyes but having those responsible for seeing to it that our economy remains safe and sound have the opportunity to provide the early warning that never occurred.

We didn't need a Pecora Commission to find out what was going wrong. We had mortgages being sold in this country to people who couldn't afford them, marketing them in a way that guaranteed failure, securitizing them so they could be paid and then skipping town in a sense. I didn't need to have hours of hearings to find out what was the cause of it. The question was, How do we try to put a system in place to minimize the future kind of risks our Nation would face. It wasn't just to deal with those who created the problem but, rather, to look ahead--not in a punitive way--and to set up an architecture and structure to allow us to get to that point where we could be confident we were addressing these issues.

Thirdly, of course, we tried to deal with exotic instruments that had caused so much of the difficulty. The derivatives market was a $90 billion market, and it mushroomed in less than a decade to $600 trillion, putting our Nation at risk because of a lack of transparency and accountability to determine what was occurring in those markets. To consider it a radical idea that we might want to have accountability and transparency I find remarkable considering what our country has been through.

Also, we provided a consumer protection bureau. What a radical idea that is--the idea that people who buy mortgages or have a student loan, a credit card, a car loan, might have someplace in this city that watches out for them so their jobs, their homes, their retirement accounts are not lost. So while this bureau is in place in this bill, the idea was at least to see to it that people, when they have the problems they have been through or are going through, someone is watching out for them.

We have a Consumer Product Safety Commission to address the purchase of a faulty product, but what happens when someone abuses or takes advantage, as happens in so many cases in financial areas? People should have a chance to have a redress of their grievance or to at least from the outset have an opportunity to address that before it becomes a broader problem.

So, Madam President, again, we have debated this now for 2 years and countless opportunities. We spent 4 weeks on the floor of this Chamber, amendments were offered, and never once--I guess on one occasion we had a supermajority vote. There was only one tabling motion I know of. I did everything I could to make this as inclusive a process as possible.

I understand some people don't like the bill. It saddens me, in a way, that it has once again become sort of a mindless partisan argument rather than talking about what we need to be doing. This is not the end of all of it, obviously. Oversight will be required, consultation in the coming weeks and months and years, to make this work well. But, Madam President, I can't imagine another process that has been as inclusive.

My colleagues will recall that almost 10 months, going on almost a year ago, I invited both Democrats and Republicans on the Banking Committee to assume responsibility for major sections of this bill, which they did do, by the way, and made a significant contribution to the product. So while I respect those who want to vote against the bill, and that is their right to do so, find some arguments based on the merits rather than arguing about whether there was a process that was inclusive or that allowed people the opportunity to be heard.

Again, we have the right to be heard, but we don't have the right necessarily to have our ideas become the law of the land. That is what a body like this is for.

So this is a major undertaking, one that is historic in its proportions, and it is an attempt to set in place a structure that will allow us to minimize problems in the future. I can't legislate integrity. I can't legislate wisdom. I can't legislate passion or competency. What we can do is to create the tools and the architecture that allow good people to do a good job on behalf of the American public. That is what a bill like this is designed to do.

I regret I can't give jobs back, restore foreclosed homes, or put retirement monies back into accounts. What I can do is to see to it that we never, ever again have to go through what this Nation has been through. That is what this effort has been about over the last several years, to try to create that structure, that architecture. It will be incumbent now on the present administration and those who follow to nominate good people to head up these operations, to attract good public servants who will fill the jobs of these various regulatory bodies to see to it that they do the work we all want them to do.

Again, I can't legislate that. I can merely create the opportunity for that kind of protection to occur--to modernize a financial system, to lead the world, if we can, in harmonizing rules so we don't have the kind of sovereign shopping that was going on with regulatory bodies, where major financial institutions would shop around the world as to the nation of least resistance or the regulator of least resistance.

We need to see to it that we have the unanimity or at least the harmonization of rules that will allow us to have a more orderly system in our globe because, as we have all painfully learned, matters that occur thousands of miles away can affect the economy in our own country.

So for all those reasons, Madam President, I thank my colleagues for their efforts over the last 2 years. I thank the leadership for providing the opportunity and time for us to do this in this Chamber. I thank my colleague in the House, Barney Frank, and his colleagues for the work in which they engaged in order to produce a bill there. We spent 2 weeks, some 70 hours of debating the conference report, where more amendments were adopted--again, offered by my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats--to make this as good a bill as we could in all of this.

So with that, Madam President, I will reserve some comments for later, but as we approach this vote in the next few minutes, I urge my colleagues to invoke cloture, to allow us to then have an up-or-down vote on this bill, and to do what we can to restore some trust and confidence and optimism for the American people. In the midst of the worst economic crisis in the lives of most Americans, this institution--the Senate--rose to the occasion and crafted a bill to address the financial

service structure of our Nation to once again give us the hope that we can see wealth created, jobs produced, and an economy that will offer opportunities for the next generation of Americans.

I urge my colleagues to support the cloture motion, and I urge them to support the bill when the vote occurs later today.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent the time during the quorum be equally charged to both sides.

Madam President, I am about to propose a unanimous-consent request that has been agreed to by the respective leaders.

I ask unanimous consent that the postcloture time be considered expired at 2 p.m., with the time until then equally divided and controlled between Senators Dodd and Shelby or their designees; that during this period, if and when a budget point of order is raised against the conference report, then an applicable waiver of the point of order be considered made; that at 2 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to waive the applicable budget point of order; that if the waiver is successful, without further intervening action or debate, the Senate vote on adoption of the conference report.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and those budget resolutions for purposes of the pending conference report and ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I see my colleague from Texas is seeking recognition. I wish to publicly thank her. She made a substantial contribution to this bill on several amendments that were adopted during debate on the floor. I thank her for them. They added to the value of the legislation. I am not sure what her comments will be right now, but I thank her for her contributions.

Madam President, my friend and colleague from Texas serves on the Banking Committee. I thank her and Senator Klobuchar. There was a series of amendments in which Senator Hutchison was involved. They added value to this bill, and I thank her for it.

I mentioned yesterday, as a relatively junior member of the Banking Committee, there was no Member of this Chamber who added as much to the bill as the Senator from Virginia. There are not words nor time for me to adequately express my gratitude for his involvement. Literally almost on an hourly basis, he was involved, along with Senator Corker of Tennessee. They spent hours on their own talking with other people about how to fashion two of the most critical titles of this bill. Let me express my gratitude once again to Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and thank him immensely for his contribution. He did a great job.

Madam President, I recognize my friend and colleague from Delaware.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Delaware. He highlighted the difficulty in passing legislation. There are those who think it goes too far and those who think it does not go far enough. We do not write a bill on our own. There are 100 of us in this Chamber and 435 in the other. There are stakeholders, the administration--all sorts of people we deal with on these matters. What we try to do is fashion the best proposal we can that moves us forward and addresses the underlying causes, as we tried to with this bill.

I appreciate the Senator's points that were raised during the debate and discussion. We tried to accommodate them where we could in fashioning legislation. It is always a difficult process. You do not get to write your own bill. You can write your own bill and introduce it, but ultimately, for it to become law requires cooperation. We had that cooperation. I appreciate his involvement very much.

Madam President, my colleague talked about 41. There are a number of Republicans who played a very critical and supportive role on this bill. I do not want the record to persist in suggesting that was not the case. Even people on the other side who ended up not voting for the bill--at least have not so far--added substantially to the value of this bill. In some cases, they might not want to acknowledge that, but they did.

In the case of our two colleagues from Maine and our colleague from Massachusetts, they have taken an awful lot of abuse in the last number of weeks because they worked with us on the bill and made significant contributions. While they do not agree with every dotted ``i'' and crossed ``t,'' as I do not with this bill, they decided our country would be better off with the passage of this legislation than not.

I do not want the record to be uncorrected when it comes to the number of people, including those three in particular, who will, I presume, continue to take some abuse from others because they did not toe the party line, nor have they on repeated occasions. They have acted as U.S. Senators, which is our first responsibility. I know what that feels like. I have been there on numerous occasions in my 30 years. Several times, I was the only Democrat to vote with Republicans on substantive matters. It is a lonely moment. I can tell my colleague what happens. It is painful, and you get those long looks from your colleagues. It is uncomfortable, to put it mildly. I will also tell my colleague that some of the proudest moments a colleague will have when they serve here is when they make those decisions and do so for the right reasons.

While I am deeply grateful to my Democratic colleagues, many of whom had concerns about the bill, as my friend from Delaware did, and have been supportive all the way through, I guess there is a bit of the prodigal son--prodigal daughter in the case of our colleagues from Maine and prodigal son in the case of our colleague from Massachusetts--when they decided to stand up and help us get a bill done despite the criticism they have received. Everyone who has been supportive and helpful deserves credit, but I think those who were willing to take an awful lot of abuse in the process of doing so deserve commendation.

I did not want to let that number stand--41--because it implies somehow there were people on the other side who were not helpful, and they were, including people who did not vote for the bill who were helpful as well.

Madam President, I see our colleague from New Hampshire is here. I will save this for a later debate, but I know there is talk about changing the rules of the Senate because of the frustration Senators feel. I will make, in my waning hours here, as strong a plea as I can to not succumb to the temptation to change the institution because of the current frustrations people feel. There is a reason this institution exists and has the rules it does. All of us one day are in the minority or majority. The fact that some may abuse the rules, as has happened here without any question, ought not to be a justification for fundamentally changing them. There are ways to deal with the problem without losing the essence of the Senate. He is no longer with us, but my seatmate, Robert C. Byrd, would speak for hours on end about the importance of not letting the vagaries of the moment dictate the long-term interests of the institution.

I will leave that for another day, but I appreciate it.

My colleague from New Hampshire is here.

Madam President, briefly, I thank my colleague from New Hampshire. I see my other colleague from New Hampshire as well. It is a New Hampshire moment. I thank Senator Shaheen and our colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, for working as they did on the community bank issues.

I was pleased, as I noted yesterday, that the Independent Community Bankers Association, while not endorsing the entire bill but specifically on their issues involving community banks expressed strong support for this bill and how much stronger these banks are today as a result of our efforts than would be the case if we were to defeat the legislation. Their ability to compete with these larger banks has been enhanced tremendously by what we have done in this bill. If these provisions were not adopted, they would be back in a situation where there would be significant disadvantages for them under the current law.

I am very grateful to Senator Shaheen and Senator Snowe and others who supported their efforts to strengthen the role of our community banks that play such a critical role. As the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, they were never a source of the problems in the residential mortgage market at all. That deserves to be repeated over and over.

I thank the Senator for her comments.

I see my other colleagues here, including Senator Specter who wants to be heard, but I want to address my colleague from New Hampshire because we are both going to be walking out of this Chamber in about 5 months. I thank him for his work going back to 20-some-odd months ago when we were involved in the critical weeks and days in September and October. Judd Gregg was invaluable putting together a moment here while, not terribly popular, I think saved the economy and the country. I will not address all his concerns here. We have a different point of view on the issues he raised. They are not illegitimate issues. We think we addressed them properly. He has a different view, and I respect that. I appreciate his work and that of his staff on this bill. He made a significant contribution to this effort and I thank him for it.

I see my colleague from Pennsylvania here and I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I want to be clear so my colleague will understand this. I had a sheet of paper in front of me-- I do not have it in front of me now--with the order of those who sought time. I want to be careful, as my colleague from Pennsylvania will understand. We are going to vote at 2 o'clock. I want to be sure I can accommodate my colleagues.

I know Senator Conrad, chairman of the Budget Committee, has to be heard and it is critical to me he be heard on the budget point of order.

Could you make it a little less than 20?

After 2 o'clock? Any point after----

Certainly I would have no objection to that whatsoever. Take some time at this juncture too, if you wish.

Again, let me reserve the right to object. I see the minority wants to check on such a request. I have no objection myself but obviously that is a matter--in fairness to the minority, we want to let them know of such a request. Here we are eating up time right now. I see my friend from North Dakota here as well. I am deeply grateful to the chairman of the Budget Committee.

Go ahead with that request. I am told it is OK.

I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania and the unknown persons in the cloakroom. Let the record show they acknowledged the Senator's request.

Mr. President, before my friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, leaves, let me thank him immensely for his analysis of this issue. He has it, as we saw as well, exactly right. In fact, it is not only repaying 100 percent but with interest. There is an interest requirement, that if we borrow from the taxpayers in order to wind down substantially risky firms, then not only do you get paid back, but the interest on the cost of that money is also part of the deal. So it is 100 percent-plus coming back to the Treasury.

But his analysis and that of his committee--and there is no one who has been more disciplined or guarded about the budgetary process over the years we have served together, and so I appreciate the Senator's analysis of this particular point on the long-term deficit.

I commend the Senator for including the provisions he has and trying to build some discipline into the process of how we expend taxpayer moneys, collect taxes in the first place to pay for the needed expenditures of our government. So I thank the Senator for that.

I thank him for his comments as well about the bill and his support and also the substantive contributions the Senator from North Dakota has made, because one of the things we tried to be very careful about-- Jon Tester of Montana, who sits on the committee with me, has been very careful and been tremendously active in seeing to it that rural America is going to be well served by this legislation. And there are differences. It is not all Wall Street, New York, and major financial centers. The importance of the availability of credit in rural communities is critical, as my colleague from North Dakota has informed me over the years we have served together. That ability of a local farmer to borrow that money in the spring, to be able to pay back in the fall, at harvest time, has been essential, and knowing how difficult it has been throughout the country to have access to credit is essential.

So his contributions to the legislation make sure that what we do here is going to enhance the capability of rural America to not only come out of this crisis we are in but to prosper in the years ahead with this legislation. So beyond the budgetary considerations and the points of order before us, I thank him for his contributions to the substance of the bill, which has made it a far better bill to begin with.

I see my colleague from Oregon is here. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I said so yesterday, and I will say it again: I thank Senator Merkley. I guess there are four new Members of the Senate serving on the Banking Committee. Senator Merkley, Senator Warner, Senator Tester, and Senator Bennet are all new Members of the Senate from their respective States of Oregon, Virginia, Montana, and Colorado. To be thrown into what has been the largest undertaking of the Banking Committee, certainly in my three decades here--and many have argued going back almost 100 years--was certainly an awful lot to ask.

I have already pointed out the contribution Senator Warner has made to this bill. But I must say as well that Senator Bennet of Colorado has been invaluable in his contributions. I just mentioned Senator Tester a moment ago for his contribution on talking about rural America and the importance of those issues. And Senator Merkley, as a member of the committee, on matters we included here dealing particularly with the mortgage reforms, the underwriting standards, the protections people have to go through, and credit cards as well--we passed the credit card bill--again, it was Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon who played a critical role in that whole debate not to mention, of course, working with Carl Levin, one of the more senior Members here, having served for many years in the Senate. But the Merkley-Levin, Levin- Merkley provisions in this bill have added substantial contributions to this effort. So I thank him for his contribution.

I see my colleague from North Dakota is here. I suggest the absence of a

quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided among both sides.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President, we listened to Senator Conrad, the chairman of the Budget Committee, address the budget point of order. I urge my colleagues to waive the point of order.

We came up with an alternative offset in the conference committee, much at the insistence--and I thanked him for that--of Senator Brown of Massachusetts, looking for a better offset than the ones which were originally in the conference report. I know my colleague from Maine as well had reservations about what we originally included.

The offset here ends TARP, which I presume most people would welcome with open arms, saving us $11 billion by terminating it early, as well as then complying with the request by the chairperson of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Sheila Bair, to provide for additional assessments to meet the obligations of the FDIC and the insurance fund. Both of those items provide the necessary offsets to the cost of this bill.

The long-term deficit point of order is caused by the orderly liquidation authority for systemically significant financial institutions.

Let me note that this critically important aspect of the legislation was developed in very close cooperation with Senator Shelby in the Shelby-Dodd amendment. It also reflects the bipartisan cooperation of Senators Corker and Warner. The Shelby-Dodd amendment passed this body overwhelmingly with over 90 votes.

Even though the liquidation authority is the source of long-term budget costs, it is still 100 percent paid for. The Shelby-Dodd amendment and the Boxer amendment made sure that this would be the case. Let me repeat, the liquidation authority, which is the dominant source of the budget cost in the bill, is 100 percent paid for over time.

The only reason that the liquidation authority scores at all is because of timing. The FDIC may initially have to borrow funds from the Treasury in order to wind down the failed company and put it out of business. Because it will take time to liquidate a large, interconnected financial company, there is a lag between when the funds are borrowed and when they are repaid by the sale of the failed companies' assets, its creditors and assessments on the industry if necessary.

One more important point on budget scoring and the liquidation authority. CBO cannot factor in the costs to our nation of a failure to address the possibility of future bailouts. We have lived through that nightmare and it has cost our country dearly.

Now I would like to discuss the way in which we address the budget consequences of the legislation. In particular, I would like to respond to some comments that have been made about the provisions increasing the long-term minimum target for the FDIC and thereby strengthening the Deposit Insurance Fund, a goal that no one can credibly argue with in light of the recent crisis.

In fact, this provision is supported by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, and she has sent us a letter expressing her support. I will submit that for the Record at the end of this statement.

Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have claimed that the use of the FDIC in this way is unprecedented and questioned how this could count as budget savings or offsets and at the same time preserve the funds for bank failures.

Let us clear up the misinformation. First, no FDIC funds are being spent on, or transferred to, other programs. Premiums paid by banks remain, as they have for over 75 years, in the FDIC fund solely to protect insured deposits.

And counting FDIC premiums as budget savings in legislation absolutely does have precedent. We have to look no further than relatively recent actions of Republican Congresses to find them.

Budget reconciliation legislation enacted in February 2006 and sponsored by my colleague from New Hampshire, who was then the Chairman of the Budget Committee, included FDIC reforms authored by my colleague from Alabama, who was then Chairman of the Banking Committee. Those provisions resulted in higher FDIC premiums, which CBO said yielded almost $2 billion in budget savings over 10 years.

So, my colleagues from New Hampshire and Alabama in fact relied on reforms to the Deposit Insurance Fund to obtain savings that CBO favorably scored.

And 10 years earlier, Congress attached to an omnibus spending bill enacted in September 1996 a provision calling for a special premium on thrifts to capitalize the FDIC's thrift insurance fund.

The appropriators in that earlier Republican Congress justified higher discretionary spending based partly on the budget savings scored by CBO for the FDIC assessment.

I would also like to respond to some comments that have been made about the treatment of TARP in this legislation.

We end TARP in the conference report. With the comprehensive financial reform put in place under this bill, we think it is the right time to bring TARP to a close, ending it earlier than had been planned. I think that is something everyone should be happy about. And ending TARP saves the government money. That is not just my conclusion. It is the conclusion of the Congressional Budget Office, $11 billion in savings.

It is true that the original TARP legislation passed as an emergency, its costs were declared an emergency when it passed, so rescinding those funds or ending the program now is ending spending that is considered ``emergency'' spending.

But the savings are no less real because of that. Interestingly, my Republican colleague who has raised the point of order offered an amendment in conference that would have rescinded stimulus funding to pay for this bill. Why is that relevant? Because the stimulus money was also designated as an emergency, so it would have received the same accounting treatment here in the Senate as TARP. Both were emergencies.

Both ending TARP early and rescinding stimulus funding would reduce the deficit, but the burden of cuts in stimulus funding would fall disproportionately on families and small businesses who have been victims of the economic fallout from the Wall Street crisis. Cutting such spending would be exactly the wrong thing to do as we try to get the economy back on track and people back to work.

The fact is that overall this bill does not do damage to our budgetary outlook.

It does make vital changes to make our financial system stronger and more stable and should be passed as soon as possible.

So I urge my colleagues to support a motion to waive the long-term deficit point of order.

Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation,

Washington, DC, June 29, 2010.

Hon. Chris Dodd,

Chairman, Committee on Banking, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Richard Shelby,

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Banking, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Barney Frank,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Spencer Bachus,

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Financial Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairmen Dodd and Frank and Ranking Members Shelby and

Bachus: Thank you for your interest in our views regarding

increasing the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) ratio to 1.35.

Federal deposit insurance promotes public confidence in our

nation's banking system by providing a safe place for

consumers' funds. Deposit insurance has provided much needed

stability throughout this crisis. Moreover, insured deposits

provide banks with a stable and cost-effective source of

funds for lending in their communities. Importantly, the DIF

is funded by the insured banking industry.

A key measure of the strength of the insurance fund is the

reserve ratio, which is the amount in the DIF as a percentage

of the industry's estimated insured deposits. Current

law requires us to maintain a reserve ratio of at least 1.15

percent. One of the lessons learned from the current crisis

is that a minimum reserve ratio of 1.15 is insufficient to

avoid the need for pro-cyclical assessments in times of

stress. One of my first priorities when I assumed the

Chairmanship of the FDIC in June of 2006 was to begin

building our reserves. Regrettably, there was insufficient

time before the crisis hit. Indeed, we started this crisis

with a DIF reserve ratio of 1.22 percent (as of December 31,

2007). Beginning in mid-2008, as bank failures increased and

the insurance fund incurred losses, the Fund balance and

reserve ratio dropped precipitously. The reserve ratio became

negative in the third quarter of 2009 and hit a low of

negative 0.39 percent as of December 31, 2009. To date, we

have collected more than $65 billion in assessments, and are

projected to collect another $80 billion by 2016 to restore

the fund.

Given this experience, we believe it is clear that as the

economy strengthens and the banking system heals, the reserve

ratio needs to be increased. In fact, our Board has acted

through regulation to target the reserve ratio at 1.25

percent, and a further increase to 1.35 percent is consistent

with our view that the Fund should build up in good economic

times and be allowed to fall in poor economic times, while

maintaining relatively steady premiums throughout the

economic cycle, thereby reducing the procyclicality of the

assessment system.

Please let me know if you have any questions or would like

to discuss further.

Sincerely,

Sheila C. Bair.

I again urge my colleagues to vote to waive the budget point of order, and, of course, I urge them as well to support the legislation when that vote occurs.

intent behind sections 691-621

I thank the Senator, and I strongly concur with the intentions and interpretations set forth by the principal authors of these provisions, Senators Merkley and Levin, as reflecting the legislative intent of the conference committee. I thank Senators Merkley and Levin for their

leadership, which was so essential in achieving the conference report provisions governing proprietary trading and prohibiting conflicts of interest.

Assessing Individual Entities

Yes, that is correct. The language is not intended to reduce such charitable and educational activities that are legally required for tax-exempt, not-for-profit organizations that are so important to communities across the country. I thank the Senator for his continued help on these efforts.

section 603 trust companies

I would be glad to clarify the nature of trust companies subject to the moratorium under section 603(a). The moratorium applies to an institution that is directly or indirectly owned or controlled by a commercial firm that functions solely in a trust or fiduciary capacity and is exempt from the definition of a bank in the Bank Holding Company Act. It does not apply to a nondepository trust company that does not have FDIC insurance and that does not offer demand deposit accounts or other deposits that may be withdrawn by check or similar means for payment to third parties.

The Senator is correct. The council must consider a number of factors, including, for example, the extent of leverage, the extent and nature of off-balance-sheet exposures, and the nature, scope, size, scale, concentration, interconnectedness, and mix of the company's activities. Where a company is engaged only in traditional insurance activities, the council should also take into account the matters you raised.

Yes. The size of a financial company should not by itself be determinative.

Yes, I do not believe that the council should decide to designate an insurer simply based on whether the insurer would meet bank capital requirements.

Preemption Standard

I thank the Senator. As the Senator knows, his amendment received strong bipartisan support on the Senate floor and passed by a vote of 80 to 18. It was therefore a Senate priority to retain his provision in our negotiations with the House of Representatives.

The Senator is correct. That is why the conference report specifically cites the Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, Florida Insurance Commissioner, 517 U.S. 25(1996) case. There should be no doubt that the legislation codifies the preemption standard stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in that case.