[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 55 (Monday, April 19, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2404-S2405]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Financial Regulatory Reform

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this morning I was looking at something I 
have had on my desk for a long while. I was thinking about words and 
words that matter because there have been a lot of words recently about 
the issue of financial reform or Wall Street reform, how it is done, 
when it is done, whether it is done. I was thinking about the use of 
words and that words do not mean what they used to mean.
  I went back, because I have kept this on my desk for a long time, to 
something that was sent out widely across the country. It was from 
something called GOPAC. It was kind of the start or at least the 
genesis of the collapse of comity and the use of good language and so 
on. This was sent out widely around the country to several thousand 
people. It said: We have heard all these candidates across the country 
say: I wish I could speak like Newt--meaning Newt Gingrich. I wish I 
could speak like Newt.
  Then it said in the language that it sent out to people: You can 
speak like Newt Gingrich. It said: We have actually done a lot of work 
developing polling on contrasting words, and if you would like to speak 
like Newt Gingrich, here is some help for you.
  Here are words. Then they sent this out. It says:

       Apply these words to your opponent, to their record, to 
     their proposals, their party.

  They have a long list of words: sick, lie, betray, traitors, 
pathetic, threaten, corruption, punish, corrupt, cheat, steal, abuse of 
power. Use these words when you describe your opponents.
  They said: Here are the positive words you should use when you talk 
about yourself: pro-flag, pro-children, pro-environment, liberty, 
principal, pioneer, truth, moral, courage, family. And the list goes 
on.
  I thought when I received this a long while ago how unbelievably 
pathetic it was that there were merchants of destructive politics 
marketing this trash around the country. Yet they were and have for a 
long time. It is the case that they use pollsters to do this, to tell 
everyone what kinds of words exist that will motivate both negatively 
and describe your opponents--sick, pathetic, lie, betray--and what 
words would positively motivate your supporters. I was thinking about 
that, and I dug that out just because in recent days and weeks we have 
seen examples of language that matters and instructions by people of 
how to use language, even though it does not apply, to describe your 
position.
  I was interested in seeing the results of a pollster who described 
the way to attack financial reform. Again, it was not in the same way 
of the GOPAC polling to find the most destructive way you could 
describe something, but it was similar in the sense of, how would you 
construct something, notwithstanding the facts--how would you construct 
something to make an impression about something no matter what the 
facts might be.
  This is from some polling work that was done. It says:

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

  The words that would matter are these: No matter what the 
circumstances are, 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,'' ``if a business is going to fail, no matter how big, let 
it fail.'' If these words sound familiar, it is because you have heard 
them all on the floor of the Senate in recent days and you have heard 
them on television a lot in recent days. It is the issue of, how do you 
develop language that motivates people, notwithstanding the set of 
facts.
  ``It is not reform''--again quoting from the polling work--``it's the 
stop big bank bailout bill.'' That is important. This is not a reform 
bill; it is to stop the big bank bailout.
  What we have here is the battle of polling. How can you describe 
words that work, language that works, notwithstanding the set of facts 
you might be discussing?
  Ultimately, if we are going to effectively deal with Wall Street 
reform, reforming our financial system, it is not going to be with a 
battle of pollsters; it is not going to be regurgitating what one 
reads--here is how you motivate someone using these words. It is going 
to be that we think through what happened and then understand what do 
we do to make sure this cannot and does not happen again.
  We hear a lot of talk about the need for bipartisanship. I would love 
to see that. I would love to see bipartisanship on specifically the 
kinds of remedies that have teeth, that are effective, and that are 
going to prohibit that which has happened to this country from ever 
happening again. That will not be done, in my judgment, by deciding to 
step back a ways and use a light touch. I am for the right touch; I am 
not for a light touch. I have seen the light touch for a decade now, or 
at least a substantial portion of the last decade.
  We have had agencies, the SEC, and others in a deep Rip Van Winkle 
sleep. In fact, we had people come to the SEC who noticed what some 
folks were doing to bilk taxpayers and investors and nobody did 
anything. I was here when new regulators came to town and said: You 
know what. We are going to be willfully blind for a while. It is a new 
day.
  The fact is, regulation is not a four-letter word. The free market 
system works, but it works when there is a referee. The referees with 
the striped shirts and whistles are needed to call the fouls because 
there are fouls from time to time in the free market system. That is 
why we have regulatory capability and authority.
  So the question of what kind of financial reform or Wall Street 
reform is developed is not going to be about the language of financial 
reform--which is what this is about, a document that has been 
distributed and that I heard quoted many times now in recent days. It 
is not going to be about the language but about the specific set of 
policies that will prevent what happened to this country from ever 
happening again.
  I will come and talk about some of that, but I did want to say I was 
thinking about the issue of the use of words, and I find it pretty 
interesting to listen to the use of specific words and to listen to the 
menu of the language of financial reform that comes from the pollsters 
and then comes straight out of the mouths of others very quickly.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page S2405]]