Floor Statements

Mr. President, over the past several months, our Homeland has experienced direct terrorist attacks against two military bases and attempted terrorist attacks on Christmas Day and in Times Square. These attacks quickly captured the attention of the American public and stand as stark reminders of the threats our Nation continues to face from terrorists across the globe.

After these recent attacks, I have no doubt that every American is aware of the threat from a terrorist with a bomb, which could take out a city block or bring down an airplane. But I am afraid that right now, the American public is largely unaware of a silent threat that could devastate our entire Nation--cyber attacks.

These cyber attacks happen every day, but have remained largely under the public radar. Our government, businesses, citizens, and even social networking sites all have been hit. Cyber attacks are on the rise and unless our private sector and Congress start down a better path to protect our information networks, serious damage to our economy and our national security will follow.

In an ever-increasing cyber age, where our financial system conducts trades via the Internet, families pay bills online, and the government uses computers to calculate benefits and implement war strategies, successful cyber attacks can be devastating. The nightmare scenarios no longer exist just in Hollywood movies. Imagine if a terrorist disrupted our air traffic control on an average day with more than 28,000 commercial aircraft in our skies; if a hacker took down Wall Street trading for just hours; or if an attack destroyed an electrical grid in a major city.

Scenarios like these make it even more important that we listen to the recent comments by former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell who testified that ``[i]f we were in a cyber war today, the United States would lose.'' That is no insignificant statement coming from a military and intelligence veteran like Mike McConnell and it should cause all of us to pause and take a look at how we should neutralize this rising threat. Our networks and way of life could be taken down by an enemy state, a terrorist group, or a single hacker. That is why Senator Hatch and I are introducing the National Cyber Infrastructure Protection Act of 2010 today.

Let me be blunt here: our enemies won't wait for us to do our homework, solve our turf battles, or modernize our laws before using our networks as a deadly weapon; in fact, the attacks have already started. We do not have another day to waste, and I believe our bill is the best solution to address this threat.

This act is built on three principles: first, we must be clear about where Congress should, and, more importantly, should not legislate. Congress should set lanes in the road to protect our Nation's cyber security, but leave flexibility for the private sector and government to adapt to changing threats within those lanes.

In 1978, when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was enacted, it put into law certain technologies. Those technologies changed and thus FISA was ineffective in enabling us to listen in on cell phone and e-mail traffic between terrorists in foreign countries.

We have seen within the past few years the national security problems that can arise when laws are too rigid to keep pace with technology. We have also heard repeated concerns from industry, the private sector, and those operating critical infrastructure that overlegislating by Congress ultimately will make it harder to protect our networks as innovation and quick response get overrun by unnecessary regulatory schemes and mandates.

Second, right now virtually every Federal department or agency has

someone who is responsible for cyber security issues. But who makes sure that all those departments and agencies work together to protect all of our government networks? Who is the one person responsible, with authority to impact our cyber security strategies and activities? Unfortunately, right now, the answer is ``no one.''

To solve this problem, our bill establishes a National Cyber Center and designates a single, Senate-confirmed individual, accountable to the Congress and the American people and reporting directly to the President, to serve as the Director. The Director has the statutory responsibility and authority to coordinate activities to protect government networks and develop policies and procedures to help Federal agencies do the job.

In order to reduce the center's operating costs and to capitalize on the cyber expertise we all know resides in the Department of Defense, the National Cyber Center is administratively placed in DOD. But, out of deference to concerns that the military should not have too much control over government networks, the center is not run by the Defense Department and the Director does not report to the Secretary of Defense.

Because a key part of the center is to make sure the right people are talking to each other, the act requires those parts of DOD, the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation needed to carry out the center's missions to collocate and integrate within the center, much like the National Counterterrorism Center integrates elements of the intelligence community. Other Federal agencies may also participate in the center.

As we put this bill together, former senior intelligence community officials told us that providing strong budget authority was essential for the Director to have the clout needed to do the job. And so, this act gives the Director clear input into cyber budgets across all Federal agencies, much like the Federal drug czar has in coordinating counterdrug budgets across different agencies. To hit this point home, the act also creates a National Cyber Security Program, similar to the National Intelligence Program. Such influence--influence that the current cyber czar simply does not have--is essential to creating a comprehensive, cost-effective approach to securing our government information networks.

The third and final principle underlying this act is the idea that there must be a venue for the government and the private sector to collaborate and share information on cyber-related matters. The private sector is often on the front lines of cyber attacks, so any information it can provide to increase government awareness of the source and nature of cyber threats will make both government and the private sector stronger. The corollary to this is that the Government must share its own cyber threat information, including classified or declassified intelligence, with the private sector.

Moreover, this collaboration, in order to be effective, must be voluntary. Once the private sector stands to gain technical advice and greater access to cyber threat information, there will be a clear incentive to join with the government in protecting our networks.

Our bill codifies this collaboration, creating a public-private partnership known as the Cyber Defense Alliance to facilitate the flow of information about cyber threats and the latest technologies between the private sector and the government. The Alliance will be the clearinghouse for passing sensitive cyber threat information to the private and critical infrastructure entities on the front lines, but without compromising our intelligence sources and methods.

We agree with intelligence experts and private sector representatives who have told us if the heavy hand of government drives this collaboration, it will not be effective. Therefore, the alliance will be managed by a board of directors consisting largely of private sector representatives and located in the Department of Energy, where the existing National Labs have great expertise to share. Because our private partners must know the information will not be compromised or other consequences will occur, the act gives solid protections from FOIA, antitrust restrictions, and other limitations.

This bill is one of many cyber-bills introduced in Congress, so some may be asking why this approach is better.

A key aspect of this bill is that it provides a practical public- private cyber infrastructure designed to address effectively the cyber threat rather than preserve the jurisdictional turf of any one agency or congressional oversight committee. In other words--I don't have a dog in this fight--I just want to pass the best bill to protect our networks. The cyber threat will only be eliminated when we get all of the public and private players working together in harmony under a common vision toward common mission objectives.

Our bill does not impose mandates on industry and the private sector--mandates and regulations that form the core of other bills, raising substantial concerns among our industry and private sector partners. Our economy is in turmoil as it is and the last thing we need are mandates imposed on U.S. businesses that will put them at a serious competitive disadvantage and jeopardize their proprietary information in the global marketplace. Many industry partners have told us that if we mandate this it would put them at a competitive disadvantage.

Finally, our bill moves away from the notion that creating a statutory cyber coordinator in the Executive Office of the President will solve the cyber security problem. The current cyber security coordinator in the White House has neither the authority nor the staff to coordinate the government's wide-range of cyber operations and strategies. Simply enshrining his position in statute will not overcome the claims of ``Executive Privilege'' that are bound to come when Congress asks for information and it will not guarantee the leadership necessary to address the cyber threat.

Also, I think many of my colleagues would agree that now is not the time to give the Department of Homeland Security more responsibility, as some of the cyber bills out there want to do. I don't think many in this Chamber would disagree that DHS is already overburdened.

The bill we are introducing today has already earned praise from the electric power sector because of the cooperative relationship that the Cyber Defense Alliance created in this bill fosters between the government and private sector. The entities that are part of the electric power sector recognize that this bill builds on what is already working and creates the infrastructure necessary to ensure a cooperative relationship between all of the relevant public and private cyber players to address the evolving cyber-security threat. I ask unanimous consent that this statement from the electric power sector be made a part of the Record.

In addition, because, the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, believe no legislation in this area should impede the intelligence community's ability to protect our nation from terrorist attacks and other threats, we asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for an informal assessment of our bill. They told us that, unlike other bills that have been introduced, this bill protects intelligence community equities, especially with respect to protecting classified intelligence sources and methods.

The National Cyber Infrastructure Protection Act of 2010 provides broad lanes in the road, without micromanaging, to give all partners in cyber security, whether government or private, the flexibility to defend against threats from our enemies. The private sector already has a tremendous incentive to protect their own networks; all the Federal Government needs to do is support them with technology and information and get out of the way.

Cyber attackers have been stealing intellectual property, threatening to take down our critical infrastructure, and gaining insight into our national security networks. The longer Congress waits to act, the more our vulnerability to these attacks increases. The National Cyber Infrastructure Protection Act will put the Government, our critical infrastructure companies, and the private sector on the right path to securing our networks. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, over the past several months, our Homeland has experienced direct terrorist attacks against two military bases and attempted terrorist attacks on Christmas Day and in Times Square. These attacks quickly captured the attention of the American public and stand as stark reminders of the threats our Nation continues to face from terrorists across the globe.

After these recent attacks, I have no doubt that every American is aware of the threat from a terrorist with a bomb, which could take out a city block or bring down an airplane. But I am afraid that right now, the American public is largely unaware of a silent threat that could devastate our entire Nation--cyber attacks.

These cyber attacks happen every day, but have remained largely under the public radar. Our government, businesses, citizens, and even social networking sites all have been hit. Cyber attacks are on the rise and unless our private sector and Congress start down a better path to protect our information networks, serious damage to our economy and our national security will follow.

In an ever-increasing cyber age, where our financial system conducts trades via the Internet, families pay bills online, and the government uses computers to calculate benefits and implement war strategies, successful cyber attacks can be devastating. The nightmare scenarios no longer exist just in Hollywood movies. Imagine if a terrorist disrupted our air traffic control on an average day with more than 28,000 commercial aircraft in our skies; if a hacker took down Wall Street trading for just hours; or if an attack destroyed an electrical grid in a major city.

Scenarios like these make it even more important that we listen to the recent comments by former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell who testified that ``[i]f we were in a cyber war today, the United States would lose.'' That is no insignificant statement coming from a military and intelligence veteran like Mike McConnell and it should cause all of us to pause and take a look at how we should neutralize this rising threat. Our networks and way of life could be taken down by an enemy state, a terrorist group, or a single hacker. That is why Senator Hatch and I are introducing the National Cyber Infrastructure Protection Act of 2010 today.

Let me be blunt here: our enemies won't wait for us to do our homework, solve our turf battles, or modernize our laws before using our networks as a deadly weapon; in fact, the attacks have already started. We do not have another day to waste, and I believe our bill is the best solution to address this threat.

This act is built on three principles: first, we must be clear about where Congress should, and, more importantly, should not legislate. Congress should set lanes in the road to protect our Nation's cyber security, but leave flexibility for the private sector and government to adapt to changing threats within those lanes.

In 1978, when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was enacted, it put into law certain technologies. Those technologies changed and thus FISA was ineffective in enabling us to listen in on cell phone and e-mail traffic between terrorists in foreign countries.

We have seen within the past few years the national security problems that can arise when laws are too rigid to keep pace with technology. We have also heard repeated concerns from industry, the private sector, and those operating critical infrastructure that overlegislating by Congress ultimately will make it harder to protect our networks as innovation and quick response get overrun by unnecessary regulatory schemes and mandates.

Second, right now virtually every Federal department or agency has

someone who is responsible for cyber security issues. But who makes sure that all those departments and agencies work together to protect all of our government networks? Who is the one person responsible, with authority to impact our cyber security strategies and activities? Unfortunately, right now, the answer is ``no one.''

To solve this problem, our bill establishes a National Cyber Center and designates a single, Senate-confirmed individual, accountable to the Congress and the American people and reporting directly to the President, to serve as the Director. The Director has the statutory responsibility and authority to coordinate activities to protect government networks and develop policies and procedures to help Federal agencies do the job.

In order to reduce the center's operating costs and to capitalize on the cyber expertise we all know resides in the Department of Defense, the National Cyber Center is administratively placed in DOD. But, out of deference to concerns that the military should not have too much control over government networks, the center is not run by the Defense Department and the Director does not report to the Secretary of Defense.

Because a key part of the center is to make sure the right people are talking to each other, the act requires those parts of DOD, the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation needed to carry out the center's missions to collocate and integrate within the center, much like the National Counterterrorism Center integrates elements of the intelligence community. Other Federal agencies may also participate in the center.

As we put this bill together, former senior intelligence community officials told us that providing strong budget authority was essential for the Director to have the clout needed to do the job. And so, this act gives the Director clear input into cyber budgets across all Federal agencies, much like the Federal drug czar has in coordinating counterdrug budgets across different agencies. To hit this point home, the act also creates a National Cyber Security Program, similar to the National Intelligence Program. Such influence--influence that the current cyber czar simply does not have--is essential to creating a comprehensive, cost-effective approach to securing our government information networks.

The third and final principle underlying this act is the idea that there must be a venue for the government and the private sector to collaborate and share information on cyber-related matters. The private sector is often on the front lines of cyber attacks, so any information it can provide to increase government awareness of the source and nature of cyber threats will make both government and the private sector stronger. The corollary to this is that the Government must share its own cyber threat information, including classified or declassified intelligence, with the private sector.

Moreover, this collaboration, in order to be effective, must be voluntary. Once the private sector stands to gain technical advice and greater access to cyber threat information, there will be a clear incentive to join with the government in protecting our networks.

Our bill codifies this collaboration, creating a public-private partnership known as the Cyber Defense Alliance to facilitate the flow of information about cyber threats and the latest technologies between the private sector and the government. The Alliance will be the clearinghouse for passing sensitive cyber threat information to the private and critical infrastructure entities on the front lines, but without compromising our intelligence sources and methods.

We agree with intelligence experts and private sector representatives who have told us if the heavy hand of government drives this collaboration, it will not be effective. Therefore, the alliance will be managed by a board of directors consisting largely of private sector representatives and located in the Department of Energy, where the existing National Labs have great expertise to share. Because our private partners must know the information will not be compromised or other consequences will occur, the act gives solid protections from FOIA, antitrust restrictions, and other limitations.

This bill is one of many cyber-bills introduced in Congress, so some may be asking why this approach is better.

A key aspect of this bill is that it provides a practical public- private cyber infrastructure designed to address effectively the cyber threat rather than preserve the jurisdictional turf of any one agency or congressional oversight committee. In other words--I don't have a dog in this fight--I just want to pass the best bill to protect our networks. The cyber threat will only be eliminated when we get all of the public and private players working together in harmony under a common vision toward common mission objectives.

Our bill does not impose mandates on industry and the private sector--mandates and regulations that form the core of other bills, raising substantial concerns among our industry and private sector partners. Our economy is in turmoil as it is and the last thing we need are mandates imposed on U.S. businesses that will put them at a serious competitive disadvantage and jeopardize their proprietary information in the global marketplace. Many industry partners have told us that if we mandate this it would put them at a competitive disadvantage.

Finally, our bill moves away from the notion that creating a statutory cyber coordinator in the Executive Office of the President will solve the cyber security problem. The current cyber security coordinator in the White House has neither the authority nor the staff to coordinate the government's wide-range of cyber operations and strategies. Simply enshrining his position in statute will not overcome the claims of ``Executive Privilege'' that are bound to come when Congress asks for information and it will not guarantee the leadership necessary to address the cyber threat.

Also, I think many of my colleagues would agree that now is not the time to give the Department of Homeland Security more responsibility, as some of the cyber bills out there want to do. I don't think many in this Chamber would disagree that DHS is already overburdened.

The bill we are introducing today has already earned praise from the electric power sector because of the cooperative relationship that the Cyber Defense Alliance created in this bill fosters between the government and private sector. The entities that are part of the electric power sector recognize that this bill builds on what is already working and creates the infrastructure necessary to ensure a cooperative relationship between all of the relevant public and private cyber players to address the evolving cyber-security threat. I ask unanimous consent that this statement from the electric power sector be made a part of the Record.

In addition, because, the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, believe no legislation in this area should impede the intelligence community's ability to protect our nation from terrorist attacks and other threats, we asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for an informal assessment of our bill. They told us that, unlike other bills that have been introduced, this bill protects intelligence community equities, especially with respect to protecting classified intelligence sources and methods.

The National Cyber Infrastructure Protection Act of 2010 provides broad lanes in the road, without micromanaging, to give all partners in cyber security, whether government or private, the flexibility to defend against threats from our enemies. The private sector already has a tremendous incentive to protect their own networks; all the Federal Government needs to do is support them with technology and information and get out of the way.

Cyber attackers have been stealing intellectual property, threatening to take down our critical infrastructure, and gaining insight into our national security networks. The longer Congress waits to act, the more our vulnerability to these attacks increases. The National Cyber Infrastructure Protection Act will put the Government, our critical infrastructure companies, and the private sector on the right path to securing our networks. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, today I wish to extend my thanks to Dr. Robert Tabash for dedicating his career to the Holy Family Hospital in Bethlehem, Palestine. Thanks to his concern for the people of Palestine, Dr. Tabash has created a hospital that is truly an oasis of peace in the troubled region and is a shining example of humanitarian assistance.

Dr. Tabash's work to build an oasis of peace to serve mothers and babies in conflict-torn Palestine has not been an easy road. After serving as a staff physician beginning in 1971, Dr. Tabash was appointed the Director of Administration to the Holy Family Hospital in 1985. That same year the hospital was forced to close due to the Arab- Israeli conflict. After a 5-year renovation period, Dr. Tabash's vision finally came to life when the hospital was inaugurated. That same year, Dr. Tabash saw the first baby born in the new facility. Since, the hospital has successfully delivered over 50,000 newborns. With the only neonatal intensive care unit in the area, Holy Family Hospital has amazingly limited the mortality rate to around 2 percent, on par with Western hospitals and remarkably different than the roughly 30 percent mortality rate found in government-run hospitals in the West Bank.

This impressive success rate with high risk pregnancies and track record for saving premature babies makes the Hospital special. But what makes Holy Family truly shine is their commitment to serving pregnant women and babies in the West Bank, regardless of religion or race. Despite this commitment, more than 90 percent of Holy Family's patients are Muslim. Backed by U.S. dollars--and I am proud to have secured $3.5 million for the hospital in 2005--Holy Family not only gives the unborn a chance at life in a troubled part of the world, it also works to dispel the false notions that America is at war with the Muslim world and sides only with the Israeli people.

Holy Family Hospital is one of the most successful and touching examples of Smart Power in the Middle East--where through non-military engagement, like diplomacy, education, and in this case, humanitarian assistance, we can win hearts and minds, a necessary first step to peace.

Dr. Tabash is a Christian Palestinian doctor. Born in Bethlehem himself, it is Dr. Tabash, and his endless devotion to serving the most vulnerable in Bethlehem--pregnant mothers and babies--that has made the hospital the success story it is today. Dr. Tabash is the rare individual who recognizes that the work of one person--every person-- can make a difference. Through his work, Dr. Tabash has saved thousands of babies' lives and touched countless more.

On the occasion of Dr. Tabash's retirement I offer gratitude and congratulations for the good Doctor's contributions--to the lives of many mothers and babies and to the long-hoped dream of peace in the Middle East.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Thune amendment.

In a few weeks we will celebrate our Nation's birthday. I find it ironic that 234 years after our forefathers first led the fight for independence with the battle cry of ``no taxation without representation,'' I am hearing similar protests from Missourians today. Their frustration is not only understandable, it is warranted.

Missourians and, I believe, Americans in every State across our Nation have said: No more. They have said no to runaway spending. They have said no to more big government policies. Failing to represent these views, the majority in Congress has fallen down on the job.

It is no wonder that Americans feel as though Washington is not listening since my friends on the other side of the aisle are asking us to ignore our Nation's $13 trillion debt, the largest in our Nation's history, and pass a bill that would add nearly another $79 billion to the deficit.

But there is a better way. There is a more responsible way. My colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, has offered a substitute amendment that is paid for--paid for--cuts the deficit by $68 billion, and includes all the major priorities agreed to on a bipartisan basis by Democrats and Republicans.

In the Thune substitute, of which I am a proud cosponsor, we have a real opportunity to show the American people that we in Washington are listening. We have an opportunity to show the American people we are serious about addressing the most severe financial crisis this country has ever faced, and we have an opportunity for a rare moment of bipartisanship which, in recent years, has become all too uncommon in this body.

As does the proposal from Senator Baucus, the Republican alternative extends expiring unemployment benefits

for struggling families until November; and as does the Baucus bill, the Republican alternative extends tax breaks to small businesses which they so desperately need to get back on their feet and start creating jobs. We need to assure them the longstanding tax benefits they depend on will continue.

However, unlike the Baucus bill which the majority is using as a vehicle to increase taxes permanently, increase spending and increase the deficit, the Republican alternative cuts taxes even more by an additional $26 billion, cuts spending by over $100 billion and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, reduces--reduces--the deficit by $68 billion, instead of increasing it.

The Thune amendment also stops the cuts to doctors and provides a 2- percent increase in Medicare reimbursement payments that go to doctors this year, and an additional 2 percent in 2011 and 2012. That is one more year than the doc fix in the Baucus bill, and it is actually paid for, not put on our children's credit cards.

I have heard from doctors across Missouri and they can no longer face the devastating cuts that threaten their livelihood and threaten our seniors' access to care. They are telling me they are going to have to stop taking Medicare patients, because the way Medicare is implemented now, they only get 80 percent of what it costs them to provide the service and they are saying, We just can't cut any more--we can't take any more Medicare patients. Hospitals are saying the same thing. That is before the half trillion dollar cut in Medicare reimbursement comes in. It perplexes me that the majority has not addressed that problem in what they told us was a comprehensive health care law.

Something else that was largely left out of the new health care bill was malpractice reform. The Thune amendment corrects this oversight and enacts comprehensive medical malpractice reform that will save up to $49 billion over 10 years.

My friend from Montana, Senator Baucus, takes the opposite approach. The bill he and the majority leader are asking us to support increases spending by $126 billion, including over $70 billion in new and permanent tax increases, and will increase the deficit by $79 billion over the next 10 years. The Baucus-Reid bill is exactly the kind of approach that history has shown us won't work and the American people have told us they don't want.

The American people have had it with Washington-gone-wild policies. They have had enough of the spending, the tax increases, the debt, the bailouts, the big government job-killing policies that have been pushed through Congress and have been supported by the administration. Today, the Republican alternative offers the majority an opportunity to reverse course, to end the out-of-control spending and get serious about fiscal responsibility.

When facing a crisis, words mean very little. To say you are concerned about the debt while voting to increase it means very little to our children and grandchildren who will have that bill on their credit cards and will have to foot the bill in the future. As the old country and western song goes: We need a little less talk and a lot more action. The Thune amendment offers us a real chance to bring sanity back to Washington policies and for Members of this body to show the American people they are serious about meeting needs while also addressing our growing deficit.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Thune amendment and, after months of ignoring them, finally demonstrate to the American people that, yes, we are listening to them, we are concerned, we are going to do something about the debt, the deficit, and the other problems this country faces.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess.

Madam President, I rise in support of the Murkowski EPA disapproval resolution. We must prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from imposing a backdoor energy tax on suffering families and workers. This is our chance to stand with American families and workers and stand against unelected bureaucrats at EPA trying to expand government's reach.

Missouri families and workers do not want the higher energy costs and lost jobs that would come from allowing EPA's big government carbon regulations to go forward. Missouri manufacturing workers, like those in States across the Midwest, are dependent on affordable energy. Missouri workers would suffer terribly when EPA's carbon regulations drive up the cost of their energy and raw materials. Allowing the regulations to go forward would allow India, China, and other counties to take those energy-intensive jobs away from American workers. Missouri families, like those in States across the Midwest, are struggling to pay their power, heating, and cooling bills. Missouri families would suffer even more when EPA carbon regulations drive up the cost of their electricity, gas, and gasoline bills. Allowing EPA carbon regulations to go forward would punish Missouri families with higher energy prices.

Like all families and workers in the Midwest, Missourians wonder why we would allow EPA to impose this punishing pain for no environmental benefits. Let me make it clear: For those who want to talk about what this vote means for the science of global emissions, EPA itself admits that unilateral U.S. actions, without China and India, which have clearly indicated they will not take action, will have no measurable impact on world temperatures. So if you actually believe the climate science and want world temperatures to stop rising, these EPA regulations will do nothing to address your concerns. You are basically telling us you want to impose trillions of dollars in costs, hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes, and hundreds of billions of dollars in new government spending for no environmental gain.

Some also try to hide behind the auto deal between EPA, the State of California, and automakers. We should not punish Midwestern families and workers with a new energy tax in order to uphold some backroom deal between EPA, the automakers, and the State of California.

Even so, these EPA regulations are totally unnecessary for those who care about reducing carbon emissions from vehicles. Let me be clear: Congress has already authorized the Department of Transportation to impose new, stricter auto emissions standards, and the Obama administration announced recently they were going to do so.

So, again, opponents want to punish American families and workers with job-killing energy taxes for no net environmental gain.

Some also say this issue is linked to the gulf oilspill and we should respond by allowing EPA's new backdoor energy taxes. For the life of me, I do not

see how imposing a new national energy tax is the right response to the gulf oilspill. It will not stop the oil from flowing, it will not mitigate the environmental damage, and it will not compensate the workers and others for lost wages and revenue. We should be punishing British Petroleum, not the American people with new taxes. And do not be misled about the empty rhetoric against big oil. Big oil just passes along the cost of these taxes to us in higher prices for the gas and oil we must buy and we must use.

But some, as they say, never want to let a crisis go to waste. Unfortunately, many of my Democratic colleagues seek any opportunity to expand the reach of government and impose new taxes. They admit it, too, although they use fancy ways to say it. This week, President Obama repeated his call for ``putting a price'' on carbon. These are code words for imposing a carbon tax.

We also need to stop and think about what the majority leader has said. He and others have said that if EPA is allowed to move forward with their carbon regulations, it will cut oil usage. The reason is because this new energy tax will punish American consumers with so much pain at the pump, they will use less gasoline because they cannot afford it. It is like saying we need another recession because in a recession people drive less. We want recessions? That is hardly the way to make the economy thrive and make the progress we need.

We must stop this policy of pain. We must stop EPA from moving forward with job-killing, energy cost-raising regulation. The choice is stark: Stand with EPA bureaucrats imposing a backdoor tax or stand with American families and workers. I urge my colleagues to stand with American families and workers and support the Murkowski amendment.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to make some remarks on this extenders bill now before us. It would seem to me, from what I have heard as I traveled this past week, that Americans want to send a very clear message to Washington. They have had enough of runaway spending, exploding debt, the bailouts, and the job-killing policies coming out of this Congress and this administration.

Unfortunately, with the bill on the floor now, it is clear that Washington, or most of it, has stopped listening to the American people. This bill is supposed to be about getting job creators some certainty that temporary tax benefits they rely on to retain workers will continue to be there. Instead, it seems Democrats cannot resist the opportunity to use this bill to expand the debt and extend the government reach because this $126 billion baby does all of the above. It is loaded up with unrelated spending that has nothing to do with extending necessary benefits and creating jobs. It is not fully paid for and would add another $78.7 billion to the debt.

With the national debt at now a whopping $13 trillion, the American people have said enough. Our children and grandchildren, if they were here, would say: Don't put any more on our credit cards. Our debt is now at an unprecedented $13 trillion for the first time in history. This is no small milestone.

Make no mistake, the next crisis our Nation must deal with is the exploding debt crisis that is upon us. I believe Chairman Bernanke referred to that today.

I support the provisions in this bill that would give our small businesses, our job creators, the security that longstanding tax benefits they are counting on will continue. I also support extending necessary benefits such as the Medicare reimbursements to keep doctors supplying Medicare patients with health care. This was left out of the ObamaCare bill to make it look not as expensive as it really was. But we need to pay for that.

The difference between our view on this side of the aisle and that of those on the other side of the aisle is that we should pay for temporary tax extensions with reductions and cuts in spending, not with permanent tax increases. We want to pay for necessary benefits with cuts now, not saddle our children and grandchildren with even more debt down the road.

I believe most of my colleagues on this side of the aisle agree. Like me, many Republicans support some of the provisions buried in this boondoggle of a bill. In fact, many of these provisions would easily sail through the Senate, but Democrats continue to bury these provisions in massive spending bills such as the ones before us, compelling anyone who cares about our Nation's fiscal health to vote no. Americans are demanding that we say no, that we put an end to the Washington-gone-wild policies.

They have had enough spending, tax increases, debt, bailout, government overreaching, and job-killing policies.

Right now it appears that the majority is not listening. This bill contains provisions that will severely curtail the ability of U.S. businesses that operate internationally, and will drive countless more jobs and corporate headquarters overseas at a time when we should be focusing on job creation and improving the competitiveness of the United States.

These tax increases are a step in the wrong direction. The President has even said we are going to have an economic recovery driven by exports. Well, he has not stepped up and said we need to do free trade agreements which would do that; free trade with Colombia, South Korea, Panama.

This bill, by taxing the people who go overseas to create the opportunity for more exports of American goods, will obviously destroy our ability and lessen our ability to export more. As a technical matter, six of the eight international tax increases in the extenders bill have not even been considered in the committee. Two of the eight were in the President's Greenbook. The other six were only publicly bounced out for the first time May 20. This is $14.5 billion of tax increases over the next 10 years.

Let me point out, as I have traveled overseas and looked at job creation, I have been stunned to see that America is one of only two countries that taxes businesses overseas and taxes them at home. Most other countries which are growing in their export and their influence overseas do not tax double.

Well, we are taxing double and we are increasing those taxes now. Several of the international tax increases are retroactive tax increases. Many companies, in their reports with the SEC for the benefit of the investing public, have already claimed financial statement benefit for certain foreign tax credits they have already earned but for which they have not yet claimed credit.

The retroactive tax increases affect companies that have already claimed credit for the tax credits to which they were entitled. They have been treated properly as money in the bank. This extenders bill would cause such companies to lose the credits, issue earnings restatements and perhaps even lay off U.S. employees.

These international tax increases are permanent changes to the Internal Revenue Code, meant to pay for 1 year of temporary provisions in the Internal Revenue Code, a real mismatch. And how will the extenders be paid for next year?

Some on the other side may say these tax increases are necessary to preserve American jobs or keep business in America. Well, I can tell you firsthand that is not the way it works. If you say that, you do not understand economics and international business.

I have made many statements on this floor and written a book about how the best foreign policy we can have is export and foreign investment from this country. It is vitally important as a foreign policy imperative, but also, I have seen firsthand that investment overseas not only creates wealth overseas, but it brings more exports from the United States, creating more jobs here. So it is a win-win for both countries.

Foreign countries where we want to strengthen their economy are crying for investments and for more of our exports because that is how we can help them grow. But these tax increases make it less likely that American businesses will hire, that American businesses will grow. Instead, Germany, India, and Chinese companies, Australia, and the British will outcompete us. They will be hiring more as they grow overseas and as we shrink. This is not the way we should move forward in job creation.

You may say there are reforms needed in the international tax arena, but I think the biggest reform is to put us back on the same footing as most other countries in the world that do not tax overseas. Why are we the only ones? We are one of only two that do it. Does it make good economic sense to penalize productive investment abroad which brings back profits, capital, and export opportunities here at home? That is just one. That is a $14\1/2\ billion job killer.

Another $14 billion job killer is on entrepreneurs, the people who are creating jobs and need to have venture capital. This is designed to cut the ability of venture capital groups to put together the money you need for researchers or inventors who are creating jobs. I happen to be very interested in this, because my State of Missouri has tremendous research in universities and in organizations such as the Danforth Plant Science Center coming up with innovation in agricultural biotechnology that can provide better food, better products, pharmaceuticals, improve the environment, and improve the well being of people around the world. But there is a big jump between having something in the lab that may work and getting it out in sufficient quantity to supply the Nation and the world. Under the current law, entrepreneurs have a clear signal to take risks on investments in partnerships. The signal is this: They pay a 15-percent tax if they put their time and effort to bring money and ideas together and make it workable. They have to pay a 15-percent tax when it becomes valuable enough to sell.

That clear signal incentivizes the flow of capital into startup and other ventures. You cut that off and we are going to see venture capital-driven new business opportunities disappear. What are we thinking about? Let's go back.

The No. 1 concern of Missourians, of Americans, is creating jobs. These are the jobs of the 21st century. We are losing lots of jobs of the 20th century. We have to replace them with the jobs of the 21st century. That is where venture capital comes in working with entrepreneurs, working with researchers, bringing together the business acumen, the business skill to get these good ideas into provable products in the marketplace and supply the needs of the people in the world.

Unfortunately, the majority and the Obama administration want to raise that rate to 33 percent in a little over 6 months. This 33- percent hit is set to be augmented by an additional tax hike on the part of the partnership gain attributable to carried interest. It means there is a double whammy coming at startups and other business entities seeking capital to grow and, by the way, not incidentally, primarily create jobs.

We want jobs. Stop the idea of taxing people who are going to create jobs. Rule 1, if you want more of something, tax it less. If you want less of something, tax it more. We want less jobs. That is the message this substitute sends. The double whammy on startups and other businesses would mean that almost half that carried interest, that is now capital gain, would be treated as ordinary income. So with ordinary rates set to rise to almost 40 percent, which will help kill small businesses, it means two-thirds of that carried interest would be almost 40 percent. That is a lot worse deal. That is the kind of thing this country cannot afford when we need jobs. Even though many in the business sector said they want some of the extenders, the temporary extenders the bill includes, research and development and other things, they do not want them if the price of getting them is these international tax increases.

Those opposing the bill include the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the National Foreign Trade Council, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Information Technology Council, IBM, and Microsoft. You can see that the innovative companies in our country know this is going to shrink their business if these tax increases go forward and it is going to cut both in international exports and to startup venture capital.

This goes back to what the Gallup poll has shown, that only 16 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, and 80 percent disapprove. If you poll those who will lose their jobs, the disapproval rate would be even higher.

I believe the only way to restore America's confidence in elected officials, particularly in this body, is to prove we are listening. The folks in my home State of Missouri, like most Americans, want Congress and the President to quit treating their hard-earned tax dollars like Monopoly money. The folks in Missouri want me to vote no and oppose any effort to pile more debt on our children and grandchildren, and to oppose efforts that would tax exports and job-creating investments in small and growing businesses.

I have heard. I am listening. I want to act on it. I hope my colleagues will join me.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, for weeks now we have been debating the financial reform bill, which is being sold to the American people as the solution to holding Wall Street accountable for the economic crisis that hurt every American family and business in every community across the Nation.

Unfortunately, in this current form, the so-called reform bill will actually punish Main Street America, the families who suffered from and did not cause the financial meltdown. It should be a wakeup call when Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs says Wall Street will be the big winner under this bill, and we know the people who provide jobs, essentially small business, and the people who provide credit to the rest of America are warning of dire consequences.

Let me make this clear. This bill was meant to rein in Wall Street. Yet it is supported by Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. It is opposed by small business and community bankers. I think that tells you all you need to know about this bill. That is why I rise today in strong opposition to cloture on this bill. Yes, we made some improvements on the bill, and I congratulate the leadership for allowing us to have amendments and debate them, and I thank and I am grateful to my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, for working across the aisle to remove an onerous provision that unintentionally

would have killed small business startups. Senator Dodd has worked in good faith in a bipartisan fashion to make real changes in the bill. But despite the progress we have made, the provisions most destructive and harmful to taxpayers, families, and small business still remain.

First, it is completely unbelievable and unacceptable that so many of my colleagues want to turn a blind eye to the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which contributed to the financial meltdown by buying the high-risk loans that banks were pushed to make to people who could not afford them.

They were the enablers of the issuance of bad mortgages. Everyone here knows what I am talking about. Despite the bill's 1,400-plus pages, it completely ignored the 900-pound gorilla in the room. The need to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or the ``toxic twins'' as I refer to them, is completely ignored. How can you ignore the major government-sponsored enterprises that were the enablers for the bad mortgages that brought our system and much of the world's system down?

To add insult, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac devastated entire neighborhoods and communities as property values diminished. But when they bought up loans and encouraged issuance of loans to people who could not afford them, that turned the American dream of home ownership into the American nightmare for far too many families.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went belly up, and now it is the very Americans who suffered from their irresponsible actions who are left footing the bill for them, because, if it were not bad enough, unless we act now to reform the toxic twins, over the next 10 years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will run up hundreds of billions of dollars.

Let me put that into perspective. Freddie Mac lost $8 billion in the first quarter, one quarter of this year, and an additional $10 billion from taxpayers, and warned that it will need more in the future. That comes on top of the $126 billion that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had already lost through the end of 2009.

To make matters worse, this administration has taken off the $400 billion credit card limit on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it is our credit card they took the limit off. How much more does the administration think Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae can lose? How much more are they going to force not just us as taxpayers but our children and grandchildren to pay to bail out these toxic twins?

Next, a great concern I have is that this bill lumps in the good guys with the bad guys and treats them all the same, particularly when it comes to derivatives. When it comes to derivatives, this bill lumps in those folks who try to manage risk and control costs by making long- term contracts with their suppliers or with their purchasers to even out the prices at which goods are exchanged. These are normal hedging contracts, and they are very different from the people who are speculating in the market to make a buck by shady bets with money they did not have or they were making insurance bets on property they did not own.

I would urge my colleagues, if they have not read it, to read ``The Big Short'' which talks about how this whole scam unfolded with the bad underlying mortgages that caused the meltdown.

I have heard some folks say, what actually does this bill mean to you and me? Well, it means, for instance, that utility companies may not be able to lock in steady rates for their customers, leaving them instead at the whim of the volatile market. They will have to clear all of their long-term contracts and pay billions of dollars to Wall Street or Chicago to clear the normal long-term contracts with energy suppliers whom they work with on a regular basis, and whose contracts never contributed a nickel to the volatility.

As a matter of fact, by locking in prices, they were able to produce their energy at a reasonable rate. The billions of dollars these utility companies will be forced to cough up to Wall Street and Chicago will come down to each and every one of us on our utility bills. When the utility companies have to pay more, guess what. We, as ratepayers, get it in the wallet. That is where we will feel it, and that is what it means in every community in this country. You will be paying a higher cost every time you flip on the light switch, turn on the air conditioning, or use a computer. You will pay more for that energy.

For family farms, the backbone, the agricultural backbone of our country, they will not be able to get long-term financing. That may force some of them to quit farming and prevent others from even getting started.

Frankly, I am stunned that any Senator in good conscience would vote for a bill that would increase costs for every American, especially at a time when working families are struggling to make ends meet. What will this do to business? These businesses, who will be forced to pay higher energy costs, who will have requirements on derivatives that have to be cleared, may not create the jobs.

The community bankers who make the loans that families need or that small businesses need may be so strapped they cannot make the loans. That credit will dry up. I cannot vote for a bill that creates a massive new superbureaucracy with unprecedented authority to impose government mandates and micromanage any entity that extends credit.

We are not talking just about the Goldman Sachs and AIGs of the world, the ones at the center of this crisis. No, in the real world we are talking about this organization, this Consumer Finance Protection Board or Bureau, regulating the community banks, your car dealers, even your dentist or orthodontist who has to extend some credit to a few people for expensive orthodontic features.

Don't be fooled. Any of the new costs as a result of the new mandates and regulations will be passed on to the consumers. The very people the bill was supposed to protect--you and I--will get to pay for it.

Under this new superbureaucracy misnamed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, will safety and soundness requirements for healthy banks give way to a prevailing agenda of the new bureaucracy? There will be political appointees of the President who will be looking over everything as consumer protectors.

Some of these consumer protectors were the ones who forced banks to make loans to people who could not afford them in the past. Will the safety and soundness which is key to assuring a sound banking system be overridden by these rules and regulations?

These regulations can be enforced by every attorney general in the Nation. Attorneys general may decide it is an abusive practice if a community bank does not follow the mandates, the credit allocations, mandated to this CFPB. How would the community banks be able to operate if the attorneys general are suing them? This bill, regrettably, is much like the health care bill recently signed into law, because I fear that small businesses will soon learn that there are many more unintended consequences which have yet to be seen.

I ask unanimous consent that at the end of my remarks, I have printed in the Record an article by Meredith Whitney that appeared in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, one of the people who foresaw this crisis coming, who warned of the impact on small business.

To sum up my view on this bill, if the goal here is to enact real reform that ensures we never have another financial crisis such as the one we had 18 months ago, this bill falls woefully short of the goal. The bill is light on reform of Wall Street and the bad actors, it is heavy on overreach and unintended consequences throughout our economy, which will affect the ability of people to get and hold jobs.

It will affect the budgets of every family. My colleagues I hope will oppose cloture and continue to work to pass bipartisan amendments that will make changes to the destructive provisions I have outlined above.

Let us not forget about the rating agencies. The book I mentioned, ``The Big Short,'' pointed out that the brain-dead analysts at the ratings firms routinely put AAA ratings on some of the

most toxic, worthless paper, and then other people managed to buy insurance on those bad contracts even though they did not have any interest in them and made millions.

This amendment takes out the rating agencies, but the rating agencies still need to be overlooked and they ought to be funded not by the people who issue the paper but by the people who are buying the paper.

There is no doubt that everybody here knows we need to protect Americans from falling victim to another Wall Street gone wild. This is government gone wild. It benefits Wall Street. It harms small business, community bankers, your local utility company, which sends you your utility bill. Is that on the right track? I do not see how anybody can say it is.

We do not want--and this is why this debate is so important--to punish the everyday Americans for a crisis they did not cause and whose impact they feel the burden, and our children will feel it, for years to come. Unless we succeed in it, the Democrats' bill will do just that. The cost will be paid by Main Street and by each and every one of us. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose cloture and let us get to work on regulating what went bad and not messing with things that work.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the Wall Street Journal, May 17, 2010]

The Small Business Credit Crunch

(By Meredith Whitney)

The next several weeks will be critically important for

politicians, regulators and the larger U.S. economy. First,

over the next week Capitol Hill will decide on potentially

game-changing regulatory reform that could result in the

unintended consequences of restricting credit and further

damaging small businesses.

Second, states will approach their June fiscal year-ends

and, as a result of staggering budget gaps, soon announce

austerity measures that by my estimates will cost between one

million to two million jobs for state and local government

workers over the next 12 months.

Typically, government hiring provides a nice tailwind at

this point in an economic recovery. Governments have employed

this tool through most downturns since 1955, so much so that

state and local government jobs have ballooned to 15% of

total U.S. employment.

However, over the next 12 months, disappearing state and

local government jobs will prove to be a meaningful headwind

to an already fragile economic recovery. This is simply how

the math shakes out. Collectively, over 40 states face

hundreds of billions of dollars in budget gaps over the next

two years, and 49 states are constitutionally required to

balance their accounts annually. States will raise taxes, but

higher taxes alone will not be enough to make up for the vast

shortfall in state budgets. Accordingly, 42 states and the

District of Columbia have already articulated plans to cut

government jobs.

So the burden on the private sector to create jobs becomes

that much more crucial. Just to maintain a steady level of

unemployment, the private sector will have to create one

million to two million jobs to offset government job losses.

Herein lies the challenge: Small businesses, half of the

private sector (and the most important part as far as jobs

are concerned), have been heavily impacted by this credit

crisis. Small businesses created 64% of new jobs over the

past 15 years, but they have cut five million jobs since the

onset of this credit crisis. Large businesses, by comparison,

have shed three million jobs in the past two years.

Small businesses continue to struggle to gain access to

credit and cannot hire in this environment. Thus, the full

weight of job creation falls upon large businesses. It would

take large businesses rehiring 100% of the three million

workers laid off over the past two years to make a

substantial change in jobless numbers. Given the productivity

gains enjoyed recently, it is improbable that anything near

this will occur.

Unless real focus is afforded to re-engaging small

businesses in this country, we will have a tragic and

dangerous unemployment level for an extended period of time.

Small businesses fund themselves exactly the way consumers

do, with credit cards and home equity lines. Over the past

two years, more than $1.5 trillion in credit-card lines have

been cut, and those cuts are increasing by the day. Due to

dramatic declines in home values, home-equity lines as a

funding option are effectively off the table. Proposed

regulatory reform--specifically interest-rate caps and

interchange fees--will merely exacerbate the cycle of credit

contraction plaguing small businesses.

If banks are not allowed to effectively price for risk,

they will not take the risk. Right now we need banks, and

particularly community banks, more than ever to step in and

provide liquidity to small businesses. Interest-rate caps and

interchange fees will more likely drive consumer credit out

of the market and many community banks out of business.

Clearly, the issue of recharging the securitization market

as an alternative source of liquidity is one that needs to be

addressed over time, but politicians should not force rash

regulatory reforms when significant portions of our economy

remain fragile. The very actions designed to ``protect'' the

consumer, such as rate caps and interchange fees, will

undoubtedly take more credit away from the consumer.

It is important now to support any and all lending

activities that would enable small businesses to begin hiring

again. If the regulatory reform passes with rate-cap and

interchange regulation amendments incorporated, small

businesses will be hurt rather than helped. Politicians and

regulators need to appreciate the core structural challenges

facing unemployment in the U.S.

Elected officials know better than most that an employed

voter is better than an unemployed voter. They should improve

their odds of re-election and do the right thing on

regulatory reform.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Gregg amendment and ask unanimous consent to be included as an original cosponsor.

It is important we recognize what a fiscal crisis we face in the United States. Today, America's public debt stands at over $12.9 trillion. Regrettably, that will be on our children's and grandchildren's credit cards. We have, just last year, raised that debt by $1.4 trillion, and it will be $1.6 trillion added this year. This mountain of debt is going on the backs of our children and grandchildren. We will have to pay the interest on it, but they are the ones who will bear the real burden. Taxpayers are already bailing out Wall Street and failed banks with $700 billion; GM and Chrysler, $80 billion; the toxic twins, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, more than $1.2 trillion. We have tried unsuccessfully to deal with Fannie and Freddie in this financial regulation bill. When we look at the cause of the financial crisis, it is the subprime market, the bad home loans that were enabled by Fannie and Freddie being willing to purchase them. In my humble estimation, we should not pass a financial regulation bill designed to prevent a reoccurrence of the crisis which we have just gone through without dealing with Fannie and Freddie.

But when you look at the budget deficit, taxpayers are on the hook for $1 trillion in a failed stimulus package which only created jobs in the governments. It was a government expansion, not a measure to create jobs in the private sector.

The President and majorities in Congress have also recently created a new taxpayer-funded entitlement for health insurance. Many of us in December were pointing out the fact that this bill would add to the debt, it would drive up costs of private health insurance, it would limit the ability of seniors on Medicare to get their services by cutting the amount of money going into Medicare, and it would lead to higher taxes.

Funny thing, the new Actuary at the CMS has just come out and repeated those same four things. The health care bill is not only going to drive up private insurance costs, you are not going to be able to keep the same plan you had, it will continue to squeeze down the services Medicare recipients can receive, and it will add to the deficit and, thus, the debt.

But how much more debt and how many more unfunded liabilities can we take on before destroying the economy? What is happening in Greece, regrettably, could happen here. I strongly support the Gregg amendment, which will ensure that taxpayer funds are not used to bail out States.

We talked about too big to fail in terms of financial institutions. We ought to be talking about it in terms of governments. We adopted an amendment saying we should not use taxpayer money to bail out Greece. But we should not be in the position where we would be called upon to bail out States which have been unable to get their spending under control and get their spending in line with their revenues.

I know a little bit about tight State budgets. When I was Governor of Missouri, we had to make tough decisions. I came back into office as Governor in 1981, with a huge deficit in the middle of the year, and we could not borrow money to cover that deficit. So we made major, drastic cuts in spending,

and it was not pleasant. I was picketed by people who had to be laid off from the State government. But we readjusted and managed to provide services our State needed and put the State back on a sound financial footing.

States all across the country are taking tough steps. There are areas where they have agreed to go without services to get their budget back in balance. Most States do not have the ability to run deficits. Those that do have the ability to do that should not be operating on the false assumption that the Federal taxpayers and our children and our grandchildren will come back in and be asked to take the irresponsible and unacceptable task of putting a burden on residents of the States that have made the tough decisions and cut spending to pay for the mounting debt of other States that have spent their way into the red for years.

In fact, a bailout of States would create a disincentive, an ongoing disincentive, for State leaders to make tough decisions and implement necessary reforms to get their budgets in balance and future liabilities under control.

The Missourians I hear from are very angry. They are angry every day at spending money on things that are too big to fail. They are angry that the government continues to use their hard-earned dollars to help companies such as AIG and potentially to help a country such as Greece, which failed, instead of paying down our debt and cutting the runaway spending.

This bailout mentality must end. I thought that was one message we were going to carry with this legislation. I hope this legislation actually does, although I am concerned there are provisions that could enable the Federal Government to continue bailing out and taking over more businesses.

The Federal Government must not continue to be an enabler of those companies or those countries or States that continue to spend beyond their means. It is time for the leadership at the State, as well as the national level, to make the decisions necessary to put all of us on a sound financial footing.

I thank Senator Gregg for his strong leadership on budget issues and for offering this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support his amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes remaining on Senator Gregg's time.

Mr. President, the argument has been made that this bill would somehow limit responses to natural or manmade disasters, a natural disaster such as a flood or a tornado, a manmade disaster such as what is occurring in the gulf.

I have read this language. It is very clear. It is talking about defaulting on obligations. It in no way restricts the ability of the Federal Government to respond to disasters.

I used to chair the subcommittee on the Federal Emergency Management Act, and when there was a disaster, we provided money for those disasters, to deal with those disasters. But one cannot continue to present unbalanced budgets and enact them into law and continue to drive up the debt and say it is because of a natural or manmade disaster.

That is a stupid decision. I don't think the taxpayers of the United States should be in a position of bailing out governments that make bad decisions and that, year after year after year, spend more money than they are taking in on their ongoing obligations. It has nothing to do with a sudden natural disaster or even a manmade disaster such as the spill in the gulf, which is partly natural and partly manmade. I agree that we should not stop providing assistance where there is such a disaster, but that is not the focus of this amendment.

I urge my colleagues who really believe we should not be promising to bail out profligate States that continue to spend more than they take in, we should not bail them out with taxpayer funds.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to discuss a bipartisan amendment critical to small business and job creation, amendment No. 4056.

Thank you to my friend and colleague Senator Dodd for his leadership on this amendment. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment with Senators Dodd, Mark Warner, Scott Brown, Cantwell, Begich, and Murray.

Senators on both sides of the aisle agree that Wall Street needs to be reformed to protect Main Street from a future crisis.

Senators on both sides of the aisle can also agree that small business job creation is critical to our economic recovery and communities in my State of Missouri and across the Nation.

That is what this bipartisan amendment is all about--protecting the small business startups that are so vital to job creation and economic development.

Specifically, our amendment removes onerous regulations and restrictions in the financial reform bill that would have unintentionally stifled job creation.

The provision would have unintentionally threatened small business startups by delaying and limiting the availability of essential seed capital from qualified investors.

Our country's entrepreneurs need immediate access to capital as they work to move an idea from concept to production--especially when banks or traditional lenders may not be willing to extend large lines of credit to them.

We want to encourage--not discourage--investors to take a chance on these entrepreneurs by providing seed capital to startups in hopes that the business will flourish and remain a viable company.

Our amendment allows this investment and job creation to continue. With our amendment agriculture research and biotechnology startup companies like those in my State of Missouri, will continue to be the engine of job creation.

We all agree that we must reform Wall Street, but we must not punish Main Street and the very small business startups that are so critical to job creation.

This bipartisan amendment will help protect the small business startups vital to job creation across the country, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, Americans have sent Congress a message: Reform Wall Street, hold the bad actors accountable, but do not hurt the folks on Main Street who had nothing to do with the financial crisis. That is what we are debating about here in the Senate this week.

Senators on both sides of the aisle agree on one thing: All of us want to hold Wall Street accountable for the havoc wreaked on Main Street. We all agree we need to enact reform to prevent another financial crisis. But we have some disagreements on what responsible reform looks like.

While we all agree on the need to reform Wall Street to protect Main Street, the current bill, even with amendments so far, does not, in my view, do the trick. We are making progress, but there is still a lot of work to do because, in its current form, the bill is still a massive government overreach, punishing Main Street, hurting families, and costing jobs by stifling small business and entrepreneurs.

Today, I will highlight some of the concerns I have heard from Main Streets in Missouri and elsewhere and some of the amendments that have been filed to improve the bill.

First, on the GSEs, none of us can deny that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were significant contributors to the financial crisis. Just like any real reform, to prevent a future financial crisis, we have to deal with Wall Street, and we must also deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Unfortunately, this bill totally ignores it. It turns a blind eye to these government-sponsored enterprises, these GSEs which contributed to the financial meltdown by buying high-risk loans banks were directed to make to people who could not afford them.

The irresponsible actions in the marketplace by Fannie and Freddie turned the American dream into the American nightmare for far too many families who faced foreclosure. They then devastated entire neighborhoods with the foreclosed homes and communities where property values diminished. Ultimately, it led to a national and international financial crisis. No one--especially those of us who are taxpayers--can forget what happened after Fannie and Freddie got done wreaking havoc on families and neighborhoods. They went belly up. That is right. Over a year and a half ago, the government had to take over the GSEs, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.

To make matters worse, I am sure everybody read with shock just yesterday when the press reported that Freddie lost $8 billion in the first quarter. That is a lot of work. Then they had the nerve to request another $10.6 billion from the American taxpayers and warned that this $10.6 billion is just a downpayment on the money they will need in the future. Is it time to call a halt? Is it time to get a handle on it? It is well past time.

In case my colleagues need a reminder, this latest $8 billion Freddie lost is on top of the $126.9 billion Fannie and Freddie had already lost through the end of 2009. The Wall Street Journal today hit the nail on the head when they referred to Fannie and Freddie as the ``toxic twins.'' These toxic twins are far and away the biggest losers in the entire financial crisis--bigger than AIG, Citigroup, and all the rest.

So when we focus our anger, let's not forget our friends at Fannie and Freddie. You talk about doing some damage. Here is where the damage is. Here is where the burden comes, not just on us but on the credit cards of our children and grandchildren, the young people here as pages. They don't realize how heavy a debt burden we have already put in their wallets. Sorry about that, folks, but you and your generation and generations to come are going to be paying for it.

Taxpayers now and taxpayers in the future will be the biggest losers, since according to the Congressional Budget Office's optimistic estimates, these toxic twins will cost the taxpayers close to $380 billion. Even for those of us in Washington, $380 billion is a big number.

After all this pain to families, neighborhoods, and taxpayers, one would think the oversight of Fannie and Freddie would be a top priority, which is why it is stunning to me that the Obama administration has only recently nominated someone to fill the critically important position of inspector general of the Federal Housing Finance Agency to oversee the GSEs. How can we have proper and effective oversight of Fannie and Freddie when the office has been vacant at the highest level for so long?

The bottom line is, responsible reform must address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Responsible reform would put an end to the taxpayer-funded bailout of Fannie and Freddie and refocus them on affordable housing. Senators McCain, Shelby, and Gregg have filed an amendment to protect taxpayers and put an end to the government bailout of Fannie and Freddie. In short, this amendment cuts up the Federal credit card by putting an end to the limitless line of credit Fannie and Freddie currently enjoy, compliments of us as taxpayers.

This amendment puts an end to the conservatorship and requires each to operate eventually without government subsidies and on a level playing field with the private sector.

Next of great importance is seed capital. It is critical in reforming Wall Street that we not punish Main Street and the very specific small business startups that are so critical to job creation. If there is one thing we are worrying about it is, Where are the jobs? Well, I will tell my colleagues where the jobs are. They are the jobs the entrepreneurs and the innovators and the inventors can start. Unfortunately, in the current form of this bill, there are provisions that will kill the business startups. While title IX of the Dodd bill has been little talked about--far too little, in my opinion--it could have devastating consequences. Specifically, this provision would kill small business startups by delaying and eliminating the availability of private investor seed capital, and that is essential for these startups to survive and grow.

According to new regulations by the SEC, innovators and entrepreneurs would be subject to registering with the SEC for a 4-month review; thus, tying up vital venture capital needed for immediate use by new business. This could cripple new businesses.

Next, the bill proposes to add a further requirement to raise the net worth threshold on those who can invest to $2.3 million and raise the annual household income to $450,000. This would disqualify two-thirds of current accredited investors, according to the Angel Capital Association.

Small businesses and startup companies are the backbone of our country. They are where we are looking to get the new jobs of the future, and a critical role is played by angel investors in creating and developing new companies, small or large.

I will confess, this is of particular concern to my State of Missouri, where I have been working for a long time to build an agricultural biotech corridor across the State. In Missouri, we have the research institutions, the scientific leaders, and advanced agricultural research and biotechnology. Research in the biotech industry is our best hope for a stimulus to create high-paying, skilled jobs in rural as well as urban Missouri and, I would say, across America.

The stimulus these biotech and research companies are spurring in Missouri is also happening today across the Nation. According to the Kauffman Foundation, between 1980 and 2005, companies less than 5 years old accounted for all--all--the net job growth in the United States. As a matter of fact, that same study showed that in 2008, angel investors provided roughly $19 billion to help start up more than 55,000 companies. Why would we want to limit that? The bill, if enacted, would deny immediate access to the capital and, if enacted, would say to these innovators and entrepreneurs: You are too small to succeed, too small to survive--not too big to fail.

But there is good news here, and there is a bipartisan solution in the works. I am very thankful and grateful to Senator Dodd, who has agreed to work with me to fix the problem. We both want to protect these small business startups that are vital to job creation across the country. I think we are close to an agreement to fix this, and we hope to have a bipartisan amendment soon. I urge all my colleagues to take a look at it and to join us in supporting it.

Next and finally for today, one of the biggest problems in the bill-- which I believe will undoubtedly hurt ordinary Americans who had no role in causing the financial crisis--is the creation of the so-called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB. Those initials could, in the future, scare people more than all the combined deadly 10 acronyms, including the IRS, EPA, and SEC. This new massive supergovernment bureaucracy would have unprecedented authority to impose expensive mandates on any entities that extend credit. We are not talking about Goldman Sachs or big Wall Street banks. Instead, this new superbureaucracy could hit hard the community banker, farm lender, local dentist or auto dealer. The pain on Main Street will not just be borne by small business, but the costs will be passed on to consumers, the ordinary Americans the bill seeks to protect. It might even cost them their jobs.

The National Federation of Independent Business, a strong voice for small business, stated their concern clearly when they said:

These small businesses had nothing to do with the Wall

Street meltdown and should not be faced with onerous, new,

and duplicative regulations because of a problem they did not

cause. Further, as the most recent NFIB Small Business

Economic Trends survey shows, small businesses continue to

struggle with lost sales, and such regulations could make

these problems worse, stifling any potential small business

recovery.

That is why I have joined with Senators McConnell, Shelby, Gregg, and others on an amendment to fix the problem. Instead of creating a brandnew superbureaucracy with unlimited authority and reach, our amendment would empower the FDIC to look out for consumers. This makes sense. The FDIC is the one that has a strong record of providing consumer protections. It has a record of being able to deal with financial institutions. It deals with the financial institutions that get into problems. It is in the banks. Any institution that is regulated by the FDIC, they are in there looking over their shoulder.

Our amendment would create a division of consumer financial protection within the FDIC so they can protect consumers without adding burdensome and duplicative regulations. It would avoid costs being passed on to consumers, the very folks we are trying to protect, not saddle them with new costs. The amendment will ensure that the consumer protection division focuses on the real problems currently operating under the radar--the shadow banking I call it--or, as I like to say, the clicks, not the bricks. These are the people who have preyed on vulnerable Americans.

Before the financial crisis that was brought on by bad loans, especially too-good-to-be-true home loans pushed on families who could not afford the loans, my fax and inbox were cluttered, despite my best spam filters, with 1 percent or no down payment loan offers. These offers were not regulated effectively by State regulators, the SEC, the Federal Reserve or the OCC. They succeeded in escaping effective regulation entirely, although some have later fallen to regulation by U.S. attorneys who filed criminal fraud suits a little bit too late in the game.

Also, it is important this new division be tasked with providing financial literacy, as I will continue to stress. We have to improve consumer education in any and all areas where loans are made. While foreclosure counseling is important--another bipartisan program on which I worked with Senator Dodd in December of 2007 and in which we put $180 million to reach out to financial counseling groups. They are doing a good job trying to help counsel families in danger of losing their home and ways to solve the problem. Those counselors came back to us unanimously and pleaded with us to make available preloan counseling before somebody buys a home, to make sure they understand the terms and can afford to service the loans.

These are just some of the things we need to do.

Missourians and people across America are angry. They are angry bad actors caused the financial crisis that left many of them with a pink slip instead of a paycheck. They are angry Wall Street bad actors left them with a nightmare of foreclosure instead of the American dream of home ownership. They are angry government has committed trillions of taxpayer dollars for rescuing the financial industry when so many of them are still struggling to pay bills. Is it any surprise that Missourians and Americans across the country are skeptical about financial reform?

These folks were made more skeptical when they heard and saw on TV and read in the paper that it is the actors on Wall Street, with whom the bill

was supposed to deal and who caused the financial crisis, who are now cheerleading this bill. Missourians ask me how this bill can be real reform when the head of the investment bank Goldman Sachs, who is supporting the bill, said--let me make sure you understand. This is from the head of the largest investment bank on Wall Street: ``The biggest beneficiary of reform is Wall Street itself.''

That is a quote about the original bill.

Missourians have asked me not to pass a bill that will bail out Wall Street. We need to take care of Main Street. There is no bailout for struggling families. We don't want anymore Wall Street bailouts. We need to pass a bill that reforms Wall Street and protects Main Street. I believe we have an opportunity to pass real, responsible, and bipartisan reform, if Senators of both parties will listen to the concerns raised by ordinary Americans who didn't cause but are paying for the financial crisis.

I have heard similar concerns discussed by speakers on the other side of the aisle who seem to indicate we share the same concerns. I hope we can work together to get a good, strong reform bill that will deal with the problems that caused the last financial crisis, protect consumers, and ensure the safety and soundness of all financial institutions and not subject them to special interests who may have pushed for the bad loans that caused the last crisis.

I thank the Chair, yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am delighted to join in this debate, and I invite my friends on the other side to listen to what the people in communities in our home States are saying, who don't spend time soliciting funds on Wall Street.

Let's be very clear: We all agree we need to hold Wall Street accountable for the havoc wreaked on Main Street. We all agree we need to enact reform to prevent another financial crisis. Where we disagree on is what the responsible reform looks like. I have real concerns that, in its current form, the Democrats' bill, written with the White House, is a massive government overreach that will punish Main Street, hurt families, and cost jobs by stifling small businesses and entrepreneurs.

To sum it up, Democrats want to treat Main Street, our community banks, our farm lenders, and our auto dealers like they were Goldman Sachs or others on Wall Street. We Republicans want to ensure we fix Wall Street, without crippling Main Street. The only way to do that is to force the Democrats to listen to the concerns of Main Street, to open this up and make it a bipartisan process. It has not been, and it isn't going to be until we get some discussion and real substantive changes in what I view as a very dangerous bill to the economic climate and health of our country, our States, our communities, and the creation of jobs.

Today, let me share with you some of the concerns I have heard from Main Street. Like families in every community and every State, small businesses were the victims. They weren't the perpetrators of the financial crisis caused, among other places, on Wall Street.

Small businesses were not responsible for the financial crisis and should not be treated as if they were. But that is exactly what this bill does. This 1,400-page bill reaches far beyond Wall Street and will impose new costs and onerous new regulations on small businesses to fix a problem they were not responsible for causing. In short, this bill would change the way every American does business.

We are not just talking about changing the way Wall Street banks do business, but also how every community banker, local dentist, farm lender, and auto dealer does business. I urge my colleagues to take time away from the floor and listen to the people at home. They have a very different message than that which we are hearing from our friends on the other side of the aisle.

These concerns are not just Republican concerns. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are also hearing from their constituents back home about disturbing provisions in the Democrats' proposal and have begun to agree with Senate Republicans that there is a lot of work to be

done before we bring this 1,400-page monstrosity to the floor.

Don't misunderstand me. Like the nearly two-thirds of all Americans who favor some sort of reform of Wall Street, so do I and my Republican colleagues. But we need responsible and bipartisan reform that all Americans and businesses can be proud of. I want to work with my friends on the other side to ensure that the concerns I have heard from Missourians--1,000 miles away from Wall Street--are addressed as the process moves forward.

First, I continue to be stumped that any real form of our financial system could ignore Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were significant--if not the majority--contributors to the financial crisis. But that is what this bill does. That is a mistake, and so is leaving out the rating agencies who gave triple-A ratings to bad paper that was foisted on the system.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--these government-sponsored GSEs-- contributed to the financial meltdown by buying high-risk loans made to people who could not afford them. In addition to the cost to taxpayers, these irresponsible actions turned the American dream into the American nightmare for too many families who faced foreclosure, lost their homes, which devastated entire neighborhoods and communities as the property values diminished, as well as the credit rating of the families displaced.

Responsible reform must address the GSEs. Responsible reform would put an end to the taxpayer-funded bailout of Fannie and Freddie and refocus them on promoting affordable housing.

Next, it is critical that in reforming Wall Street, we are not punishing Main Street. Instead, we should be protecting small business startups that are so critical to job creation.

Unfortunately, this bill will kill small business startups. While title IX of the Dodd bill has been little noticed, it would have devastating consequences. Specifically, this provision would kill small business startups by delaying and limiting the availability of private investor seed capital, which is essential for the survival and growth of these startups.

Through new, burdensome regulation by the SEC, innovators and entrepreneurs would be subject to registering with the Commission for a 4-month review before they could get out and start soliciting money. This tying up of vital venture capital dollars needed for immediate use by small businesses would cripple their startup efforts. This is not a measure that will protect people from Wall Street. This is not a measure needed because venture capitalists and small startup entrepreneurs and innovators were causing the crisis. No, they are part of the solution of the jobless problems we have now.

This provision is an overreach by the Federal Government, which would shut down the job creation that Main Street provides, which this country desperately needs. Raising the net worth threshold for those who can invest in these venture capital firms to $2.3 million from the existing $1 million, and raising the annual household income threshold to $450,000, as the Dodd bill proposes to do, would disqualify two- thirds of the current accredited investors, according to the Wall Street Journal, who otherwise would help fund small startups in our communities. These are the people whom these innovators and entrepreneurs have to go to, and this will make it impossible for them to get the money they need. Therefore, some woman, some man with a great idea is much less likely in your hometown to be able to get the funds she or he needs to start a business.

I believe strongly--and I have always said and will continue to say-- that small businesses and the startup companies are the backbone of our country. I understand the critical role these so-called angel investors can play in the creation and development of new companies, small or large. Let me tell you about my position. Right now, in Missouri, I have been working to help build an agri-biotech corridor across the State. In Missouri, we have the potential to foster a whole new industry in advanced agricultural research and biotechnology. This agriculture research and biotech industry is our best opportunity to stimulate and create high-paying skilled jobs in rural Missouri, rural America, and in the cities as well.

The stimulus these biotech companies are spurring in Missouri is also happening in other States across the Nation. According to the Kauffman Foundation, located in Kansas City, between 1980 and 2005, companies less than 5 years old accounted for all--all--net job growth in the United States. As a matter of fact, the same study showed that in 2008, angel investors provided roughly $19 billion in more than 55,000 companies. You are going to put an end to that with this bill?

Let us go back and think about it before we bring this monstrosity to the floor. The new bill, if enacted, would deny immediate access to capital. If enacted, it would say to innovators and entrepreneurs: You are too small to succeed, too small to survive. That is far different from what this bill was promised and promoted as doing--stopping too big to fail. Yes, I am going to see in my communities and you are going to see in your communities too small to survive. That is not where we should be going.

Killing small business startups and jobs on Main Street is not the only unintended consequence of the Democrats' current proposal that has come to light. Caught up in the Democrats' fervor to pass a bill--any bill--without careful consideration, are members of the U.S. military and their families. Last week, I heard from active-duty and retired military members who fear this bill would hurt their financial security. You see, under the Democrats' bill, United Services Automobile Association--USAA, a financial and insurance provider for members of the U.S. military and their families--would, after an 87- year track record, no longer be able to manage their own portfolio.

Also as a result of the Dodd bill, this company that serves our military and veterans would have their ability to offer certain competitive products to servicemembers and their families jeopardized and their ability to return money to servicemembers and their families limited by this massive expansion of government authority. This must be fixed. I would urge my colleagues to listen to the military and veterans and their families in your States. See what they think.

Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of this bill keep piling up. The next major concern I have heard from Missouri community banks that provide critical lending to families and small businesses is the creation of the so-called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--CFPB. This massive new government bureaucracy has unprecedented authority and enforcement powers to impose mandates on any entities that extend credit. We are not just talking about big Wall Street banks here but also your community banker, your local dentist. Dentists are telling me that if they offer credit, they would be regulated. Farm lenders would find it very difficult for them to be able to operate to make their farm loans and to be able to hedge the risk that they normally do. Auto dealers can sell cars only through the benefit of private sector financing. As a result, there will be no choice but to pass the costs on for this financing, if they can get it, to the consumers--the very people this bill is supposed to protect. And it may cut some of them out of getting credit altogether.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses, a strong voice for small businesses, voiced their serious concern over the creation of this new bureaucracy. I am sure you all have received it, but if you have not, I would urge you to check your mail, because the letter from the NFIB to Congress says:

These small businesses had nothing to do with the Wall

Street meltdown and should not be faced with onerous new and

duplicative regulations because of a problem they did not

cause. Further, as the most recent NFIB Small Business

Economic Trends survey shows, small businesses continue to

struggle with lost sales, and such regulations could make

these problems worse--stifling any small business recovery.

In other words, they are saying: We do this and small businesses are going to be even less likely to be able to create jobs. We have already put too much debt on the Federal books. We are threatening to increase their taxes by a tremendous amount, and now we see regulations that are going to interfere with their normal credit operations. That is a cause for concern.

This very high unemployment the stimulus bill didn't touch, other than getting more people working for the Federal Government. It was supposed to bring our unemployment rate down to 8 percent, but it is going to continue to fail and fail miserably if we stifle the ability of small businesses to create jobs.

The only way to ensure that the CFPB does not unintentionally hurt Main Street but still protects consumers is to narrow the scope and authority with clear language outlining exactly who this new regulator will regulate and what it will do. Instead of unlimited authority, this new regulator should focus on the shadow banking entities operating outside of the regulatory framework and preying on vulnerable people. The banks and the savings and loans that issue loans are regulated by government regulators. Are the people who are making these large loans, such as home loans, regulated? In a lot of areas they are not. CFPB could look at those.

I proposed 2 years ago a mortgage origination commission to make sure everybody originating mortgages was regulated by some appropriate State agency. Well, we haven't done it. We also need to ensure that we are not empowering, through this new government agency regulator, the same organizations which pushed home ownership at any cost onto families who could not afford to repay their loans. This is one of the key problems we had. People who couldn't afford homes were told that they could get them with no downpayment, even if they had bad credit. If they didn't have the money to have a home, they were told they could have a home anyhow. These are the people who saw their American dream turn into the American nightmare. These are the people whose houses were foreclosed, their families thrown out, their communities devastated, and ultimately the entire network of not only America's financial system but the world's financial system brought down by this bad paper.

Surely, my colleagues would not want to vote for a bill that creates a new government bureaucracy without knowing exactly what the bureaucracy is empowered to do and if it will take on the real bad actors who got us into this mess. This CFPB is a perfect example of how the ``one size fits all'' of this hurried legislation will have unintended consequences for those who did not contribute to the financial meltdown. Treating community banks like Goldman Sachs is a mistake, and one we cannot afford to make.

If we are aware of these unintended consequences now, why won't we correct them now? Why do my colleagues want to bring these unintended consequences in the bill closer to being codified into law on the Senate floor? If you want to have some real consumer protection, I purchased several homes, as we have moved around recently, and I can tell you that the best thing we can do for consumer protection is to repeal all the laws that require a stack of paper that high that you are supposed to sign saying you have read it. Have consumer protection with a very simple one- or two-page form. I have talked about that before. That is simple consumer protection. Let people know, for people who are not adequately informed on financial situations.

The one thing we found out when I joined with the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Dodd, in pushing home foreclosure counseling, as we worked with agencies that were counseling people who were losing their homes through foreclosure, is these agencies were crying out and saying: We need financial counseling for these people before they get into homes. That is the best way to avoid foreclosure. Let us go back to that. It sounds simple, but it happens to be the thing that would work.

I doubt my Democratic colleagues intend to pass a bill that will hurt families every time they turn on the light switch or try to heat their home, but that is what this bill in its current form will do, once again, trying to go for the easy one-size-fits-all approach to entities that it does not fit in any way. The $592 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market needs stronger rules of transparency on the things that are run through Wall Street. Some of these derivatives traded in this market played a significant role in the recent crisis, through products such as credit default swaps.

I have called these derivatives computer game derivatives. They were so complex. They were something somebody thought up and ran through a computer. You know what. Our regulators fell down on the job. They didn't look at these derivatives. They were not transparent. They were not regulated. Some of that is the fault of the regulators, who are now scrambling to come in and file suits. They are supposed to regulate and make sure that these products that are complicated are fully transparent and related to reality and go to those who are at least sophisticated. You can't guarantee that they win or lose, but at least know what they are; make sure they are clearly understood by everybody; get the rating agencies to judge them independently, not as captured entities for the people who issue them and will pay the rating agency if they get the rating they want.

But there is an important distinction between the computer game derivatives or the very sophisticated derivatives that are traded on Wall Street. You can make good financial arguments for them, so long as they are traded on an exchange--the Wall Street derivatives, so long as somebody is looking at them to make sure there is some integrity in them. But not all derivative contracts pose systemic risk. As a matter of fact, commercial contracts initiated by energy companies, utilities, and the agricultural industry are used to manage risks associated with their daily commercial operation, from cost fluctuations in materials and commodities to foreign currencies used in international business. These end users, these commodity hedgers, make up less than 3 percent of the market.

I don't know of any farmer or any farm agency or any utility who caused the crisis on Wall Street by entering into a long-term supply- and-purchase contract. There is no reason to make this be traded on an exchange when you have an ongoing partner; no reason to acquire collateral to be posted. The end users, as they are called, do so in order to plan for future pricing so they can provide the least expensive goods or services to the consumer as possible. Costly margin requirements for the end users will be directly passed on to their families. Guess who pays for that? That is us. That is us. Because all Americans will see their costs go up whenever they turn on their lights, put food on their table, and use any form of transportation-- whether it be cars, trucks, buses, or airplanes. This is a problem that must be fixed.

For the purpose of my time on the floor, I won't go into each and every problem I have heard about in the bill. I have only been given minutes to speak rather than hours. But the current concerns I have outlined are critical. The unintended consequences on which I have shined a light must be stopped. Americans do not want another massive flawed bill that will kill more jobs, make it harder to get a home or car loan, or make it more expensive to heat their homes.

Yes, Americans are rightfully angry and frustrated about the bad actors on Wall Street who caused the financial crisis, costing many Americans their jobs and even their homes. Americans are rightfully angry and frustrated about the trillions of dollars the government has committed to rescuing the financial industry when so many of them are still struggling to pay their bills. These are the people from whom I am hearing. I agree with the majority of Americans who believe it is unfair for bad actors who caused this financial crisis to get bailed out with their tax dollars--with our tax dollars--when there is no bailout for families who lost their savings or jobs. I agree with the majority of Americans who are rightly skeptical of the Democrats' bill and the rush the majority wants to pass it in. It is no surprise that my constituents are skeptical. After all, it is the few bad actors on Wall Street who caused the financial crisis who are now cheerleading this so-called reform bill.

I was stunned when I read that the head of the investment bank Goldman Sachs, Mr. Blankfein, said, ``The biggest beneficiary of reform is Wall Street itself.'' The head of Goldman Sachs said that the biggest beneficiary of this reform bill is Wall Street. Did you hear that, everybody who has been looking at Goldman Sachs? I also understand that Citigroup now supports

this measure. They are huge Wall Street players who have had access to the White House and the majority leaders of both Houses to push for all the good things this bill does for them. They are the ones who have been in there. They are the major contributors. Look where the money goes. If you want to say: OK, who is looking for contributions, look at that and see what is in the bill.

This bill clobbers Main Street and it glances off of Wall Street. Instead of helping Wall Street, I want to ensure a bill is passed that will protect Main Street. While Wall Street may be cheering this bill, I am here to ensure this bill represents Main Street concerns. What I am hearing from Main Street, they are concerned, and it doesn't address their concerns, it puts more burdens on them. I urge you, I ask you to listen to the folks at home.

We need to hold Wall Street accountable for the havoc wreaked on Main Street and enact reform to prevent another financial crisis. This bill is too large, too costly for consumers, and will kill job creation at a time when working Americans need to be left to do what they do best; that is, succeed.

My friends on the other side of the aisle can hold vote after vote, but until this bill fixes the problems and I can be sure it is not just Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and the rest of Wall Street that will benefit, I will continue to force Democrats to listen to the concerns of Main Street America.

I urge my colleagues to turn up the hearing and turn down the volume and listen to what the people in your States are saying.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I believe the Senator from Vermont has a brief statement.

Madam President, after the actions of some bad apples on Wall Street wreaked havoc on Main Street, America, there is no doubt we need financial reform to prevent another credit crisis.

It is disappointing that bipartisan consensus on a financial reform package was not reached in committee and instead the majority chose a go-it-alone approach. I hope this is a process Democrats truly want to be bipartisan because my constituents have some good ideas about how to enact real reform that will not stifle economic growth and activities.

I have told my good friend Senator Dodd and others that I want to work with them to ensure the concerns I have heard from Missourians--a thousand miles away from Wall Street--are addressed as the process moves forward. I have heard from Missourians who want to end too big to fail, and I have heard from Missourians who want to stop taxpayer- funded bailouts and Missourians who are fearful of empowering government bureaucrats with the power to pick winners and losers. I have also heard from folks in Missouri who are key to job creation. They have well-founded concerns about some of the bill's unintended consequences.

This is a bill that could alter significantly the way Americans do business with the financial services industry, whether it be in the form of a home or auto loan, financing for college, credit for family farms, or much needed financing for small business. In the heartland, where I am from, we understand Wall Street provides critical financing, but we want to make sure they do it the right way.

A bipartisan and responsible bill should ensure that the failures that led to our financial collapse are properly addressed and that taxpayers never again are left footing the bill for the egregious mistakes of a few bad actors. It is time to stop taking a piecemeal and ad hoc approach to addressing the financial crisis. Burying our collective heads in the sand to avoid what needs to be done and simply hoping things will get better by throwing more money at these failed institutions and just believing they will get better on their own is unrealistic.

Americans are rightfully angry and frustrated about the trillions of dollars the government has committed to rescuing the financial industry, when so many of them are still struggling to find jobs, pay bills, and get the loans they need for cars, home, college, or to farm. They believe--and rightly so--that it is fundamentally unfair for the bad actors who caused the financial crisis to get bailed out while many of them lost their jobs and their savings as a direct result of the irresponsibility of others.

We need a clear path to unwinding and ending these institutions that are too large and that pose systemic risk to the financial health of our market without doing so at the expense of the American taxpayer. No institution should ever again be considered too big to fail.

Today, I remind my colleagues that the government played a role in contributing to our financial and economic crisis. Government policies and actions to promote home ownership to buyers who could not afford to buy were irresponsible. That is why I am shocked that this bill does nothing to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored enterprises that contributed to the financial meltdown by buying high- risk loans made to people who could not afford them. These irresponsible actions left the Federal Government with the risk and the American taxpayer with the bill to bail them out.

In addition to the cost to taxpayers, these irresponsible actions turned the American dream into the American nightmare for too many families who faced foreclosure and devastated entire neighborhoods and communities as property values diminished. Additionally, government failure to adequately regulate the financial system--specifically, the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators--allowed these institutions to take on too much risk, which was a major factor in the credit collapse. Collectively, these policies and actions have brought us to the economic crisis which has touched every American's life.

The current proposal ignores Fannie and Freddie, which were significant contributors to the crisis. That is a big mistake.

We need to be sure the proposals address the needs of Main Street America. Leaving them out would be another mistake.

Rather than focusing on the concerns of Wall Street, I have spent my time focusing on the concerns shared with me by my constituents back in Missouri. Missourians expect real reform but demand that Congress prevent an overreach of government that stifles businesses and kills jobs.

One specific area of concern is the creation of the so-called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB. This new, massive government bureaucracy has unprecedented authority and enforcement powers to impose duplicative and costly mandates on any entities that extend credit. We are not talking about just big Wall Street banks but also the community banker, the local dentist, farm lender, or auto dealer. As a result, there will be no choice but to pass these added costs on to consumers--the very people this bill was designed to protect.

The only way to ensure the CFPB does not unintentionally hurt well- performing institutions that issue credit

is to narrow the scope and authority with clear language outlining exactly whom this new regulator will regulate. Surely my colleagues would not want to vote for a bill that creates a new government bureaucracy without knowing exactly what the bureaucracy is empowered to do.

Instead of unlimited authority, this new regulator should focus on the shadow banking entities that operate outside of the regulatory framework and prey on vulnerable people. We have all heard horror stories from our constituents about the bad operators pushing no-money- down or no-doc home mortgages and the reverse mortgage scam artists who sell too-good-to-be-true financing.

There must be appropriate oversight of this regulator. The last thing we need is a new government bureaucracy that, under the guise of consumer protection, is really just pushing one party's political agenda. The current business climate is overwhelmed with uncertainty, and we need to ensure this bureau does not create additional uncertainty for any investor or business that operates in this country. The prudential regulators should have a final say on anything that would put the safety and soundness of institutions and the credit of borrowers at risk.

Next, Missourians refuse to be on the line for another bank bailout. I share their frustration over the concept of an institution being considered too big to fail. We must put an end to too big to fail. We need a mechanism in place that allows for immediate liquidation of failing financial firms.

In my recent conversation with Larry Summers, I expressed this concern, and he agreed that the administration wants euthanasia for failed companies, not resurrection. The government should not be in the business of creating zombies.

The era of bailouts must be over. Any mechanism of resolution must be fair and evenhanded. Missourians will not accept government bureaucrats picking winners and losers in creditor repayment.

In addition, the $592 trillion over-the-counter derivative market needs stronger rules of transparency. Some of the derivatives traded in this market played a significant role in the recent credit crisis through products such as credit default swaps. These and other transactions--which I call video game transactions, where there is no substance involved and they are making bets on the financial system-- should have been cracked down on by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

However, there is an important distinction to be made here. Not all derivative contracts pose systemic risk. As a matter of fact, commercial contracts initiated, for example, by energy companies, utilities, and the agricultural industry are used to manage risks associated with daily operation, from cost fluctuations in materials and commodities to foreign currency used in international business. These end users, as they are called, do so in order to plan for future pricing so they can provide the least expensive good or service to their consumers as possible. Costly margin requirements for these end users will be directly passed on to families. This will increase the cost for Americans to turn on their lights and put food on their tables.

My hope is that the ultimate Senate bill, like the House-passed bill, will ultimately address this concern with a strong exemption for end users from the clearing and margin requirements. These end users are not major swap participants and should not be treated as such.

Finally, the Federal Reserve Bank's current structure for regulatory oversight ensures that responsibilities and power are shared across the country, not just in Washington and on Wall Street. Regional reserve banks give all regions in the country a voice in banking, credit policy, and monetary concerns, which gives a complete picture to the Board of Governors as they decide on Federal monetary policy. This system was established over 100 years ago and should be maintained in order to protect the concerns of small and medium-sized banks. Financial crises can and do occur within small but interconnected banks, which is why the Federal Reserve needs to continue to take the economic temperature of the entire country, not just of those on Wall Street.

As hard-working Americans and small businesses struggle to emerge from this meltdown and drive our economy through the recovery process, it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to ensure we have a robust regulatory system. It is critical that our regulatory system be modern, responsive, and empowered with appropriate authority, while allowing for business prosperity as we prevent future crises.

In Missouri, I have been working to build an agricultural biotech corridor. This has the potential to foster a whole new interest, providing great jobs in advanced agricultural research and biotech. It is the best stimulus to create high-paying, skilled jobs that rural Missouri and rural America need.

However, today I read in the Wall Street Journal a very disturbing report that this bill would possibly kill small business startups by delaying and limiting the availability of private investor seed capital. Small startups have been at the forefront, driving job creation. In this bill, new requirements by the SEC would insist that investors register with the Commission for a 4-month review, meanwhile tying up vital venture capital or seed capital dollars. This harmful delay for new businesses in need of immediate capital would be crippling.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

No one believes angel investors pose a systemic risk, so

it's hard to understand why these proposals are in the bill.

The economy needs more private job creation.

Incidentally, it would triple the minimum wealth of the seed capital investors who could invest in these from $1 million to over $3 million. That cuts out three-quarters of the people who might invest in starting up these companies. This would be devastating to rural job creation in Missouri and across the country.

Our greatest potential for new jobs depends upon the innovative ideas, the entrepreneurship of people who are willing to use their own time and ideas but need seed capital to do it. These small companies could not wait 120 days, in many instances. They could not find the seed capital investors. In other words, in sum, moving from too big to fail, this new bill, if enacted with that provision in it, would say to these innovators, these entrepreneurs: You are too small to succeed.

This is not a measure that is going to protect people from Wall Street; this is an overreach by the Federal Government which would shut down the job creation Main Street needs.

Neither political party has a monopoly on good ideas. Reforming our financial system is too important to be done on a partisan basis. I urge my colleagues, and I hope they will consider the ideas I have heard from Missourians. We haven't just been listening to Wall Street; we have been listening to Main Street. I hope the Presiding Officer and all of the Members of this body will listen to what they are saying on Main Street about the need for the small companies, whether they be startup companies or small banks, to succeed. We need to make sure we don't kill the backbone of our American economy.

Madam President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, one of the many blessings of being a U.S. Senator is the opportunity to be exposed to so many people who strive, work together, and improve their communities and our Nation every day.

Despite hardship, America is a place where Americans face challenges as opportunities determined to see that tomorrow is always better than today. One powerful example is the partnership that exists in St. Joseph, MO, between community leaders and the Missouri Western State University. How pleasing it is to have members of the forward-leaning St. Joseph Area Chamber of Commerce led by Ted Allison come to Washington and, as usual, front and center among the distinguished group is the president of the University, Dr. Robert Vartabedian.

How powerful it is to have Mr. Allison testify before the House Committee on Small Business, represented by his Congressman and committee ranking member, Sam Graves, and speak passionately about the job-producing power of the small business community such as exists in St. Joseph, and the importance of education to support small business productivity and growth.

Dr. Vartabedian, and his predecessor, Dr. James Scanlon, share the view that the University does not exist in isolation but that the University should understand and serve the community just as the community, in this case, the Chamber of Commerce, and others, serve the University.

Dr. Scanlon, who retired after 7 years in June of 2008, was a tireless head of the school and advocate for the community. Integrity and intellect served Dr. Scanlon's action-oriented approach which insisted upon customer-based performance. He never rested and he did not allow members of the St. Joseph community to rest either. After all, the community included future employers and neighbors of his kids and Dr. Scanlon was interested in them having productive and happy lives far beyond graduation.

Originally a New Yorker, of all things, one would think Dr. Scanlon always lived in St. Joseph and intended never to leave, but his remarkable footprint continued under the current leadership and has provided a foundation for continued vision and performance. ``Oh happy day!'' became his trademark exclamation, and while I hope it was for Dr. Scanlon, I am certain that because of him, it has been for thousands of students and their faculty and community members.

In a large part thanks to Dr. Scanlon, and now, Dr. Vartabedian's leadership, Western has thrived, becoming a source of pride for the community, region, and state.

Western's statewide mission is applied learning. Remarkably, about 90 percent of Western students completed at least one internship, practica, or faculty-student project by the time they graduate. In other words, Western students have classroom and real-world experience.

Since 2001, the college has become a university, experienced its fifth straight year of record enrollments, doubled its laboratory space for sciences, undertaken to fill its capacity at the new Science & Technology Incubator, built up modern math and science capacity, began a new M.S. program in Nursing, became the summer home of the Kansas City Chiefs, and has seen the establishment of the Steven L. Craig School of Business.

According to Missouri Western, the gift by Mr. Craig that made the new school possible ``means serious business for Western.''

The generosity by Mr. Craig will not only launch another valuable path for students to develop value, but represents a strong endorsement of the Western program, and the sense of community in St. Joseph where Craig was born.

Mr. Craig graduated from nearby Savannah High School before moving to California to graduate from the University of Southern California. He founded the Craig Realty Group, a Newport Beach, CA, company that owns and manages 13 upscale factory outlet centers in 6 states.

The gift of $5.5 million was one of the very largest in the Nation and the largest individual gift to the university's foundation. In addition to being the largest individual gift to the university, these funds will directly enhance St. Joseph, MO, the Midwest region, and will be used to develop tomorrow's business leaders who should follow not only Mr. Craig's business model, but his model of selfless philanthropy as well.

Missouri Western officials recognize that Mr. Craig's gift celebrates three of his qualities: entrepreneurial spirit, generosity, and faith.

This conspiracy of goodness by a true working community on behalf of a future community membership is a model to applaud and to emulate. Doctors Scanlon and Vartabedian, Mr. Allison, Mr. Craig and all those who have locked arms with you leaders to plow forward, thank you and well done and, more importantly, well doing.