[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 59 (Monday, April 26, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2609-S2611]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      FINANCIAL REGULATORY REFORM

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, we will be voting at 5 o'clock this 
afternoon on a motion by the majority leader, and I can almost hear him 
now saying something about the party of no as we talk about the 
financial regulation bill. Well, I would say to my friend the majority 
leader that he is rapidly becoming the leader of the party of no by 
offering so many ``no'' motions because the motion this afternoon is 
one more of a record number of ``no'' motions offered by the majority 
leader to say no to more amendments, no to more debate, no to checks 
and balances on a runaway government in Washington.
  What we on the Republican side have been trying to do on the 
financial regulation bill is to work with the majority party and the 
President to help fashion a set of rules and regulations that takes us 
from the financial crisis we had a few years ago, and which continues 
today in the lives of Americans everywhere, to complete a bill most of 
us can support so we can say to America and say to the world: These are 
our rules and regulations. We have done our job. We have set the rules. 
Even if Republicans capture control of the Congress in November--which 
we hope we do--these still will be the rules because we did this in a 
bipartisan way, the kind of way the President talked about when he 
campaigned for election a couple of years ago.
  Well, unfortunately, that is not what has been happening. It has just 
been one ``no'' motion after another from the majority leader--a record 
number of them. And he will even bring that up, which I would 
respectfully say I would not do. Twenty-six times the majority leader 
has filled the amendment tree. That is a ``no'' motion that says no 
more amendments. He has done it nearly as much as the last five 
majority leaders combined. He has the record in saying no more 
amendments, no more debates, and no more checks and balances on what 
the Congress is doing. There have been 141 times the majority leader 
has filed cloture on the same day a measure came up. That is simply 
another no motion. It says no to more amendments, no to more debates, 
no to more checks and balances on the legislation Congress is 
considering.

  Someone may say: Well, let's get on with it. Why do we need these 
checks and balances? We were reminded over the weekend of why we need 
the checks and balances. All of us remember the health care debate 
resulting in the

[[Page S2610]]

health care law which passed this Chamber by a partisan majority. We 
were here day after day after day with the Democrats meeting in secret. 
The vote came up in the middle of a snowstorm, 1 a.m. in the morning, 
had to be done before Christmas, nearly 3,000 pages before it all got 
through. No check and balance on that bill. We were saying slow down. 
Wait a minute. This bill is making a fundamental mistake. It is 
expanding a health care delivery system we all know we can't afford, 
when instead we should be taking steps together to reduce its costs so 
more Americans can afford to buy health insurance.
  So over the weekend, a report issued on Thursday by the Chief Actuary 
of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services--he is the chief 
health actuary in the Federal Government; what did he say? Lo and 
behold, his analysis showed it will increase health care costs instead 
of lowering them. In other words, we will increase--we will increase--
spending on a health care delivery system we all know we can't afford 
today. Yet off we went with our new $1 trillion bill. It will raise 
premiums on health care. It will threaten seniors' access to health 
care. It will threaten access for Medicaid patients, creating, in 
effect, a health care bridge to nowhere for a great number of low-
income Americans who will find they can't get a doctor or, in 
Washington State, that Walgreens will not fill their prescription. This 
will make that problem worse. To those who are going to be serving as 
Governor between 2014 and 2019, it is very bad news because it talks 
about the increased cost of Medicaid, which is the largest government 
health care program, and how many of those costs are being passed on to 
States. I know, in our State, our legislature--Republican--and our 
Governor--a Democrat--have said we don't see how we can afford this. It 
is estimated to be roughly $1.1 billion, but potentially could be as 
high as $1.5 billion. It is going to cause State tax increases, tuition 
increases at the public universities, and I believe it will seriously 
damage American public education. Anyone can read this for himself or 
herself.
  So over the weekend, the Chief Health Actuary of the Federal 
Government said the health care law does what we Republicans feared it 
would. But the psychology on the other side of the aisle was: We won 
the election. We will write the bill. We will pass it even by a 
partisan majority, unlike civil rights, unlike Medicare, unlike 
Medicaid, unlike social security. It was a purely partisan bill, with 
no checks and balances, and the American people see the results.
  Here we go again, this afternoon at 5 o'clock. This should be a very 
different situation. It is a very important bill. It is the financial 
regulation of this country. This country produces 25 percent of all the 
money in the world every year. Twenty-five percent of the wealth is 
created by this country, for just 5 percent of us who are privileged to 
live here. So one would think we would be as careful as we could be in 
getting this done.
  For a long time on this bill, many Members of the Senate on both 
sides of the aisle have been working on it carefully and in a 
bipartisan way. So why would we bring another one of these record-
setting ``no'' motions up today to vote on? Why would we say--in the 
middle of debate and discussion to improve the bill--let's rush it on 
through; no, to more amendments; no, to more debate; no, to more checks 
and balances.
  There are some pretty big issues to resolve to make sure we have it 
right. There is general agreement, I think, across both sides of the 
aisle that we want a situation where we don't have these big banks that 
are too big to fail. The Senator from Virginia, who is the Presiding 
Officer today and my colleague, and Senator Corker from Tennessee 
worked for a year on this. I went to some of their sessions. It is 
complex stuff, but they were coming up with a bipartisan solution to 
the problem. One of the advantages of a bipartisan solution is, A, it 
might be more likely to be right; and, B, it almost certainly is more 
likely to be accepted. If there is a Corker-Warner or Warner-Corker 
solution, Republican-Democratic solution on banks that are too big to 
fail, then the American people might look up here and say: OK, if they 
both agree on it, maybe they are right. Maybe I will not worry about 
it, and I will not spend my next 3 years trying to repeal it. Well, the 
same thing was true on other parts of the issue, and I commend Senator 
Dodd, the chairman of the committee, for starting out in that 
direction. He was working with Senator Shelby on this side on 
consolidating bank regulators and consumer protection. Senator Reed on 
the Democratic side and Senator Gregg were working on reforming 
oversight of derivatives. As I said, Senator Warner and Senator Corker 
were working on systemic risk, the too-big-to-fail issue. Senator 
Schumer and Senator Crapo were working on securities and exchange 
issues and corporate governance issues. They weren't coming to an 
agreement on every single one of these issues--the last one is 
especially difficult--but they are making some real progress. Even 
yesterday, Senator Shelby, who is the ranking member, and Senator Dodd 
said on NBC's ``Meet the Press''--Senator Shelby said: ``We are closer 
than we have ever been.'' Mr. Dodd added: ``We will get it together.''
  Well, if we are closer than we have ever been and we will get it 
together, why are we having this ``no'' vote today? Why are we saying 
no to more amendments, no to more debate, no to checks and balances?
  That is a serious question for the American people. If I were to 
suppose in my State what the major issue before the people of Tennessee 
is today, it is that many Independents, almost every Republican, and 
some Democrats would say: We need some checks and balances on a runaway 
Washington government. Well, here is an opportunity to have some checks 
and balances on a runaway Washington government and to get things 
right. Instead, we seem to have a campaign team at the White House that 
says, Let's play a little politics and make it look like the 
Republicans are in bed with the Wall Street bankers. They even said 
Republicans took contributions from Wall Street bankers, but when the 
newspapers added it all up, it looks like the Democrats got more 
contributions from the Wall Street bankers than the Republicans did. So 
if the race is about politics and if the race is about who took the 
most money from the Wall Street bankers, the Democrats win. That is not 
the basis upon which we should be deciding this. I like the way the 
committee was working on it for the last year: Republican and 
Democratic teams working to solve big, complex problems for the country 
that produces 25 percent of all the money in the world and is the 
acknowledged financial capital of the world. But, instead, we seem to 
have at least a fraction of the administration that says: We won the 
election, we will write the bill, and up comes the majority leader with 
another ``no'' motion, a historic, record number of ``no'' motions.
  I am here simply to say this: This is a piece of legislation that 
presents President Obama and our Congress with a historic opportunity 
to do something right. We are coming out, we hope, of a great 
recession. We need some signals to our country and to the world that 
things are stabilizing. Every small businessperson or big 
businessperson I talk with says: A little certainty would help. We are 
not going to hire another person; we are not going to invest another 
dollar until we get a little more certainty in the business environment 
in America, and people are waiting to see how we are going to deal with 
this too-big-to-fail issue. Are we going to put up rules that will give 
big banks an advantage over community banks? Are we going to put in 
regulations that are so cumbersome that they move the financial capital 
of America from New York City and Chicago to Washington, DC, or even to 
London and Singapore and Shanghai, along with the jobs and the prestige 
and the opportunity for an increased standard of living that goes with 
it?
  We have, within our grasp, an opportunity to do as Senator Shelby and 
Senator Dodd said. We are close to getting it together. We think we 
will get it together. If we were to get it together, if we were to be 
able to rely upon the work of Senator Warner and Senator Corker and the 
others I mentioned who worked together over the last year and stand 
together with the President and let him say: Republicans and Democrats 
have been working for

[[Page S2611]]

more than a year on this. We have taken enough time to develop a 
consensus in the Senate, a consensus between parties, that this is the 
right thing to do for our country and we want to tell the American 
people these are the rules for financial regulation and tell the world 
that the United States of America is capable of governing itself and 
writing its rules and doing it in a bipartisan way, think of the signal 
that would send to this country and to the world. It might be a tipping 
point in the recovery from the great recession, that kind of signal 
from Washington, DC. I can't think of a better one. Yet the vote today 
is the opposite. It is another ``no'' motion. No to debate. No to 
amendments. No to working together. No to checks and balances.
  I hope we prevail on this motion and I hope we will say yes to more 
amendments, yes to more debates and yes to checks and balances and I 
hope the result is a financial regulation bill affecting this country 
that all of us can vote for--or at least most of us can vote for; that 
we can proudly give each other credit for. That is the way we like to 
work. That is why we came to the Senate. When the country sees that, 
they will have more confidence in us, in this government, in the 
economy and the world may, too, and we will have taken an important 
step forward; and the President will be able to say: Look, this is the 
way I wanted to do it all along. This is what I campaigned on, and I am 
glad we have worked together to get 70 or 80 votes in the Senate to get 
a consensus on a financial regulation bill to get this country moving 
again.
  I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

                          ____________________