Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank Senator Udall.

I am proud to join with my colleagues in speaking on climate change. Senators have been speaking on this issue since yesterday, all through the night, to add their voices to the millions of voices around the country who are committed to fighting climate change.

The level of commitment we have seen from these Senators is extraordinary, and we will need an extraordinary commitment here in Congress, around the country, and around the world to address this issue. We will need that commitment because we are on the cusp of climate crisis, a point of no return, which will threaten our health, our economy, and our world.

We are also on the cusp of innovation in clean energy and energy efficiency which has the possibility of transforming energy production and consumption. In other words, we are at a moment of great danger and great opportunity, a moment where we must make choices about whether we will go boldly into the future, investing in innovation, establishing serious and smart regulations, and committing to address the climate crisis or whether we will continue to subsidize fossil fuels of the past and ignore the risks to our future. It is up to us.

Doing something new is hard, because when it comes to environmental and energy issues in this country, powerful, entrenched, deep-pocketed corporations are lined up to fight any change from the status quo. These powerful corporations defend policies which poison our air and foul our water with little regard for the well-being of future generations. These powerful interests work hard to tilt the playing field so energy entrepreneurs and innovators have a hard time getting a foothold in the market. These powerful interests too often have a stranglehold on our political system, blocking not only bold change, but even conservative, market-based reforms.

When it comes to environmental and energy policy, the system is rigged--it is rigged against our families and it is rigged against our future. Let me give one example.

In 2012, the five biggest oil companies--ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips--made combined profits of $118 billion. At the same time, they sucked down billions of dollars in tax subsidies from the American people. Over 10 years, oil and gas companies will receive $40 billion in taxpayer subsidies. And if the Republicans have their way, these companies will get even bigger breaks in their taxes.

Think about what $40 billion could mean for our future: a serious investment in research to figure out the

problem of energy storage and to develop better incentives for wind and solar installation; certainty and predictability for investors and entrepreneurs who have a big idea in green energy or energy efficiency and want to build a new business. And here is the point to underline: We can invest in research and develop new markets without spending any new money, if we just shift our priorities from old fossil fuel energy to new clean energy.

A tax policy which protects these powerful interests of the past is a tax policy which is rigged against the entrepreneurs, small businesses, and innovators of the future. It is rigged against families who want their children to live in a world where they can drink the water and breathe the air.

In preparation for the speech I am giving this morning, I asked Americans to write in and talk about how their lives will be affected if we do not get serious about climate change. My question was a simple one: If we don't do anything at all to stop climate change, what do you think the world will look like 25 years from now?

I would like to read some of the responses for the record. These are just a few of the more than 5,000 letters I received on this issue. It is obvious to me the people of Massachusetts and the people of our great Nation are worried about this problem. So let me read from some of their letters.

Blake Cady of Brookline, MA, writes:

I served on a US Navy icebreaker in the Arctic from 1959-

1961 and saw th[at] relatively pristine region with intact

permafrost and heavy sea ice well into the summer off Baffin

Island and further north. Now, much of the Arctic Ocean ice

cover is disappearing and is predicted to be entirely gone by

the end of the 2030 summer season. . . .

Currently there is open water across the Northwest Passage

in the summer, and shipping has become routine, [which is] a

profound change already. There will be untold alterations--

from the warming Arctic Ocean to accompany the rapidly

melting Greenland ice cap--which have the potential to change

global currents and further escalate global warming trends.

There is still a narrow time window to address this looming

climate disaster, but action must be forceful and rapid to

escape its worst aspects. I fear for my children's and

grandchildren's future.

A letter from Susan Timberlake of Florence, MA:

I used to be a clinical chemist. We made up ``buffers'' as

part of our tools that kept a solution at the pH [that is,

relative acidity] that you desired even as you added things

that would upset the pH.

Really good buffers have really good capacity.

CO2 dissolved in water as a bicarbonate has pretty

good buffering capability. Once all the buffering capacity is

used up the pH change is precipitous. The pH shifts radically

and directly as anything else is added to the solution. You

lose any control you had over the chemical reaction(s).

And here is where she makes the connection.

The oceans are where much of our excess CO2 is

going. . . . So far the oceans have been absorbing the

CO2. . . . But the coral reefs and the starfish on

the west coast of America don't lie. We have no idea . . .

how much buffering capacity is left (or not). If we keep this

up we will have a well carbonated, acidic--and quite dead--

ocean.

[That's] [n]ot something I can bear leaving for my children

and grandchildren. (And I am a registered Republican--[a]

conservationist in the real sense.)

A letter from Nilan M. MacDonald of Scituate, MA:

I live in Scituate, MA, on Boston's South Shore. We are

about two miles from the coast. In 25 years we could be

flooded out. Also, storms are worsening, and we have been

left without power for days at a time, which has endangered

our health ([and] we are seniors).

In 25 years, populations who live at sea level will become

climate refugees as sea levels rise. This will affect people

worldwide. Crops will be threatened by droughts and floods.

Diseases now in check will become rampant as the planet

warms. Mosquitos are the deadliest animal vector for human

diseases--and their numbers and range will greatly increase

with climate change.

Dorothy Bagley of Hudson, MA writes:

If folks think that this has been a bad winter in New

England and weird all over the world, [consider] how much

worse it will be in 25 years. Areas of concern to me [are]:

weather changes affecting crops, water supplies, flooding,

etc. Our whole style of life is in danger . . .

I am a retired Chemistry Teacher and I know what the effect

of temperature is on chemical reactions. Our World is one big

chemistry experiment . . . with so many variables which

compound the problems.

We can take steps, however small they may seem, like

lessening pollution due to carbon-containing fuels, lower

speed limits, increase[d] use of alternative fuels,

chang[ing] the Nation's attitude about recycling . . .

chang[ing] our transportation by . . . mak[ing} our cars more

efficient, etc.

Education and focus are the keys. People need to know that

they can effect a change both positively and negatively.

Unless citizens' attitudes change toward any of the above,

nothing will help to minimize what will be in 25 years.

A letter from Mon Cochran of Orleans, MA, who writes:

Dear Elizabeth,

I am 72 years old and living on Cape Cod, where I grew up.

When I was a kid back in the 1940s my parents and other very

old people used to tell scary stories about the Hurricane of

1938, and how it knocked down all the trees and blew the

roofs off houses. We saw pictures of boats smashed on the

shore or carried up into the streets by the flood tides.

As I grew up in Orleans, we experienced a series of

hurricanes, starting with Carol in 1954 and then Diana the

next year. Each time our parents remember 1938--and each time

I remember being very, very scared as the storms barreled

across the bay like furious freight trains while we cowered

in the basement. In 1960 Donna came through, and even though

I was 18 years old by then the fear that the house would be

destroyed brought nightmares.

Now I am a grandfather, and know much more about what

causes hurricanes and why they can be so destructive than my

parents did back then. For the past twenty years or so we

have been lucky on the Cape--most of the really bad storms

have been confined to the Caribbean or turned inland before

reaching us.

My grandchildren Tom and Kay and I have been learning about

global warming together, and we have noticed, in particular,

how our bay, and the ocean it connects to seems to be warmer

every year. The ocean water over at Nauset Bay is so warm in

the summer that we can boogie board indefinitely without

getting cold. What we have been reading about hurricanes is

that the warmer the water is, the more energy that is

available to the storm and the stronger it becomes.

Kay and Tom were very scared by the pictures of Superstorm

Sandy they saw on TV and were worried that a storm like that,

or worse, might hit us here in South Orleans. As for me, I

think it is just a matter of time, but I don't tell them

that. They live in Boston and have visions of a great wall of

water roaring into Boston Harbor, knocking down all the

buildings in the waterfront and surging up into the

neighborhood where they live in Roslindale.

From what I have been learning, we have already pumped so

much extra carbon into the air, that these much more extreme

storms are likely to occur no matter what we do. If we

redouble our effort to switch to clean energy--solar, wind,

hydro, tidal, geothermal, and biofuels--the way they are

doing now in Europe, and even in countries such as China and

India, then 25 years from now Tom and Kay will know that a

sustainable lifestyle is possible and their children can look

forward to a much safer and more secure second half of the

20th century.

From Ken Marien of Westminster, MA:

[I expect to see] [m]ore severe weather patterns, colder

colds, warmer warms, dryer days, wetter floods, bigger

storms, higher winds, more dust, more mud, loss of marginal

growth plant and animal life.

I have many more letters. As I said, I received more than 5,000 letters from people in Massachusetts and across the country. I wish I could read every one of them. I don't kid myself. We are up against an army of lobbyists, and we will not win all the fights ahead. But here in the Senate we have leaders who will fight as hard as we can to protect our environmental future.

The Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse, has shown dedication to addressing climate change and his commitment to ocean issues and the coastline has been visionary.

My colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Markey, has committed his long career to protecting and preserving the environment.

Senator Boxer, from California, who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee in the Senate has been a force to fight to protect our environment. Senator Schatz, from Hawaii, organized Senators to speak through the night on this issue and is quickly distinguishing himself as a leader in the fight against climate change.

In a few minutes, Senator Cardin will come forward and continue this important discussion.

I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with such dedicated public servants and with all of the Senators who have held the floor for so many hours to draw attention to our urgent need for climate change.

We are on the cusp of a climate crisis, a point of no return. We can continue to subsidize polluters and ignore

the warnings all around us or we can invest in a future that can create jobs, a future that can strengthen our national security and, most of all, a future that can save our planet.

This is our moment in history. We can act, we must act, and we will act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Schumer for his great leadership on this issue and his strong words.

I am pleased to join with my colleagues on the floor to speak about the positive impacts of the Affordable Care Act and the impact it is having on our Nation's health and particularly the health of our seniors.

We have all heard about the benefits of the Affordable Care Act in terms of increasing coverage: Over 4 million people have already signed up for the affordable private health insurance through the State and Federal exchanges, millions more have signed up for Medicaid coverage, and millions more young people are now able to stay on their parents' insurance policies until they are 26--and the numbers are growing.

But as important as these figures are, the Affordable Care Act isn't just about expanding coverage for the uninsured. It is also about improving the quality of care and the quality of coverage for all Americans, including our seniors.

Seniors in this country rely on the Medicare Program--and they should rely on the Medicare Program--because Medicare respects a promise that we made as a country to ensure that people who contribute to the program during their working years will have their health care needs taken care of after the age of 65. We have a duty to keep that promise, and we need to build on that promise.

To keep the promise of Medicare, we have to make sure the program stays afloat. The Affordable Care Act does this by improving the quality of care, by coordinating care, and by better delivering under Medicare so we reduce waste in the program and we use Medicare dollars in a way that improves health outcomes for our seniors.

The Republicans have a very different approach to Medicare solvency. They want to reduce benefits, they want to increase premiums and copays so it is harder for seniors to afford to go to a doctor, and they even want to end Medicare's guaranteed benefits entirely by turning it into a voucher system. Think about that: lower benefits, charge more, and end Medicare as we know it.

These approaches are wrong. They do not reflect our values, and they also don't reflect good policy because cutting Medicare benefits will not stop seniors from having heart attacks, it will not stop seniors from getting sick. It will just push them into emergency rooms and private insurance systems--which is more expensive and less efficient than Medicare--or, worse, it will prevent them entirely from getting the medical care they need.

Fortunately, the Republican vision is not the law of the land. The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land, and it is already showing progress in improving the solvency of Medicare and the quality of care for our seniors.

We can already see how the accountable care organizations created under the Affordable Care Act are saving money. The pioneer accountable care organizations--five of which are now operating in Massachusetts-- have already saved Medicare nearly $147 million while continuing to deliver high-quality care. New standards for hospital reimbursements have reduced the number of people who need to be readmitted, meaning that for seniors 130,000 fewer Medicare beneficiaries had to check back into a hospital last year.

Thanks to these and other changes, the Medicare trust fund will be solvent for nearly 10 years longer than was projected before we passed the Affordable Care Act. The results are clear. When it comes to our seniors, the Affordable Care Act is saving money and saving lives.

But the Affordable Care Act does more. It builds on the promise of Medicare by improving prevention coverage and reducing actual out-of- pockets for our seniors. Last year over 70 percent of seniors--25.4 million people in Medicare--visited their doctor and received a preventive service, such as a critical colonoscopy or a lifesaving mammogram. They received it for free because of the Affordable Care Act. Despite high drug prices, the average senior in America saved an average of $1,200 on their prescription drugs in 2013 because of the Affordable Care Act closing the doughnut hole in Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage. The Affordable Care Act has made these changes--reducing the cost for seniors, expanding benefits and reducing wasteful spending at the same time that we have improved the solvency of Medicare.

When I hear Republicans talk about repealing the Affordable Care Act, I wonder what alternative universe they are living in. In this real world there should be no confusion about what repealing the Affordable Care Act would actually mean for our seniors: higher costs for prescription drugs, higher costs for preventive services, reduced benefits, and a Medicare program that would go bankrupt nearly 10 years sooner.

The Affordable Care Act is working to help seniors with their expenses and to keep the costs of health care down. We need to improve and build on the progress the law has made and not argue over tearing it down. This should not be about politics. This should be about keeping the promise we made to our seniors. It is about building on that promise, and I will continue to fight for that.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank Senators Durbin and Reed for their extraordinary leadership on this important issue. I also rise today to talk about the crushing burden which student debt places on our college students and on our economy, and I call on Congress to address it.

The core facts are well known to every family in America. In recent decades, college costs have skyrocketed. Adjusted for inflation, a young person today pays 300 percent of what their parents paid just 30 years ago. For millions of young people, the only way to cover this tuition cost is to take on huge debt. The average student loan balance among 25-year-olds who borrow has grown by 91 percent in just 10 years. Total outstanding student loan debt stands at a staggering $1.2 trillion, and it is getting bigger every single day.

The problem is made worse by the Federal student loan program, with high interest rates which will produce obscene profits for the government. The GAO recently projected the government will bring in $66 billion in profits on its Federal student loans made between 2007 and 2012--profits which would make a Fortune 500 CEO proud.

This exploding debt is crushing our young people. More than one third of borrowers under the age of 30 have been delinquent for more than 90 days.

This exploding debt is also dragging down our economy. With monthly loan bills which can easily exceed a mortgage payment, it is no surprise that home ownership among 30-year-olds has declined steeply. Last spring the Federal Reserve raised concerns that rising student debt could threaten our overall economic growth.

Tying students to a lifetime of financial servitude as a condition of getting an education does not reflect our values. These students didn't go to the mall and run up charges on a credit card. They worked hard, and they learned new skills which will benefit this country, help us build a stronger middle class, and help us build a stronger America. They deserve our support. They don't deserve to be buried in debt.

To reverse this trend of student borrowing, we need to bring down the cost of college. That will not be easy, and it will require everyone-- the government, higher education institutions, and the students themselves--to do far more than they do now.

I am committed to working with Chairman Harkin and my colleagues on the Senate HELP Committee to find ways to meaningfully reduce college tuition, and I am working closely with many of my colleagues, including Senators Durbin, Reed, Schumer, Gillibrand, Murphy, and Brown, who are all intensely focused on this issue.

But our need to reduce the cost of college must not blind us to the urgency of addressing the massive debt already crushing our young people. The pressure is building, and we must act to provide real relief to our students and young graduates now.

In the coming weeks I will join with my colleagues to introduce legislation to do just that--legislation which will allow eligible borrowers with high-interest loans to refinance at interest rates which are at least as low as those currently being offered to new borrowers in the Federal student loan program.

The idea is pretty simple. When interest rates are low, homeowners can refinance their mortgages and big corporations can swap more expensive debt for cheaper debt. Even State and local governments have refinanced their debts. But a graduate who took out an unsubsidized loan before July 1 of this year is locked into an interest rate of nearly 7 percent. Older loans run 8 percent, 9 percent, and even more.

Last year Congress agreed those interest rates were much too high, so they lowered them significantly for this year's borrowers. But that change does nothing for the millions who are trapped under the old high-interest-rate loans. Refinancing those old loans would lower interest rates to 3.8 percent for undergraduate loans. The savings would vary, of course. For a recent graduate who borrowed the maximum, payments would drop by as much as $1,000 a year, and total interest could be cut nearly in half. For those who have even older loans, those with graduate school loans, and those with loans from private lenders, the savings would be even higher.

Madam President, I yield back.

Madam President, I would like to speak for another minute about the issue of refinancing student loans. This is real money back in the pockets of people who invested in their education; real money will help young people find a little more financial stability as they work hard to build their futures, real money that says America invests in those who get an education.

We don't need to add a single dime to our deficit to pay for this plan. Right now this country essentially taxes students by charging high interest rates that bring money into the government while at the same time we give away far more money through a Tax Code riddled with loopholes and let the wealthiest individuals and corporations avoid paying a fair share. We can close those loopholes and put the money directly into refinancing student loans.

We can start with the Buffett rule, a rule that would limit tax loopholes for the wealthy and ensure that billionaires pay at least as much as their secretaries. For every new dollar we bring in by stitching this loophole, it can go directly into reducing the cost of student loans for our students. Dollar for dollar we can invest in billionaires or we can invest in our students. This is about opportunity.

Our country should offer a helping hand to young people who are working hard to try to build a future, not a handout to billionaires who have already made it. Refinancing student loans will not fix everything that is broken in the higher education system, but it is a huge step forward.

I was the first person in my family to graduate from college. I went to a commuter college where the tuition was $50 a semester. I went to a public law school where I got a great education. I was able to do that because I grew up in a country that chose investing in kids over investing in billionaires. I believe in that America, and I believe in what we can do when we work together to build opportunities for everyone who busted their tail to get an education.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to commend the junior Senator from New Jersey on his first speech on the Senate floor. He brings a strong voice to the U.S. Senate. Today he raises that voice for our friends and neighbors who need it, and I am proud to stand alongside him.

Just 5 years ago middle-class families got hammered by the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. These families didn't cause the crisis. They worked hard and played by the rules. But they ended up paying the price for Wall Street's wild risk-taking and Washington's failed oversight. People lost jobs, lost savings, lost homes. Far too many of them are still struggling.

For these families every dollar counts. An extra couple of hundred dollars a week can keep food on the table or the heat on during cold winter months. It can mean the difference between making the rent or mortgage payment or being out on the street.

That is what emergency unemployment insurance is for--to give folks the little bit of help they need to keep their heads above water while they search for a job. Unemployment insurance represents our commitment as a country that we will pitch in when our friends and neighbors have fallen on rough times, knowing they would do the same for us.

So far, Republicans seem determined to break that commitment. Because of Republican filibusters, 1.6 million Americans and counting have lost access to unemployment insurance since the end of last year, including more than 60,000 people in Massachusetts. Their obstruction means we cannot fulfill our commitment to the families who need it most.

My Republican colleagues should be looking for a way to say yes--yes to helping middle-class American families and their 2.3 million children who rely on unemployment insurance. But, once again, they just want a way to say no.

Extending unemployment insurance should be a simple matter. It happened five times during the Bush administration and not once--not once--did Republicans demand that the costs be offset by cuts or revenue increases elsewhere. But the Republicans have insisted on a different standard this time, filibustering because the extension of benefits wasn't offset. Democrats thought this was wrong, but we compromised and we agreed to offset the cost. So did we have a deal? No. The Republicans refused to take yes for an answer and filibustered again.

Why would Republicans block the extension of unemployment benefits? Some seem to believe unemployment insurance is actually bad for struggling families. One Republican Senator recently said emergency unemployment insurance does a ``disservice'' to people because it causes them to ``become part of this perpetual unemployed group in our economy.'' Last year's Republican Vice Presidential nominee, Congressman Ryan, said that Federal safety net programs such as unemployment insurance are like ``a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.''

This is an insult to hard-working people across this country--people who are doing their best and can't find a job.

This is an insult to people such as Terri, a 41-year-old resident of Gardner, MA, who lost her job last year. Here is what she wrote to me after Congress let the unemployment insurance program expire:

[M]y employer suddenly let me go and I found myself

unemployed for the first time since my very first part-time

job at 15. I have been diligently looking for work, applying

everywhere, but I haven't had any job offers . . .

She writes that unemployment insurance:

. . . is all we have. I'm already on the brink of losing my

home, we are struggling to hang on to what very little we

have. . . . I know I'm one of 1.3 million faces, but I'm a

face from near your home. I'm a face that never thought I'd

be in this situation. I'm a face that needs the help of my

government's services that I have paid into for many, many

years. I'm a face that has done everything I'm supposed to--

but I feel like I've fallen aside and no one sees me.

I'm not an abuser of the system. I'm someone who really

needs my government to be there for me now. Please see me.

Terri isn't looking for a life of complacency and dependency. And she is not the exception. A person can't get unemployment benefits unless they prove they lost their job through no fault of their own, and they prove they are actively looking for work. Unemployment insurance is a critical lifeline for people who are trying their hardest and need a little help--a recognition that Wall Street and Washington caused the financial crisis but Main Street is still paying the price.

And there is the rub. Republicans line up to protect billions in tax breaks and subsidies for big corporations with armies of lobbyists, but they can't find a way to help struggling families get back on their feet.

People such as Terri are hurting. They worked hard their whole lives and paid into the system, and after the worst economic crisis in generations, they are searching for jobs and scrambling to stay in the middle class. They are not looking for a handout; they are looking for a chance to rebuild their lives. They would be there for us; we should be there for them.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar Number No. 222, S. 376.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be considered, the Pryor amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the committee substitute, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 340 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 341 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I understand that S. 1982, introduced earlier today by Senator Sanders, is at the desk and I ask for its first reading.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m on Tuesday, February 4, 2014; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2642, the farm bill, with the time until 12:30 p.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; and that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

Mr. President, there will be a rollcall vote at approximately 2:35 p.m. on adoption of the farm bill conference report.

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

Mr. President, I rise to support the Truth in Settlements Act. This bipartisan legislation, which I introduced earlier today with my colleague from Oklahoma, Dr. Coburn, will help the public hold Federal agencies accountable for the settlements they make with corporate wrongdoers.

I am honored to partner with Dr. Coburn on this bill. In his decade in the Senate, he has been a leader in the fight for greater government transparency. Dr. Coburn and I do not agree on every issue, but we strongly agree that sunlight is a critical component of good government. That is the motivation behind the Truth in Settlements Act, and I am proud to fight alongside Dr. Coburn to advance this legislation.

When companies break the law, Federal enforcement agencies are responsible for holding them accountable. In nearly every instance, agencies choose to resolve cases through settlement rather than going to a public trial. The government agencies defend this practice by arguing that their eagerness to settle is in the best interests of the American people. But their actions paint a very different picture.

If agencies were truly confident that these settlements were good deals for the public, they would be enthusiastic about publicly disclosing all of the key details of those agreements--hang it right out there so everyone can see what a great job they did on behalf of the American people.

So is that what they do? No. Instead, time after time, agencies do the opposite, hiding critical details about their settlements in the fine print or, worse, hiding those details entirely out of public view.

Copies of these agreements--or even the basic facts about the agreement--are not easily accessible online. Many agencies regularly deem agreements confidential without any public explanation. When agencies do make public statements about these agreements, they often trumpet large dollar amounts of money for the taxpayers. What they don't trumpet is that the companies often pay dramatically less than the ``sticker price''--through ``credits''--for engaging in routine activities or through potentially huge tax deductions.

Add up all of these tricks and we end up with a predictable result: Too often the American people only see what the agencies want them to see about these agreements.

These hidden details can make all the difference. When we dig below the surface, settlements that seem tough and fair can end up looking like sweetheart deals.

For example, last year, Federal regulators entered into a settlement with 13 mortgage servicers accused of illegal foreclosure practices. The ``sticker price'' on the settlement was $8.5 billion--that is a really nice headline--but $5.2 billion of the settlement was in the form of credits, not in cash outlays. These credits were described in the government's press release as covering what they called ``loan modifications and forgiveness of deficiency judgments.'' So what does that mean? Well, it turns out the servicers could rack up those credits by forgiving mere fractions of large unpaid loans. So, for example, if a servicer wrote down $15,000 of a $500,000 unpaid loan balance, that servicer doesn't just get a $15,000 credit for the amount they wrote down, they get a credit for the whole $500,000--the full value of the loan. That method of calculating credits--buried in the fine print-- could end up cutting by more than half the overall value of the $8.5 billion settlement.

Another way to hide the ball is to omit an upfront determination and disclosure of whether the settlement will be tax deductible. Several years ago, the Justice Department announced a $385 million settlement with Fresenius Medical Care for allegedly defrauding Medicare and other health programs for years. When the agreement was originally announced, the Justice Department touted the sticker price as the agency's largest civil recovery to date in a health care fraud case. But the DOJ didn't say a word about the tax treatment. The agency's failure to even consider that issue was a very costly mistake. By the time the company finished claiming all of its tax deductions from the settlement, it ended up paying $100 million less than originally advertised. In other words, the taxpayers picked up more than a quarter of the tab.

It takes a lot of digging around to uncover these unflattering details, but at least it was possible to do so in these cases because of public information about these two agreements. For settlements that are kept confidential, the public is completely in the dark.

Just last year, Wells Fargo agreed to pay the Federal Housing Finance Agency $335 million for allegedly fraudulent sales of mortgage-backed securities to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That is about 6 percent of what JPMorgan paid in a public settlement with FHFA to address very similar claims. So in what ways did the actions of Wells Fargo differ from those of JPMorgan? We will never know, because the JPMorgan settlement is public, but the much smaller Wells Fargo settlement is confidential.

The American people deserve better. Government enforcement agencies work for us, not for the companies they regulate. Agencies should not be able to cut bad deals and then hide behind their embarrassing details. The public deserves to know what is going on.

The Truth in Settlements Act requires transparency. It requires agencies making public statements about their settlements to include explanations of how companies get credits and whether the wrongdoers will be eligible for tax breaks for their settlement payments. The bill also requires agencies to post text and basic information about their settlements online. And while the legislation permits confidential settlements, it requires agencies to disclose how frequently they are invoking confidentiality and to explain their reasons for doing so.

If we expect government agencies to hold companies accountable for breaking the law, then we, the public, must be able to hold agencies accountable for enforcing the law. We can't do that if we are kept in the dark. The Truth in Settlements Act shines a light on these agency decisions, and it gives the American people a chance to hold

agencies accountable for fairly and effectively enforcing our laws. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill.

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

I am here today with some good news. This week the government will fix something that was broken. I know that some people wish to deny that is possible, but hear me out.

Five years ago, during the 2008 financial crisis, we witnessed firsthand that the market for home mortgages was badly broken. The fundamental problem was that many lenders issued mortgages without any concern about whether the borrower would be able to repay those mortgages in the long run. Why would they do that? They did it because they could immediately sell the mortgage to another financial institution. If the borrower couldn't pay, that would turn out to be somebody else's problem.

We all know what happened next. Millions of these dangerous mortgages were bundled together, sliced, diced, slapped with AAA ratings, and then sold to retirement funds, local governments, and investors all over the country. When borrowers couldn't make their monthly payments, those bundles of mortgages began collapsing, and the effects were felt in every corner of the economy.

This Friday, that basic business model will change, thanks to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's new mortgage rules. When these rules go into effect, lenders will be able to issue a mortgage only after they determine that the borrower has the ability to repay it.

Lenders will no longer be able to make loans they know will blow up and then feed those dangerous loans into the financial system. Because of the consumer agency's new rules, families will be safer. Pension funds and other investors will be safer. Our whole economy will be safer--not completely safe, but with a new cop on the beat, it will be safer.

The new rules will fix other problems as well. Before the crisis, some mortgage brokers who were supposed to be helping consumers find the best mortgage were actually taking money from lenders to steer those consumers into higher-cost loans. The CFPB's new rules will prohibit this sort of under-the-table dealing and protect consumers from being tricked by people they think they can trust.

The rules will also address many of the mortgage servicing problems that emerged during the crisis. After mortgages were sold off, bundled, and cut up into pieces for various investors, too many borrowers were unable to track down clear information about their accounts. Some of the companies responsible for servicing their loans took days or even weeks to give them credit for their payments.

When borrowers fell behind, these servicers often began foreclosure proceedings without giving people full information about the options they had to modify their loans. The consumer agency's new rules will help clean up the mortgage servicing industry so more families can keep up with their payments and stay in their homes.

CFPB Director Rich Cordray and his hardworking and incredibly talented staff have worked for a long time to put these new rules together, and its rules will reshape the mortgage market for the better. They will give people a better chance to buy homes and a better chance to keep those homes. They will force mortgage lenders and servicers to compete by offering better rates and customer service, not by tricking and trapping people. These rules will help markets work better, and they will reduce the risk that the economy will crash again.

Our work is not done. The march toward financial reform has been too slow, and the chances of another crisis, while dialed back in some areas, remain unacceptably high in others. Even today, the too-big-to- fail banks that nearly crashed the global economy in 2008 are nearly 40 percent bigger than they were back then.

Yes, we have more work to do on dangerous banking practices, but this week marks an important milestone. Six years ago, I noted that it was impossible to buy a toaster with a one-in-five chance of bursting into flames and burning your house down, but it was possible to take out a mortgage that had the same one-in-five chance of putting a family out on the street.

The point was that consumers had the Consumer Products Safety Commission to keep people safe from dangerous toasters, and they needed the same kind of agency to keep people safe from dangerous and deceptive financial products.

In the years since, we have built that agency. It has already returned nearly $1 billion to consumers who were cheated, and it has helped tens of thousands of consumers resolve complaints against financial institutions. Now, this Friday, that agency will put in place some commonsense rules that will make a real difference for millions of families who own--or someday hope to own--their own home.

The consumer bureau's new mortgage rules show, once again, that government can fix problems. Sure, we have to work hard. We have to fight against those who benefit from the broken system, and we have to stick with it even when the odds are against us. But when we do those things, real change is possible in this country. We are seeing that up close this week.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I was on the same flight with Senator Shaheen. I was looking forward to having the opportunity to vote for Janet Yellen to be Chair of the Federal Reserve. I am very disappointed I didn't get to formally vote for her, but I want to make sure that the Record reflects my strong support.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.