[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 52 (Wednesday, April 14, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2258-S2262]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            FINANCIAL REFORM

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise this morning to try and set the 
record straight, if I can, on some of the rhetoric I have heard over 
the last 24 hours or so regarding the financial reform efforts I have 
been engaged in along with my colleagues on the Senate Banking 
Committee for the past 38 months.
  I became chairman of the Banking Committee in January of 2007, about 
38, 39 months ago. Since that time, of course, we have held countless 
hearings and meetings to deal with the financial crisis beginning in 
January and February of 2007. In fact, the very first hearings we held 
were on the foreclosure crisis in the Nation and trying to get the 
attention of the previous administration, Secretary Paulson and others, 
to pay attention to the situation that was emerging. Our economy was 
collapsing and too many people were losing their homes, an economic 
catastrophe was looming, and, frankly, there was not enough attention 
being paid initially to this issue by the previous administration. 
Nonetheless, we worked forward. So, today, we find ourselves on the 
brink of making an effort to deal with this problem.
  After listening to some of the rhetoric of the last 24 hours, I 
wonder if we are in not only the same Chamber in the same city but on 
the same planet when it comes to the efforts that have been made to try 
and reach bipartisan agreement to deal with financial reform. I have 
almost unlimited patience, as many of my colleagues know, but that 
unlimited patience is being tested by some of the comments I have 
heard. So I felt incumbent to respond this morning to some of these 
accusations about the effort being made to achieve a proposal on 
financial reform that might attract broad support in this Chamber, 
unlike other efforts that have been made over the past several years, 
as I have said repeatedly during the many months we have been working 
on this important legislation.
  These are complex issues. We have gone through the most serious 
financial crisis since the Great Depression. That is how serious this 
is. In the words of financial leaders in this country and elsewhere, we 
were on the brink of a meltdown of the entire financial system in this 
country, and we came perilously close to having that occur. For those 7 
million who lost their homes or the 8.5 million who have lost their 
jobs, it might as well have been a financial meltdown, not to mention 
the retirement incomes that evaporated and, of course, the loss of 
confidence in our future, along with health care and a variety of other 
things that have happened to working families in this country.
  During the course of this debate, as critical as it is, of these 
complex matters that make up the structure of the architecture of our 
financial system, it is critical to the future of our economy and the 
livelihoods of millions of middle-class Americans across this Nation 
that this debate should not be sullied by misinformation or derailed by 
those who would try and make it just another partisan game. Playing 
politics with this issue is dangerous indeed. Unfortunately, the 
talking points deployed by the Wall Street lobbyists, in an effort to 
protect the status quo, leave my constituents and many Americans 
vulnerable to yet another economic crisis. Those arguments are littered 
with falsehoods--outright falsehoods--that I regret to say are now 
being repeated by people who should know better and, frankly, do know 
better.

[[Page S2259]]

  So today and this morning I wish to set the record straight. I wish 
to start by attacking one of the wildest and, frankly, most dishonest 
objections to this legislation, which is the notion that it is somehow 
a partisan document. I consider the minority leader and the ranking 
member of the Banking Committee to be good friends. They are patriots, 
with whom I have worked over many years on many issues. Senator Shelby 
and I have been working together for over 1 year on these issues, and I 
cannot, for the life of me, understand how anyone can claim with a 
straight face that what I have tried to achieve on this bill is a 
partisan effort. I have spent the last year seeking bipartisan 
consensus.
  In February of 2009, over 1 year ago, with the new Obama 
administration freshly sworn in, I insisted from the very beginning 
that Senator Shelby's staff be included in meetings with the White 
House and Treasury Department on all financial matters. When I had the 
opportunity to take over the chairmanship of the HELP Committee, the 
committee charged with the responsibility of writing the health care 
reform legislation, I chose to stay as chairman of the Banking 
Committee, in no small part because I received commitments from Senator 
Shelby and others that we would work together on this financial reform 
legislation.
  When I introduced a discussion draft of this proposal back in 
November--almost 6 months ago--Senator Shelby indicated we had 
bipartisan consensus on at least 70 percent of the bill back in 
November. To get closer to a full agreement, I created four bipartisan 
working groups almost 6 months ago, each of which was charged with 
achieving real and meaningful progress in various sections of the bill. 
Even when Senator Shelby and I found areas where we could not agree, I 
continued to reach out to other members of the committee, including my 
friend and colleague from Tennessee, Senator Corker, and others, 
spending weeks working to try to achieve a consensus on financial 
reform. It is not even a slight exaggeration to say we spent countless 
hours--phone calls, meetings, e-mails, discussion drafts--day after 
day, week after week, month after month, to try to get closer and 
closer to a proposal our colleagues could support.
  We can see the results. The bill we marked up in our committee last 
month was much changed from the proposal I made in November, the 
initial discussion draft, to reflect the work that had gone on over 
those many weeks and months and the ideas brought to the table by 
colleagues of both parties from members of that committee and others. 
My friends on the other side of the aisle may not like every line in 
the bill that will now be before us in a few short days, but at the 
very least let us not pretend the bipartisan work that produced this 
legislation didn't happen. It did happen. That is a disservice to 
yourselves--those who make these allegations--and their good staffs who 
worked hard over these many weeks with my Democratic staff and others 
to produce this product.
  If Members wish to vote against the bill, they can do that. That is 
their right to do so. They can go on record in support of leaving their 
constituents vulnerable to more lost jobs, more foreclosures, more 
shuttered small businesses, more wiped out retirement accounts. It is 
up to each individual Member to decide for themselves that is the vote 
they wish to cast when it comes to this effort. But the outcome of this 
debate will, mark my words, affect the economic security of ordinary 
Americans, and they deserve to know the truth of what has happened.
  Today, I wish to talk about bailouts. Nobody likes them.
  Under our proposal, they will never happen again. As the President 
said in his State of the Union Address, bailing out some of the large 
banks whose own mismanagement caused the crisis was ``about as popular 
as a root canal.'' That, of course, happened under the previous 
administration, I should note.
  But serious legislators of both parties realized that we had no 
choice. Our system was so broken that these companies had become too 
big to fail. If we did nothing else, our entire economy could collapse, 
we were told.
  You would think that if you wanted to avoid being backed into that 
corner again, if you wanted to avoid more bailouts, you would oppose 
efforts to protect the status quo. But Wall Street special interests 
needed a way to defend this broken system. After all, for many of them, 
the kind of mismanagement that costs us millions of jobs is the way 
they pad their profits and pay their lobbyists. So they turned to Frank 
Luntz, their political strategist.
  Let me tell you what he came up with. I will quote from Mr. Luntz's 
memo that was leaked, I will quote from his partisan memo:

       The single best way to kill this legislation is to link it 
     to the big bank bailout.

  No matter what is proposed, no matter what is in the bill, no matter 
what protections it includes, call it a bailout. It is a naked 
political strategy. If it succeeds and this legislation goes down, and 
another crisis sinks the American economy, then the next recession and 
all of the damage it will bring to the working families of this country 
will have happened for the sake of that false talking point that Mr. 
Luntz has been proposing. I don't expect Frank Luntz to care about the 
truth of what we are engaged in here. That is not his job. He is a 
political strategist. He is to provide political talking points to 
people when you want to defeat something. I don't expect the bank 
lobbyists and special interests to care about the truth; they don't 
seem to worry about that. But the American people deserve better from 
us in this Chamber.
  That is why I have been so dismayed over these last 24 hours to hear 
Members of this body repeat the utter falsehood--concocted by special 
interests whose jobs and pensions are plenty secure, thank you very 
much--that this bill will lead to more bailouts.
  Frank Luntz suggested that allies of the big banks say:

       If there is one thing we can all agree on, it's that the 
     bad decisions and harmful policies by Washington bureaucrats 
     that in many ways led to the economic crash must never be 
     repeated.

  The minority leader, speaking yesterday, said:

       If there's one thing Americans agree on when it comes to 
     financial reform, it's this: Never again should taxpayers be 
     expected to bail out Wall Street from its own mistakes. We 
     cannot allow endless taxpayer-funded bailouts for big Wall 
     Street banks. That's why we must not pass the financial 
     reform bill that's about to hit the floor.

  Remember what Frank Luntz said:

       The single best way to kill any legislation is to link it 
     to the big bank bailout.

  It is straight from the Wall Street special interest talking points. 
That is what they are determined to do to defeat this bill--suggest 
somehow that there is a bailout provision in this bill. Nothing could 
be further from the truth.
  The bill, as drafted, ends bailouts. Nothing can be more clear in the 
legislation. For the very first time, our Nation will have someone with 
the job of monitoring risks to the financial system and sounding the 
alarm before those risks can take down the entire system, as it almost 
did. The bill imposes sufficient standards on Wall Street firms that 
create those risks.
  Our bill establishes a financial stability oversight council to 
monitor risks and requires the Federal Reserve to write strict rules, 
including stronger requirements regarding capital, leverage, liquidity, 
and risk management on the largest financial companies, making it hard 
for them to get too large and limiting the risk they represent. 
Cracking down on the biggest players is critical to ending bailouts.
  If a Wall Street firm does become too large or too complex and poses 
a grave threat to our financial stability, the Federal Reserve has the 
power to restrict its risky activities, restrict its growth, and even 
to break up those institutions. I will repeat that. If a Wall Street 
firm becomes too large and too complex, the Federal Reserve has the 
power under our bill to prohibit those activities, including even 
breaking up those institutions.
  Additionally, our bill extends oversight to dangerous nonbank 
financial companies, such as AIG, that could pose a risk to our 
financial stability, as it did.
  It prohibits banks and other financial institutions that own banks 
from engaging in proprietary trading, making risky bets with money that 
doesn't even belong to them.
  Second, our bill eliminates the Federal Reserve's ability to prop up 
individual institutions using what is called

[[Page S2260]]

the 13(3) authority, another way to stop banks from thinking that they 
could be bailed out if in fact they engage in activities that cause 
them to begin to fail. The Fed's lending authority is strictly 
restricted, not expanded, as some have claimed.
  Third, our bill sets up predictable, orderly, and safe processes for 
shutting down dangerous Wall Street firms that fail without endangering 
the entire economy. No financial firm will ever again be ``too big to 
fail.'' Quite the opposite. We insist that the provisions be in place 
so that it can never again make the claim that they are too big to 
fail.
  Large, complex financial companies will be required to submit plans 
for their own shutdown--we call them living wills--if the company goes 
under. Companies that fail to produce a realistic plan will be hit with 
tougher capital requirements, restricted in how much they can grow, and 
even can be broken up.
  Most large financial companies would be resolved through the normal 
bankruptcy process. That is the presumption in our bill--receivership.
  Where bankruptcy is not an option, the bill creates a mechanism for 
the FDIC to unwind those companies. The management will be fired, 
shareholders will be wiped out, and creditors will take their losses. 
Middle-income families on Main Street won't have to pay a penny. The 
largest Wall Street firms would have to put up money for a $50 billion 
fund to cover the costs of liquidating the failed financial firm, and 
any shortfall will be made up by the largest and riskiest financial 
firms. Why should the American taxpayer have to pay for unwinding these 
companies? They should put up the money themselves. Let them pay for 
the unwinding that goes on. Don't charge it to the American taxpayer. 
Our bill includes those provisions.
  Wall Street doesn't like this fund, and they are plenty content to 
let taxpayers continue to pay the price for industry mistakes. Let me 
be clear, despite what their apologists may claim, these funds can only 
be used by the FDIC and only used to liquidate the failed company, not 
prop it up.
  To review, our bill imposes tougher standards on large, risky Wall 
Street firms. It eliminates the Federal Government's capacity to bail 
out individual companies. It requires that financial firms write their 
own shutdown plans and even pay for the liquidation process if it is 
needed.
  Here is what I have to say to Wall Street. If you have a better idea, 
let's hear it. If you have other ideas, let's debate them. But if all 
you have is black-and-white talking points that bear no relation to 
reality, don't reflect the efforts that have gone on for months to try 
to produce a proposal that might gain broad support here in this 
Chamber, then get out of the way and let the serious legislators work. 
Don't write this off by quoting a political strategist's talking 
points, when all of this effort has been made over these many months.
  I am told by my staff--and I have dealt with 42 pieces of legislation 
in 39 months--that about 37 have become the law of the land. I made a 
determination as chairman to work together, wherever possible, to 
achieve common points. So my history is to try to achieve that wherever 
possible, and I take great offense at the suggestion that it has been 
otherwise.
  The outcome of this debate affects the economic security of every 
single American and every single American family. What we have been 
through, we should never have to go through again. Our bill takes steps 
to try to achieve that. It is not that we are going to stop every 
economic crisis in the future. That would be a foolish suggestion. But 
what we have done is fill in the gaps that allowed this crisis to occur 
and provide tools for the coming generation so they can address future 
economic crises and still allow for the vitality of a financial 
services sector to produce jobs, create wealth, allow credit to flow 
and capital to form so our economy can prosper again.
  Trying to achieve those three goals has been the hallmark of what I 
have tried to put together with the bill, along with my colleagues on 
the committee. I believe we have done a good job in achieving that. I 
would be the last one to claim perfection. If people have other ideas, 
that is what the process is for. But to castigate it and label it as 
nothing more than a partisan debate and suggest that somehow what we 
have done here is to perpetuate ``too big to fail'' is poppycock. It is 
unfortunate that at this hour in this debate, that is all we hear from 
on the other side.
  The door is still open. We are not yet on the floor debating this 
bill. I will have meetings with Senator Shelby and others. My patience 
is running out. I have extended the hand, and I have written provisions 
in the bill to accommodate various interests. I will not continue doing 
this if all I am getting from the other side is a suggestion that this 
is a partisan effort. We have been through it over and over on the 
floor for the last year and a half. I think the American people are 
sick of it. They want to see us work together to achieve results that 
benefit them, not some political party, or narrow ideology, and 
certainly not the narrow interests on Wall Street.
  In the coming days, I will give you a bill I think we can vote for 
and stand up and proudly support and, more importantly, one that we can 
say to the American people we will not have to go through what we have 
been through in the last 2 years, and never again should another 
generation face the kinds of risks we did because of the gaps that 
existed in our financial regulatory structure.
  I ask unanimous consent that the entire Frank Luntz memo be printed 
in the Record. I want the public to read it so they will know what we 
are up against here with this political chicanery.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    The Language of Financial Reform

                    (By Dr. Frank Luntz, Jan. 2010)

                      The Financial Reform Climate


                          setting the context

       This document is based on polling results and an Instant 
     Response dial session conducted after the House of 
     Representatives passed ``Financial Reform'' legislation and 
     prior to the Senate's consideration of the bill. The document 
     helps capture not just how Americans feel about the 
     ``financial crisis'' (they believe it still exists) and 
     potential reform initiative (they're against)--and how they 
     want to address the issue (carefully).
       When it comes to the financial crisis, there is one clear 
     consensus--the crisis is a stain on the fabric of America's 
     economy that will linger for years to come. The impact of the 
     crisis is real and has reverberated throughout every part of 
     our society. Rule #1:
       When addressing the crisis, never forget its impact on your 
     audience. Above all else, never EVER minimize the pain.
       1. Americans are divided on the cause of the crisis. The 
     consequences of the crisis may be undeniable, but its cause 
     is debatable.
       --To conservatives: government policies caused the bubble 
     and its ultimate crash. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal 
     Reserve, and the Community Reinvestment Act all had a role in 
     the catastrophe. The government inflated economic bubbles 
     with easy credit policies. Interest rates were kept 
     intentionally low. Low-income families were encouraged to 
     become homeowners despite the knowledge that many would never 
     be able to pay them back. Government bought and backed these 
     subprime loans, essentially encouraging brokers to find more 
     subprime clients--risk be damned.
       --To liberals: the roots of the crisis lie in Big Business 
     and the marketplace. Mortgage companies peddled adjustable 
     rate mortgages without ever explaining the future costs. 
     Credit card companies flooded college campuses with high 
     interest credit cards. Wall Street firms traded mortgage-
     backed securities and created credit default swaps that 
     played key roles in the economic calamity. Contracts written 
     in legalese, coupled with the risks of adjustable rate 
     mortgages, were never explained to the average consumer--
     perhaps intentionally. Those that blame the market are 
     passionate about the need for more reform.
       --But to a majority of Americans believe that individuals 
     who ran up their credit cards and took out mortgages they 
     couldn't afford are also responsible for the calamity that 
     ensued.
       What industries bear the brunt of the blame? Home mortgage 
     companies (33%) and banks (31%) are seen as primarily 
     responsible. But it is not the companies so much as the 
     leadership of the companies that are to blame. . .
       But the largest percentage of Americans believes ``all of 
     them'' played a role in today's economic conditions.
       2. You must acknowledge the need for reform that ensures 
     this NEVER happens again. Despite the different perspectives 
     on the causes of the crash, there is an agreement that the 
     crisis must be addressed--that changes must be made so the 
     mistakes that led to this point are never repeated. The 
     status quo is not an option. The system failed

[[Page S2261]]

     us--all of us--and the causes of the failure must be 
     corrected.
       3. Now, more than ever, the American people question the 
     government's ability to effectively address the issue. 
     Billions in handouts to Wall Street. A stimulus bill that 
     isn't creating jobs. Cash for Clunkers. Health Care. A 
     ``Credit Card Bill of Rights'' that increases fees and 
     interest rates on consumers. The American people believe 
     Washington has gone wrong, and these legislative initiatives 
     have become symbols of Washington's inability to do anything 
     right. A majority of both Republican and Democrats believe 
     that. . .


                            words that work

       If there is one thing we can all agree on, it's that the 
     bad decisions and harmful policies by Washington bureaucrats 
     that in many ways led to the economic crash must never be 
     repeated.
       This is your critical advantage. Washington's incompetence 
     is the common ground on which you can build support.
       Ordinarily, calling for a new government program ``to 
     protect consumers'' would be extraordinarily popular. But 
     these are not ordinary times. The American people are not 
     just saying ``no.'' They are saying ``hell no'' to more 
     government agencies, more bureaucrats, and more legislation 
     crafted by special interests.
       Incredibly, these results are PRIOR to efforts to educate 
     voters about the inherent problems of the legislation. One 
     reason why initial support for more government action is 
     rooted in the simple belief that government cannot 
     effectively regulate the financial markets at any level . . .
       4. Public outrage about the bailout of banks and Wall 
     Street is a simmering time bomb set to go off on Election 
     Day. To put it mildly, the public dislikes taxpayer bailouts 
     of private companies. Actually, they HATE it.
       In fact, a vote in favor of creating a permanent bailout 
     fund of private companies is like committing political hari-
     kari. Frankly, the single best way to kill any legislation is 
     to link it to the Big Bank Bailout.


                            WORDS THAT WORK

       Taxpayer-funded bailouts reward bad behavior. Taxpayers 
     should not be held responsible for the failure of big 
     business any longer. If a business is going to fail, no 
     matter how big, let it fail.
       5. The public is angriest about lobbyist loopholes. Part of 
     public perception that Washington cannot do anything right is 
     the belief that lobbyists write most of the bills. The 
     American people are tired of add-ons, earmarks, and backroom 
     deals--but they are mad as hell at ``lobbyist loopholes.'' 
     This bill is riddled with such loopholes. You must put 
     proponents of the legislation on the defensive, forcing them 
     to attempt to justify the ``lobbyist loopholes'' and 
     exemptions placed in the bill:
       --Why were pawnbrokers exempted?
       --What about car dealers?
       --Vegas casinos and their credit lines?
       The power of this argument cannot be underestimated. When 
     participants in our dial sessions heard that the casinos and 
     pawnbrokers were exempted from the legislation, someone 
     remarked, ``We have become the Roman Senate.''
       Highlight the exemptions. Broadcast them. Remind them, 
     ``The legislation is filled with lobbyist loopholes that 
     exclude certain wealthy, powerful industries from 
     regulations.'' As Churchill would say, that statement is the 
     ``soft white underbelly.'' When the participants were 
     presented a list of nearly a dozen objections to the bill, 
     the lobbyist loopholes blew away virtually every other 
     argument against the legislation.
       6. You must be an agent of change. We have spent so much 
     time in this analysis on general economic perceptions because 
     that's what you need to address. You have to be on the side 
     of change. Always. The financial crisis is not a theoretical 
     economic textbook concern. The pain felt by the crisis is 
     real and omnipresent. Retirement funds were depleted. Homes 
     were foreclosed. Jobs were eliminated. The status quo is 
     unacceptable. However, it's wrong to assume government can 
     correct the problem without addressing its role in the 
     crisis, yet that is what Congress is trying to do. What to 
     say? ``It addresses market excesses but keeps government 
     excesses in place.'' The American consumer wants more easily 
     understood contract language so that consumers have all the 
     information they need.
       7. Demand accountability--government accountability. 
     Despite creating economic conditions comparative to the Great 
     Depression, it is important to ask some basic questions--What 
     government regulator lost their job for their hand in the 
     crisis? What government policies were changed? What laws were 
     repealed? The obvious answer is none.


                            WORDS THAT WORK

       We don't need another Federal government agency. We don't 
     need bigger government. What we need is a better approach 
     that promotes accountability, responsibility and effective 
     oversight.
       Yet, Congress is poised to add another Washington agency 
     with more Washington bureaucrats on top of existing laws and 
     regulations. In fact, the proponents of the new government 
     agency and regulations are the same members of Congress who 
     created and supported the housing bubble.


                            WORDS THAT WORK

       The architects of failure are now designing the rescue. 
     Many of the same members of Congress responsible for the 
     legislation that helped create the housing bubble and the 
     Wall Street financial crisis are now attempting to create 
     another new government agency with an unlimited budget and 
     almost unlimited regulatory powers.
       I'm sorry to say this but they don't know what they're 
     doing. They have gotten it wrong time and time again and now 
     they want to do it yet again.
       The perceived incompetence of Washington extends to its 
     leadership. Barney Frank, the Chairman of the House Financial 
     Services Committee, is an example. Frank's favorable rating 
     is 13%. His unfavorable rating is 30% (though a majority 
     don't give him any rating at all--so don't make him the 
     enemy. Washington is the enemy.)
       8. More bloated government bureaucracy is not the solution. 
     We're witnessing out-of-control federal spending. The 
     Government takeover of health care and other industries has 
     Americans questioning the competence of government. They want 
     smarter solutions, not more of the same. ``A new agency with 
     new bureaucrats is not change we can believe in.'' It's not 
     change at all. As our dial session participants agreed, 
     ``It's another agency to clean up a mess from a different 
     agency.''


                            WORDS THAT WORK

       The financial crisis hurt all of us. Homes were lost. Jobs 
     were destroyed. Businesses closed. There is enough blame to 
     go around. We need a solution to the problem, not more of the 
     same. Creating another costly government bureaucracy on top 
     of existing bureaucracy isn't a solution--it helped cause the 
     problem. This time, let's get it right.
       9. Devil is in the details. Every bill passed by Congress 
     is larded up with pork, handouts, and earmarks. The American 
     people have lost faith in Congress, and no matter how good a 
     bill sounds, they want to know ``What is in the fine print?''
       10. Caution: Unintended consequences ahead. The government 
     caused the Savings and Loan crisis by changing the rules. 
     Congress jacked up fees and interest rates on consumers after 
     enacting the ``Credit Card Bill of Rights.'' What will be the 
     effects and impact of the CFPA? How will small business be 
     affected? Will choices be limited? Will consumer fees be 
     impacted? Evidence suggests the answer is definitely ``yes''.

                           Language Findings

       11. Enforcement of current law trumps creation of new laws. 
     Despite the need for reform, the public believes real reform 
     means ensuring current laws are enforced rather than adding 
     another layer of agencies, laws, regulations, and red tape on 
     top of the existing agencies, laws, regulations, and red 
     tape.


                            WORDS THAT WORK

       We don't need more laws. We need better enforcement of 
     current laws. We don't need more bureaucrats. We need the 
     people in charge to do their jobs as they were meant to be 
     done. We don't need layers and layers of additional federal 
     bureaucracy. What we need is to instill accountability, 
     responsibility and effective oversight to what is being done 
     already.
       12. The bailout provisions get the most visceral reaction. 
     It is not often you come across an issue where people of all 
     political stripes come together so stridently on an issue. 
     Taxpayer bailouts of CEOs and companies are such an issue.


                            WORDS THAT WORK

       Bailouts for Wall Street. Government takeovers of insurance 
     companies. Trillions of taxpayer dollars to bail out CEOs and 
     their risky investment schemes. And now Congress is preparing 
     to enact legislation to pass a law with $4 trillion more for 
     more bailouts. Should people who write the financial reform 
     laws be the same ones who helped cause the crisis? Should 
     taxpayers be punished and the big banks and credit card 
     companies be rewarded? The time has come to take a stand. 
     Oppose the big bank bailout bill.
       13. ``Bureaucrats'' are worse than ``bureaucracies.'' While 
     Americans don't like bureaucracy, they loathe bureaucrats 
     even more. In fact, America's disdain of bureaucrats is 
     almost as high as Americans' dislike and mistrust of 
     lobbyists.
       14. Americans want to end the legalese and confusion in 
     contracts. The strongest argument in favor of the CFPA is the 
     claim the agency would somehow end confusing contracts 
     written by lawyers in language only lawyers can understand. 
     When was the last time a government agency made things easier 
     to comprehend?


                            WORDS THAT WORK

       We must require greater transparency and more easily 
     understood contract language so that consumers have all the 
     information they need.
       15. Just the facts, ma'am. In the testing of the ads and 
     other communications, it is clear that Americans want more 
     than just red meat rhetoric. You have to give them two 
     concrete facts to prove your case--or you will be just 
     another special interest group playing politics with their 
     lives. Two facts. Two statistics. Two clear-cut statements of 
     evidence.
       16. Personalize the impact. It's small business owners, and 
     not small businesses, that will be harmed by this 
     legislation. Yes, they recognize small business as a key 
     component of the economy, but stronger arguments against 
     creation of the CFPA lie elsewhere. Americans want to support 
     small businesses, but are more willing to support a person 
     who owns a small business. Make it personal.
       17. It's not ``reform.''--This is not a reform bill. It is 
     the ``Stop the Big Bank Bailout bill.'' This is important.

[[Page S2262]]

       18. Small business ownership is about the American Dream. 
     The most popular images of small business owners both 
     projected optimism with signs saying ``grand opening'' or 
     ``open.''


                            WORDS THAT WORK

       Owning a small business is part of the American Dream and 
     Congress should make it easier to be an entrepreneur. But the 
     Financial Reform bill and the creation of the CFPA makes it 
     harder to be a small business owner because it will choke off 
     credit options to small business owners. That will make it 
     harder to start a new company and harder to expand an 
     existing one.
       19. No surprise here. The strongest image ad we tested 
     pertained to the bailout provisions and the ``lobbyist 
     loopholes'' for the casino industry.
       20. The Final Word. The department store Syms used the 
     slogan ``an educated consumer is our best customer.'' We 
     could easily say an educated citizen is the biggest opponent 
     or, your biggest ally against the creation of the Financial 
     Reform bill and the CFPA.


                              Words to Use

       Accountability, Transparency & Oversight, Lobbyist 
     Loopholes, Enforcement of Current Laws, Bureaucrats, Wasteful 
     Washington Spending, Never Again, Government Failures and 
     Incompetence, Let's Help Small Businesses, Big Bank Bailout 
     Bill, Bloated Bureaucracy, Fine Print, Unintended 
     Consequences, Special Interests, Hard Working Taxpayers, 
     Another Washington Agency, Unlimited Regulatory Powers, Devil 
     Is in the Details, Red Tape.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________