Floor Statements

Madam President, today I wish to honor the memory of Charlie Meyers.

For decades, Charlie Meyers spoke up for Colorado's rivers and wildlife on the pages of the Denver Post. An award-winning outdoors writer and dedicated conservationist, Meyers shined a light on the threats to our State's treasured mountains and fishing holes as only a true outdoorsman could.

In his final column, Meyers told his readers about ``Fairplay Beach'' in Park County, a ``minor marvel,'' as he called it, ``filled with angling delights . . . threatened by a variety of perils that demand attention, and soon.''

Meyers was a native of Sicily Island, LA, and a graduate of Louisiana State University. He first joined the Post

staff in 1966, and after a brief departure, he returned to stay in 1971. Meyers was inducted into the Colorado Ski Hall of Fame in 1993 and won the International Ski Federation's FIS Journalist Award in 1999. He was the fourth American to win it.

A gifted wordsmith, Meyers was able to illustrate the beauty of Colorado and express just how much that beauty meant to him and to all who cherish the outdoors. And yet it would be difficult to put in words just how much he meant to Colorado's outside spaces and to their protection. Few of us will be able to match his energy and passion, but in his honor, all of us should try.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the heroic service of Dr. Morris W. Self of Pagosa Springs, CO. Dr. Self, a retired civil engineer, was recently honored by France for his brave service during World War II. This past month, the French Consul General in Los Angeles bestowed on him the National Order of the Legion of Honor, France's highest award, in the rank of Chevalier, or Knight, in appreciation for his distinguished service.

Morris was born in St. Paul, MN, in December 1921. During high school, he was active in several sports and served as president of the student government. At 18, Morris joined the Minnesota National Guard and trained with the 101st Coast Artillery Unit. After the U.S. entered the war in 1941, he enrolled in the Engineer Officer Candidate School. He was commissioned as a combat engineer with the rank of 2nd lieutenant in July 1942. Lieutenant Self was deployed to the United Kingdom in November 1943 with the 348th Combat Engineering Battalion to prepare for the Normandy landings.

On D-day, Lieutenant Self's unit landed on Omaha Beach at 7:30 a.m. under intense enemy fire. He was 23 years old at the time. Lieutenant Self led an infantry unit in clearing beach areas of enemy fortifications. His reconnaissance patrol cleared mines and located booby traps under enemy fire.

On June 7, Lieutenant Self continued to clear the beach of mines. That day, he saw several landing crafts hit by enemy fire begin to sink. After quickly assessing the situation, Lieutenant Self swam 200 yards from shore to look for survivors. On this first trip, he helped three men to shore with lifejackets and by creating a makeshift raft. Then he went back to save more. After finding a long rope and attaching it to shore, Lieutenant Self and Lieutenant Walter Sidlowksi of Brooklyn, NY, found a rubber raft and ferried three more groups of survivors to safety. They were in the frigid water of the English Channel for about 2 hours.

Lieutenant Self and his unit continued to clear beach areas for the next several months. In December 1944, the 348th was moved to the Ardennes area in Belgium to fight back against the German offensive during the Battle of the Bulge and to help rebuild the community. He returned to the U.S. in September 1945 and was discharged that December.

Prior to this most recent award, Lieutenant Self was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for heroic actions at Omaha Beach, the French Croix de Guerre with Bronze Star, and the Presidential Unit Citation. Lieutenant Self later attended the University of Minnesota and earned a civil engineering degree, a master's, and a doctorate in civil engineering. He was married to Ruth Mar in 1947, and they have three children: Ted Alan, Douglas, and Jenann.

I would like again to congratulate Dr. Self on his receipt of the esteemed Legion of Honor award and thank him for his selfless service to our country. His bravery, on D-day, and for months after, is a testament to the courage and conviction that American soldiers brought to a dreadful war. We are humbled by his service.

Madam President, I join my colleagues in support of the effort Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley have led to end the corrosive practice of secret holds. This is a reform that is needed and cannot wait.

I have been in Washington for only about a year, but it did not take that long to realize our government needs to fundamentally change the way it does business. Coloradans deserve a government that works for them. They are tired of the petty partisanship in Washington. They want their elected officials to listen and address their day-to-day concerns. I cannot think of a worse example of this dysfunction than the secret hold. It is undemocratic, and it is hurting our economy.

Quite a few of us in the Senate--the chairman and I--have young daughters, young kids who are familiar with the ups and downs of a long car ride heading out on vacation. The first hour always seems to go pretty well, full of excitement about where everybody is headed. But it is not long before that excitement turns to restlessness and that restlessness turns to secretly doing everything they can to bother their siblings just for the sake of doing it. And every time you turn around, they stop and smile and claim their innocence.

It never occurred to me that experience would actually prepare me to come to the Senate. Countless nominations and important legislation make their way to the floor. Senators make speeches about the importance of doing the country's business, appearing motivated to get the job done, to get the American people's work done. But when the cameras are off, they use the secret hold to bring this progress to a stop.

Since I have been here, I have seen nominees and bipartisan legislation held up for weeks, only to pass with 97 or 98 votes, all to score political points and waste the American people's time and the American people's money.

Earlier this year, we spent months working to reform health care. We have spent a lot of time under the chairman's leadership trying to fix Wall Street. It is past time we fix the way Washington works as well.

Congress must stop living under a glass dome. The Wyden-Grassley amendment is simple. It requires any Senator seeking to hold up the Nation's business to publicly announce his or her hold. All holds should be in writing, made public for the other 99 of us and, most importantly, for the American people so they can render their own judgment.

While I support this amendment, I have legislation that would go even further. My legislation would not only end secret holds, as this amendment does, but also require that any hold be bipartisan or else it expires after 2 legislative days. All holds, public or private, would expire in 30 days. At that point, the pending business would be ready to be considered on the Senate floor.

The Senate was designed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. Let's have the debate and put an end to these secretive attempts to prevent debate.

Once again, I thank Senators Wyden and Grassley for their leadership and look forward to the passage of this amendment. I also wish to recognize the great work our colleague from Missouri, Claire McCaskill, has done bringing this legislation to this point.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will take a couple of minutes. I have been here a smaller amount of time than anybody who is on this floor. The chairman has been here longer than I have been here; Senator Wyden, Senator McCaskill, and others. I have been here about 15 months. What I can tell my colleagues is that this place doesn't operate like any other place in the universe. This secret hold business we are talking about right now, so people understand, allows a Senator to be able to hold up a nomination or a piece of legislation without having to tell anybody who they are. I spent half my career in business. No business I have would have ever tolerated a rule such as that. I have worked in local government. No local government I have ever been part of would have tolerated a rule such as that. There are city councils and State governments, county governments all over this country right now--by the way, they are probably still at work, unlike us, trying to figure out how to balance their budgets in the most savage economy since the Great Depression. They are not using secret holds to stop their ability to respond to the American people, and we shouldn't either.

One of the things I want to say is that Senator Wyden should be congratulated, because this is not a partisan piece of legislation. The No. 1 question I hear from people when I go home is, Why can't you guys work together? We lack confidence in what you are doing. There are Democrats, Republicans, unaffiliated voters who say, Why can't you work together? It looks like a partisan food fight back here because it is, but it is a little more complicated than that. In this case, we have a bipartisan piece of legislation that has broad support in this Chamber, as do the nominees who are being held up whom we have brought forward. We haven't brought forward nominees who got just Democratic votes; they are nominees who were passed out of the relevant committee of jurisdiction on a bipartisan basis, and somebody has decided that they want to hold these people up for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the nominees or because they were passed out on a partisan way, which they weren't. They are bipartisan.

So this isn't about everybody on the other side of the aisle holding up this legislation. This is bipartisan legislation. We should be here tonight. It is only 7:30. We should be here tonight debating this amendment, allowing people to come together in a bipartisan way to support the amendment, just as we should allow people to come together in a bipartisan way to support the nominees who have come forward and passed out of committee. There is no difference. The difference is that this rule allows some individuals to bring it to a grinding halt, to create more division rather than less division which, at least in my view, is what we need as a country.

In my State, no matter where I am--in blue parts of the State, in red parts of the State--my sense is that people have a pretty common set of aspirations for our State, for our country, for their kids, for our grandkids. They expect us to act on those aspirations rather than on the divisions that are so easy to create for just political gain. That is what has been happening when it comes to these secret holds. There are other issues as well that relate to the rules of this place that need to be changed, but this is one that is indefensible.

I came to the floor this morning and I said it reminds me a little bit of a car trip with my three little girls who are 10, 9, and 5. It happens every single time we are in the car: The first hour goes great; everybody is fine. But then they start to fret with each other, they get frustrated with each other. You can hear it. Any parent knows, the hair on the back of your neck starts to rise, and you know something bad is about to happen, and it does. Usually somebody slugs somebody else, and then you look behind you and no one will admit what they have done. No one will take responsibility for their bad act. We don't tolerate that in my household, by the way. We try hard to get to the bottom and the truth. We don't always, but we usually do.

This is the same thing. I am not saying people shouldn't be able to hold things up on the merits, but they ought to have to come to the floor and tell the American people who they are and why they are holding it up. They may have good arguments to make. That is what this is about. It is about debate, and that is what we need more of in this country because we are wasting the American people's time. We are wasting the American people's money, and we can't even get a debate on a lot of the issues this country faces.

I am going to try hard to do everything I can to contribute to a civil debate rather than an uncivil debate, and I think getting rid of these holds is going to be one of the ways forward. It is not the only thing we need to do.

I wish to thank Senator Wyden for all of his good work on this issue, and Senator Whitehouse for his good work, and the chairman's indulgence for letting us have this conversation tonight. Thanks for everything you have done to advance Wall Street reform this week.

By the way, on that, the American people should know that this bill, the Wall Street reform bill, is a very good bill. Unlike some other work we have done recently, it actually has the benefit of being worked on in a very bipartisan way, with a lot of amendments from Democrats and Republicans which I think have improved the legislation. I can't predict the future, but my guess is that it is going to pass with broad bipartisan support.

I congratulate Chairman Dodd on his leadership and getting that done in a way that gives the American people confidence that we are actually doing their business.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act--the DISCLOSE Act. I would first like to thank Senator Schumer for his leadership. This legislation is necessary as we work to fix Washington's broken campaign finance system in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United v. FEC.

The credibility of our democracy is damaged by the status quo. Because of the dysfunction in our campaign finance system, the voices of special and entrenched interests drown out those of ordinary people. Thousands of lobbyists line the Halls of Congress every day, and their voices get heard. Only strong reform can begin to turn things around.

Campaign finance reform is something Congress has long needed to address. The reforms of the past have proven insufficient and are continually under assault in the courts. The Supreme Court did us no favors with its decision in Citizens United. As a result of the Court's decision, corporations and labor unions can now spend directly from their general treasuries on the election or defeat of a specific Federal candidate through election day. There are no prohibitions on the timing or reach of these independent expenditures so long as they are not coordinated with a campaign. As Justice Stevens wrote in his dissent, ``the Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation.'' I'm with Justice Stevens.

I strongly disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision because it leaves individual Americans with an even smaller voice in our system. This ruling rolled back sensible restrictions on corporate influence that date back decades. It stacked the deck further against the American people by unleashing a flood of special interest money in our Federal elections.

Judicial activists on the bench undid decades of precedent at the expense of our democratic process. Corporations, which after all are not voters and do not have the same role in elections as individual citizens, can now drastically influence the outcomes of our elections. This is unprecedented and represents a threat to our democracy. A floodgate of special interest money has now been opened and we are left to deal with a number of damaging, foreseeable consequences.

Over the long run, I support a constitutional amendment to allow Congress to regulate contributions and expenditures. But this is a very heavy lift in a Senate that has trouble mustering the required 67 votes on anything. We can't wait for a constitutional amendment to materialize. We must act now to fix some of the egregious problems opened up by the Citizens United decision.

If we let the Court's decision stand as is, then even foreign- controlled corporations can use the aggregations of wealth inherent in the corporate form to dominate our elections. While foreign nationals and corporations have always been barred under traditional law from contributing to campaigns or making independent expenditures, their subsidiaries established in the United States are not covered by this new prohibition. A subsidiary controlled by foreign nationals could run ads impacting local elections. Petro China, with an estimated net worth of $100 billion, could use its profits to purchase ads in congressional races. Saudi Aramco, estimated to be worth $781 billion, could likewise spend unlimited sums of money on independent expenditures to shape public perception of a candidate.

Further, if we let the Court's decision stand as is, then we are in jeopardy of institutionalizing pay to play politics or at least the appearance of this. Government contractors, whose profits come from taxpayer dollars, will now be able to spend freely to influence elections. We already are struggling to address waste, fraud and abuse in our government contracting. Citizens United will only make necessary reforms more difficult, as government contractors can use taxpayer dollars they receive from government contracts to attack supporters of reform or support those who make it easier to obtain these contracts.

Mostly importantly, the Supreme Court's decision increases the role of money in politics without any way to ensure voters are informed of where this money is coming from. The demands of the money chase already leave out many Americans with a desire to serve. Candidates will no longer

just have to raise funds to compete against their opponents, but will also have to compete with independent expenditure campaigns conducted by powerful special interests. This has the potential to influence the positions a candidate takes and perception the public has of the political process. Our elected officials will no longer be able to focus on the big issues of the day for risk of opening the door for an independent expenditure attack waged by a regulated interest.

What is more troubling is that current law provides for insufficient transparency to ensure voters are aware of who is running these independent expenditures. Special interests and their lobbyists, of course, will know who is running these ads since they are going to use them for leverage. Voters will be left in the dark.

We must utilize--to the fullest extent possible--the tools for regulating campaign finance that the Court has provided for in Citizens United and in prior decisions.

I am a proud cosponsor of the DISCLOSE Act because I believe it addresses some of the unintended consequences of Citizens United and emphasizes disclosure requirements, which the Supreme Court has highlighted as ``the less-restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations.'' This legislation is our best hope for ensuring voters can make informed decisions and making sure our process isn't corrupted or otherwise cheapened by the Court's new blunt restrictions on our ability to protect the system from outside corrupting influence.

And so the DISCLOSE Act extends the existing prohibition on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic corporations where: (1) a foreign national owns 20 percent or more of voting shares in the corporation; (2) a majority of the board of directors are foreign nationals; (3) one or more foreign nationals have the power to direct, dictate or control the decisionmaking of the U.S. subsidiary; or (4) one or more foreign nationals have the power to direct, dictate or control the activities with respect to Federal, State or local elections.

This prohibition is in line with current laws that prohibit foreign nationals from making direct or indirect contributions to campaigns for Federal, State or local elections. Under the law, the definition of ``foreign national'' exempts any person that is ``not an individual and is organized under or created by the laws of the United States or any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and has its principal place of business within the United States.'' The FEC has concluded this exemption includes a U.S. corporation that is a subsidiary of a foreign corporation, so long as the foreign parent does not finance political activities in the United States and no foreign national participates in any decision to make expenditures. The DISCLOSE Act tightens this exemption and clarifies its reach in order to prevent undue foreign influence. This provision makes sure the Court's decision does not leave any possible opening for foreign influence of our elections.

To address the potential for corruption or appearance of corruption by government contractors which can now use their treasuries to influence election results, the DISCLOSE Act bars government contractors from making campaign-related expenditures. Under current law, government contractors are already barred from making contributions to influence Federal elections. If an individual is a sole proprietor of a business with a Federal Government contract, he or she may not make contributions from personal or business funds. The DISCLOSE Act ensures that the intent of current law remains by prohibiting the general treasury funds of government contractors from being used to circumvent current restrictions. Further, bailout recipients who have not repaid taxpayers cannot make campaign-related expenditures until taxpayer money is repaid. This is in line with the spirit of the government contractor provision since it prevents the potential for corruption and abuse of taxpayer dollars by those who are direct beneficiaries.

In its provisions for regulating foreign corporations and government contractors, the DISCLOSE Act builds on restrictions already in place under the law to make sure that the unintended consequences of Citizens United do not come to fruition. These are necessary fixes.

The most important provisions in the DISCLOSE Act concern increased transparency in our political process. Given the reality that Citizens United has opened the door for unmitigated special interest money, it is important that we make sure voters are aware whose money is being used to influence their opinions.

The DISCLOSE Act expands disclosure requirements under current law by requiring corporations, labor unions and a number of tax exempt organizations to report all donors who have given $1,000 or more to the organization in a 12-month period if the organization makes independent expenditures or electioneering communications in excess of $10,000. Further, leaders of corporations, unions and organizations covered are required to stand behind their independent expenditure ads by appearing on camera, as candidates for office are currently required to do. To prevent money from being funneled to shell groups to avoid identification, the top funder of ads must stand by the ad and issue a disclaimer. The top five donors to a campaign-related TV ad will be listed on screen.

Special interests are already attacking this provision as unconstitutional. This is both unfortunate and false. As the Court stated in Citizens United, the ``public has an interest in knowing who is speaking about a candidate shortly before an election.'' Voters should be able to weigh different speakers and messages accordingly.

Citing the Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo, Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority in Citizens United that ``disclaimer and disclosure requirements may burden the ability to speak, but they impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities or prevent anyone from speaking.''

Under this rationale, the Court upheld disclaimer and disclosure requirements under sections 201 and 311 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, BCRA, as they applied to the movie that Citizens United produced and the advertisements it planned to run to promote the movie. The Court found the movie and its advertisements amounted to ``electioneering communication'' under BCRA and did not find there to be evidence that the disclosure requirements would have a chilling effect on donations by exposing donors to retaliation. Thus, the Court removed the ability of funders for Citizens United to lurk in the shadows while shaping public perspective. There is no doubt that the Court would find a broadening of current disclosure laws and rules that pertain to candidates to be appropriate.

The ability of the public to be informed of their choices in the political marketplace is critical. Misinformation campaigns are already an unfortunate reality of our politics. With the floodgates of special interest money now fully open, the situation will only grow worse. The least we can do is make sure voters can make informed decisions.

Although Citizens United has cast a dark cloud on Washington, Senator Schumer is also proving that this deplorable decision also created the impetus for action. The DISCLOSE Act is an opportunity to not only prevent the worst of the unintended and the foreseeable consequences from the Supreme Court's decision, but also improve the information available to voters as they consider candidates and issues. This legislation is a step forward for ensuring that the voices of individual Americans are not drowned out. It is an opportunity to show the public that we will not stand by and allow special interests to continue to overwhelm Washington and the people's business.

I am proud to be joining Senators Schumer, Feingold, Wyden, Bayh and Franken here today in support of the DISCLOSE Act. I ask all our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation and bringing it to the floor so that we can prevent further decay of our campaign finance system and ensure voters are informed come election day.

Mr. President, I will reserve 2 minutes for Senator Tester out of my time.

As I mentioned earlier this week, we have an important opportunity to safeguard our economy from the conditions that drove our country into this catastrophic financial meltdown.

The Wall Street reform bill we have before us takes critically important steps forward, helping to stabilize and safeguard our financial institutions, our financial system for consumers and businesses alike. But we should not stop here. This debate must be about making the underlying bill better.

I rise today to suggest one substantial way that we can rebuild the credibility of our financial system, save taxpayers billions of dollars, and finally move to end the TARP.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 3928, and I wish to call it up and ask unanimous consent to add Senator Brown of Massachusetts as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, my amendment is based on bipartisan legislation I introduced earlier this Congress called the Pay It Back Act. I was greatly encouraged at that time by the broad bipartisan support in this body for winding down the TARP, getting serious about deficit reduction, and spurring our economy back to health.

As I talk with Coloradans all across my State, I hear the same concerns again and again. People are deeply concerned and worried about the economy. They worry about jobs and they worry about our rising Federal deficit. But mostly they just want a fair shake--a chance to achieve their own vision of success through hard work.

That is why they don't understand the behavior of some of our largest financial institutions. They don't understand how these behemoths could have made bad bets, lose billions of dollars, and then be bailed out by the Federal Government. That doesn't make sense to most people in Colorado, and it certainly doesn't make sense to anybody running a business.

This pay it back amendment takes a big step forward in our efforts to wind down and eventually end the TARP. It prevents further government spending, recaptures taxpayers' investments in financial institutions, and ensures that repaid funds are used for deficit reduction.

It does this in a couple of ways. First, it reduces the TARP's authority by about $150 billion, which will ensure that unused TARP funds are not used for new government spending.

Chairman Dodd's bill sends a strong message to Wall Street and our broader markets that there is no longer an implicit guarantee of government support for excessive and sloppy risk taking. This amendment reinforces this important principle by reducing TARP's authority. In short, it begins to wind down the TARP and ensures that the government doesn't use the excess funding for new spending initiatives. It is a commonsense way forward for a program whose time has come and thankfully is almost gone.

But that is not enough. As we wind down TARP, we need to make sure that taxpayers realize a fair return on their investment. That is why the second element of the Pay It Back Act amendment is that it takes captured, repaid TARP funds and applies them to deficit reduction. It does it by severely restricting TARP's revolving door of credit.

Although some companies have already repaid the money they received, TARP currently allows the Treasury to keep $700 billion ``outstanding at any one time.''

Let me make this clear. The Treasury has already received about $180 billion in repaid funds from banks that are now in a position to repay the taxpayers. But right now, Treasury can turn around and lend that same money to some other financial institution. It can use our money again and again. And since the TARP money is borrowed against our kids' and grandkids' futures, that is using their money again and again and again. I can tell you for sure that my daughters don't want to be stuck footing the bill for keeping the TARP around even 1 day longer than we have to. By supporting my amendment, this body can move forcefully toward ending the TARP and restoring fiscal sanity.

The amendment also creates a sunset for unused Recovery Act funds. Any funds not obligated by the Federal Government by December 31, 2012, will be returned to the Treasury to pay down the national deficit. Congress passed the Recovery Act to jolt our struggling economy back to life and help create and save jobs now. Yet, if funds have not been used by the end of 2012, can we say they have been used to ease our current recession? The taxpayers deserve to see stimulus funds used for real stimulus. If not, they should be used to pay down our debt.

The pay it back amendment sets a schedule for getting the government out of the business of owning businesses. It lets excessive risk takers know that Washington no longer provides a backstop for greed, overleveraging, reckless levels of risk, and irresponsibility. If big financial institutions want to behave that way, they must know that they do so without the TARP--without money from Main Street--to bail them out any longer.

In short, it is time for this assistance to come to a responsible end. At the heart of the Wall Street reform bill is an effort to prevent future bailouts. So let's start by finally winding down the biggest bailout of them all and making sure taxpayers get the best possible return on their money.

I thank my colleagues who are cosponsors of the bill, and I ask all of my colleagues to support this important amendment. I thank Senator Dodd and Senator Lincoln and the ranking members of the Banking and Agriculture Committees for their hard work to bring Wall Street reform to the floor.

I know the Senator from Montana wants to take a couple of minutes. I will say this. Americans have been watching the news in Europe this week, and they are seeing what is happening in Greece and the rest of Europe. If we don't think that is a canary in the coal mine, we do that at our peril. This bill will not solve our deficit and debt problem, but it takes a stand that says we are not going to leave a legacy of $12 trillion behind for our kids and grandkids.

With that, I yield the floor.

Thank you, Madam President.

I see our chairman and the ranking member over here from the Banking Committee on which I serve, and I want to congratulate them for their hard work in getting this legislation to the floor. We are finally doing some work around here, and we are doing it in a bipartisan way.

I think this bill is going to improve over the course of this debate. It is an enormously important opportunity to safeguard our economy from the reckless danger that got us into this financial mess. I am hopeful we can wade through all this Washington wrangling and get something done to protect America's financial future.

There is a shared understanding of what got us here, and that is the good news. Some on Wall Street took all the risk. Yet it is the American people who paid the price. Small businesses, homeowners, and working families were forced to come in and clean up this mess.

It is our responsibility to learn the lessons from the last collapse to help this economy recover and to head off the kinds of problems that could lead to another financial crisis. In short, we have to fix this economy, ensuring there will never have to be another taxpayer- sponsored bailout.

As someone who sits on both the Agriculture and Banking Committees which share jurisdiction over this bill, I can assure you that this package reflects months of hard work and incorporates ideas and concepts from both political parties. We have examined the problems that brought us to the financial brink nearly 2 years ago, and together these two committee bills created a thoughtful and comprehensive plan to increase transparency, reduce systemic risk, and strengthen our commitment to protecting consumers.

In reviewing the merits of the bill, I think it is important to analyze how it would have addressed so many of the problems that led to the financial collapse in 2008. Too often, we do not ask the question, What problem is it we are trying to solve, and then we get busy either solving problems that did not exist or creating unintended consequences from our work. I think we have worked hard on this legislation for this not to be so.

Had this legislation been the law of the land, we would not be talking about that $700 billion taxpayer-funded rescue of our Nation's largest bank holding companies. We would have been able to see many of the dangerous trends develop earlier, and we would have required these systemically risky companies to have more capital and less debt. Had any of these companies failed, we would have resolved them without transforming them into wards of the state, like AIG.

Second, had a strong consumer protection infrastructure existed, we could have stopped the subprime mess before it spiraled out of control. For example, subprime giant Ameriquest would have been subject to meaningful rulemaking and enforcement authority. And while I prefer a wholly independent agency, this bill represents substantial and meaningful progress on a consumer protection front.

Third, had the bill's derivatives reforms been in place, it is much less likely--much less likely--that the Federal Government would have been forced to spend tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to rescue AIG from its own sloppiness and greed.

In total, the plan before us represents a strong and thoughtful measure that rewrites the rules of the road for Wall Street. And through the amendment process, we can make it even better.

For example, I think we need to ensure that certain State-chartered community banks that did little to contribute to the current crisis do not have to change their prudential regulator. In so many of our towns, community banks play an important role in providing credit to our local economies. Many of these small institutions are struggling due to this difficult economy, which means less available credit for families and small businesses. I have concerns that a change in prudential regulation may exert further pressure on these small banks which continue to serve their local communities. It is my hope we can balance the need to reduce regulatory arbitrage while preserving the existing prudential supervisory structure for some of these State-chartered banks.

I also believe it is time for us to take advantage of this opportunity to begin to move away from the last bank bailout, the TARP. While there are 100 opinions in this Chamber about how effective TARP was, there really is a broad consensus here and in the country that it is time to wind down TARP, recapture what we can for taxpayers, and prevent banks from tapping into the Treasury going forward. That is why in the coming days I will be pushing bipartisan legislation that will do exactly that. It would use recaptured TARP funds, borrowed from our children--$180 billion so far and counting--for deficit reduction, and it would take important steps to end the TARP.

More broadly, I also think we need to be aggressive about strengthening this bill to further protect consumers. I will be supporting amendments which do exactly that.

When it comes to Wall Street reform, we simply cannot afford to delay any longer. Recently, the TARP inspector general underscored this point better than I could. He stated:

[E]ven if TARP saved our financial system from driving off

a cliff back in 2008, absent meaningful reform, we are still

driving on the same winding mountain road, but this time in a

faster car.

In short, bailing out companies has made the future risk to our financial system even worse, by creating the

moral hazard that a financial firm that participates in risky behavior is going to somehow be bailed out by the government, by the taxpayer. This Wall Street reform package takes a strong step toward restoring some degree of sanity in our financial system and making that moral hazard a thing of the past.

Finally, Coloradans and the American people are expecting us to act. I am confident we are going to succeed. Lobbyists may have been able to slow down Wall Street reform temporarily, but the American people want it, as well they should. We are getting closer and closer every day to sustaining a workable bill that can pass this Chamber and that we can eventually send to the President for his signature. We cannot allow the status quo to maintain its grip on our financial system. We have to work together and pass this groundbreaking reform package.

I want to close, again, by thanking the chairman of the Banking Committee, who is here in the Chamber, for his leadership throughout the months, not just on this issue but on health care as well but particularly for sticking with this issue. I do not think we would be having this debate right now were it not for the work the chairman did. As a member of the Banking Committee, I appreciate it very much.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor the life and heroic service of Sergeant Michael K. Ingram, Jr. Sergeant Ingram, a member of the 1st Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, CO, died on April 17, 2010. Sergeant Ingram was serving in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Kandahar, Afghanistan. He was killed by injuries sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated while he was on patrol. He was 23 years old.

A native of Monroe, MI, Sergeant Ingram moved to Fort Carson when he was assigned to the 4th Infantry Division. Sergeant Ingram joined the Army in February 2006, and he was deployed to Afghanistan in May 2009.

During over 4 years of service, Sergeant Ingram distinguished himself through his courage, dedication to duty, and willingness to take on any challenge--no matter how dangerous. Commanders recognized his extraordinary bravery and talent, bestowing on Sergeant Ingram numerous awards and medals, including the Army Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, and the Overseas Service Ribbon.

Sergeant Ingram worked on the front lines of battle, patrolling the most dangerous areas of Kandahar. He is remembered by those who knew him as a consummate professional with an unending commitment to excellence. Family and friends remember him for his smile and his commitment to service. After sustaining a mild injury, Sergeant Ingram was recently offered a chance to come home for surgery. He chose to stay with his unit and finish out his service. He planned on pursuing a career in law enforcement after his time in the Army.

Mark Twain once said, ``The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.'' Sergeant Ingram's service was in keeping with this sentiment--by selflessly putting country first, he lived life to the fullest. He lived with a sense of the highest honorable purpose.

At substantial personal risk, he braved the chaos of combat zones throughout Afghanistan. And though his fate on the battlefield was uncertain, he pushed forward, protecting America's citizens, her safety, and the freedoms we hold dear. For his service and the lives he touched, Sergeant Ingram will forever be remembered as one of our country's bravest.

To Sergeant Ingram's mother Patricia, his father Michael, and all his friends and family I cannot imagine the sorrow you must be feeling. I hope that, in time, the pain of your loss will be eased by your pride in Michael's service and by your knowledge that his country will never forget him. We are humbled by his service and his sacrifice.

Madam President, I am pleased to be here with my colleague from Alaska. I also was not planning to come to the floor to talk about this tonight because I thought the vote was going to pass. This is called a motion to proceed, and around here, I think that is Senate-speak for a motion to not get anything done. That is what happens when we do these motions.

It is particularly aggravating because I was back in Colorado this weekend, as I am every weekend, traveling the State and had the chance to see the TV from time to time. You couldn't turn on a television station without seeing some politician from this town on TV talking about the importance of getting this work done, Democrats and Republicans, people taking the time out of their weekend to say to the American people: We are actually working hard to try to correct the problems that led us into the worst recession since the Great Depression. Then we all get back to town on Monday and we don't get anything done. We take a vote, not on the bill but a vote that would just allow us to debate the bill, to amend the bill, to get Republican amendments and Democrat amendments, to improve the legislation, and we are told we can't do that. We can have the debate on the airwaves, we can have the debate all weekend long on television in front of the American people, but when we come back here, in theory, to do the people's business, somehow we cannot debate it anymore. This is the reason so many people across the country think Washington is completely out of touch.

There are people saying: Well, the recovery started. Everything is OK again. And I am glad to see there are some signs of improvement in our economy. But for the families in Colorado, there is still a lot of struggle going on, there are still of lot of people worried about losing their houses or how to replace the houses they have lost, worried about losing their jobs or how to pay for their kids' higher education.

The last period of economic growth in our country's history before we were pitched into the worst recession since the Great Depression was the first time in this Nation's history ever, ever, that our economy grew, our gross domestic product grew, but middle-class incomes fell in the United States. In Colorado, it fell by $800, while the cost of health insurance went up by 97 percent, the cost of higher education went up by 50 percent.

Our families are recovering not just from one recession but effectively from two recessions, and you would think the least we could do would be to put some commonsense regulations in place that, had they been in place before the last crisis, we wouldn't have had the crisis to begin with.

Our last period of economic growth in this country was based on debt, too much debt at every level of the economy.

The consumers have too much debt. Washington has too much debt. Some bankholding companies in New York that historically had 12 to 14 times debt to equity decided during that period to go to 28 and 30 times. By any standard, it is an incredibly risky strategy. To make matters worse, the way they leveraged themselves up was with derivatives that no regulator was looking at, that shareholders didn't even understand, that bondholders didn't even understand. The commonsense reforms that are in place in this bill--because of the work of the Banking Committee, the work of the Agriculture Committee, both committees on which I serve--would have cured that problem.

Ultimately, what we are trying to do is put ourselves in the position of never having to say some financial institution is too big to fail or that the taxpayers have to hold a gun to their head and clean up somebody else's greedy mistake; to make sure there is transparency in the marketplace so we know what securities are being traded.

I have spent half my life in the private sector, a lot of it in the capital markets. This is not an antibusiness piece of legislation. In fact, quite the contrary. There are a lot of businesses out there that have been harmed terribly by judgments that were not made because they were prudent business decisions but to make a fast buck.

Here we are on Monday night, after a weekend of people talking on television programs, and we can't get done the American people's business. Again, this is not an up-or-down vote on the bill. This is just a vote so we can have a debate on the floor of the Senate, so we have the opportunity to amend and improve the bill. I am sure the bill is not perfect. In fact, I know it is not perfect. It has room for improvement.

I see my colleague from the Banking Committee from the Commonwealth of Virginia is here.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Virginia. As he was talking, I was thinking about my work in the real world, as he has had that experience. If you were in a position where everybody wanted to get it done, if there was general agreement that you were 80 or 90 percent of the way there, the way to get it done was not to not continue discussion. It wasn't to say: Well, I am going to pick up and fly back to Denver or fly back to Virginia until cooler heads prevail. It was to stay in the room and get it done.

I think, particularly when this isn't about a private sector transaction, this is about the American people's business, the people who have hired everybody here to do this job, it is a shame that we should not be out here tonight in a bipartisan way figuring out how to cross the t's and dot the i's and put a framework in place that would have prevented the catastrophe our families are now continuing to live through.

Sometimes that is one of the things people forget. There are parts of the economy that have recovered faster than others. There are parts of the economy where people are getting hired or paid, other parts where people are still struggling along. The people I saw this weekend were people who were struggling along. They are not interested in engaging in class warfare, as some people say. What they are interested in is making sure we create a set of conditions where the game is not rigged and where they have some predictability in their lives as business people and as working families.

Like my colleague, I am new. Maybe we don't know exactly the way this place works. I hope somewhere in this building there are people who are coming together to figure out how we can create the conditions where we could at least get a vote to have the conversation about how to get to that last 10 percent on this bill.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for kicking off this discussion. I rise in strong support of this effort by a group of reform-minded Senators to finally get rid of this ridiculous and insane practice of anonymous holds. The American people have little patience for this political game when they are going through what they are going through.

What people should understand is, at least in my view, this is less about partisanship. The Senator from Missouri talked about the fact that these are people who passed unanimously out of committee, with Republicans and Democrats supporting the nominees who somehow, between the committee process and the Senate floor, got stuck. They are getting stuck anonymously. I say it is not about partisanship. I say this is a perfect illustration of Washington, DC, being completely out of touch with what is going on in the country.

No one else in the country invents a set of rules to make sure they do not get their work done. But that is what we are doing in the Senate. That is why I think it is high time we got rid of these anonymous holds. I would go even further. I have legislation that gets rid of the anonymous holds and bans these secret holds. But it would do more. It would also require that a hold be bipartisan or else it expires after 2 legislative days. If a Senator wants to place a hold, that is within their rights, but we are going to make sure it is scrutinized. We are going to make sure they can get support from somebody on the other side of the aisle for holding up the country's business. All holds under my bill would expire after 30 days, whether they are bipartisan or not.

I also wish to highlight that the Senators who have taken this strong stance against secret holds are willing to put our money where our mouth is. While Washington bats around about this and other reforms, we have all pledged that we will stop the practice of secret holds ourselves. It was easy for me to do because I have never placed a secret hold on the Nation's business, and I never will.

This is a small but important illustration of what is not working well in the Senate, what is blocking progress for the American people. It is a small step but an important step to demonstrate that we can actually do our work differently, that we have been sent here to have an open and thoughtful debate about the issues that confront our great country. I am proud to be here today with my other colleagues.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to offer my sincere congratulations to Denver Post photojournalist Craig F. Walker who won the Pulitzer Prize for feature photography. Craig's winning photos tracked Ian Fisher's 2-year journey as a high school graduate in Lakewood, CO, to his yearlong deployment in Iraq.

The ``American Soldier'' project was a three-part series of photos that told a compelling story and captured the raw emotional rollercoaster of one young man's decision and transition to become a soldier. There is something about a photo that has the ability to capture the truth in a single, fleeting moment. This series of photos captures individual moments that, when combined, create a powerful story that everyone can connect to on an emotional level. During these times when we are fighting two wars overseas, it is important to remind every American that these soldiers are regular people who have heard the call of duty and dedicated their lives to serve their country.

Winning a Pulitzer Prize is the highest honor for a journalist, and I am proud that a photojournalist from Colorado's Denver Post received such a prestigious award, especially on such an important story. Craig should feel very proud of his work, and I congratulate him again for this great honor.

Madam President, there is not a person in this Chamber, I guarantee you, who does not go home at the end of the week and hear from people of their State--Democrats, Republicans, or unaffiliated voters--``what in the world are you guys doing back there? What's with all the political games being played? Why can't people act in a bipartisan way?''

I think it is important to say that we are talking about a bunch of nominations that actually have broad bipartisan support. Most of them passed out of committee by voice vote--certainly on a bipartisan basis.

As the Senator from Virginia was saying, there is instance after instance where there has been delay, delay, delay, only to see somebody pass 97 to 0 or 98 to 0. That is not about partisanship or about Republican versus Democrat. To me, that is about Washington

being completely out of touch with the real world. The real world doesn't act this way. They don't use rules to make excuses for not getting their work done. The real world doesn't say we are frightened to debate these issues. The real world doesn't take people who are qualified for their jobs and prepared to serve this country at an enormously difficult time in our history and say: Let's put it off until next week or the week after that or the week after that. Nobody here is saying we should not have a vote. Nobody here is saying we should not have a debate. We are saying that the American people deserve better than that. By the way, people may not know this. In this institution, it is actually possible to put a hold on somebody and not say who you are.

I say to the Senator from Virginia, as the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, how could you ever have gotten anything done if that were the case?

It is possible to put a hold on somebody in this institution and never explain why you did it. You do not know what the issue is. That is why we need to have this debate and move forward.

Everybody in this Chamber has an obligation, whether they are Democrat or Republican, to look at the merits of the nominees and to vote their conscience on those nominees. But the American people are enormously frustrated with the current state of affairs. They want an open and sensible conversation about the policy choices we face as a country, and I think they want an end to the political games.

It is important we are all here today. I hope there are others who will join us in the days ahead. I thank the Senator from Virginia for organizing this discussion.

Madam President, on March 19, 2010, Colorado lost two great public servants dedicated to protecting Colorado's water. Douglas L. Shriver, 53, and Raymond Brett Wright, 56, both of Colorado's San Luis Valley, lost their lives in an accident near Creede, CO. These men were active leaders in their communities and particularly engaged in water-related issues across Colorado and in the San Luis Valley.

Water is a scarce and precious resource in Colorado. In working to protect Colorado's water, Doug and Raymond also worked to protect public health, sustain agriculture, support Colorado's economic interests, and maintain the vast parks, wildlife, and wilderness for which Colorado is world-renowned. Our State is forever indebted to Doug and Ray, for their hard and generous work has been to the benefit of all who live in Colorado.

Doug served as chairman of the Rio Grande Water Users Association and as the vice chair for the Rio Grande Basin Roundtable. He was an avid outdoorsman who enjoyed golf, boating, fishing, hunting, sporting clays, snow machining, and cross country skiing. Beyond his leadership in protecting Colorado's water supply, he gave back to his community by tutoring fourth and fifth graders at the Bill Metz Elementary School. He is survived by his wife Karla, his mother Zola, and siblings Deanna, Larry, Kay, Randy, Jean, and David.

Ray served as board president for the Rio Grande Water Conservation District. He also had a strong passion for the outdoors and enjoyed hunting, fishing, skiing, and building and flying his own bamboo fly fishing rods. A keen intellect and sharp memory made Ray stand out, and he will be remembered by those who love him as an affectionate man who lived life to its fullest. He is survived by his daughters Susan, Sara, and Lauren, granddaughter Brynn, and siblings Diana and Greg.

Doug and Ray were well respected for their hard work, intelligence, and congeniality. I join Coloradans in grieving the loss of these public servants, and my prayers go out to their families. Colorado is a better place as a result of these two men. The works of Doug Shriver and Ray Wright will affect Coloradans for generations to come.

Thank you, Mr. President. I say thank you to the Senator from Montana for his generosity. I will not take 10 minutes. I know the Senator from Pennsylvania is here.

Mr. President, I stand here today for the millions of Coloradans and American families who are sick and tired of the name calling, the bickering, and the partisanship in Washington.

I am here today for over 800,000 uninsured Coloradans who will now have a fighting chance to get the health care they need.

I am here for the 1.2 million Coloradan children who will never again be at risk of being denied coverage because they have a preexisting condition.

I am here for the 70,000 small businesses that will get a tax cut to provide health insurance, so they do not have to make the terrible choice between providing health care coverage for their employees and keeping their doors open.

I am here for the hundreds of thousands of seniors who depend on Medicare and expect us to protect and preserve it for generations to come.

We have passed a bill that makes our country more competitive, ends insurance company abuses, gives people more coverage, and starts putting our country on a more sound fiscal footing for the next 20 years.

I join those on this side of the aisle and on the other side of the aisle who have said this is not a perfect piece of legislation. No piece of legislation is perfect. But it is a great first step for the reasons I said.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has confirmed a $143 billion reduction in the Federal deficit over 10 years, as a consequence of our passing this legislation, and a $1.2 trillion reduction in the first 20 years.

Now we need to pass this reconciliation bill--a bill that gets rid of the special deals I spoke out against at the end of the year, a bill that makes sure our seniors can afford the prescription drugs they need, a bill that covers more people in my State of Colorado.

But the insurance companies and the special interests have not given up. The defenders of the status quo are still at it. Put simply, to amend the bill is to kill this bill. The only reason we are going through this process is because opponents of health care reform want to kill the bill. Now is not the time to play games with the lives of thousands of Coloradans and millions of Americans, and I will not do it.

There are also some who are well intentioned and want to amend this bill to include a public option. I am and have been a strong proponent of a public option and, like a lot of people, have taken a lot of heat for it. I am not sure why because everywhere I went in Colorado people said to me: Michael, if you are going to require us to have insurance, we want as many choices as possible for our family. Please don't force us into this private insurance if there are other options out there.

A lot of us did all we could to convince the House to include it in this bill, and we were disappointed when they did not. We are going to continue to fight for it until we get a vote. We will have our vote on a public option. But I will not risk the well-being of Coloradans to do it, and I will not play into the hands of those who want to kill the bill.

So today I stand with many of my colleagues, with the American Diabetes Association, the American Hospice Foundation, the Autism Society, Doctors for America, Easter Seals, and the National Alliance on Mental Illness, along with over 150 organizations that want us to pass this bill as well. I stand with AARP which knows that changing this bill now will put seniors at risk.

But more important than all of that, I stand with the people of Colorado who expect more from their government and who want more for their children and grandchildren than politics and name calling.

I urge all of my colleagues to pass reconciliation and send this bill to the President's desk.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise to call on the Senate to do something the rest of the American people are doing, our job. Most of President Obama's nominees to the executive branch and our Federal courts are not even remotely controversial. The country needs them on the job, and their responsibilities, their careers, and the stress on their families should not be caused by holds and other pointless delays.

We face serious challenges as a nation. Unemployment and underemployment rates are unacceptably high. Our courts have unprecedented backlogs. We are fighting two wars and have the persistent threat of terror that casts a shadow over our security.

We need a functioning Federal Government. The American people expect this. Yet some in this body are too tied up in ``politics as usual'' to get our government working again. Rather than making sure we get the government up and running by allowing our votes on key administration nominees, the Senate is mired in perpetual stalling, failing to perform its constitutional responsibility to advise and consent. Qualified people nominated to hold key positions in the administration are languishing in the Senate because of procedural abuses. These should end.

I have introduced a resolution which would help address some of these abuses. My resolution would bring holds by one Senator outside the shadows, time limit them, and place requirements that, after 2 days, holds must be bipartisan to continue.

These commonsense improvements ought not be necessary. But in today's Senate, unfortunately, they are. I fully support scrutinizing all positions requiring confirmation. In fact, that is why my suggested resolution actually says, if you have bipartisan support--and there might be a reason to look at it other than just pure politics--I think we should look at it.

But useless delay is not getting us anywhere. I am not asking for a rubberstamp from anyone. But a desire to assert leverage over the administration or a desire to frustrate the government's efforts to work for the American people is unacceptable for holding up nominees.

Too often we have seen nominees held for months only to be confirmed by overwhelming margins. Judge Barbara Keenan was recently confirmed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by the breathtakingly close vote of 99 to 0. This was after her nomination was held up for 4 months following approval by the Judiciary Committee.

There are currently 16 other judicial nominees who, similar to Judge Keenan, have cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and are awaiting floor time. Unfortunately, they are subject to partisan and meritless delays. The result is, our district and appellate courts will continue to be backlogged and justice will not be served in communities all across the United States of America.

Judicial nominations have a sad history of partisanship in recent years. The delays and games that have replaced the Senate's role to advise and consent have now bled into all executive branch nominations at unprecedented levels.

Just last month, the media reported 80 nominees were being held up by one Senator. These holds included the Under Secretary for Military Readiness and top officials at the Departments of State and Homeland Security. These holds were unrelated to the actual nominee and solely concerned parochial and political interests. Our national security should never be subjugated to one Senator's politics.

We also had the President's nomination to the Transportation Security Administration tied up and ultimately withdrawn because of partisan bickering unrelated to his responsibilities to secure our airports. This is unacceptable. Does it no longer matter whether there is someone at the helm of the agencies responsible for securing our airports?

How is this acceptable behavior in the Senate? It would not be acceptable

behavior around my kitchen table. If it is not acceptable there, it should not be acceptable here. There are too many examples of qualified, noncontroversial nominees, such as Martha Johnson, the GSA Administrator with impeccable qualifications whose nomination was held for 9 months. Yet she was confirmed by a 96-to-0 vote once the hold on her nomination was removed.

These nominations are being blocked even though they have broad bipartisan support.

I urge my colleagues to remove their holds on noncontroversial administration nominees and allow confirmation votes.

I yield the floor.