Floor Statements

Mr. President, yesterday, I came to the floor and noted that an increasing number of businesses large and small have been weighing in on the financial regulatory bill. And what we have seen from these groups is a growing concern about the adverse effect this bill could have on their businesses. Everyone from candy bar companies to motorcycle makers, it seems, is now worried about the impact of this bill.

So this has been a very useful exercise: by giving people time to actually look at this bill and study the details for themselves, we have enabled them to assess not only potential impact of the actual text of the bill itself but also some of the unintended consequences it could have.

As we know, this is something Americans were denied in the lead-up to the vote on the stimulus bill. Democrats insisted we vote on that bill about 18 hours after we got the text. And we have seen how that turned out. This is something Americans were denied again on the health spending bill, which was basically written by a few guys in a room, then jammed through the Senate during a blizzard on Christmas Eve. And we have seen how that turned out: a bill that was sold on the promise of lower costs and lower premiums is now expected to lead to higher costs and higher premiums.

So this time people have actually had a chance to look at one of these massive Democrat bills for a change, and what is perfectly clear to most of them is that this bill needs some work, which is precisely what Republicans have been saying for the last 2 weeks.

Let's just start with the basics. The first thing we had to ensure with this bill is that it did not leave taxpayers on the hook for any more Wall Street bailouts. And that is the first thing some of us on this side of the aisle noticed: the loopholes. So I raised the alarm on that issue, and the two parties have been looking into it.

But there are other problems. In particular there is growing concern that in an effort to hold Wall Street accountable, this bill could catch the little guys up in the same net as the big banks. And this is now a major concern for a lot of people, a concern we need to address head on.

For instance, whether the authors of this bill intended it or not, there is real

concern that this bill could penalize anyone in this country who buys or sells something on an installment plan, as a result of some language in section 1027.

As the New York Times put it this morning, and here I am quoting the Times, ``this bill gives broad powers to a consumer protection agency to regulate almost any business that extends credit, meaning that companies like car dealers and professionals like orthodontists who allow customers to pay over time could be subject to a new regulatory and supervisory regime.''

Does this mean that some graduate student in Louisville looking to buy an engagement ring would now be required to pay a higher interest rate, or that the jeweler wouldn't do the deal because this bill would create new oversight over any nonfinancial institutions that lend money to consumers? What about the parent trying to spread out payments for their child's braces? Will they now have to pay for it all upfront? Will the orthodontist be willing to expose his or her practice to Federal supervision because they allow patients to pay the bill in more than four installments?

I don't know the answer to these questions. But I do like to have a good answer if one of my constituents asks me about it. Right now I don't. No one can deny that the language of the bill is ambiguous, that it lends itself to broad interpretation. So let's tighten it up. And why shouldn't we? Why shouldn't we tighten up the language to make it crystal clear exactly what this bill means and what it doesn't mean?

The last thing we want is for the little guy to get hurt by a piece of legislation that is intended to rein in bankers on Wall Street. But that is precisely why we have gotten so many letters of opposition to this bill over the last few days from groups like the National Federation of Independent Business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Tax Reform, and the National Taxpayers Union.

That is also why we have gotten so many letters expressing serious concerns from groups like the United States Automobile Association, the Military Officers Association of America, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the Farm Credit Council, the American Council of Life Insurers, the Housing Policy Council, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Fertilizer Institute. The list goes on.

In fact, the only people who seem willing to come out in support of this bill are the executives at Goldman Sachs, the biggest bankers at the biggest Wall Street firm of all. The CEO of Goldman Sachs was here on the Hill yesterday discussing his firm's role in the financial crisis, and the point he made about this bill is that he agrees with the President, who said last week that the biggest beneficiaries of this bill are on Wall Street.

So the supporters of this bill may have locked up the support of the folks at Goldman Sachs. But Republicans aren't about to rush this bill just to make Lloyd Blankfein happy, and not before there's an ironclad protection against any taxpayer funding of Wall Street firms like his. Americans want to knew that this bill will protect them too. And right now, they have got more questions than answers.

I already mentioned concerns about section 1027. How about section 1022? It relates to government collection of information through a new Bureau of Consumer Protection. Here's what that section of the bill says: ``In conducting research on the offering and provision of consumer financial products or services.'' It continues: ``The Bureau shall have the authority to gather information from time to time regarding the organization, business conduct, markets, and activities of persons operating in consumer financial services markets.''

It continues:

In order to gather such information, the Bureau may make

public such information obtained by the Bureau under this

section, as is in the public interest in reports or otherwise

in the manner best suited for public information and use.

I have a question: Does having a credit card make you a person operating in consumer financial service markets? What if you sell something on eBay and someone pays you with their credit card through Paypal? Does that make you someone operating in consumer financial service market? I am sure it is not the intent of the chairman to give the government the authority to collect personal financial information on Kentuckians who use Paypal. But why not make it clear?

These are just some of the questions people are asking once they have had a chance to look at this bill. And I am just talking now about the unintended consequences. Plenty of other groups have pointed out some of the real, practical adverse consequences of this bill on people who had absolutely nothing to do with the financial crisis.

For instance: I have heard from a number of utilities in Kentucky that use traditional derivatives as a way of keeping prices low for themselves and, by extension, for homeowners and small business owners across my state. General Electric employs more than 5,000 people in Kentucky, so I want to hear what they have to say about this bill. And what they are telling me is that this bill could really hurt them. They have got a lot of concerns. They are concerned this bill will increase the cost of managing foreign exchange risk associated with their vast global supply chain.

They are concerned about the potential cost increases related to the hedging of commodities they use in the manufacturing process. And they are concerned about increased hedging costs related to the financing they provide to suppliers and retail customers who buy GE appliances like washers and dryers and water heaters that are made in Louisville.

Homeowners and small business owners in Kentucky didn't have anything to do with the financial crisis. I am sure none of the Kentuckians who work at GE in Louisville had anything to do with it either. But because this bill doesn't distinguish between utilities that use derivatives for a legitimate use and those who abused them, ratepayers and others in my State will almost certainly get hit by this bill.

These are some of the concerns people are raising about this bill. And the fact is, those concerns are only magnified by the recent performance of the Democrat majority. I am afraid those who claim that this bill wouldn't do any of the things people are afraid of now have a higher hurdle to cross after the assurances they gave the American people on the stimulus, the debt, and health care. A lot of people took Democrats at their word in those debates, and they got burned. Now they want more than a verbal assurance that this bill doesn't allow bailouts. They want proof.

I don't think anybody really thinks the Fertilizer Institute is responsible for the financial crisis. And I don't think the authors of this bill think Kentucky farmers are to blame for the collapse of Lehman Brothers. But whether they intended to or not, this bill would punish them. And that is not right.

So Americans want a number of things in this bill fixed. And they want more than verbal assurances. At this point, Americans want the supporters of this bill to put a highlighter through the relevant passages and then tab the pages. Americans expect us to prove we are doing what we say we are doing. And after the past few debates, I don't blame them one bit. None of this should be viewed as a burden. After all, isn't that how the legislative process is supposed to work: major legislation is proposed, the American people get to take a look at it, they let us know how it would affect them, and then we weigh those concerns against the various problems at hand? The authors of this bill may believe some of these concerns are misplaced. But they are going to have to prove it.

I yield the floor.

I would say to the Senator from Tennessee, now that we are getting a chance to take a look at this bill, it is pretty clear that it has a broad reach that would touch a whole lot of people in Tennessee and Kentucky and has nothing to do with what happened on Wall Street. It is noteworthy that the most conspicuous supporter of this bill is the chairman of Goldman Sachs.

Many, if not most experts, believed the crisis began through Fannie and Freddie. As far as I can tell, they are not addressed in this measure at all.

Mr. President, I want to take a few moments here to thank the distinguished Senator from Alabama who has been our leader on the Banking Committee and an expert on this very complex subject of financial regulation, for his steadfast effort in bringing us to where we are today. As Senate Republicans plus Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska have demonstrated over the last few days, we believed the bill we started with was not insignificant but that it needed to be improved. Senator Shelby was given the opportunity, as a result of us staying together, to be empowered to improve the bill that had previously come out of the Banking Committee on a straight party-line vote. So I want to take the opportunity to thank all of my Republican colleagues, plus Senator Nelson of Nebraska, in giving us the opportunity to improve the underlying bill.

I want to thank the Senator from Alabama for his efforts in that regard. I think we have a better starting place than we would have had earlier and we look forward to, as the majority leader indicated, an open amendment process and plenty of opportunities to treat this like the serious comprehensive bill it is. We have many amendments we intend to offer. Our members will be prepared to accept reasonable and short time agreements so we can get these amendments up and voted on, and hopefully have an opportunity to make further improvements in the bill.

I know Senator Shelby may want to make a few observations.

Mr. President, let me say again before turning to Senator Shelby how much we appreciate his leadership on this and how much we appreciate all of our Republican colleagues, plus Senator Nelson, giving him the ability to improve the bill that came out of committee. Much has indeed changed since Monday. I thank Senator Shelby for his leadership. I also commend Senator Dodd for the spirit in which those discussions were commenced.

I see the Senator from Alabama on the floor.

I yield the floor.

Yes, that is fine.

Madam President, last night the Democrat majority forced a vote on a bill that was not ready for prime time. We know this because every day it seems another one of its flaws comes to light. And it is noteworthy that there was bipartisan objection to going forward with the bill last night in its current form.

You have every single member in my conference--from one end of the party spectrum to the other--united in calling for more bipartisan talks. We have heard from a couple of Democrats who think we should make some improvements as well.

You had the National Federation of Independent Businesses yesterday saying the bill hurts America's small business job creators. We heard from the organization that represents military officers yesterday expressing their concerns about the impact the bill will have on nearly 400,000 Active-Duty, retired, and former servicemembers, their families, and survivors. Community bankers from across the country say this bill, as currently written, hurts Main Street. The New York Times this morning reported that the maker of M&M's and Snickers is concerned about the bill's impact on the cost of sugar and chocolate. Harley- Davidson is worried about the effect it is going to have on business, and eBay is worried about the consequences for its business.

Clearly, this bill is not ready. It falls short of our constituents' demands to prevent future bailouts, and it is expected to hurt America's job creators at a time when we need jobs most. Does anyone really believe the people who make Harley-Davidsons and Snickers bars are responsible for the financial crisis? Does anyone think that? Then why would we want to punish them in our effort to hold Wall Street accountable? These are just the kinds of unintended consequences you get from rushing legislation. If we are aware of them, why wouldn't we want to address them? In many cases, all it would take is a simple fix. The Military Officers Association says all it would take is a simple tweak in the language to address their concerns. In other places, we just need to close a loophole. Unfortunately, the Democratic majority seems less interested in fixing this bill than in some political win they think they are scoring by not fixing the bill. It is a total waste of the people's time.

Americans do not understand why we would vote on a bill that does not meet the basic test of reform. They do not see the point. In what other line of work is it acceptable to show up to a big meeting with an unfinished product? Don't we have an obligation to make sure the bill we bring to the floor is in good shape before we vote on it? Isn't that just basic? This bill is not ready yet. It needs work. That is what last night's vote was about.

This morning, I saw that the junior Senator from Virginia--a Democrat and a man who knows what it is like to create jobs--is acknowledging what Republicans have been saying all along. This is what he said:

There are parts that need to be tightened.

That is certainly true. So let's stop the show partisanship and fix the bill. Let's tighten the parts that need to be tightened, as Senator Warner suggests. Let's get back to the business of reforming Wall Street and proving to the American people that the days of Wall Street bailouts are indeed over.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, later today, the Senate will cast its first vote in the debate over financial regulation.

And let me just say this at the outset: Republicans are united in our desire to protect the taxpayer from those who would put them and our Nation's financial system at risk through recklessness, stupidity, greed, or some combination of the three.

But as we consider this legislation today, Republicans are also acutely aware of the fact that government solutions to big, complex problems like this one are rarely as effective as they are made out to be, especially when they are rushed.

And Republicans are conscious of something else this afternoon too: when it comes to fixing the problems that we see in the economy or in our healthcare system or anywhere else, the days of taking the Democrats' word for it are over.

There is a reason public confidence in government has slipped to one of its lowest levels in half a century, and it is not because Congress takes its time to get legislation right. The reason Americans are so mistrustful of government at the moment is because on issue after issue, they feel as though they are being sold a bill of goods. The reason there is such a serious trust deficit out there is because what Americans see is so rarely what they get from Washington these days.

Just consider the national debt, for example. The International Monetary Fund is right now warning us that mounting government debt is perhaps the greatest single threat to the global financial system. As a Senator, the President seemed to understand that. He said America's debts and deficits were spinning out of control and that it was a failure of leadership not to address them. Yet under his administration, the debt has increased over $2 trillion. In February, we ran the largest monthly deficit ever. And this year alone, we are expected to run a deficit of $1.4 trillion.

What about the stimulus? Congress passed this trillion dollar bill about 18 hours after the legislative text was available, because Democrats said they needed it right away to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent. A year later, unemployment is hovering around 10 percent. It is even higher in Kentucky and other States. We have lost some 4 million jobs since the President took office, and every day, it seems, we hear about some new wasteful project funded by this bill.

Then there is health care. The White House and its allies in Congress told the American people again and again and again that this legislation was absolutely necessary in order to cut the cost of care and to ensure our Nation's economic security. Americans were skeptical. They wanted us to take our time. But Democrats said they could not wait. They cut their deals and jammed it through.

Now we are beginning to see who was right in that debate.

Last Thursday, a report out of the Department of Health and Human Services concluded that the health care bill falls short of the President's goals. Rather than cutting costs, it is expected to increase them.

The White House also said the bill would not raise taxes on the middle class. Yet now we are finding out that nearly 15 million middle class Americans, as defined by the White House, will get hit with a tax increase. The White House said premiums would come down too. Yet now we are learning that premiums will keep going up.

Pick the issue. Whether it is the stimulus, the debt, health care, bailouts, you name it, the concerns Republicans raised are being validated. And Democrats have the nerve, in this debate, to say that we are the ones who are being dishonest.

As I said, all of us want to deliver a reform that will tighten the screws on Wall Street. But we are not going to be rushed on another massive bill based on the assurances of our friends on the other side. It is just this kind of rush that gets us a $13 trillion debt, a trillion dollars for turtle tunnels and sidewalks to nowhere, and a so- called health care reform bill, the primary effect of which, so far as I can tell, is higher taxes, higher premiums, and higher costs. Americans have been rushed by this Congress before. They have seen the results. They are not going to be rushed again.

Now when it comes to financial regulations, my constituents have a fairly short list of demands. They do not want to be on the hook for recklessness on Wall Street. And they do not think any financial institution should be considered too big to fail. But if the Senate votes to get onto the Dodd bill tonight, there is good reason to believe we

will never truly solve these core problems.

Some on the other side may deny this. But the fact is, the bill that the majority leader wants to bring to the floor tonight still contains a number of loopholes that enable future bailouts.

This is not just me talking. A finance reporter on National Public Radio last week said he could not find a single expert who was willing to agree with the administration's claim that this bill puts a stop to taxpayer funded bailouts, not a single expert who was willing to say this bill really solves the problem we were asked by our constituents to solve. Is not that reason enough to slow down?

If we can not look our constituents in the eyes and tell them with absolute certainty that we have addressed their core concerns, then tell me: Why are we voting on this bill?

The Democrats want us to trust them on this one. With all respect, Americans aren't in a trusting mood at this point. The burden is now on the Democrats to prove it when they say their legislation will or will not do something. To a lot of Americans that is what this debate has become. It is about proving to our constituents and to the rest of the country that Congress can actually deliver on its assurances.

Americans aren't inclined to take our word for it when we say this bill doesn't allow for bailouts, that it won't kill jobs, or that it won't enable the administration to pick winners or losers, like it did with the auto bailout. They have heard all that before. This time, they want us to prove it.

They want us to prove that this bill doesn't allow for bailouts or the kind of regulatory overreach that ends up punishing Main Street under the guise of reforming Wall Street. They want us to show them where it says in the text that the next time there is a crisis, the government will have to seek permission from he taxpayer if it is thinking about creating a new bank debt guarantee program. At the moment, we can't say this. That is unacceptable to my constituents. And it is unacceptable to the rest of the country.

We can solve this problem. But we won't solve the problem if we vote for cloture tonight. A vote for cloture is a vote that says we are done listening to the American people on this issue. And a vote against ending this debate is a vote for bipartisanship, for working out an iron-clad solution to the problem of too big to fail. A vote against ending this debate tonight is a vote that says it is no longer enough to tell our constituents to trust us. It is a vote that says this time, we will prove it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to thank Special Agent James Harold Sizemore for his many years of service to the people of Kentucky. For nearly three decades, he has worked in the dangerous field of law enforcement, risking his own well-being on behalf of his neighbors, and for that an entire State is grateful.

Harold was born and raised in Clay County, where his father was the sheriff. Harold followed in his father's footsteps and was elected sheriff of Clay County in 1982. He took a hard stand against illegal marijuana cultivation, a problem in that area, and conducted several successful eradication missions.

I first met Harold in 1989 when he was still serving as sheriff, and he described to me the devastating effect marijuana cultivation was having in Clay County. After that and right up to today I have given my full support to the Governor's Marijuana Strike Force, which coordinates local, State, and Federal law enforcement to combat the drug problem in Kentucky. This task force has been recognized by the President's Office of National Drug Control Policy for 5 consecutive years.

In 1990, Harold became a Federal law-enforcement officer with the U.S. Forest Service, a job he held for 20 years. In that capacity, he has conducted over 700 flight hours of surveillance and detection for marijuana eradication missions in Kentucky in support of State, local, and Federal task forces. His dedication and tireless efforts resulted in the eradication of over 100,000 marijuana plants, with a street value estimated at $600 million, many in small plots located in remote terrain to avoid detection.

In addition to these flight hours, Harold also participated in several missions in support of high-risk felony search and arrest warrants executed by State and Federal agencies. His professionalism and expertise, coupled with intimate knowledge of the local area, played a significant role in these missions being accomplished safely.

Harold provided key information in over 20 felony investigations, resulting in several Federal indictments and arrests. His personal knowledge of the Clay County area of the Daniel Boone National Forest played a decisive role in the identification of several suspects caught on surveillance, which was initiated as a result of Harold's aerial reconnaissance.

Throughout his career as a Federal law-enforcement officer, Harold's primary responsibility has been that of marijuana eradication officer for the Daniel Boone National Forest--and from that responsibility he has never wavered. In 2008, he was recognized by the U.S. Forest Service for a career of exceptionally meritorious service.

The U.S. Forest Service sometimes works with the Kentucky National Guard in their drug-control efforts, and Harold's dedication was clear to the soldiers he worked alongside. ``Harold is one of the driving forces behind the success of the Kentucky National Guard's efforts in support of these missions,'' says LTC Karlas Owens.

``When observing marijuana in a helicopter, Harold possessed the patience of Job while maneuvering his ground element over difficult terrain . . . he guided officers cross-country as they walked to distant marijuana plots in the Daniel Boone National Forest and ensured they made a safe return. . . . Harold not only gives 110 percent to the [U.S.] Forest Service, but always supports the Kentucky National Guard and ensures we are successful as well.''

Lieutenant Colonel Owens also has these words for Harold, after working alongside him for 20 years on these dangerous but vital missions: ``For your teachings and friendship, I thank you, Sir.''

A countless number of Kentuckians owe their thanks to Harold as well. Upon his retirement, I know my colleagues in the U.S. Senate join me in thanking Special Agent James Harold Sizemore for his decades of service. The work he has done for so many years has bequeathed to all of us a safer, stronger Kentucky.

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

Madam President, in the fall of 2008, I reluctantly voted for a bill that sent taxpayer money to Wall Street banks that should have paid for their own mistakes. We were told it was needed in order to avert a global calamity. So I did it. Then I went back to my constituents and vowed: Never again. Never again should taxpayers be on the hook for recklessness on Wall Street, and no financial institution should be considered too big to fail.

So when the financial regulatory bill the majority was about to bring to the floor last week still contained a number of loopholes allowing future bailouts, I raised the alarm. I wasn't about to take Democratic assurances that this bill protected taxpayers. I wanted them to prove it. That is what this debate is all about. It is about proving to my constituents and to the rest of the country that we actually do what we say we are going to do around here because if you haven't noticed, there is a serious trust deficit out there. Public confidence in government is at one of the lowest points in half a century. Nearly 8 in 10 Americans now say they do not trust the government and have little faith it can solve America's ills. And it is no wonder.

Over the past year, the American people have been told again and again that government was doing one thing when it was doing another. Just think about some of the things Americans have been told.

As a Senator, the current President rallied against deficits and debt. He said America has a debt problem and that it was a failure of leadership not to address it. Yet last year, his administration released a budget that doubles the debt in 5 years and triples it in 10. The debt has increased over $2 trillion since he took office. In February, the Federal Government ran the largest monthly deficit in the history of the United States.

How about the bailouts? The President said he didn't come into office so he could take over companies. But whether or not that is the case, Americans can't help but notice that some people did better than others. When it came to bailing out the car companies, the unions fared a lot better than anyone else.

What about jobs? Last year, the White House rushed a stimulus bill through Congress because it said we needed to create jobs. They said we needed to borrow the $1 trillion it cost the taxpayers to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent. Well, more than a year later, unemployment is hovering around 10 percent. All told, we have lost nearly 4 million jobs since the President was sworn in.

Then there was health care. I will leave aside the substance for a moment and just talk about the process. Americans were told the process would be completely transparent, that all the negotiations would be broadcast live on C-SPAN. Instead, they got a partisan back-room deal that was rammed through Congress during a blizzard on Christmas Eve.

This is the context for the debate we are currently in. So it should come as no surprise to anyone that when we are talking about a giant regulatory reform bill, the American people aren't all that inclined to take our word for it when we say it doesn't allow for bailouts or that it will not kill jobs or that it won't enable the administration to pick winners or losers. They have heard all that before, and they have been burned. This time, they want us to prove it.

The first thing they want us to prove is that this bill ends bailouts. That was the one thing this bill was supposed to do, and if this bill didn't do anything else but that, a lot of people would be satisfied. The administration has said it wants to end bailouts. I say to them: Prove it.

Some of us have pointed out concerns that this bill would give the administration the authority to use taxpayer funds to support financial institutions at a time of crisis. Yes, the bill says taxpayers get the money back later, but that sounds awfully familiar. Isn't that exactly what we did with the first bailout fund--a bailout fund Americans were promised would be repaid but which Democrats are now trying to raid in order to pay for everything else under the Sun?

If a future administration thinks there is a crisis that requires using taxpayer funds, then they should have to get permission from the taxpayers first. It is not enough for someone in the administration to say it is so; they need to come to Congress before they write the check. If this bill isn't like the first bailout, prove it.

As I said, we have seen in other bailouts that some are treated better than others. This bill appears to enable the same thing by allowing the FDIC to treat creditors with equal claims differently. If the proponents of this bill think this bill does not allow the administration to pick winners and losers, they need to prove it.

This bill also contains a number of provisions that threaten the ability of small businesses to hire new workers. Other provisions would send jobs overseas. And just this morning, the Wall Street Journal pointed out a provision that would put new regulatory burdens on startup businesses that would make it harder for them to get off the ground. If this bill doesn't create new burdensome regulations that will make it harder for Americans to dig themselves out of this recession, then prove it. Prove it.

Every indication is that the chairman and the ranking member are making progress in their discussions and that this bill will have needed improvements. That is good. Some of the concerns I have just raised are among the topics being discussed. But in the end, Americans are not rooting for some deal. They have asked us for clarity. They are asking us, not for verbal assurances but for concrete proof, because at the end of the day I need to be able to look my constituents in the eye and prove to them that this bill does not allow for any bailouts. I need to prove to them that this bill doesn't treat some favored groups better than others. I need to prove to them that this strengthens the economy, that it doesn't make it worse.

People need to be convinced that we are doing what we are saying we are doing. This time they want proof and, frankly, I don't blame them.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Reserving the right to object, and I will object, here we go again. The majority leader is once again moving to a bill, even while bipartisan discussions on the content of the bill are still underway.

Just about an hour ago, the majority leader said:

I'm not going to waste any more time of the American people

while they come up with some agreement.

Well, I do not think bipartisanship is a waste of time. I do not think a bill with the legitimacy of a bipartisan agreement is a waste of time.

Is it a waste of time to ensure that the taxpayers never again bail out Wall Street firms? Is it a waste of time to ensure that the bill before us does not drive jobs overseas or dry up lending to small businesses? Is it too much to ask, should an agreement be reached, that we take the time to make sure every Member of the Senate and our constituents can actually read the bill and understand the details?

This bill potentially affects every small bank and lending institution in our country. It has serious implications for jobs and the availability of credit to spur economic growth. It has important consequences for the taxpayers, if done incorrectly.

I think Americans expect more of us. I think they expect us to take the time to do it right. I would add, my impression was that serious discussions were going on. I think they should continue. Therefore, Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I would only add, briefly, that Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby are on the floor. I would encourage them to continue to do what they have been doing, which is to try to reach an agreement.

The only place where I would disagree with my good friend, the majority leader, is I think it does make a difference which bill we turn to. Hopefully, the bill we turn to will not be a bill that came out of the committee on a party-line vote but, rather, a bill negotiated on a bipartisan basis by those who know the most about the subject: Senator Dodd, Senator Shelby, and the members of their committee.

It is still my hope we will be able to go forward on a bipartisan basis, and I look forward to hearing from Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby about the progress they make.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to honor Mr. Brian Duffy of Louisville, KY, for his hard work and support on behalf of Kentucky's World War II and terminally ill veterans. Mr. Duffy founded the Bluegrass Honor Flight chapter in 2007. Through his leadership, and the support of numerous donations and volunteers, the Bluegrass Honor Flight chapter has been able to fly nearly 600 veterans from Kentucky to Washington, DC, providing these brave patriots the opportunity to see their memorial firsthand.

Today, I wish to congratulate Mr. Duffy, himself a veteran, for recently being named 2010's official

``Thundernator'' responsible for starting the ``Thunder over Louisville'' firework show. He was so named because of his dedication to the Bluegrass Honor Flight organization.

I know my colleagues will join me in honoring Mr. Duffy for his tireless advocacy on behalf of veterans.

Madam President, with regard to financial regulation, from the beginning of this debate, I have called for a bipartisan approach. And for several months, I was encouraged to see bipartisan talks approaching agreement on a bipartisan bill.

Somewhere along the line, those talks got off course, leading to Democrats pulling away from bipartisan efforts, a party-line vote in committee and the Democrat leadership's stated

desire to bring a bill to the floor that had, in effect, bipartisan opposition. So last week I raised concerns with the Dodd bill, but I also told the President and our friends across the aisle that this bill is not unfixable.

It is important for the country and taxpayer that we get this right, that we put them before politics. That is why I was disappointed to read that Senate Democrats are refusing to drop the $50 billion bailout fund--a fund that the Treasury Secretary himself opposes--unless Republicans pay a price for taking it out. This is exactly what Americans don't like about Washington: when one side tries to ``get'' something for doing what they should have done in the first place. If everyone agrees it should be dropped, then it should be dropped. And if Senate Democrats think it should stay, then they should explain why they think the Treasury Secretary was wrong when he said that this bailout fund ``would create expectations that the government would step in to protect shareholders and creditors from losses.''

Both sides have expressed a willingness to make the changes needed to ensure without any doubt that this bill won't put taxpayers on the hook for future bailouts of Wall Street banks. So why don't we just do that?

I am heartened to hear that bipartisan talks have resumed in earnest, and in my view, the progress we have seen over the past few days is proof that I was right to raise concerns about this bill when I did. As I said, the best way to get a bill with the credibility of bipartisan support is to allow bipartisan talks to continue. Let us fix the bill and have a bipartisan reform.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to join the majority leader in recognizing the 15th anniversary of the

Oklahoma City bombing and add my voice to the others who have remembered the loss of life we suffered on that terrible day. I also extend my sympathy to the survivors and to the families of the lost.

It is impossible for most of us to understand how someone could commit such a terrible act. It is impossible for most of us to appreciate the pain of losing a loved one to such a violent, senseless act. But we can try to console them and we can work tirelessly to prevent other terrorist acts against other innocent men and women, both here and abroad.

So on this solemn anniversary, we resolve once again to fight terrorism wherever we find it and to never forget the people who have suffered from it. We will never forget Oklahoma City or the people who lost their lives on that day.

Financial Regulatory Reform

Mr. President, turning my attention to the financial services bill, as we know, it came out of the Banking Committee on a party-line vote, without any Republican support. So where are we? The debate over financial regulatory reform continues this week, so let me recap where we are, the progress we are making, as well as some of the more unhelpful things we have seen.

Over the past year or so, Democrats and Republicans alike worked long and hard to construct a bill aimed at preventing the kind of financial crisis we saw in the fall of 2008, and, just as crucially, to prevent any future bailouts of the biggest Wall Street firms. That was the goal.

Progress was made. But then, in a rush to get the bill to the floor, these talks stopped. So last week, I came to the floor to point out the flaws that resulted from this partisan approach.

One of the biggest of these was the creation of a $50 billion bailout fund. It seemed to me and many others that the very existence of this fund would perpetuate the same kind of risky behavior that led to the last crisis.

On this point, there seemed to be fairly broad consensus, from Senate Republicans to Secretary Geithner himself.

So the reaction I got was somewhat amusing.

Some of our friends on the other side raised voices of protest because I had spoken up about flaws in the bill. Others ginned up the press with some inside-Washington line about talking points and pollsters. And over at the White House, the President criticized me in his weekly radio address even as his deputies worked to strip the very provision I had called into question a few days before.

Well, they cannot have it both ways.

So my advice at the beginning of this week is that we focus not on personal attacks or questioning each other's motives but on fixing the problems in this bill, and that means doing everything we can to make sure the final product doesn't allow for future Wall Street bailouts.

Both parties agree on this point: no bailouts. In my view, that is a pretty good start. So let us come together and direct our energies toward making sure we achieve that goal and leave aside all the name- calling and the second-guessing.

What last week showed me is that we have two options as this debate moves forward: either we let the people who know this legislation best get back to the negotiating table and work out a solution that is acceptable to both parties and to the American people, or, I can come down to the floor, identify some of the other flaws in this bill, watch as people come down to scream and yell about my suggestions and my motives, and then wait for the White House to agree with me at the end of the week.

I am perfectly happy to do the latter if it means we get a better bill in the end. But it seems to me that a far more efficient way of proceeding is to just skip the character attacks on anyone who dares to point out flaws with the bill, be they provisions that expose taxpayers to Wall Street bailouts or those that would further worsen the jobs situation, and work out these problems now. Forget the theatrics, and get to work.

Again, I am happy to come down and identify additional problems. I could mention, for instance, my worry that the current bill could dry up credit even more for small businesses and community banks. The experts know that this and other problems exist in the bill. If the administration wants to continue to pretend that it does not, then you will see me down here every day. But my preference would be to let the experts work through these problems on a bipartisan basis.

So let us go back to the negotiating table and work out these problems, and then come together and have a bipartisan vote that will give the American people confidence that this bil is not just one party's way of solving this problem. These problems are not insurmountable. This bill is not unfixable. We can reform Wall Street without making taxpayers pick up the tab. Let us do that, then give the American people a strong bipartisan bill that an issue like this deserves.

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

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