[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 58 (Thursday, April 22, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2540-S2541]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Financial Regulatory Reform

  Mr. McCONNELL. 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.

[[Page S2541]]

  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.