Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I send a motion to the desk.

Madam President, we are obviously considering a tax bill in the middle of a recession, with a lot of folks out of work. Yet we are talking very little about the fact that, within 6 months, tax rates for every American and every business are going to go up. It is already beginning to create uncertainty in our economy. Folks who would otherwise take risks and invest are holding back because of the increase in taxes.

One of the main focuses of what we are doing needs to be on capital gains taxes as well as dividend taxes. Right now, the capital gains tax, in January, is going up--if we do nothing--from 15 to 20 percent. This will discourage investment. The dividend tax will go up from 15 percent to the top rate of nearly 40 percent.

The Heritage Foundation estimates that if we would hold tax rates the same on these two taxes, we would save over 250,000 jobs next year alone.

I am asking my colleagues to consider the urgent need to keep our current tax rates the same, particularly on capital gains and dividends, as we know a lot of seniors are living in part off dividends they receive. If we raise the tax rates on them, it is not going to do anything to help them or our economy.

I am asking that this bill be referred back to committee, that they add this requirement that the capital gains and dividends stay the same, at 15 percent, and bring it back to the floor for a vote.

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

Mr. President, because I was not allowed to offer my amendment as part of the regular order, in a moment I will move to suspend the rules to offer my amendment that will set a deadline to complete 700 miles of double layer fencing on our Southwest border, as is required by current law.

If any Member of the Senate stood up today and said that we should not seal the oil leak in the gulf until we have a comprehensive plan to clean it up, we would all say that is absurd. Certainly we need to seal that leak as quickly as possible to minimize the cleanup later.

But that is exactly the kind of logic the President and my Democratic colleagues are using when it comes to immigration. They are insisting we will not secure our borders until Republicans agree to a comprehensive plan with some form of amnesty and road to citizenship for those who have come here illegally. This is a debate we have had before and it was not settled here as much as it was out across America.

Americans have said: Secure the border first. The big immigration bill we were trying to pass in 2006 failed because Americans finally convinced Senators that our first job is to secure the border; otherwise, any immigration policy is irrelevant.

At that time we made a promise to the American people and passed a law that we would build 700 miles of double layer fencing in areas where pedestrian traffic is the biggest problem. We have seen that where that has been implemented it has been effective. But, unfortunately, since 2006, even though we were promised this could be done in a year or two, only 34 miles of double layer fencing has been built since we passed this law. In other words, the Federal Government is ignoring its own law at the peril of the citizens in Arizona, Texas, and those all over the country. By not keeping our promises, by not enforcing the law, we have created devastation and war on our southern border with Mexico.

Thousands of Mexicans have been killed. We encouraged drug cartels all over the world to ship their goods through our borders. Arms trafficking, human trafficking--we have mass chaos on our border because we will not do what we know works.

The President is saying we have done over 90 percent of the fencing that we promised, but this is the virtual fencing that the chief of border security has said has been a complete failure. There are only 34 miles of the 700 miles that we promised our country and put into law.

My amendment does not make new law. It just sets a deadline, that the fence we promised will be completed within the next year.

Motion to Suspend

Mr. President, I move to suspend the provisions of rule XXII, paragraph 2, including germaneness requirements for the purpose of proposing and considering my amendment, No. 4177.

I ask for the yeas and nays and reserve the remainder of my time.

If someone speaks against it, I will reserve 1 minute to respond.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend rule XVI, and rule XXII, Paragraph 2, for the purpose of

proposing and considering the following amendment to H.R. 4899, including germaneness requirements:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

Mr. President, I commend my colleagues Senators Grassley and Wyden for wanting to solve a problem. I appreciate them being willing to put some solutions forth.

I think it is important that we talk about the bigger picture when we talk about secret holds. I want to make it clear that I am not interested in holding anything in secret. As a matter of fact, whenever we do it as part of Steering, we let the cloakroom know we are holding a bill.

I think it is important that America knows what we are talking about here. At this point in the Senate, 94 percent of all of the bills are passed by unanimous consent. So this is hardly a lack of productivity. What this means is that 94 percent of the bills that pass the Senate have no debate, no vote, no amendments, no reading of the bill, no online disclosure and, very often, no score from the Congressional Budget Office.

When I first took over the Steering Committee, one of the things I learned quickly is that whenever we are having a break--if we are going for a week, such as we are after this week--on my way to the airport I would get a call from staff telling me there were dozens of requests to pass bills by unanimous consent. They knew we were going out of town. A lot of them had pretty big pricetags on them. You don't get $13 trillion in debt when you are doing things right. Part of the problem is that 94 percent of the bills that pass the Senate pass in secret. The problem is not secret holds; it is the secret passing of bills, when often we don't even know who is requesting passage. If we didn't have staff available at night when they run their so-called hotlines-- which means the phone in your office rings and they ask if you will agree to pass a bill, and you have not read it and you don't know what it costs, but if you don't agree to pass it by unanimous consent, you are holding the bill.

If you ask to read it for a day or so, it is likely that some association is getting e-mails from either the Republican or Democrat side saying that Senator DeMint is holding this desperately needed piece of legislation, which nobody else has read.

I would be glad to work with my colleagues on dealing with this issue if they believe secret holds are a problem. I think that passing 94 percent of the bills without anybody reading them or knowing they are being passed is not a good way to do business. I think it is fair to have some system where, first, you cannot secretly ask for a bill to be passed by unanimous consent. That is what goes on today.

We should look at the Coburn-McCaskill measure where, if you want something passed by unanimous consent in the dark of night, you have to put it on the Internet for at least 3 days, with a cost from the Congressional Budget Office, so that we know what we are getting into.

Again, I remind you that we don't have a problem in Washington of not

passing enough bills or spending enough money. The problem we have is we are passing bills that we don't even read that have pricetags that are running our country into a crushing debt. Again, I want to work with my colleagues. But if you are opposed to secret holds, which are really not a problem--and I am not aware of one where we don't know who is holding it. I have a problem with people asking that bills be passed in secret, and that 94 percent of the bills in this place get passed that way.

There are a lot of pressing issues we face as a country, but one of them is not secret holds. If we want to spend floor time debating it, I want to be involved with that debate. We have no problem here with things that are being slowed down. The problem we have is that every week--like this week--we are adding to our spending and borrowing more money as a country, increasing our national debt, and we are expanding the Federal Government. This is not something we need to speed up. We need Members of the Senate to read bills. We don't need to be talking about holding a bill when someone innocently asks to read a bill and to let you know tomorrow.

Let's work on this. If you want bills to go through quickly, let's get rid of the secret passing of bills that have never been on the Internet or seen the light of day. This is something where I know my colleagues are well intended, but the real problem is the secret bills and Members secretly asking to pass them. I will be glad to let you know I am holding them.

I will in a moment.

I will ask this: Could we include in your legislation the idea that whenever somebody wants to pass a bill by unanimous consent, they have to come to the floor and say: I, Senator Jim DeMint, want to pass this bill, a bill I have not read, which has not been online for 3 days, which has no score from the CBO, and I desire to pass this bill with no debate and no rollcall vote? If we would do that as individuals, I will be glad to give up my right to any secret hold.

I will yield to the Senator.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for being willing to work with colleagues. It is unfortunate that he has spent a decade on this bill and missed the main point. The main problem is secret bills, not secret holds. But if the Senator is willing to modify his amendment with the Coburn-McCaskill language and if it includes revealing who is trying to pass the bill, along with putting it online with a Congressional Budget Office score, I will be glad to support the Senator's efforts for this amendment. But I will not support the adoption of his amendment a la carte without the language being modified to include the Coburn-McCaskill language and the revealing of whoever is asking that bill be passed.

Again, I will enjoy working with my colleagues if this is important to them to get this amendment adopted. Again, I think there are certainly more pressing issues, but I am not interested in holding anything secretly. If the Senator will work with us on modifying his language, I think we can get this adopted and maybe even by unanimous consent.

Yes, I will.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I think if we waited a decade for this amendment, we can spend another day or two to get it right. If the Senator is certainly supportive of their language, I know their legislative staff well enough that we can get this incorporated with the language of the Senator from Oregon probably in a few hours and get this amendment done. I will be happy to help with that effort.

I thank the Senator for his interest in cooperating. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to speak in favor of the Sessions bankruptcy amendment. This is critical to the current financial debate because one of the big issues in whether we treat some companies and some banks differently. The current bankruptcy laws create a predictable rule of law. There is no arbitrary or political decisionmaking. When a company can't pay its bills, it can ask for bankruptcy protection to restructure or liquidate in some kind of controlled fashion. This is what is meant by ``justice is blind.'' Our courts, our legal system and political systems do not get involved with deciding which companies have to be liquidated, go through bankruptcy. During our current financial meltdown, the government decided to pick winners and losers, to bail out some companies, some banks, and not others.

The underlying financial regulation bill makes that system permanent, essentially throwing out the rule of law and allowing the political system, the bureaucratic system to decide which companies need to be treated differently while others have to go through the bankruptcy process. The Sessions amendment would treat all companies the same and allow an orderly restructuring or liquidation of banks, regardless of how big they are.

The underlying bill abandons the rule of law. It suspends free market principles, and it perpetuates the idea that there are some companies that are too big to fail and have to be treated differently. It even expands that arbitrary system by giving the FDIC the ability to pick companies they think might fail and to seize them if they are not meeting certain criteria. The market does not decide which company is failing anymore. This becomes a political system which sets up corruption and political meddling as part of the financial system.

There is no reason we can't have special bankruptcy courts to deal with large banking institutions so their failure does not take down the whole financial system. This idea that some people in Washington are going to look at Wall Street or anywhere in the country and decide which company is too big to fail, has to be treated differently, while this company goes through a traditional bankruptcy process--that puts us right back where we are now, where people in the government can arbitrarily take taxpayer money and bail out one company. Maybe it is their political friends and supporters--or maybe they don't bail out the companies that are their political enemies. It makes no sense to make bold promises to the American people that we are going to end too big to fail when this bill actually makes it permanent.

I encourage my colleagues to consider the Sessions amendment. It would take us back to a rule-of-law that is predictable, that let's every company, every bank know if they can't pay their bills, they have to go through a predetermined system, not one that is decided by bureaucrats at the last minute based on criteria that could change at any moment.

Let's get this one right. The underlying bill will not do what we promise. The Sessions amendment will move us in the right direction to keep our promises to the American people.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I call for the regular order with respect to the Wyden amendment No. 4019 and call up my amendment No. 3852 as a second-degree amendment.

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this year marks the fourth annual celebration of the Greenville Scottish Games in my hometown of Greenville, SC. South Carolina's upstate boasts one of the highest concentrations of Scots-Irish descendents in the country and these games pay tribute to that rich Celtic heritage.

Since their inception in 2006, the Greenville Scottish Games have received international acclaim from the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs which has recognized them as one of the finest games in the world.

This year's event brings with it yet another historic milestone, with His Royal Highness, The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, in attendance. This is the first known time a senior member of the British Royal Family has attended a games outside of Scotland, and it is my great honor to extend an official senatorial welcome to His Royal Highness. I am confident he will experience the finest of Palmetto State hospitality as the first member of the Royal Family to ever visit Greenville.

These tremendous distinctions have been achieved under the tireless leadership of Dee Benedict, president of the Greenville Scottish Games. With Dee's vision and tenacity, along with the help of local officials, businesses and countless volunteers, no detail has gone untouched, ensuring that every part of this exciting weekend will evoke a feeling of authentic Scottish clan life.

I am immensely proud that my hometown is the site of this celebration and I am honored to congratulate everyone who has partnered together to make the Fourth Annual Greenville Scottish Games a sure success.

I ask to speak----

I ask to speak under Senator Vitter's time.

Mr. President, there are few things more important to Americans than our money. It represents our life's work, our savings, our investment. When our Founders put this country and the Constitution together, they gave the Congress the responsibility to protect our currency

and the value of our money. This is a responsibility that decades ago the Congress delegated to the Federal Reserve, to operate as an independent institution, responsible for protecting our monetary system as well as overseeing employment in our country.

Congress has not paid much attention to what the Federal Reserve has done. In fact, we have little idea now what they are doing. We do know they are doing many things now that they didn't do even a few years before--trillions of dollars buying toxic assets from various financial institutions. We know they are doing business all over the world, lending money with international banks. But we don't know exactly what they are doing, why they are doing it, or how they are doing it.

We don't know if a lot of these activities could eventually bring down our financial system. We need to be concerned because it is our responsibility as a Congress and if we allow our currency to be undermined anywhere in the world, it is detrimental to every American family, everything we worked for, everything we have saved.

We cannot pass this off. This Congress has established other financial institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to supposedly facilitate the mortgage industry and make it easier for people to buy homes. We were told there was no problem with subprime lending and all the things Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were involved with. But as a Congress we did not do our job overseeing, asking enough questions. Then when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created this huge housing bubble and brought our economy to its knees, millions of Americans lost much of what they had worked for and saved.

But what happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is small compared to what could happen if the Federal Reserve did something to undermine the confidence in the dollar worldwide.

Congress should not be managing our monetary system. I do not think we can do it in the current political structure. But it is our job to provide accountability and transparency to what is going on at the Federal Reserve.

Last week, I spoke in support of the Sanders amendment. I still plan to support it today, but that amendment has been changed. It narrows the scope of a complete audit. It really cannot be called a complete audit anymore. It is just disclosure on various aspects of what the Federal Reserve does. It does not now include what they would refer to now as monetary policy. My understanding was, that is pretty much what they did at the Federal Reserve. Cutting that takes out a big part of what we need to know about what they are doing. It would block us from finding out what the Federal Reserve is doing with banks all around the world. It would block us from finding out a lot of things that could give us an indication of whether the Federal Reserve is putting our monetary and financial systems at risk.

I think it is important, at least at one point in time, for us to find out what the Federal Reserve is doing and disclose it to the American people in a way that they will have confidence that what is happening with the Federal Reserve and with our currency is going to create a stable currency out into the future.

Senator Vitter offered the original amendment before it was changed, the same amendment that was passed in the House by an overwhelming majority which will include all aspects of the Federal Reserve--not in real time, but there will be a delay so that we can't meddle in what they are doing. But it opens a full audit of the Federal Reserve so that this Congress can make good decisions about any needed reforms and certainly keeping some accountability over the Federal Reserve.

It makes absolutely no sense to create really the most powerful agency in the world over the Reserve currency for the world and for there to be no accountability over what they are doing. We know they think we are not smart enough to understand what they are doing, and we may not be. But based on what they have told us in the past, they are not necessarily as smart as they think they are either, because only a few months before Fannie Mae collapsed, the Federal Reserve told us there was no problem. Now they are telling us there is no problem and that we don't need to look at what they are doing.

I think it is important that we have full disclosure and accountability and transparency at the Federal Reserve. It is important that the American people trust those who are managing their currency, and right now they don't. A full audit would help restore that trust and help Congress do its job to oversee the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve can maintain its independence, but it doesn't have to be independent in secret because if they are operating secretly, Congress is not doing its job.

I encourage my colleagues to support the Sanders amendment but also the Vitter amendment so that we will have a full audit and know for the first time what our Federal Reserve is doing with our money.

I reserve the remainder of Senator Vitter's time.

Mr. President, I join Senator Dorgan and Senator Sanders in the amendment to audit the Federal Reserve.

Let me begin with a perspective on what happened in the stock market today. Clearly, someone got it wrong, and it created a domino effect of one thing falling after another, and before we knew it, the stock market was down 1,000 points. Fortunately, it climbed back up before it closed today.

It reminds us how volatile, how vulnerable we are in a world where so many systems are involved with our financial system.

It is good Congress is looking at financial reform. I only regret we are not dealing with the real causes of our financial crisis.

Wall Street is clearly jittery. We can see that from the stock market today. Everyone is waiting for the dominos to fall. We see what is happening in Greece, one country that continued to spend more than it was bringing in until it went bankrupt. Unfortunately, the American people are on the hook for yet another bailout, not even a bailout in this country but billions of American tax dollars are headed for Greece right now.

As other European countries head toward bankruptcy, last year in this Congress we created another credit line for the International Monetary Fund to be drawn down. The real irony is, we are borrowing money from countries such as China in order to bail out other countries in the world at a time when the United States is carrying $13 trillion of debt and projections of tens of trillions of more dollars in the future. It is clearly unsustainable.

The stock market and investors have a reason to be jittery, and Americans have a reason to be angry. We saw what the failure of large government organizations such as Fannie Mae did and how it cost Americans trillions of dollars. People who had been saving and investing all their lives found out almost overnight that the system they counted on and that we were supposed to oversee was not what they thought it was, and suddenly wealth was gone.

If Fannie Mae could do that much damage to our country, that is small in comparison to what would happen if the Federal Reserve does it wrong.

The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility for our monetary policy. Congress, years ago, delegated that to an independent agency we call the Federal Reserve. But we are still responsible for monetary policy. If something is done wrong with that policy, all we worked for in this country, everyone's savings and investments, everyone's wealth, not only in this country but because we are the reserve currency for the world, the whole economic system of the world is resting on top of what the Federal Reserve does.

The fact is, while it is our responsibility to oversee monetary policy, we do not know what the Federal Reserve is doing. Keep in mind, we were assured only months before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed--and, by the way, we bailed them out and Freddie Mac for another $10 billion this week--only months before they collapsed, we were told by Chairman Bernanke at the Federal Reserve and many other economic experts that there was no problem. But there was a problem. The real problem was we did not know it, and that was a company created by this Congress. It was our responsibility to oversee it, and we did not carry out our responsibility.

We need an independent Federal Reserve. We do not need political manipulation and second-guessing of our monetary policy. But we do not need a secret Federal Reserve. We have to know what they are doing if we are going to be responsible for what they are doing. It is not going to be enough if they do something wrong and we point our finger at them and say it was their fault because it is our responsibility.

For years, the Federal Reserve has been avoiding any kind of audit, any kind of accountability, any kind of transparency. Every time we ask for any type of disclosure, they say we are violating their independence. We are not violating their independence by this amendment proposed by Senator Sanders. All we are doing is uncloaking the secrecy that exists within the Federal Reserve.

It is important to know what we do know. We know the Federal Reserve has bailed out Bear Stearns and AIG. The taxpayers are stuck holding failed bets on everything from toxic subprime mortgages to strip malls and hotels. Thanks to the bailouts, taxpayers now own stakes in bankrupt Hilton hotels in Malaysia, Russia, and Singapore. I am not sure that is what the Congress had in mind when they started the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve owns part of the Civic Opera building in Chicago and the Crossroads Mall in Oklahoma City. I thought it was bad when the Fed was printing money to keep up the government's shopping spree, but I never expected they would buy a mall to go shopping in.

They say it is over when the fat lady sings. Well, now the Fed has an opera house ready for her singing.

Americans deserve to know if the Federal Reserve is being honest with the Congress and with the American people. We know what they say behind closed doors does not square with what they say publicly.

Recently released transcripts show, in 2004, members of the Federal Reserve publicly downplayed specific concerns they discussed internally about the coming housing crisis. They knew we had a problem. At that time, Chairman Alan Greenspan said, if they were to encourage the public to talk about it ``it's possible to lose control of a process that only we fully understand.'' Meanwhile, they were telling the Congress and the public everything was fine.

By doing that, they cost millions of Americans a lifetime of savings, and they are still struggling. Millions of people are out of work because of mismanagement by the Federal Reserve. Yet they seem to think they require no supervision, no accountability, no transparency. We need to end that with this amendment today.

Within 30 days of the President signing this amendment that has been proposed, the Federal Reserve will have to tell us who got all this bailout money, how much they got and the reasoning for giving it and what terms of repayment there are. It is a pretty simple request. True financial reform must include a full audit of the Federal Reserve and a breakup and a winddown of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. But the people who run the government are not willing to hold the government institutions responsible.

Those who understand what happened in this financial crisis know that the easy money policy of the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying subprime mortgages and securitizing them and selling them all over the world were a large part of the meltdown of our financial system. Yet this financial reform bill we are talking about does not even address the real causes of our financial meltdown.

One thing we can do if we adopt this amendment is make sure there is more transparency, more accountability at the Federal Reserve.

As I already mentioned yesterday, Freddie Mac posted an $8 billion loss. That is now fully owned by the Federal Government. The Federal Government is clearly mismanaging Freddie Mac, and they asked for another $10 billion bailout from the taxpayers. This time that does not have to go through Congress. President Obama has taken the caps off anything that can go to these bankrupt companies. Billions of dollars are going to flow from taxpayers directly to these government-owned entities.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae together have lost at least $126.9 billion so far. It is pretty amazing in a time when this country is overcome with debt. There is no end in sight. There is no cap on how much taxpayers can bail them out. Yet they are not even mentioned in this financial reform bill. We heard about greed on Wall Street, but we have not even addressed the greed within the government and within the government agencies.

The Democratic House Financial Services chairman, Barney Frank, does not think these government-run institutions are good candidates for reform. He wrote a memo to the White House saying they were ``being managed responsibly and aren't doing any further economic damage.'' Fortunately, Senator McCain has an amendment to address this issue, and I hope it is adopted. But if there is one place the blame can be placed for this financial meltdown, it comes back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Wall Street certainly deserves a lot of the blame for the financial crisis because they took advantage of a lot of the mismanagement in government to their own benefit. But the Federal Reserve, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae also deserve a lot of the blame, and they should be addressed as well.

The Sanders amendment at least begins the process in letting us know what the Federal Reserve is doing. The audit-the-Fed amendment has more than 300 cosponsors in the House and 32 in the Senate. It is supported by a broad spectrum of political groups from FreedomWorks all the way to very liberal groups. Within the Senate, if America wants bipartisan activity, it could not be more bipartisan than Bernie Sanders and Jim DeMint.

I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. Let's reform not only the financial system but our own house, and that includes the Federal Reserve.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, good morning.

I rise in opposition to the piece of legislation that Chairman Dodd is calling financial reform. All Republicans want to reform our financial system and fix the things that have caused so much financial distress in our country. But rather than address the underlying causes of the 2008 financial crisis, this bill would institutionalize government bailouts for those it chooses are too big to fail. If Democrats were serious about financial reform, they would work with Republicans to permanently end too big to fail, to curb the power of the Federal Reserve, and to address the government distortions in the mortgage market that led to the financial meltdown. This bill does none of these.

Instead of focusing on solving these problems, the Democrats have eagerly crafted another massive bill designed to increase centralized government planning, and they are vilifying anyone who dares to oppose it.

Without bringing any more accountability to the government actors who contributed to the causes of the financial crisis, this bill simply represents additional regulation without real reform. Despite a recent Pew poll stating that more than 80 percent of Americans support ending bailouts, this bill ensures they will continue. The bill requires the government to keep a list of financial companies it considers too big to fail, and it provides these companies with a $50 billion slush fund to help them when they get in trouble.

In one respect the Democrats may be right in saying they would not let the bailouts take place like they did in the past. If their bill passes, the next TARP bailout would not even be voted on by Congress. That is because this slush fund empowers the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC to pump money to ailing banks without asking for any permission from Congress.

There have been rumors that this slush fund could be removed. I hope it will be. But even if that is done, the bill will still perpetuate too-big-to-fail policies.

Additional programs in the bill will still allow the FDIC to guarantee the debts of financial companies in trouble, and they will also allow the Treasury to still selectively bail out the creditors of failing institutions. The bill also fails to stop the Federal Reserve from propping up financial companies as it did AIG. It additionally expands the Fed's reach by creating a new consumer protection bureau inside the Federal Reserve. With its extensive jurisdiction and its unchecked ability to micromanage lending, it should be considered the anticonsumer bureau. This new bureau will have sweeping authority to regulate almost anything it regards as financial activity. From car dealers to other companies that offer financing for their products, to software companies that help people manage their money, this massive new bureaucracy is certain to increase regulatory burdens on community banks, credit unions, and many others who had no role whatsoever in the financial crisis, as well as to raise consumer costs and kill jobs.

Before we rush to give the Fed more control over our economy, we need more information about its activities surrounding the 2008 financial crisis. Even to this day, the Fed refuses to provide information about the extent to which they have used taxpayer money for the bailouts, and it is unacceptable to keep this kind of secrecy. Legislation to fully audit the Fed continues to enjoy widespread support, and I will continue to champion this audit of the Federal Reserve.

I would also like to see this bill bring some much needed accountability to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These government entities that dominate the mortgage market and hold $5 trillion in debt were ringleaders in the chain of buying, securitizing, and spreading toxic subprime mortgages that led to the financial collapse. Since the government took them over in 2008, taxpayers have been forced to give them $127 billion so far, and there is no end in sight. The Obama administration handed them a blank check last Christmas Eve by lifting the $400 billion cap on government aid, ensuring endless bailouts in the future.

Real reform would address the ongoing crisis at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Although the Democratic bill is completely silent on this issue, I intend to see that we find a way to reduce their holdings and divorce them from government ownership. We cannot deny the fact that these two government entities were a major cause of the financial crisis. Yet they are not even mentioned in this so-called financial reform.

Reform would not be complete without also addressing the underwriting issues that led to the explosion of risky lending that fueled the housing bubble. This bill leaves the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's affordable housing goals untouched. Each required significant increases in mortgage lending to lower income borrowers, which led to a decrease in the underwriting standards to make more loans to folks who could not afford to pay them back. These bad practices became contagious in the industry.

If we do not deal with these housing policy problems that led to unsafe lending, as well as Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's sizable ability to sustain demand for such loans by still buying them, we risk continuing a boom-or-bust housing cycle that saddles taxpayers with the consequences of mortgages given to borrowers who likely cannot afford to pay them back.

Meanwhile, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac keep getting bailed out by the taxpayers. That is the kind of impervious backing a reckless bank could only dream of getting, and that is the same kind of deal Democrats are now offering to the big banks they pretend to despise.

Despite all the rhetoric coming from my Democratic colleagues, this bill does not crack down on Wall Street. In fact, Wall Street loves it. It turns the relationship between Wall Street and Washington into a freeway. The best way to get tough on Wall Street would be to make sure those banks have the same freedom to fail as the banks who did not get bailed out by the government in the last few years.

Ruling out special treatment for these big banks would be the harshest punishment possible. So instead of ending too big to fail, Democrats are constantly inventing new ways to break down barriers between Washington control and Wall Street. That is not how you stand up to big banks; that is how you deal them in.

It is important we fix the problems that caused our financial meltdown. But it is even more important to recognize that this political vehicle that is being called financial reform is just a lot more government control, a lot more government takeovers, an overreach by the Obama administration, with very little financial reform.

This is not fair to the American people. It perpetuates too big to fail. It essentially guarantees future bailouts. It does not fix the core causes of the problems, and, again, it expands big government control over thousands of community banks, credit unions, and businesses that had nothing to do with this financial crisis. I am afraid it is just another crisis being used as an excuse to expand government without solving real problems.

Republicans are standing by and eager to work with Chairman Dodd and other Democrats to fix the problems in this bill so we can present real reform to the American people. I urge my colleagues on the other side to stop trying to stick another bill down our throats and down the throats of the American people and work with us to do what the American people expect.

With that, I yield back and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes.

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

Madam President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Marisa Demeo to be a Superior Court judge in the District of Columbia. I do not believe she has enough judicial experience to sit on the DC Superior Court. She is currently serving as a magistrate judge, a position she has held for the past 2\1/2\ years. Although being a magistrate judge is good training for a Superior Court judge, 2 years is not enough of that training. Of the 25 magistrate judges in the District of Columbia, she is one of the least experienced. Nineteen of the current DC magistrate judges have served for 5 years or more compared to her 2\1/2\. Some have served for decades. In fact, only 3 of her 24 colleagues have served less than Ms. Demeo.

Looking at her record, I see she has much more experience working as a lobbyist for a special interest group than a magistrate judge. She was chief lobbyist for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, a national Latino civil rights organization, from 1997 to 2004. In this position, she became more well known for divisive comments she made against Hispanic Republicans than for her legal expertise. She took on a high-profile role opposing President Bush's nomination of Miguel Estrada, criticizing him in numerous newspaper stories because he did not appear to support her political agenda. During this time, she made personal attacks against him, suggesting he was a traitor to other Hispanics.

Let me read from a 2003 article from National Review entitled, ``Dems to Miguel Estrada, You're Not Hispanic Enough.'' Ms. Demeo said:

If the Senate confirms Mr. Estrada, his own personal

American dream will come true, but the American dreams of the

majority of Hispanics living in this country will come to an

end through his future legal decisions.

In another press statement she said:

The most difficult situation for an organization like mine

is when a president nominates a Latino who does not reflect,

resonate or associate with the Latino community.

Instead of debating these issues, Ms. Demeo tried to convince the media

that an entire community should only think one way--her way--and that Miguel Estrada was wrong for thinking anything otherwise. To me, this sounds like ethnic bullying. It is dangerous and insulting to believe a particular community should think uniformly, and Ms. Demeo was wrong to do this.

I was not in the Senate at the time; however, I have come to work closely with Miguel Estrada since that time, especially during my work on the Honduras crisis. He is a patriotic American and one who gave his own time and energy to help us understand the legal issues facing Honduras. I do not doubt for a minute his qualifications to serve on the Federal bench. Comments by Ms. Demeo and others questioning Mr. Estrada's credentials, encouraging the filibuster of his nomination, and accusing him of not being ``authentically Hispanic'' made the confirmation process very painful for him and his family.

This was not the only time Ms. Demeo advanced this terrible argument. She used this same line of attack against Linda Chavez, President Bush's nominee to be Secretary of Labor.

Ms. Demeo was quoted by the Washington Post in January of 2001 saying:

We generally support the nomination of Latinos to important

positions, but Linda Chavez could really turn things

backwards for the Latino community. We just really question

what kinds of efforts she is going to put into enforcing the

affirmative action laws.

Ms. Demeo has also attacked those of us in Congress who opposed the amnesty legislation of a couple years ago, saying we were ``anti- immigrant and not interested in seeing immigrants become full participants in this country.''

She strongly opposes English as the official language and says the government must accommodate non-English speakers. She was quoted by the Associated Press in 2003 saying ``governments have a legal obligation to help those who don't speak English well.''

She demanded that the Census Department use ``sampling'' to puff up the number of voters in Hispanic districts. She told National Public Radio in 2001 that raw census data should not be used because it ``does not fully represent those minority communities who were missed by the census.'' Instead, she advocated that less accurate sampling data be used to redraw political districts.

Ms. Demeo has shown similar disregard for verified information by arguing that photo requirements for voting ``violates the rights of minority voters.''

She is also an active proponent of affirmative action, again suggesting to the public that all Latinos are in lockstep agreement on this issue.

After the Supreme Court's decision in Grutter, Demeo said:

All segments of the Latino community supported the

continuance of affirmative action. . . . The nation must now

also turn and concentrate on ensuring equality of opportunity

in our elementary, middle and high schools. Colleges and

universities that use race-conscious admissions have made

those universities a better place for everyone to learn.

Ms. Demeo has also attacked the definition of traditional marriage. These views have led groups such as Eagle Forum, Numbers USA, the Federation of American Immigration Reform, English First, Concerned Women for America, and the Traditional Values Coalition to oppose Judge Demeo's nomination.

I assume Ms. Demeo will be confirmed. If she is, I will wish her well in this new position. But I, regrettably, will vote no on this nomination.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am here today to celebrate the life and military service of a great American and an adopted South Carolinian, BG Thomas R. Mikolajcik. ``General Mik,'' as he was known to his many friends, passed from this life to the next on April 17, 2010, after a courageous 6\1/2\-year battle with ALS.

General Mikolajcik was a 1969 graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy and a decorated veteran of the conflicts in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and the first gulf war. During his distinguished military career, he logged more than 4,000 hours as a command pilot, commanded the 437th Airlift Wing at Charleston Air Force Base in Charleston, SC, and served as director of transportation for the Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for logistics.

General Mik was a tireless advocate for causes he believed in, and he won many allies locally and nationally for his work on behalf of the Charleston military community. The Mikolajcik Engineering Laboratory Center at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in Charleston and the Mikolajcik Child Development Center at Charleston Air Force Base are named in his honor.

A warrior until the end, General Mik's fighting spirit was never more evident than after he was diagnosed with ALS in 2003. Following his diagnosis, he would often say, ``You can put your head down and feel sorry for yourself, or you can help others.'' He chose the latter. General Mik founded the first ALS support group in South Carolina and the ALS Clinic at the Medical University of South Carolina. He also fought for full ALS coverage for his fellow veterans, who are disproportionately more likely to suffer from this terrible disease than the general population. And like so many other battles General Mik fought, he won this one, too, in a 2008 Defense Department ruling.

General Mikolajcik was a noble spirit and inspirational leader, who, even through his long illness, never stopped caring for and impacting the lives of those fortunate enough to know him. I am honored to have called him a friend and to extend my deepest sympathies on behalf of a grateful nation to his devoted wife Carmen, along with their three children and seven grandchildren. Today, South Carolina mourns the passing of a true American hero.

I have a motion at the desk.

Madam President, this motion will ensure that the new government health regime that has just been made law will not prohibit Americans from purchasing private health insurance plans across State lines without going through a government exchange.

Throughout this yearlong health care debate, we have talked about the importance of competition between insurance companies, how it could bring accountability and lower costs. Yet the laws of the land have actually created State-by-State monopolies that have not been responsive to the American people and have run up costs.

This motion could change that, creating hundred of choices, for Americans all across our Nation, with insurance companies competing for their business. CBO says this would lower their costs at least 5 percent; other folks say much more, particularly if you are in a State with a lot of mandates.

I encourage my colleagues to support my motion.

The current perimeter rule at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport stands as an artificial and antiquated barrier to competition and an impediment to choice. I am strongly supportive of this amendment and others that provide travelers with more choices in air travel.

The Ensign amendment provides a needed improvement by allowing carriers traveling out of DCA to respond to market demands and provide their customers with the air travel choices they demand most, instead of being confined by an antiquated statutory restriction. I am optimistic that as this bill moves forward that we can keep customer choice at the forefront and continue to open the skies to competition.

Amendment No. 3476, as Modified Withdrawn