Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to recognize all Louisiana peach farmers, the festival's title sponsors: Squire Creek Country Club, the Ruston-Lincoln Chamber of Commerce, the city of Ruston, and all the other sponsors who partnered to celebrate the Diamond Anniversary of the Louisiana Peach Festival the weekend of June 25 to 27, 2010.

In 1947, the area peach growers of Lincoln Parish organized the Louisiana Fruit Growers Association. In 1951, the association voted to promote their industry by spreading the word about the exceptional Lincoln Parish peaches throughout Louisiana.

In June 1951, the president of the Louisiana Fruit Growers Association, J.E. Mitcham, and Walter Smith founded the Louisiana Peach Festival in Ruston. The association, with the cooperation of the city of Ruston, chamber of commerce, civic clubs, garden clubs, merchants, and many other individuals, worked tirelessly to prepare the city for the inaugural festival. Area merchants filled the Ruston Daily Leader with advertisements offering special sales and savings to honor the first Peach Festival. The program of the First Annual Louisiana Peach Festival, which was held on June 27 to 28, 1951, consisted of ``Peaches and Posies'' flower show, a peach cookery contest, an art show, and several athletic tournaments. The festival also crowned the First Queen Dixie Gem and Princess Peach.

In the years following, the Louisiana Peach Festival grew in size and popularity. In 1952, the festival's activities doubled in number. By the third year, the festival won national attention when Queen Dixie Gem III, Dorothy Etta Goff, traveled to Washington, DC, to present then Vice President Richard Nixon a box of peaches. Over the past 60 years the festival has become an iconic event in the region.

Thus, today I would like to recognize all the organizations, volunteers, and especially the farmers for continuing to put on the Louisiana Peach Festival. I would also like to thank them for their appetizing service to Lincoln Parish and to the State of Louisiana.

Mr. President, I welcome following my distinguished colleague from Michigan and her impassioned plea against obstructionism. I have been facing the same challenges in particular with certain programs that are absolutely crucial for Louisiana but more broadly for the country. One that is absolutely important for all of us in Louisiana is the National Flood Insurance Program. It is a national program. It is important for our economy. It is important for the real estate industry. It is important for homeowners and closings around the country, for economic activity to move forward, particularly when we need every bit of economic activity in these tough times of recession. But it is really important in Louisiana. We face enormous flood threats so it is important there.

Unfortunately, the extension of the present National Flood Insurance Program--which everyone, as far as I know, supports--is being held hostage, essentially, in this extenders bill. I have been trying to pry it loose from that so we can extend the program, not let it expire as it has expired--it expired June 1; it is not in operation today--get it back in place, get it fully extended through the rest of the calendar year.

I would have thought this would be a ``no brainer,'' this would be consensus, this would not be partisan. It should not be. This is a simple extension of the National Flood Insurance Program. What is more, this extension does not create any additional deficit. Obviously, a big part of this debate about this larger bill on the floor is about increasing deficit spending. Lots of folks, including me, have real concern about that. I think that is a legitimate concern that all of us have at some level. This extension does not increase the deficit at all.

I came to the floor before the Memorial Day recess because I saw this train wreck coming. I asked unanimous consent to simply extend that National Flood Insurance Program with no deficit impact, extend it by unanimous consent until the end of the year.

The distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, objected. I tried to engage in a meaningful debate, because I think the American people deserve it, about what is wrong with the program, what is wrong with the extension, what is wrong with the proposal. It has no deficit impact.

The silence from the distinguished majority leader was deafening. He objected because he could object. That is his right--no explanation, no justification.

The result has been the train wreck I was trying to avoid. The program expired on June 1. The program is not in place today. That is stopping and making a lot more complicated real estate closings--people trying to buy their first home, people trying to buy another home. Lord knows we need every real estate closing we can get to happen in this economy. We cannot create unnecessary barriers to that when we are trying to come out of this real-estate-led recession. Yet this majority, this Senate, this Congress let that absolutely crucial National Flood Insurance Program expire June 1. So here we are again.

My plea is the same. Everyone, as far as I know, supports the extension of the National Flood Insurance Program which is now expired. Everyone, as far as I know, says, rightfully, that it is a necessary program. We need to reinstate it to get the economy humming again, to make these real estate closings easier and not harder, to help recovery, not hinder it. And everybody admits, including the Congressional Budget Office, there is zero deficit impact with this extension. It is a clean extension. It does not increase the deficit in any way.

Let's do the right thing. Let's extend that. Let's not make something partisan which should not be. It is not an ideological difference. Many members of our community--homeowners, folks in the real estate sector-- strongly support this effort. In that vein, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter from 22 trade associations, including the National Association of Realtors and many others strongly in support of this sort of stand-alone extension of the program.

Mr. President, the letter truthfully says--it is very simple:

The frequent lapses in the National Flood Insurance Program

are undermining homeowners and commercial property owner

confidence in this vital system. Given the fragile state of

residential and commercial real estate markets, Congress

should take immediate action to restore confidence in the

National Flood Insurance Program through a long-term, stand-

alone extension.

That is what my stand-alone bill is. It is not complicated. It is not controversial--should not be. Not partisan--should not be. It doesn't increase the deficit in any way, shape or form--not by a penny.

Again, I will ask what I asked before the Memorial Day recess, trying to avoid this train wreck which has now happened for over a couple of weeks.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 372, which is my bill, S. 3347, a bill I introduced that extends the National Flood Insurance Program through December 31, 2010; that that bill be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, again, I think it is a shame. If the distinguished Senator from Michigan wants to propound a UC to separate unemployment insurance, I will support that. I will not object. I think it is a good idea. I think we need to come together around things on which we agree. I think those things are and should be bipartisan and we should not bend over backwards to somehow make them partisan in this silly game. So I would support that unanimous consent request. I am sorry she cannot, at least on behalf of the leader, support mine.

I understand it is part of the larger bill. It was 2\1/2\ weeks ago and that is exactly why the program lapsed on June 1--because it was part of the larger bill and that larger bill was not going to pass then, did not pass yesterday, probably is not going to pass today.

In the meantime, it is not some theoretical bill that is being held hostage. It is American citizens who are being held hostage. It is first-time home buyers who are being held hostage. It is people in the real estate industry who need every darned closing that they can close who are being held hostage. It is not right. It is politics ahead of people, purely and simply.

I am very sorry that again the majority leader has rejected this simple idea. I will keep making the request because this program has now lapsed. It has not existed since June 1 and that is hurting people and that is hurting the economy.

I would like to move on to another aspect of this bill which is hurting people, which is particularly offensive to me, representing Louisiana. This is only getting worse in terms of this bill going from one version to another; that is, the aspect of this bill on the Senate floor that pertains to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

I represent Louisiana. More importantly, I live in Louisiana. I am all for oilspill cleanup. If there is anybody in the world who is for that, nobody is for it more than folks in Louisiana for obvious reasons. I am for a healthy and vibrant Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. That trust fund has to be increased and grown. And lots of things about the Oil Pollution Act are clearly outdated. I have put forward proposals to update those, but unfortunately that is not what is going on.

In this bill, there was initially an increase in the tax into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund from 8 cents a barrel to 41 cents a barrel. That is over a five-times increase. Now, if that was needed for oilspill cleanup and was going to be used for oilspill cleanup, I would be the first to say, great. The problem is, it was stuck in this bill not for that reason at all but to be stolen--that money to be stolen and used for other spending. As soon as that money went into this so- called trust fund, it was going to be grabbed out and used for completely unrelated spending, nothing to do with any oilspill.

I had an amendment on the floor, and the amendment was very simple. It did not disrupt the tax increase--did not touch that. It simply said that anything going into the oil fund has to be used to clean up oilspills--radical idea--and No. 2, anything going into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund cannot be used as an offset, double-counted--Enron accounting to mask, to hide other deficit spending, which is going on in this bill.

Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated. But we had a good vote, quite frankly. I want to note and thank the Democratic majority chairman of the Budget Committee for voting yes on that. I think he voted yes because of the simple reality of what I am saying. That money should only be used to clean up oilspills. That money should not be double-counted, should not be used in Enron accounting to offset, to mask other completely unrelated deficit spending.

In the new version of this so-called extenders bill recently unveiled, unfortunately we are going from bad to worse because they just increased the tax from 41 cents to 49 cents. Originally, it was 8 cents, and it jumped to 41 cents--that is over a fivefold increase--and now to 49 cents. Between those two versions of the bill, we actually had President Obama meet with BP and set up a huge escrow fund to make sure BP, as the responsible party of the ongoing spill, pays for everything, as they absolutely should do. So in between the 41-cent version of the bill and the 49-cent version of this bill, we set up this escrow fund to ensure, as we should, that BP pays for everything.

So the increase has nothing to do with the real crisis in the gulf; the increase has to do with politics in Washington because that first version of the bill did not get the votes because it had too much deficit spending. So what do we do? We are going to steal more. We are going to offset more out of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. And that is why it went up again, from 41 cents to 49 cents.

Well, I have to say that I find all of that pretty darn offensive. We have a

real crisis in the gulf. It is an ongoing crisis because the flow is not stopped. Rather than deal with that real crisis through action, some folks up here are using and abusing that crisis to advance their own agenda--deficit spending, unrelated spending--through politics. I think that is wrong. I think it is wrong in a pretty raw way, and I find it offensive. And I say that on the Senate floor. It is going from bad to worse. We are now, under the current proposal, stealing even more from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, using it even more to mask other unrelated spending. We have a real crisis on our hands. Let's address it. Let's not use and abuse it politically.

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

Mr. President, I stand in strong support of my amendment No. 4312. I urge all colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to come together to pass this commonsense amendment.

What is this amendment about? It is about something that is of great concern to me, representing the State of Louisiana. It is about the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. It is about the ongoing crisis in the gulf. I am afraid what it is about is an example of that now famous quote of the White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, who, around February 2009, said: We are not going to let a good crisis go to waste. He was talking about the financial crisis. I am afraid that same attitude, that same politicization of real crises is going on with the ongoing oil disaster in the gulf.

This is a real crisis, an ongoing crisis, an ongoing disaster. The flow continues. It is so significant--even subtracting out the amount of oil BP is capturing, it is so significant that it is like a whole new major oilspill each and every day. It goes on and on and on.

What is the provision in this bill in relation to that crisis? In this bill there is a dramatic increase in the tax to fund the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund from 8 cents per barrel to 41 cents, over a fivefold increase. If that were going into that liability trust fund, and if it were staying there for oil cleanup, we could come together and probably support that effort in a bipartisan way. But instead, what has happened?

As soon as all of that new revenue goes into the trust fund, $15 billion over 10 years, it is stolen. It is spent on unrelated spending. It isn't a true trust fund. It is spent on other government deficit spending. It is used essentially to hide deficit spending elsewhere. It is double counting, what I call Enron accounting. If a private company were doing this and putting this in their prospectus, putting this in their SEC reports, they would be prosecuted for criminal fraud.

My amendment is simple. It says two things: Anything that goes into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund can only be used to clean up oilspills. Pretty basic, pretty simple. Secondly, it cannot be double counted, used as an offset for other unrelated government deficit spending. That is pretty simple. I think it is a minimum requirement we should ask in the midst of this ongoing crisis in the gulf.

Again, are we going to treat that as a real crisis and address the challenge that is there or are we going to use and abuse that crisis in Washington to advance preexisting agendas such as big government spending, additional deficit, trying to mask and hide those? I suggest the only responsible thing to do is to treat the crisis for what it is, to respect the people of the gulf and to pass this Vitter amendment that says, No. 1, money into that trust fund can only be used to clean up oilspills; and, No. 2, it cannot be double counted to mask other deficit spending.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, it is a little difficult to know where to start, since my good friend and colleague has said so many things that are flat out wrong.

No. 1, my amendment does not prevent the tax increase. That is absolutely and perfectly clear. Let me say

it again. My amendment does not block and does not prevent the tax increase.

No. 2, my amendment does do two things. It says that any money in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund can only be used for oilspill cleanup and, secondly, that it cannot be used to offset other spending. That is exactly what is going on in this bill.

My colleague knows that the $15 billion created by this tax increase is used as an offset in this bill. It masks spending in this bill of $15 billion. If it were not for that money, the ``score'' of this bill would be $15 billion higher. It would go from $79 billion to $94 billion.

What I am saying is simple. We should not be grabbing, stealing that oilspill liability money to mask other spending, to double count it, to essentially steal it from the trust fund.

Again, my amendment does not prohibit the tax increase. By the way, if my colleague thinks the oil companies are paying that tax, not the consumer, I do not think he understands how the world works. But my amendment does not block that tax increase. It simply says money in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund has to be used for oilspill cleanup, and it cannot be used as an offset, cannot be double counted for other spending, as it is clearly in this bill.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, if everyone else is amenable, I am prepared to yield back--if everyone else is yielding back.

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

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

Mr. President, I want to ensure that the quorum call does not run down my time.

Yes, that would be my request, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time on all amendments be yielded back. I believe that is amenable to everyone.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I urge support for the Vitter amendment. It does two very simple things: It says any money coming into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund can only be used to clean up oilspills. It also says the money cannot be used as an offset for unrelated spending, as it is in this bill. It cannot be used to mask other deficit spending or as an offset for unrelated spending.

The amendment specifically does not negate or block the tax increase of funds into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

I reserve the reminder of my time.

Madam President, how much time remains?

My good friend and colleague's argument is not sophistry, it is just statements that are not true. This amendment does not block the tax increase, period. It does not. It simply says the money has to be used to clean up oil spills, and it cannot be used as an offset for other spending. Please support this amendment.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I am proud to recognize the members of the Monroe, LA, Rotary Club who have served our country honorably during war.

I would like to thank Kent Anderson, Edward Cascio, Tom Dansby, Kitty Degree, Donnie Franklin, George Hutchison, John Morris, Walt Pierron, and Barney Tucker for their courageous military service during wartime and for continued civic service in the greater Monroe area.

With the motto ``Service Above Self'' it is no surprise that these men would be inclined to be a member of Rotary. Their lifetime of service is exhibited not only in service to their fellow citizens during a time of war but also in continued commitment to their community.

Rotary's four-way test asks four questions of all things members think, say, and do. These questions are: Is it the truth? Is it fair to all concerned? Will it build goodwill and better friendships? Will it be beneficial to all concerned? These four simple questions have proven to be excellent guidelines for a life of service. We thank these men for serving the Monroe community with these principles. The Monroe Rotary Club has sponsored many local projects, including Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, youth baseball, the Food Bank of Northeast Louisiana, and the Salvation Army, to name just a few.

Thus, today, I honor these veterans for their distinguished service in the U.S. armed services during wartime, and for their continued service to the State of Louisiana in the Monroe Rotary Club.

Madam President, I stand to strongly support my amendment No. 4312, which I introduced today, along with Senators Gregg, Cornyn, Enzi, Alexander, and Hutchison, and I urge all of my colleagues, both sides of the aisle, to support this commonsense amendment.

This is about something at issue in this present extenders bill on the floor now that is near and dear to my heart, because it is directly related to the ongoing oil disaster, the ongoing crisis in the gulf, and that is an increase in taxes to supposedly fund the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund but which does not do that at all, which is stolen from that trust fund, used for completely unrelated purposes.

Put another way, it is double counted. It is used as a fraudulent offset to mask other spending, other deficit spending in the bill. We have a real crisis on our hands. Obviously it affects my State more than any other. But it is a national challenge and a national crisis. I have a pretty modest suggestion, in my opinion. Let's focus on the challenge. Let's meet the challenge, not use it and abuse it politically for other unrelated goals up here in Washington.

But I am afraid the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is being used and abused in this bill for those other completely unrelated goals. I am afraid it is a perfect example of Rahm Emanuel's now famous phrase from around February 2009, ``We are not going to let a good crisis go to waste.''

Well, this is a crisis. This is a whopper. But I take offense to not letting it go to waste, meaning to using and abusing it for other purposes. This bill proposes increasing the tax which ultimately is a consumer tax on energy products that is supposed to be for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

It increases that tax from 8 cents a barrel to 41 cents a barrel. That is an over fivefold increase. If that is necessary to clean up oilspills, to have it ready for the future, I am completely open to it. But that is not where the number came from. The number was pulled out of thin air. Because as soon as that money supposedly goes into the trust fund, it is stolen. It pays for completely unrelated spending items in the bill--for example, $15 billion over 10 years, and in this bill that is double-counted because it is used as an offset to mask deficit spending, to mask other spending items. That is wrong.

Amendment No. 4312 is simple and straightforward. It says and does two things. No. 1, it says that the revenue supposedly going into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund can only be used to clean up oilspills. It is supposed to be there to clean up oilspills, it is supposed to be a trust fund, so it can only be used for that purpose. Secondly, it says that it cannot be double-counted. It is not be used as an offset under the Congressional Budget Act or pay-as-you-go or anything else, as an offset for unrelated spending, to hide other deficit spending.

That is the amendment--two things, pure and simple. A number of the leadership of the majority have come to the floor concerned about this, as they should be, because it stinks, and the American people know it stinks, and have done gyrations and backflips to try to say they are not stealing the money, they are not double-counting, it will be there. If they really mean that, it is simple: No. 1, they should support my amendment. No. 2, they should publicly admit that the true deficit cost of this bill is not what they say it is. It is $15 billion more. It is not $79 billion; it is $94 billion. If they are sincere, if they mean it, great. Support my amendment and admit that the true deficit cost of the bill before us is $15 billion more. But don't steal from that trust fund. Don't use that money that is supposed to be there to clean up oilspills, such as the one that is hammering my State, for completely unrelated purposes. Don't double-count it. Don't use it as Enron accounting, a fraud to mask other spending, to artificially lower the deficit impact of this bill. That is wrong. That is using a crisis. That is ``not letting a crisis go to waste.''

We have a crisis. It is a heck of a crisis. It is a serious crisis. We should solve it. We should go at it. We should address it together as a national challenge. We should not use it and abuse it politically for an unrelated tax-and-spend agenda in Washington.

I urge all colleagues to come together, support amendment 4312, protect the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, prevent it from being used and abused, double-counted--Enron accounting to mask deficit spending. Do the right thing by the people of Louisiana and by the people of this Nation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up amendment No. 4312 to amendment No. 4301.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

With that, I relinquish the floor and thank my colleague for the courtesy of letting me call it up.

Mr. President, tday I am proud to recognize the members of the Monroe, LA, Rotary Club who have served our country honorably during war.

I would like to thank Charles C. Archibald, Raymond Armstrong, John Baker, Robert Barham, Ronald Blate, Reneau Breard, Lamar Buffington, Roy Cole, Jr., Barry Delcambre, Sam Donald, R.D. Farr, Leon Garfield, Hershal Gentry, James Greenlaw, William Guy, Harvey Hales, Robert Hammock, Howard John, Charles Johns, Barney Jones, Billy Lea, Earl Lingle, Miles Luke, Jim Myers, Ray Patron, Gregg Riley, Jack Tarver, Elbert L. Via and George Weaks for their courageous military service during wartime and for continued civic service in the greater Monroe area.

With the motto ``Service Above Self,'' it is no surprise that these men would be inclined to be members of Rotary. Their lifetime of service is exhibited not only in service to their fellow citizens during a time of war but also in continued commitment to their community.

Rotary's four-way test asks four questions of all things members think, say, and do. These questions are: Is it the truth? Is it fair to all concerned? Will it build goodwill and better friendships? Will it be beneficial to all concerned? These four simple questions have proven to be excellent guidelines for a life of service. We thank these men for serving the Monroe community with these principles. The Monroe Rotary Club has sponsored many local projects including Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, youth baseball, the Food Bank of Northeast Louisiana, and the Salvation Army, to name just a few.

Thus, today, I honor these veterans for their distinguished service in the U.S. armed services during wartime, and for their continued service to the State of Louisiana in the Monroe Rotary Club.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the ongoing oil disaster in the gulf. Being from Louisiana, we view this, correctly, as an ongoing disaster. This is not history. This is not a past event. This is not just some issue to debate in Washington. It is an ongoing crisis, an ongoing oil flow that continues to pollute the gulf and continues to devastate the region economically.

So in that context, there is, perhaps, only one thing that is more frustrating than an inadequate response from BP or an inadequate Federal response. The only thing more frustrating than that--in fact, more infuriating--is when this ongoing crisis and disaster is used and abused politically for other purposes.

I think that is exactly what is going on in this extenders bill. Because in this bill there is a huge increase in taxes that go to the Oil Pollution Act trust fund, but that money is not going to oil cleanup in the gulf. It is primarily being used to go into the trust fund to be stolen from it for unrelated spending to mask the deficit spending in this bill. Quite frankly, when we are going through an ongoing crisis in the gulf, that is not frustrating, it is outrageous.

What am I talking about exactly? This is what I am talking about: Right now, under Federal law, there is a tax levied on petroleum products of 8 cents per barrel. That funds the Oil Pollution Act trust fund. In this extenders bill, that tax is proposed to be increased by the majority side from 8 cents to 41 cents--over a fivefold increase.

If that were necessary and crucial to fund cleanup operations in the gulf, I would be completely open to it. We need to do whatever it takes. But that is not how that money is being used. It is being used as a cover to increase taxes and to offset other unrelated spending. Because in this bill that tax is increased from 8 cents to 41 cents, and then, just as quickly, that money is stolen from the trust fund to pay for other unrelated items in the bill.

Put another way, it is double counted. It is used as an offset on other spending items in the bill that have nothing to do with the oil disaster, nothing to do with the cleanup. It is double counting. It is an unfair offset. It is stealing from the trust fund to mask other spending. Unfortunately, I think this is a classic example of the old Rahm Emanuel quote from early on during this administration. Around February of 2009, Rahm Emanuel, the White House Chief of Staff, said: We are not going to let a good crisis go to waste. At the time, he was talking about the financial crisis and harnessing that to push forward the Obama administration's unrelated, left-leaning agenda.

Tragically, exactly the same thing is going on here: We are not going to let a good crisis go to waste. They are going to use the ongoing oil disaster in the gulf to help mask runaway Federal spending. Because, again, they are proposing to increase this tax from 8 cents to 41 cents--over a fivefold increase--but it does not go for gulf cleanup. It is stolen from there just as quickly as it is levied to pay for unrelated spending. It is double counted to mask the runaway spending also in the bill.

Again, that is not just frustrating; as a Member from Louisiana, that is downright offensive. This is an ongoing crisis. It is an ongoing challenge and we need to meet it. We need to focus on it. We need to deal with it. We do not need to use it and abuse it politically to push forward a preexisting, leftist agenda up here to pay for runaway and unrelated Federal Government spending.

I will have an amendment on the floor in this debate to address this issue. I will formally offer it and make it pending tomorrow. But my amendment, which will be cosponsored by Senator Judd Gregg, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, is real simple. It is going to say that whatever Congress does with this new revenue into the OPA trust fund, it cannot steal that revenue for unrelated spending. It cannot use that revenue, double count that revenue to mask other unrelated runaway deficit spending. That is what my amendment is going to say and that is what my amendment is going to do.

We have a crisis in the gulf. It is ongoing. It is not over yet, unfortunately, by a long shot, because the flow is ongoing, the pollution is ongoing, and it is getting worse and worse. We need to meet that crisis. We need to meet that challenge and do whatever it takes. We don't need to use and abuse that crisis to push forward other unrelated agendas here in Washington, DC.

This provision in the extenders package is doing just that. It is using and abusing that crisis to put money in the OPA trust fund just to take it out, to steal it for unrelated programs, to double count it, to mask runaway deficit spending completely unrelated to the oil disaster. As a Senator from Louisiana, I am crying foul. I am saying that is not only wrong, it is offensive. We shouldn't use and abuse an ongoing crisis in the gulf for other unrelated political purposes.

So, again, I will have a very clear amendment. It will say whatever we do with the OPA trust fund, that money can't be stolen from the trust fund and used for unrelated purposes. That

money can't be double counted to help mask runaway government spending having nothing to do with the ongoing crisis in the gulf. If it is a trust fund, let's treat it as a trust fund, and that means we take the revenue and we truly preserve it for that use and that use alone and it can't be stolen for anything else, and it can't be double counted to mask other deficit spending.

I think it comes down to a pretty fundamental decision: Are we here in the Senate going to meet the ongoing crisis in the gulf? Are we going to meet that challenge? Are we going to come together across party lines and do the right thing? Or, are some folks here going to use it and abuse it to advance an unrelated political agenda; to steal that money for unrelated spending; to double count it and help mask unrelated, runaway Federal Government spending? We shouldn't do that. That is rubbing salt in the wound of gulf coast residents. That is truly offensive and truly wrong.

I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to support this amendment. I will formally introduce it and make it pending tomorrow. Again, the idea is very simple. Whatever we do with the OPA trust fund, it should be to deal with the crisis in the gulf. It should be to preserve that and protect that in a true trust fund; not to steal it out of the trust fund to pay for unrelated spending; not to double count it to mask soaring Federal Government deficits having nothing to do with our response in the gulf.

Thank you, Mr. President. I look forward to continuing this debate. I look forward to filing, introducing, and making this amendment pending tomorrow, and I look forward to a positive vote.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object.

Madam President, I am overjoyed that I have been let into this discussion considering that heavy oil is now getting into Louisiana marshland and is impacting my State and the State of Senator Landrieu more than any other in the country. It is an ongoing crisis. I would like to spend a few minutes to get us out of Washington politics and back into focus on that real and ongoing crisis. Those fishermen from south Louisiana Senator Durbin talked about, that is what they are focused on, that is what they are dealing with. Their way of life and their livelihood is absolutely threatened. That is what I would like us to focus on and deal with in a constructive way.

I agree with Senator Menendez and Senator Lautenberg and others that the liability cap for economic damages which was set decades ago is way outdated. I have offered a permanent change to that to go into the future. In fact, my bill would set a cap for BP in this instance of $20 billion because it is based on the last four quarters of the responsible party's profits. For this instance, that is double the liability cap of the Menendez original bill.

Talking about UCing a permanent change of the law is, quite frankly, politics. That isn't going to pass the Senate by unanimous consent. I would like my version to pass by unanimous consent. I think it is a better approach, with all due respect, than the approach of the Senator from New Jersey. It would double the cap on BP than his original version would. But that is going to get objected to as well.

In light of that, I have what I think is a constructive alternative which is to propose something to address this ongoing crisis. Oil is still flowing in the gulf, more and more heavy oil getting beyond the Louisiana barrier islands, infiltrating the Louisiana marsh. How about trying to deal with this ongoing crisis that the people of Louisiana face?

With that in mind, I have introduced a liability proposal that is at the desk, that has been introduced, that could and should garner unanimous consent support. Let me outline what it is.

Several of the speakers--Senators Durbin, Lautenberg, and others-- alleged that somehow there are folks in this Chamber who are being shrills for BP, who are defending BP. Personally, I didn't hear that. Certainly, that is not me. I represent the State of Louisiana, and we are dealing with this ongoing crisis and disaster much more than any other State in the Union. But let's attack this directly and try to address--and I think we could and should

be able to do it by unanimous consent--this particular event.

My bill, S. 3410, does that. My bill mandates that the cap on economic damages for BP for this event be lifted and that there be no cap. BP has said publicly that not once, not twice, but on numerous occasions, and has even put it in writing that they will disregard any cap. My bill would say: Fine, that is a contract offer, and we are going to accept it. That will be binding under legislation, under the law. Under S. 3410, we would remove any cap on BP for this incident.

In addition, the other half of this bill establishes an expedited claims process because in this ongoing crisis in Louisiana, where people continue to hurt because of this ongoing spill, ongoing flow, they not only need their claim eventually paid in full, they need it to begin to be paid immediately. In this bill we establish an administrator to quickly and fairly resolve claims for economic damages. We establish an office of deepwater claims compensation to expedite that consideration. We set up offices within the gulf region to allow that claimant assistance, to advise people how to properly file their claim and expedite getting a claim. The other half of the bill, besides lifting the liability cap for economic damages on BP for this incident, expedites that claim process.

With that in mind, in the spirit of actually trying to act with regard to this ongoing crisis in the gulf that certainly affects my State, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3410, my acceptance of liability and expedited claims bill; that the bill be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Certainly.

That is absolutely my intention. That is what this bill would do. Several Senators on the other side correctly pointed out that we should not depend on the goodwill of BP. So let's not depend on the goodwill of BP. Let's fix it here. Let's fix it now. BP has made this offer. They have even put it in writing. My bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to accept that offer and codify this in the law so that with regard to BP and with regard to this ongoing crisis, there is no cap on economic damages.

The second half of the bill would set up an expedited claims process to ensure that the folks hurting on the ground in Louisiana and perhaps eventually elsewhere are helped in a timely way.

Yes. I renew my unanimous-consent request.

Madam President, reclaiming my time, I am obviously disappointed. I think we are seeing that maybe there is a difference when your State is in the nexus of this and your State is under attack from this oil. I want to fix a problem, not just make a

speech. We are not going to pass by unanimous consent a permanent change to the liability cap. I have a version that I think should pass, and I am going to keep fighting for it. Senator Menendez has a different version, and I am sure he will keep doing the same. I think mine is superior, but we can have that debate.

But as oil continues to gush from this well, as heavy oil continues to get behind the barrier islands of Louisiana and starts to infiltrate our marsh--which is an ecosystem issue 100 times worse than simply hitting our barrier islands and beaches--I would actually like to solve the problem and not just come here to the floor and give a speech. My bill does that by focusing on this event and this company, BP, in a way that we should all be able to agree on.

I commend the details of the bill to my colleagues. It does not depend on the language of any BP letter. It takes that as a starting point, and it removes all caps on economic damages for this event for this company. Why don't we do that by UC? We should be able to.

In addition, it fixes a real ongoing problem by establishing an expedited claims process. That is necessary too. Because it is great to tell these fishermen that your full claim will be paid eventually in the long run, but as the old saying goes: We are all dead in the long run. And they are looking to their next month's boat payment, their next month's house payment.

So I commend this serious legislation, which we should pass immediately, to my colleagues. Let's solve a problem. It is an ongoing problem. It is an ongoing crisis that sure as heck affects my State. Let's just not make a speech.

I yield the floor.

I rise to discuss flood insurance extension and our need to address that now, to get rid of uncertainty in the market and real concern that this will not be done in time, and the vital National Flood Insurance Program may be allowed to lapse yet again, as happened in the recent past.

Obviously, the National Flood Insurance Program is basic; it is necessary. It is necessary for the entire country, for real estate transactions everywhere. But it is certainly necessary in my home State of Louisiana and in a hurricane and flood zone.

As we sit here today, the National Flood Insurance Program will expire in the first few days of June, during the Memorial Day recess. So it is necessary and important that program be extended. I suggest we take up this noncontroversial matter now, do it now. There is no controversy. There is no objection on the substance of the program.

This will accomplish two things. First of all, our taking it up now rather than at the last moment right when we are pushed up against the Memorial Day recess will take care of real uncertainty in the market and give everyone--homeowners, those who need these extensions, those who need these policies, everyone in real estate--the security that this will be extended properly through at least the end of the year.

Secondly, I think it is reasonable to take it out of the context of the extenders package, which is otherwise very controversial. There are a lot of elements of the extenders package which will merit debate. There are a lot of elements of the extenders package which will be controversial and which will garner legitimate ``no'' votes.

This flood insurance extension is not one of them. This flood insurance extension, on its merits, does not have controversy and does not have objection, including because of the fact that it does not cost us anything. It is completely budget neutral, this extension through the end of the year.

This approach, which would erase uncertainty, which would calm the markets, which would remove it from other unrelated more controversial issues, is supported by everyone in the marketplace. In that regard, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter from the National Association of REALTORS in strong agreement with this approach and a similar letter from the National Association of Mortgage Brokers in strong agreement with this approach.

Simply to make these letters a part of the Record.

Mr. President, with that introduction, I would now propound my underlying unanimous-consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 372, which is the Vitter bill, S. 3347, a bill that extends the National Flood Insurance Program at no cost, deficit neutral, through December 31, 2010; that the bill be read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, reclaiming my time, if I could inquire, through the Chair, what the basis of the objection is, I think that would further the debate.

Well, again, I was inquiring through the Chair. I ask unanimous consent to inquire through the Chair and to propound the question, What is the nature of the objection?

I would simply make the request that we have a brief conversation about it, in that case. I realize no one is compelled to respond.

Well, it was a compelling argument. But, again, I am saddened by the fact that we cannot proceed in a straightforward way. There is no objection to the substance of this extension. This is a necessary program. It is a vital program. The extension, which my bill would accomplish through December 31, 2010, would be budget neutral and deficit neutral.

We would take this out of a much more controversial debate. We would settle the issue well before the program would otherwise expire. We would give people confidence. We would settle the markets. We would help people in real estate. We would help people in the economy. I suppose they are all compelling reasons not to travel down that path up here in Washington.

I think that is a shame. I think it is really sad because this should be, and is, on its substance noncontroversial.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I call up the Vitter amendment which is at the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I ask that the Chair notify me after 15 minutes has been used.

Madam President, I have called up Vitter amendment No. 3760, which is verbatim, word for word, the Ron Paul language that was added to the House bill in committee by a strong bipartisan vote.

In doing so, I also ask unanimous consent to add the following Senators as cosponsors: Senators DeMint, Grassley, Hatch, McCain, Bunning, Crapo, and Risch.

Madam President, on the Senate side, I have been a strong cosponsor and supporter of S. 604 and Senator Sanders' amendment on this bill. I present this different amendment because Senator Sanders decided to modify his amendment late last week, and I thought there was a continuing need to have this language exactly as it now appears in the House bill, as it was included in the House bill by a strong bipartisan vote in the house committee.

First, let me say I support the Sanders amendment. I will vote for it. It is a very important and useful look in the rearview mirror, if you will, a one-time audit of significant Federal Reserve activity, particularly in 2008 and 2009. I welcome that.

That should not be the end of the matter, and it should not be recognized as all we need because it clearly is not. We need to look in the rearview mirror at those important events. That was a very significant period. But we also need to look forward because these events and these debates and these opportunities for bailouts and other actions absolutely continue. The Vitter amendment addresses that--a look forward as well as that important one-time look back.

If we needed any reason to think we need this ability to continue to look forward and look at the detailed provisions of Fed activity, it is in the news right now--absolutely right now--in terms of the Greek and European economic crisis.

Although Chairman Bernanke assured Congress in recent testimony that ``we have no plans to be involved in any foreign bailouts or anything of that sort,'' very recently, in the last few days, the Fed has announced the opening of significant facilities to central banks in Europe that certainly involve it, at least at the margin, in that activity.

I do not know enough about those recent deals and currency exchange swaps to comment on whether they are a good idea or a bad idea, or to comment a clear conclusion about the extent to which they put U.S. taxpayers at risk. But clearly they are a significant event. Clearly, there is significant action of the Fed. And clearly, they are a perfect and very recent example of why we need to look in detail at what the Fed is doing on an ongoing basis.

With Greece, Portugal, and Spain, all possibly on the cusp of financial crisis, with this significant decision of the Fed, we must go beyond the Sanders amendment. We must look forward and not just one time back to ensure the American people that we all know what our Federal Reserve is doing and exactly why it is doing it.

This Vitter amendment does that. It will bring real reform and accountability to the Federal Reserve. That is essential, given the historic, major actions the Fed has undertaken in the last few years and continues to announce, even as we speak, activities that would not be covered by the Sanders amendment.

There has been a lot of rhetoric about all of the evil and dangerous things my amendment would do at the Fed. Let me directly address and dispel these notions.

First, there has been a lot of suggestion that this will politicize individual monetary policy decisions; that this will have individual Members of Congress bringing undue influence on those decisions. I truly think there are enormous protections in this amendment that will clearly avoid that situation.

Let's start with the clear language of the amendment:

Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as

interference in or dictation of monetary policy to the

Federal Reserve System by the Congress or the Government

Accountability Office.

It is a very clear, very broad, very strong statement. The amendment goes even farther. The other specific language of the amendment is very careful to ensure the audits that the amendment will require will not include unreleased transcripts or minutes of meetings of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors or of the Federal Open Markets Committee.

In addition to the extent any audit deals with an individual market action, such as a change in interest rates, the audit will only be released 180 days after the action occurs.

If this is an attempt for any Members of Congress, any individuals to control individual decisions, to have a direct impact on an individual decision, such as an interest rate decision, it is a pretty dumb, ineffective way to do it because the audit will not be out for half a year. Clearly, it will have no impact on that decision.

Under these protections, the Federal Reserve will still operate monetary policy independently, but it is reasonable that those actions, after an appropriate lag of time in some cases will be transparent, will be fully understandable and fully open to the American people and to Congress.

Again, I think it is very important to dispel these notions that are flying about that are untrue. I have talked with Chairman Bernanke several times about these proposals. Always, invariably, his stated concern is the opportunity for an audit to try to impact an individual decision, such as an interest rate decision. We have addressed that very directly in the way I explained.

In addition, the GAO cannot review many actions such as discount window lending--direct loans to financial institutions--open market operations and any other transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee.

GAO also, under the clear terms of this amendment, cannot look into the Fed's transactions with foreign governments. This, again, is plenty of protection against the concerns annunciated prior to this debate and vote.

What this comes down to is: Do the American people deserve full information about Federal Reserve decisions or is somehow this beyond the capability of Congress and the American people to digest?

In Federal Reserve Board minutes that were only recently released-- these minutes go back to 2004--Alan Greenspan said this:

We run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a

particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the

debate, and in this regard it is possible to lose control of

a process that only we fully understand.

It is somewhat amazing to me, but that is a verbatim, direct quote. More than any statistic, more than any other quote, more than any fact, that direct quote is about what this debate and what this amendment is about.

Is this an area of governance that affects all of our daily lives that we should leave purely up to the elites without ever having full transparency and a full opportunity for debate? Alternatively, is this still America, and do Congress and the American people deserve full openness?

Let me read this quote again because it goes to the heart of the issue:

We run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a

particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the

debate, and in this regard it is possible to lose control of

a process that only we fully understand.

If you adopt that offensive, in my opinion, elitist attitude, vote against the Vitter amendment. If you think we should have much greater openness and transparency and the opportunity for a full debate, with all of the protections of the individual, interest rate, and other decisions I have laid out, please vote for the Vitter amendment.

Again, Madam President, I will support the Sanders amendment. It is an important and appropriate one-time look back, one-time look in the rearview mirror about a very important period of time, particularly 2008-2009 when the Fed was busier and more active with more aggressive policy than ever before. But the opportunity for that aggressive policy is not over. We see that this week, with the Fed participating with European national banks in the crisis in Europe. We need this opportunity on an ongoing basis. We need the Vitter amendment. In addition, we need a full audit, and with all of the protections included, we need that opportunity continuing for full openness and transparency.

Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I stand to join with a bipartisan group of colleagues supporting the Sanders amendment and also in support of the Vitter side-by-side amendment. These are not mutually exclusive alternatives. Both Senator Sanders and myself and many others will strongly support both. I urge all my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to do the same.

Particularly since the financial crisis, the American people have been demanding several things. One of them clearly has been openness and transparency about U.S. economic policy, including at the Federal Reserve. That has been a major theme, particularly since the financial crisis. That has

been a clear demand of the American people, certainly of Louisianans, particularly since the financial crisis.

Most of us have voted and spoken in strong support of that. If we truly want to make it happen and if we truly want to preserve that record, we need to vote for the Sanders amendment and the Vitter amendment today to get that done.

If we want to continue to support the same push as in the stand-alone Sanders Senate bill, we need to vote for both amendments. If Members want to continue to support their position, if they voted for the Sanders budget amendment a few months ago--and a strong majority of this body did--they need to vote for both amendments. If they want to support the position of the House which, in a bipartisan way, supported exactly the same language as contained in my amendment through an amendment in the Banking Committee, a strong bipartisan vote, they need to support both amendments. Supporting one, walking on the other, is not good enough and will surely be recognized as not good enough.

I urge all my colleagues to support both amendments, to have full openness and accountability and transparency, with all the protections included against politicizing individual Fed decisions.

In many ways, I think it comes down to this one quote by Alan Greenspan from 2004:

We run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a

particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the

debate, and in this regard, it is possible to lose control of

a process that only we fully understand.

Imagine, Congress, the American people joining in on the debate. God forbid. Imagine the moneyed elites losing complete control of the process. God forbid. If Members share that Alan Greenspan view of democracy, vote against my amendment. But if they share a very different view, which I believe is embodied in this institution and our Constitution, please support both the Sanders and Vitter amendments.

I yield my time.

Mr. President, representing Louisiana in the Senate, along with my colleague, Senator Landrieu, you can image I have been focused exclusively on the ongoing oilspill, the leak, the ongoing flow that we and the country are battling. Because it has been almost a week since I have been in Washington and on the Senate floor, I wish to use the opportunity to briefly give an update from my perspective.

Along with many other officials, industry folks, interested citizens, I have been all through and up and down the coast as well as offshore. I had the pleasure of traveling with several Cabinet Secretaries and other Members of our congressional delegation last Friday, going offshore to look at the site of the former rig, the site of the ongoing spill or leak, very closely. I also took another helicopter tour later that day. I have been in all the effected coastal communities, St. Bernard Parish, Plaquemines Parish, which encompasses the mouth of the Mississippi River and beyond, lower Jefferson. I reached out to folks daily--local elected officials and leaders, the industry, Federal agencies, the Coast Guard and others working on this ongoing crisis and the Governor in the State--who were extremely proactively engaged.

Having done that, again, I wish to give a brief report to my colleagues and my fellow citizens. Obviously, I think we need to start in remembering that this is a great human tragedy and that started with the apparent loss of 11 lives. I think it is very important to start all our discussions and recollections about this incident with that human tragedy and with those families. As the media and others cover the environmental danger which is great, the economic impact which is enormous, I think sometimes those families, that enormous human loss is a little glossed over. So I certainly want to stop and reflect on that again and continue to offer my heartfelt thoughts and prayers to those 11 families who were the most impacted, who have suffered the most. I say a prayer for them every day, as do so many folks in Louisiana. We will continue to lift those families.

Second, this is an ongoing challenge and crisis because, as I said a minute ago, this leak, this flow continues. It has not stopped yet. Of course, priority No. 1 of everyone involved is to stop the leak, to stop the flow. It is a little difficult to estimate exactly what that flow is, but the best guesstimate--and it is an art, not a science--is about 5,000 barrels a day.

To put that in perspective, already, as of 4 or 5 days ago, that meant the product leaked surpassed all the spill, all the events combined from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. That was a big event, so this has already surpassed it 4 or 5 days ago. If that leak rate is constant and continues, 5,000 barrels a day, then in about another 35 days we will equal the volume leaked from the Exxon Valdez. That is a very real threat to equal or surpass that amount of oil. It is a huge event.

There is lots of activity going on at the wellhead in that area to try to control and stop the leak. There are multiple plans. I guess plan A, if you will, is to close off the valves that should have been shut down automatically through the blowout preventer. Needless to say, there was a massive failure in terms of that automatic closedown, which is supposed to happen at multiple levels. But there is ongoing effort to send underwater robots down to the floor of the gulf and shut down those valves. Unfortunately, that has not worked yet.

Plan B is to put out a large, constructed box or dome to cover the part of the gulf floor where the leak is coming from and then to pipe up the material, to vacuum the material in a controlled way from there to the surface and store it. That box or dome has been constructed. It will be sent out to the site in the next 48 hours. So that attempt will start. This technology has been used before in other spills but never in anything similar to this depth of water, 5,000 feet. It has been used in 400 feet, 500 feet, not 5,000. That is a big difference, which brings up all sorts of engineering challenges because of the enormous pressures at that depth of water.

Plan C, if you will, is to drill a relief well--in fact, two relief wells. That work has already begun, to relieve the pressure on this well and to bottle it, to put mud and cement down there to stop the flow from the existing well. That can work and that will work. The problem is that will take 60-plus days, 60 to even 90 days. That work has begun.

In addition to that work to stop the leak in the immediate area of the leak, the Coast Guard and BP and others in the industry are using dispersants and other methods of trying to mitigate the ongoing flow.

That is one category of very important work. There is a second category of extremely important work; that is, all the work that is underway to protect the Louisiana coastline and marshes, as well as similar work in neighboring States: Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.

I have to say, last Friday, when I took that plane ride with the Cabinet Secretaries, I was extremely concerned that all that coastal protection planning and execution had to go through BP. It was very evident to me that challenge and that end of the endeavor was bigger than BP, and bigger than any single company. I was concerned that was a bottleneck. I was not arguing in any way that BP is the responsible party under Federal law, that BP had enormous monetary responsibility that flowed from that--nobody is arguing with that. But operationally, I didn't want all that crucial coastal protection, marsh protection activity to be stalled or delayed because it had to fit through that bottleneck.

I think the good news from over the weekend is that old system was blown up and that bottleneck was relieved. I particularly wish to compliment and commend ADM Thad Allen, whom the President appointed on Saturday to be the Federal coordinator of this entire effort. I think he recognized, at my urging and that of many others, that having all that coastal planning and execution flow through BP was a problem and a mistake. So that has been corrected.

As of Friday, detailed planning, in terms of coastal and marsh protection efforts, was not getting done by BP. Frankly, it was not getting done by the Federal authorities--the Coast Guard or anyone else. But local and State leaders stepped in, the folks who know that coastline and that marsh area the best stepped in and they have provided those detailed plans over the last several days. So over that time period, in particular from Friday on, individual parishes, in coordination with the State, in coordination with many experts, have developed parish-by-parish plans to protect the coastline and the marsh. That has been a very strong effort; again, pulling together many resources, many levels of leadership, folks who know the coast, the terrain and the marsh like the back of their hands. So that void has been filled, thanks to that leadership and vision by local leaders in strong coordination with Governor Jindal and the State.

Now those individual parish-by-parish plans are ready. They are being tweaked, they are being improved, but they are ready. The next step is for the Coast Guard to formally approve those plans. That has been done on a preliminary basis, the first version of those plans, but most of those plans now have supplements. The Coast Guard needs to quickly and timely approve those supplemental plans. I talked to the Coast Guard leadership yesterday afternoon and urged them to do that in a very time-sensitive way, and they assured me that was happening. Once that happens, BP automatically is on the hook to pay for implementation of those plans. That takes no additional approval or signature from BP. That is automatic under Federal law. Then the plans need to be executed, either through BP or independently by using fishermen in the area, by using other contractors or otherwise. That is a decision of the locals and the State. I think that process is moving in a very good direction and is well underway.

Let me close by focusing on another big category of concern that I share

with so many others; that is, the concern about economic impact starting with the folks who have been hit and affected the most, the fishermen of Louisiana, oystermen, shrimpers, and the fishery industry. Already, as of at least Sunday and Monday, this is having devastating economic impact on those folks. Our hearts go out to them. Our prayers go out to them as well. I have been working with many others to try to get them the help and relief they need, in particular focusing on four categories of activity. First of all, when I talk to local fishermen in Saint Bernard and lower Jefferson and Plaquemines, all through Louisiana, they all say the same thing. They don't want handouts. They don't want a big Federal program. They want a job. They want a paycheck for hard work. That is their lives, that is their tradition, that is their spirit. They just want that to continue. So, first of all, all efforts are being made to hire them, in what is called the Vessels of Opportunity Program, to be the backbone of this coastal and marsh protection response. I have talked to both local and State leaders and BP, and we are all in agreement that a hyperaggressive effort needs to happen to hire as many of those fishermen as possible to man that coastal marsh protection effort.

Second, that is not going to take care of all the immediate need. I am pushing strongly to make sure BP holds to its promises of setting up a hotline and a program of getting quick compensation into the hands of affected families who are suffering economic loss. I talked directly with the CEO of BP yesterday about this. He assured me that was being done. That would mean quick checks to people and families who needed it without any requirement that those folks sign their lives away or cap their claims or sign away future claims. I am going to work very hard to enforce that personal promise. In fact, today, I am setting up a hotline in my office. It will be advertised on my Web site, www.vitter.senate.gov, to ensure that program is developing as promised. If anybody out there, fishermen or others who are applying into that program, is treated differently, I urge them to call this hotline and we will get all over that immediately and try to correct that situation with BP.

Third, in terms of helping that local industry, of course we are looking medium and long term in terms of full economic damages. BP is the responsible party. They are responsible for those economic damages. In addition, we have an OPA trust fund under Federal law which, at present, has a $1.6 billion balance, funded since the Exxon Valdez incident specifically to cover these sorts of direct economic impacts and balances. So I am very focused on that.

Fourth, additionally, there is an outpouring of citizen private support to help these families.

I am not directly involved, but I know several organizations under the umbrella of the United Way are leading fundraising efforts to directly help these families.

But as this ongoing challenge and crisis continues, that will continue to be a prime focus of mine: the families directly impacted, the fishermen, the oystermen, the shrimpers, their families who, after suffering through so much with the Katrina and Rita, were sort of hit below the belt yet again.

I will continue obviously, with Senator Landrieu and others, to stay very focused on this ongoing crisis to do all the sort of work I have described. I would ask my colleagues to be sensitive to that and to be aware of that. In particular, there is going to be, and there has to be, enormous discussion about policy, Federal and other policy, coming out of this disaster.

We need to look at mandated technology. We need to look at procedures. We need to look at the current liability cap and the OPA trust fund. All of that is important. But as we begin to do that, my first request would be that we all realize that down in Louisiana off our coast in the gulf, in the real world, there is an ongoing crisis that still continues. The leak is unabated. The flow is unabated.

I would ask all of us to be sensitive to that so we are not diverting attention or resources away from that ongoing crisis. The work needs to be there right now to shut down the flow of oil and to protect our coastline. Many Members, Democrats and Republicans, have offered their support to me and Senator Landrieu. We both deeply appreciate that and we look forward to working with everyone in this body on this ongoing situation.

I yield the floor.

Yes, I will.

I would expect to hold the floor for 14 minutes, at the least.

Mr. President, I rise to strongly agree with Chairman Levin that what we have heard in many of these hearings regarding Goldman Sachs' activity and others is extremely disturbing-- outrageous--and I don't support that activity in any way, shape, or form. I think I have a lot of credibility saying that, because back in the fall of 2008, I didn't support huge taxpayer bailouts to Goldman Sachs and the other megafirms. I opposed those taxpayer bailouts. I thought it was wrong and counterproductive and moving us in the wrong direction.

But I have to disagree with the distinguished chairman that the present version of the Dodd bill fixes these key issues. I don't think it does. So I encourage us to have a true bipartisan bill that can come to the floor to address the problems that exist.

I have three major sets of concerns about the Dodd bill in its present form. The first is very fundamental. It goes exactly to what I was talking about, having opposed all the bailouts. The Dodd bill expands too big to fail. It doesn't end it. The Dodd bill ensures future bailouts; it does not stop bailouts. That is a big problem to me and I believe to American taxpayers.

It is not just me saying this. It is many educated folks. Take Time magazine, not exactly an arch-conservative publication. They have reported:

Policy experts and economists from both ends of the

political spectrum say the bill does little to end the

problem of banks becoming so big that the Government is

forced to bail them out when they stumble. Some say the

proposed financial reform may even make the problem worse.

Also, Jeffrey Lacker--he is the President of the Richmond Federal Reserve Board--agrees with that. In a CNBC interview, CNBC asked him: ``Doesn't the Dodd bill allow for winding down failed institutions?'' And Lacker said: ``It allows those things but it does not require them.''

Let me repeat that because that goes to the heart of the problem:

It allows those things but it does not require them.

Moreover, it provides tremendous discretion for the Treasury

and FDIC to use that fund to buy assets from the failed firm,

to guarantee liabilities of the failed firm, to buy

liabilities of the failed firm. They can support creditors in

the failed firm. They have a tremendous amount of discretion.

Again, they have the ability for more bailouts, for continued pumping of taxpayer dollars into failed firms.

William Isaac is a respected former Chairman of the FDIC. He agrees.

Nearly all of our political leaders agree that we must

banish the ``too big to fail'' doctrine in banking, but

neither the financial reform bill approved in the House nor

the bill promoted by the Senate Banking Committee Chairman

Chris Dodd will eliminate it.

Simon Johnson, distinguished MIT professor, put it succinctly:

Too big to fail is opposed by the right and the left,

though not, apparently, by the people drafting legislation.

These are specific ways the Dodd bill actually expands too big to fail, specific authorities, specific sections that clearly do that. A lot of the attention has been paid recently to the $50 billion prepaid fund, and that is problematic in my mind. But that is not the only, not even the most problematic section of the bill that expands too big to fail. All these sections go directly to that issue.

My second main objection to the bill is, the bill also creates an all-powerful superbureaucracy that goes well beyond the need for targeted regulation to prevent what has happened in the last 5 years. Again, these are specific sections that create this huge, new, all- powerful superbureaucracy. One of the most worrisome is section 1081. That subjects anybody, any business that accepts four installment payments to the CFPB, the new superbureaucracy.

That is not just Goldman Sachs. That is not just Citigroup, Bank of America. That is my family's orthodontist. That is my neighborhood store that sells electronic equipment. That is a huge coverage affecting millions of small businesses throughout America.

Imagine, anybody who accepts four installment payments--is that the problem actor we are going after? This is a huge overreach, in terms of Federal regulation, and this is a fundamental problem with the bill.

Finally, the third major problem with the bill is, the present version of the Dodd bill does nothing to fix certain key causes of the crisis. What do I mean by that? It does nothing on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; a 1,100-page bill, supposedly comprehensive financial regulatory reform. Yet the four words ``Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac'' are nowhere in those 1,100 pages. This was not the only cause of the crisis, but this clearly, admittedly, was a key cause of the crisis-- disastrous policy and administration at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As Lawrence White, distinguished economics professor, has said:

The silence on Fannie and Freddie is deafening. How can

they look at themselves in the mirror every morning thinking

that they have a regulatory reform bill and they are totally

silent on Fannie and Freddie? It just boggles my mind.

It boggles my mind as well.

Also, there is nothing on lending standards. Clearly, one of the fundamental problems that caused the financial crisis is institutions which lent money, subprime loans, with no meaningful standards. What are the new standards we are enacting, putting into this bill? Absolutely nothing--silence on lending standards, underwriting standards. Clearly, that was a huge part of the last crisis.

Where is the change? These are the top firms that got bailout funds, including Goldman Sachs. I voted against all these bailouts. But these are the firms that got them.

These are the billions of taxpayer dollars that they received. This is their old regulator, the Federal Reserve, and this is the brave new world this Dodd bill will be introducing--exactly, precisely the same regulator. Where is the change?

We need meaningful financial reform, but we need it targeted on the problem. We need it to include all the causes of the problem.

These are key principles that would mean permanently ending bailouts and too big to fail. I fought against the bailouts a few years ago. We cannot continue that policy. We need to end it.

Ending all bailout authorities for the Federal Reserve and FDIC. It is not good enough to say we have a new resolution mechanism. If those bailout authorities continue as they do in the Dodd bill, they will be used again.

Enhanced consumer protection without overreach, without creating this new all-powerful superbureaucracy.

Greater transparency for derivatives, while allowing businesses to properly, legitimately manage risk.

Begin addressing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Again, the current Dodd bill does not include four words, ``Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac.''

Establish minimum lending standards for mortgages. We had subprimes with no underwriting standards, no lending standards. This present Dodd bill does not change that. We must change that.

Increase competition for credit rating agencies. They were clearly part of the last crisis.

Improve coordination and communication among all financial Federal regulators.

These are the principles of strong regulatory reform. I hope these are the principles around which we can come together in a bipartisan way. I certainly support that effort by Richard Shelby and Chairman Dodd. I encourage that effort. But those negotiations will not be meaningful unless we demand on the Senate floor that they be meaningful and demand that a bill moving to the Senate floor is true reform and a bipartisan approach. I urge that approach. I enthusiastically support that approach.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as my colleague knows, I object. Let my say why I object.

Mr. President, may I proceed?

Let me explain why I object, as I have explained very openly, very clearly every step of the way. Michael Walsh is one of the top nine officers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He is part of the key leadership.

Senator Dorgan is a fierce, active, vocal defender of that bureaucracy, but before he continues and plunges into

that fierce and vocal defense, I suggest he step back for just a minute and truly think about and understand what he is defending. Before he accepts every suggestion, every argument of the Corps of Engineers' bureaucracy, I suggest he step back and look at the history of the corps and look at the source he is accepting as gospel truth.

Senator Dorgan mentioned Hurricane Katrina, called it a great natural disaster. It was a great natural disaster, a horrible natural disaster. It was also a horrible manmade disaster because if we want to talk about the greatest damage--not the only damage but the greatest damage--inflicted upon the country from Hurricane Katrina--the flooding of the city of New Orleans--that was manmade by the Corps of Engineers.

That was due directly to the design flaws of the outfall canals in New Orleans by the Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers has admitted this, and we have laid that out in congressional testimony since Katrina. The problem is, no one in that bureaucracy has ever been held accountable for that. I don't want to focus on looking back. The even greater problem is looking forward because that bureaucracy has not fundamentally changed.

I challenge my distinguished colleague, Senator Dorgan, to spend half as much time working with others to change the truly broken bureaucracy of the Corps of Engineers, spend half as much time as he has spent as a fierce, active, and vocal defender of that broken bureaucracy.

I am fighting for that change. I will continue to fight for that change. I will use every tool available to me as a Senator to do so. For instance, in the last WRDA bill, I worked very hard to craft language to include in the bill the Louisiana Water Resources Council, an outside peer review body, to bring outside, independent expertise and analysis to work with the corps on key projects following Hurricane Katrina. That was included in the 2007 WRDA bill. It passed into law. Do my colleagues know what the corps did to implement that? Nothing. Do they know how they acted to move that forward, an absolute, clear, statutory authorization from Congress? They did nothing. They said they are not going to do it.

Finally, I got them to change their tune. Finally, they are committed to beginning to move forward 3 years later, but I had to get their attention through this scenario.

Unfortunately, that is not the only item on which they have ignored mandates from Congress and ignored pressing needs all around the country, including my part of the country. I tried to pinpoint specific items where they were not living up to their mandate or to Congress's direction. I could have listed dozens. Instead, I focused on nine specific items. I worked closely with the corps, had several meetings discussing those items in an abundance of trying to work with them toward resolution. After that, I focused on three of the nine, rather than all nine. I laid out why they did have the authority to move forward in some positive way on all that. I am going to continue to do so until we get real, positive change at the corps and real, positive progress on these important issues.

The Senator's main argument, apparently spoon-fed by the corps, is that the corps has no authority to do anything in these areas, no authorization language from Congress. That is flat wrong. Again, before the distinguished Senator simply accepts every little e-mail, every little memo the corps feeds him, perhaps he should consider the source of that information. If the corps was always right, New Orleans would have never flooded. If everything the corps said was good and true and gospel, we would never have had those billions of dollars of damage in terms of the catastrophic flooding of New Orleans caused solely by breaches in canals which were design flaws of the Corps of Engineers.

Let me go through a few specifics and explain--I have done this with the corps over and over--the authority they do have. One of my top concerns--

I will yield when I am through. One of my top concerns is the critical outfall canals in New Orleans. It was the breaches in those canals that led to 80 percent of the catastrophic flooding of New Orleans. It was those breaches that were caused by design flaws of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. All I am asking under this category is that the corps do a risk/cost analysis of the different options they have identified in terms of fixing the outfall canals.

The reason I am concerned about the path they are moving down, which is their option 1, is that I truly believe it is much less safe and much less robust than their identified option 2. It is not only I who believes that. It is the corps who admits it. In the corps' report to Congress, which we mandated, the corps itself said: Option 2--that is the option they are rejecting--is generally more technically advantageous and may be more effective operationally over option 1 because it would have greater reliability and further reduces the risk of flooding.

In addition, Chris Accardo, the corps' chief of operations in New Orleans, said he is in favor of option 2 over option 1, absolutely.

In light of that, all I am asking, with the rest of the Louisiana delegation, with all the affected communities in southeast Louisiana, is that the corps perform a risk/cost analysis comparing these different options before they forge ahead building the option they themselves admit is less safe, less dependable.

It is also important to note that the corps clearly has authorization from Congress to do this study. General Van Antwerp, in my office, clearly said they do. They have authorization. They have authority. They can do the study. They are not going to do it. Why don't we compare these options, the relative risk and the relative cost, before the Corps of Engineers plunges ahead to build the option they themselves say is less secure and less safe?

The second key issue I have focused on in my letters to the corps is the mandated AGMAC project, including the buildup of protection banks in Vermilion Parish to give that parish greater protection from storm surge. They were devastated during Hurricane Rita, in particular, and also in significant events since then. Again, the corps has authority to do this project. This project is in the WRDA bill. The corps says: We have busted our spending limits. We have explained to them various ways they can solve that problem by using O&M funds, exactly as they have used O&M funds for bank buildup in the MRGO project. We have given them another route, to use the CWPPRA program in conjunction with the WRDA-mandated project. The corps' response has been pretty simple. Its response has been: No, we don't want to do it.

Third and finally, the other big concern I have highlighted and the most obvious case of the Corps of Engineers ignoring the mandate of Congress, not having authorization, actively ignoring the mandate of Congress, is the critical Morganza to the gulf flood protection project. That project was initiated in 1992, 18 years ago. Senator Dorgan, the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, wants to say that the corps has no authority in this area. This project was included in three different water resources bills, once, then twice, and then a third time. Every step of the way, the corps has come up with excuses why they cannot move forward. Under their present plan, they are restudying the project, and that restudy is due in December 2012. There is one little problem with that. That will be after the next water resources bill, which we hope to pass in 2011. All the people of LaFourche and Terrebone Parishes who are going without adequate protection, who are in danger every additional hurricane season, having missed three WRDA trains because of the foot-dragging of the corps, now under the corps' present plan, they will miss a fourth.

We wish to talk about authorization from Congress. Is specific, full construction authorization in three WRDA bills not good enough? If that is not good enough, I don't know how to meet the corps' criteria.

If those three particular concerns are not enough, we can expand the list. In an attempt to work with the corps, in an attempt to find resolution, I have narrowed the list. I have tried to compromise. I have offered to meet with them. I am offering to meet with them again, as I have done consistently throughout the process. But if narrowing the list is going to be held

against me, we can expand the list. How about the final report of the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration effort, a comprehensive analysis mandated in Public Law, an emergency appropriations bill after Hurricane Katrina? It was due in December 2007. It is not finished. It is not delayed because of the State of Louisiana. It is delayed because of the corps.

I know Senator Dorgan is anxious for a promotion of the corps leadership. I have to say, I am anxious for this critical report that was due in December 2007. We haven't seen it.

Is that not good enough? How about the Louisiana Water Resources Council I talked about? That was mandated in the 2007 WRDA bill. The corps has not produced it yet. It wasn't just authorized; it was mandated. It is not up and running. Senator Dorgan is anxious for a promotion for the pristine corps leadership. I am anxious for that.

How about the establishment of a Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force? That was mandated in the 2007 WRDA. We haven't seen that yet. The integration team under that task force was a separate team mandated in the 2007 WRDA, 3 years ago. Nowhere to be seen. That is not being held up by the State. That is the corps. Clear authorization, clear mandate, nowhere to be seen.

How about a comprehensive plan for protecting and preserving the Louisiana coast? That was due in November 2008. That was mandated in the 2007 WRDA. It is not being held up by the State, but it is nowhere to be seen. Senator Dorgan is anxious for promotion for the pristine corps leadership. I am anxious for this important work to protect Louisiana citizens.

That is not the whole list. How about the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Ecosystem Restoration Plan? That was due in May of 2008. We haven't seen it. It has not been submitted. It is a corps report, not a State of Louisiana report. Nowhere to be seen.

How about section 707 of the WRDA? That actually mandates that the State can get credit from one project and it can be transferred to another project. It is in clear language. The corps says they are not going to do it. You want clear authorization? We have it. The corps is ignoring it.

How about section 7006 in the same 2007 WRDA. That requires that five construction reports be submitted to Congress to move forward with key projects authorized in that WRDA, five critical projects. They are authorized in the WRDA bill. They can't move forward until those construction reports are submitted by the corps.

We have not seen the first thing of any of those five reports. The State is not holding them up. We are waiting on the corps. The distinguished Senator is anxious about a promotion for the pristine corps leadership. Well, great. I am anxious to see that mandated report.

We can go on and on. The point is----

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.

Mr. President, I am disappointed. I am disappointed. I am disappointed my distinguished colleague is continuing to simply blindly, in my opinion, be a fierce defender of a bureaucracy which is truly broken. Not a pawn in anything, a member of the leadership, one of the top nine officers of the leadership of this bureaucracy.

For my part, I will continue to fight to change, to fundamentally change that bureaucracy and, for starters, to have them follow the law, to have them follow their mandates, their authorizations in the WRDA bill and the other legislation I have outlined.

I have outlined the authorization clearly to the corps. I will outline it again. I have outlined these significant studies that are overdue, have never been produced, not because of the fault of anyone else, not because of the State of Louisiana. I will meet with them next week. I will continue to work on that. I invite the Senator to work on that sort of fundamental change, not just fiercely defending this, in my opinion, truly broken bureaucracy.

I will also note, as the majority leader noted, one Senator cannot kill this nomination. One Senator cannot stop this promotion. The Senate can move on it, so I invite the Senate and the majority leader to do that. It is completely within the majority leader's--his party's power to move on that and to proceed with this nomination, and certainly one Senator cannot stop that. But this one Senator will continue to fight to hold the corps' feet to the fire to make them live by their mandates, to move forward on these critical protection issues for Louisiana.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, just to close, I have said thank you many times, certainly to the American people, to these bodies in Washington representing the American people. The Senator is certainly right about that generosity and about a lot of the work of the corps.

I do disagree with the Senator in sort of lightly tripping over as a minor mistake design flaws that caused 80 percent of the catastrophic flooding of the city of New Orleans. I wouldn't think that is a minor mistake to trip over. But I will continue to work with the corps to resolve these issues, and I will go through every one of those additional 11 items I outlined because we are waiting on that critical work and on those critical reports. That is not only authorized, but it is mandated in the 2007 WRDA bill and other bills, and we need that to move forward.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Madam President, I join my colleagues in urging the Senate to come together--Republicans and Democrats--around a strong bipartisan approach to financial regulatory reform. We need to address the critical causes behind the financial crisis of the last several years, and we need to do it right and in a bipartisan way.

Unfortunately, we are not on that path yet. The Dodd bill, which the President and Chairman Dodd and others are trying to push to the floor, is a purely partisan approach and, unfortunately, it gets a lot of the bigger issues wrong.

First, and perhaps most importantly, the Dodd bill expands too big to fail. It does not end it. The Dodd bill ensures more future bailouts. It does not get rid of the need for bailouts. It is not just me saying that. As conservative an authority as Time magazine wrote a few weeks ago:

Policy experts and economists from both ends of the

political spectrum say the bill does little to end the

problem of banks' becoming so big that the government is

forced to bail them out when they stumble. Some say the

proposed financial reform may even make the problem worse.

Another significant authority is Jeffrey Lacker. He is president of the Richmond Federal Reserve. He was interviewed by CNBC. The CNBC reporter said: Well, doesn't this bill allow all sorts of resolution? Isn't that ending too big to fail? He said, very clearly:

It allows those things, but it does not require them.

That is the heart of the problem here: It allows those things, but it does not require them.

Moreover, it provides tremendous discretion for the

Treasury and FDIC to use that fund to buy assets from the

failed firm, to guarantee liabilities of the failed firm, to

buy liabilities of the failed firm. They can support

creditors in the failed firm. They have a tremendous amount

of discretion. And if they have the discretion, they are

likely to be forced to use it in a crisis.

Exactly, precisely, what we saw in the last few years.

William Isaac, former FDIC Chairman, has echoed exactly the same concern:

Nearly all of our political leaders agree that we must

banish the ``too big to fail'' doctrine in banking, but

neither the financial reform bill approved in the House nor

the bill promoted by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris

Dodd will eliminate it.

Finally, Simon Johnson, a respected MIT professor:

Too big to fail is opposed by the right and the left,

though not apparently by the people drafting legislation. The

current financial reform bills are effectively a wash on the

issue.

There are multiple sections in the Dodd bill that expand too big to fail: sections 113 and 114 essentially creating a ``too big to fail'' club; other sections creating a new permanent bailout slush fund; other sections allowing the bailout of creditors and codifying backdoor bailouts. That is a significant flaw in the bill--and not the only one.

My second big concern is that the Dodd bill creates a new all- powerful superbureaucracy with powers well beyond what is necessary to fix the problems that led to the last crisis. Again, there are several sections creating that new all-powerful bureaucracy. Perhaps the most significant one in my mind is one that subjects anybody who accepts four installment payments to the authority of this huge new bureaucracy.

I have four kids. Three are teenagers with braces. That is their orthodontist. That is the electronic store down the street. None of these folks were part of the problem that led to the financial crisis, but they sure accept four installment payments. We cannot pay for three sets of braces otherwise. This is a huge new superbureaucracy with enormous authority.

Finally, another big problem with the Dodd bill is it does nothing to fix other key causes of the crisis. For instance, it does nothing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We have a so-called comprehensive bill, with multiple titles, thousands--tens of thousands--of words, hundreds of pages, and the words ``Fannie Mae'' and ``Freddie Mac'' are never included, nowhere to be found. As Lawrence White, an economics professor, said:

The silence on Fannie and Freddie is deafening. How can

they look at themselves in the mirror every morning thinking

that they have a regulatory reform bill and they are totally

silent on Fannie and Freddie? It just boggles my mind.

And it boggles my mind as well.

Finally, nothing on lending standards, underwriting standards-- exactly what Senator Isakson was talking about. The core fundamental problem behind the last financial crisis was that all sorts of loans were written that any reasonable person would know from the outset had no chance of making--the person getting the loan had no realistic chance of keeping up on that loan because there were no lending standards, no underwriting standards. An institution wanted to start the loan and sell it off and get it off its books and get quick profit for initiating the loan. The Dodd bill doesn't address that and doesn't create those lending standards we need to create.

So where is the change? We need change. We need real reform, but where is the change?

These are the top firms that got bailout funds from the taxpayers, hundreds of billions of dollars all told. This is the old regulator of those firms. This is the new regulator of those firms--exactly the same. The regulation of these entities doesn't change, doesn't move-- exactly the same. Again, we need regulatory reform, but we need it zeroed in on the real problems, and we need a strong bipartisan approach, not a highly partisan approach.

Many of us think these are the basic principles of true regulatory reform: permanently ending bailouts and too big to fail, which the Dodd bill clearly does not do; ending all of the bailout authorities of the Federal Reserve and FDIC because if they still have those authorities, they will use them in the future; enhancing consumer protection without creating this huge new superbureaucracy that goes well beyond what is needed to address the causes of the crisis; creating greater transparency for derivatives while allowing businesses to manage risk, as Senator Judd Gregg explained.

Begin to address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those were key causes of the crisis. There is no excuse for those four words to be completely left out of a so-called comprehensive reform bill.

Establish minimum lending standards for mortgages. That was a key cause of the crisis. It is ridiculous for that to not be addressed in a so-called comprehensive reform bill.

Increase competition for credit rating agencies. We saw significant problems there.

And dramatically improve coordination and communication among the regulators. This would be an approach targeted on the real problems, not a bill using the last financial crisis as an excuse to reach another preexisting agenda. This would be a bipartisan approach which the American people can support, and I hope this will become the outline of the approach the Senate adopts as we move forward.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.