[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 61 (Wednesday, April 28, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2726-S2733]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 RESTORING AMERICAN FINANCIAL STABILITY ACT OF 2010--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3217, which the 
clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 3217, a bill 
     to promote the financial stability of the United States by 
     improving accountability and transparency in the financial 
     system, to end ``too big to fail,'' to protect the American 
     taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from 
     abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12:20 
p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or 
their designees.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, yesterday, in the Permanent Subcommittee 
on Investigations, chaired by the distinguished Senator from Michigan, 
Mr. Levin, we learned more about the reckless actions of traders and 
executives at Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs was hardly the only bad 
actor in bringing our financial system to the brink of collapse in 
2008. Traders and executives at many other financial institutions got 
fabulously wealthy by gaming the unregulated casinos on Wall Street. 
They walked away with fortunes, even as millions of Americans lost 
their jobs, their savings, and their homes.
  Yet as we witnessed in yesterday's hearing, Wall Street remains quite 
arrogant and quite unrepentant and quite unwilling to change its ways. 
It has the gall to believe it should remain free to do business as 
usual. To that end, I am told it has mobilized a legion of lobbyists--
an estimated 1,500 of them; 15 lobbyists for every Senator--to try to 
kill or water down, stop this financial regulation reform from coming 
to the floor.
  It is deeply unfortunate that every one of our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle--every single Republican--has joined with Wall 
Street in obstructing this legislation--every single Republican not 
just filibustering the bill but preventing it from even coming to the 
floor for debate and amendment.
  They keep saying they want to improve the bill. Well, is that not 
what the debate and amendment process is about? If someone has a better 
idea, offer it as an amendment. Let's debate it. Maybe it is a better 
idea. Maybe we will adopt it; maybe we will not. But it seems that is 
the way we ought to be conducting the Nation's business on the Senate 
floor.
  So I say to my Republican colleagues, Senator Dodd and Senator 
Lincoln have bent over backwards to consult with them and invite 
bipartisan cooperation. Their good-faith efforts have produced solid, 
commonsense legislation. But if people on the other side of the aisle 
want some changes, that is what the amendment process is for. We are 
not cutting off anyone. It will be open for amendment. Why are the 
Republicans so afraid of offering amendments on the Senate floor if 
they have a better idea on how we should do this?
  It is a bitter irony that, even as we spent a fortune in taxpayer 
dollars to rescue the global financial system, the self-appointed 
masters of the universe on Wall Street rewarded themselves with 
billions in bonuses and have geared up to fight the efforts to 
prevent--to prevent--this from happening again.
  Well, it seems Wall Street is all too used to living a different 
life, playing by different rules than the rest of the country. Nowhere 
is this disconnect between Wall Street and Main Street more stark than 
in the area of compensation. Over the last decades, compensation in the 
financial sector has skyrocketed, with some executives walking away 
with annual compensation of hundreds of millions of dollars, even as 
the inflation-adjusted incomes of ordinary working Americans have 
remained stagnant.
  This chart I have in the Chamber traces the financial industry 
profits as a share of domestic profits since 1948.
  From 1948 to about 1980, as you can see, it remained fairly stable, 
between 8 percent and 18 percent. Think about everything in this 
country, all the profits made. About 8 percent to 18 percent was taken 
by the financial sector on Wall Street. But starting in 1984, financial 
profits began to rise dramatically. We can see it on the chart, going 
way up.
  In 2001, financial industry profits were almost 45 percent of all 
domestic profits in America--almost half; 45 percent--up from about 8 
percent to 18 percent. Today, despite the 2008 meltdown, they are back 
above 35 percent. So 35 percent of all the profits made in America are 
going to Wall Street, going to the financial sector. This is a 
concentration of wealth unprecedented in our history.
  This second chart I have in the Chamber contrasts this explosion of 
wealth on Wall Street to what happened to ordinary Americans on Main 
Street. From 1990 to 2008, real median household income stagnated at 
about $50,000 per year. It just stagnated. Since 2000, real median 
household income has actually fallen.
  From 2000 to today, real median household income has stagnated and 
has actually fallen from where it was. We had a steady increase over 
the years. Then, since 1990, it stagnated. Since 2000, it has fallen. 
That is what is happening to the average household in America, the 
median household in America.
  Well, let's see what was happening to our friends on Wall Street 
then.
  Just as median household income was stagnating from about 1990 on, 
look what happened to the average Wall Street bonus--huge. Wall Street

[[Page S2727]]

compensation skyrocketed nearly 300 percent during this period of time. 
Since 1990, the average Wall Street bonus--I am not even talking about 
salaries; I am just talking about bonuses--soared from just under 
$50,000 in the early 1990s to more than $200,000 in 2006.
  Now, go out and talk to our constituents, go out and talk to the Main 
Street businesspeople who run our shops, and talk to anybody out in 
America today. Did their income increase 300 percent during that period 
of time? No; it stayed level. But look at the bonuses--and that is just 
the bonuses. I am not even talking about their salaries. These are 
bonuses.
  Well, I dwell on this and point this out because I think it points to 
a larger issue. In my view, a big reason for the financial collapse of 
2008 is that things got out of balance and they got out of whack. As 
Glass-Steagall was repealed--and I might say this forthrightly--there 
were eight Senators on this floor who voted against the repeal of 
Glass-Steagall. I am proud to say I was one of them. I remember at that 
time saying: Wait a minute, there is a reason in the 1930s, under 
President Roosevelt, we did not want to have this happening again.
  So we said to commercial banks: If you want to be a bank and take 
bank deposits, fine; you can be a bank. But you cannot do insurance and 
you cannot do investments. You cannot do swaps and derivatives and all 
that kind of stuff. You are a commercial bank, and for that we give you 
FDIC protection. We also give you Federal Reserve protection.
  We said to insurance companies: If you want to be insurance 
companies, fine; but you cannot be a bank. We said to investment 
houses: If you want to take money in to invest, fine; that is your 
deal. But you cannot take deposits. You are not a depository bank, and 
you do not get the protections of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve.
  Well, in 1999, this Congress repealed that, and allowed them all to 
come together. I said at the time--and the record will show I said it--
I hope it does not happen. I hope all these smart people know what they 
are doing, but I do not trust them. I do not trust them because we are 
going to start having a lot of funny games playing. In the last 10 
years, we saw the games they played.
  Well, after Glass-Steagall was repealed, the special interests 
attacked the very idea of government regulation. The SEC and other 
watchdog agencies failed to regulate and Wall Street stepped into the 
void. And they just drove our economy off a cliff, and ordinary, hard-
working Americans had to pick up the tab. That is why we need this 
serious financial reform.
  As others have noted--and I say again--financial crises in this 
country should not be looked upon as floods that just come every 10 
years or some kind of natural disaster that we sort of accept; that 
every so often we are going to have a flood or have a hurricane hit the 
coast or we are going to have a drought someplace. Financial collapses 
that happened in the past were not preordained kinds of happenings to 
our system. They happen because we let people run amok with large sums 
of money and gamble it.
  So, again, to protect ourselves against floods, what do we do? Well, 
we do a lot of upland treatment. We build dams. We build levees. We do 
all kinds of things to protect ourselves from these things. Well, there 
are some things we can do to protect ourselves from a financial 
collapse too. It is putting into place the kinds of oversight and 
transparency and regulations that allow our capitalist system to 
operate, but to operate within some bounds. I don't think anyone wants 
to return to the boom and bust cycle of unbridled capitalism that we 
had in the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century. I don't 
think anybody wants to go back to those days. Yes, we believe in a 
capitalist system where people can take their savings and invest it, 
make their money work for them, loan it out to other people so they can 
start businesses. That is the capitalist model. But should we let 
people take our money we have saved up for pensions, for example, or 
other kinds of investments, and go to Las Vegas? I don't think so. We 
want some rules and regulations so they can make true investments, so 
those investments can be used to start businesses, to invest in 
economic growth on a broad basis, but not to be used for gross 
speculation on Wall Street.

  That is why we need this financial reform bill we are trying to get 
to the floor. It will guard against future massive meltdowns that 
always cost us, not only money, but also in ruined lives.
  Strong financial reform must include regulations of the derivatives 
market. This is something I have been involved in for a long time on 
the Agriculture Committee, for all the years I have served, working 
with the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. I am pleased to say 
the legislation we are trying to bring to the floor includes the 
provisions that passed out of the Agriculture Committee under the 
leadership of our chairman, Senator Lincoln. Derivatives contracts have 
been at the heart of Wall Street's financial manipulation. From 
December of 2000 to June of 2008, the height of the Wall Street boom, 
the notional value of over-the-counter derivatives grew from $95 
billion in 2000 to $683 trillion in 2008.
  I wish to make it clear. People say, Are you against all derivatives? 
I say, No. There are basic derivatives that can be helpful for our 
economy and for individuals, from businesses to farmers. Farmers use 
derivatives. Businesses use them to protect against currency 
fluctuations. That is fine. These are basic derivatives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, since I see no one else on the floor, I 
ask unanimous consent for another 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Thank you.
  As I said, I have no objection to basic derivatives. It is when these 
derivatives get out of hand; it is when you have a derivative on a 
derivative on a derivative and on and on and on. That is what is 
happening in the derivatives markets.
  So, despite the usefulness of derivatives in certain cases, it got 
out of hand. The bill we reported out of the Agriculture Committee will 
bring all of these transactions into the light of day. No more behind 
the scenes; derivatives would be reported to regulators in real time. 
It would bring the vast majority of these into clearinghouses and 
exchanges. It would help to reduce the concentration of risk and 
bolster public transparency. The legislation we are trying to bring to 
the floor that the Republicans keep blocking gets to the heart of the 
too-big-to-fail problem by prohibiting swaps entities from also being 
commercial banks. A commercial bank backed by the government or the 
FDIC should not be able to use that government backing to support high-
stakes gambling. That only magnifies the level of risk in the banking 
system. It is unfair to taxpayers, bank customers, and community banks.
  I met in my office yesterday with some of the community banks in 
Iowa. They don't deal in swaps and derivatives. They take deposits, 
they loan them out for business starts, people who need a loan for 
different things. They are not dealing in swaps and derivatives, so why 
should we allow these big banks on Wall Street to do it?
  We also need a strong, independent financial consumer protection 
agency to guard against rip-offs and abuses in mortgages, credit cards, 
payday loans, and other financial profits to protect consumers. It is 
sorely needed.
  We also need to slam the door on too-big-to-fail financial 
institutions. No more AIGs or Citigroups. When companies make bets and 
lose, there ought to be a process for liquidating those companies, 
period.
  To further improve the bill, I have cosponsored legislation 
introduced by Senator Cantwell that would recreate the Great 
Depression-era regulation that prohibited the mixing of commercial 
banks, investment banks, and insurance companies. We ought to return to 
the Glass-Steagall law that worked well for so many years. Senator 
Cantwell has been a strong leader for this, and I thank her.
  I am also a cosponsor of the SAFE Banking Act offered by Senators 
Brown and Kaufman that would limit the size of the largest 
institutions. No more too big to fail.
  In addition, I support legislation by Senators Merkley and Levin that

[[Page S2728]]

blocks institutions that are insured by the FDIC from proprietary 
trading with their own funds. We can't have high-risk gambling with 
money that is backed by the taxpayers of this country.
  Mr. President, America has been through financial collapses and deep 
economic downturns before. In charting the way forward, we can learn 
important lessons from the financial crash of 1929 that led to the 
Great Depression. FDR answered that crisis by implementing tough new 
regulations to stabilize the financial system, rein in risk taking and 
recklessness on Wall Street, and made the economy work for ordinary 
Americans. Because of those reforms made in the 1930s, we had decades 
of shared economic prosperity unprecedented in our Nation's history. 
Well, what we did in the 1930s needs to be our model. Not exactly the 
same--we have a different system--but it needs to be our model as we 
shape today's financial reform legislation. Financial reform 
legislation ought to separate these big entities out. We can't have too 
big to fail. We need to have transparency. We need to stop banks from 
engaging in swaps and derivatives if they are backed by the FDIC.
  These amendments--the Cantwell amendment, the Merkley-Levin 
amendment, the Brown-Kaufman amendment, and others I happen to be 
supporting--again, we can't offer them unless we get the bill to the 
floor. I don't know if they will win, but we ought to have the right to 
offer those amendments.
  I wish to thank Senator Dodd. He has been at the forefront of this 
fight for a long time, trying to bring this bill to the floor, to crack 
down on abusive speculation, to put in strong regulation, to have a 
consumer protection agency to protect our consumers. Senator Dodd has 
led this effort. I know where his heart is. I know how he is trying to 
make certain this system works for everybody, not just Wall Street. I 
don't want to be on a roll of bashing Wall Street all the time. I know 
that is a popular sport. Wall Street has a role to play in our society. 
They surely do.
  But, let's get Wall Street back to what Wall Street does best: 
accumulating capital and investing that capital in the economic growth 
of America. That is what the Dodd bill does. It gets us back to that 
system. It straightens things out and helps to protect us from these 
kinds of collapses in the future.
  I do not understand why the Republicans will not let this bill come 
to the floor. I don't mind if they want to vote against it. If they 
want to be on the side of keeping Wall Street speculating with 
taxpayers' dollars and letting these banks get too big to fail, that is 
their right, but why not let the bill come to the floor so we can 
debate it and amend it. If they want to change it, let them offer 
amendments, but we can't do that unless we bring the bill to the floor.
  I hope the American people understand this. I hope they understand 
that the Republican side of the aisle will not let this bill even come 
to the floor for debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 7 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for all the hard 
work he has put into this, he and his staff and the committee. It is a 
good bill. Again, we may not agree on every detail. There are some 
things I would like to see in it; maybe they will, maybe they won't. It 
is a good bill, a solid bill, and it will help us get control back 
again over Wall Street and all the wild speculations and it will help 
our country grow as it should, not in one small area, but broadly-based 
economic growth in our country.
  I thank Senator Dodd for his great leadership on this. I hope my 
Republican friends will understand that we have to get this bill up on 
the floor so we can protect the American people from these financial 
collapses that have happened over the last couple of years.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the time of the 
Democratic side has expired, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DODD. I don't have a Republican colleague to ask unanimous 
consent to speak for a couple of minutes. I ask unanimous consent to be 
allowed to speak for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair.
  Let me first thank my friend from Iowa for his tremendous work on so 
many issues but also his deep interest in this subject matter. 
Obviously, the subject of exotic instruments--derivatives and the 
like--is a critical issue for all of the country but particularly in 
the farm State of Iowa where he has played a considerable role. All of 
us have a higher degree of interest in one subject matter or the other, 
but I am grateful to him for his longstanding interest. His is not an 
interest that emerged with the problems that spiked 18 months ago, but 
go back 8 years. In fact, he has written legislation and held hearings 
in his former capacity as chairman of the Agriculture Committee, so he 
knows the subject well. I appreciate his kind comments about the effort 
of the Banking Committee and the effort of Blanche Lincoln, our 
colleague from Arkansas, and the Agriculture Committee she now chairs 
and where she has been working on a very important piece of our efforts 
here.
  There are only a few minutes left before this vote will occur again. 
As are most people, I am somewhat mystified. I have heard my colleagues 
over the last day or so raise issues, concerns they have with the bill. 
It is no great shock that would be the case. That is normally what 
happens with a bill of this size and obviously this complexity, 
covering as much of an area as we do across the economic spectrum of 
our country. I am somewhat mystified. I understand having objections to 
parts of the bill and wanting to be heard and wanting to have an 
opportunity to change the bill, either add to it or subtract from it; 
that is how we normally engage in the legislative process, but I can't 
very well help on that front if I am not allowed to get to the bill.
  This morning, the major newspapers of the country of course reported 
about the hearings yesterday here in Washington. I don't need to say 
much more about it. Again, the headlines: Looking into mortgage deals 
and the like have reached a certain crescendo. Most people are probably 
aware of those things.
  There was another headline, however, that wasn't at the top of the 
newspaper but underneath it. In this case, the local paper here in 
Washington had the headline ``Greek debt downgraded to junk.'' It says, 
``European crisis deepens. Dow falls 2 percent on global sell-off.''
  The reason I mention that here is that obviously the Goldman Sachs 
story was the one that got the attention, but there are problems 
emerging around the world that affect us as well. Our legislation 
doesn't write international rules, but the United States has led, 
historically, in financial services. If we are unable to get a bill 
passed to change the rules, give us a greater sense of fairness and 
transparency and protection, then we are missing an opportunity to 
correct what over the last number of years helped create some of the 
problems we are now facing and then to lead globally so that other 
nations will harmonize their rules with ours so that the problems that 
exist in a Shanghai or a Greece can't affect us here.
  We have a lot of work to do. I expect that if we get on this bill, we 
are going to be working for weeks engaging in several amendments and 
ideas to try to strengthen this bill--make it better, if you will.
  I am one of the authors of the bill. I don't claim this is a perfect 
piece of legislation. I have never seen one of those in my 30 years 
here. Normally, you bring out a bill and do the best you can. 
Obviously, others have different points of view. It would be 
presumptuous of Senator Shelby and me to suggest that we can come to 
some great agreement here and tell everybody else that, whether you 
like it or not, this is the deal. That is not what we get elected to do 
here.
  I have colleagues on my side who are sympathetic to what I have tried 
to do, but they want to change this bill. There is one amendment by my 
colleague from Vermont, and I think it

[[Page S2729]]

has 33 cosponsors, two-thirds of whom are on that side of the aisle and 
a third are over on this side. They ought to have the right to offer an 
amendment to change this bill, which is what they want to do.
  I am fully prepared as a manager of this product to allow that 
amendment process to go forward, engage in that debate. But I cannot 
get there if you won't even allow me to bring up the bill. So the 
incongruity of complaining about the product and simultaneously saying: 
I am not going to let you vote on it, I don't know how you explain that 
to people in this country.
  At the end of the day, if you want to vote against the bill, do so. 
If you want to vote for or against amendments, do it. I am not 
suggesting that anything I am offering at this juncture would preclude 
you from that conclusion, but you cannot get to that conclusion unless 
we have the product in front of us.
  All we have had is a series of speeches over 3 days, denying us the 
necessary votes in order to move effectively. In effect, a filibuster 
is ongoing here. The only way to break that is by getting 60 votes that 
will allow us to move to the product. Fifty-seven of us have said: 
Let's get there.
  I have said this before, and I will say it again. At this juncture, 
this ought not to be a partisan issue. It may get partisan over some of 
the ideas. I am fully aware that there are a number of my colleagues 
here who believe we ought to get to this debate. We ought to get there 
sooner rather than later. That is not to suggest they agree with the 
product by taking that position. In fact, I suspect they don't agree 
with at least some parts of this product. I think they understand the 
importance of getting to a point where we can try to change this in 
some way.
  I will conclude. I make that appeal once more. We have been through 
this twice already. I hate coming and getting into a partisan debate 
about this. We should not do this. It doesn't reflect well on this 
institution on a matter of this import not to allow this to go forward.
  I yield the floor, and I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The clerk will 
report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 349, S. 3217, the Restoring American 
     Financial Stability Act of 2010.
         Christopher J. Dodd, Blanche L. Lincoln, Jeff Bingaman, 
           Mark Begich, Charles E. Schumer, Arlen Specter, Robert 
           Menendez, Benjamin L. Cardin, Daniel K. Inouye, Jack 
           Reed, Edward E. Kaufman, Byron L. Dorgan, Richard J. 
           Durbin, Tom Udall, John F. Kerry, Sheldon Whitehouse, 
           Robert P. Casey, Jr.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 3217, the Restoring American Financial 
Stability Act of 2010, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Bennett).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 127 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--42

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bennett
     Byrd
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are 
42. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I think it has been said before, but 
here we go again. What we have just seen tells us what the American 
people ought to know. There are fundamental questions being asked of 
Senators this week, principal of those: Whose side are you on? Whom do 
you work for?
  On Monday, Tuesday, and yet again today we got an answer. On the 
other side of the aisle they made it clear. They stand with the big 
banks. They do not stand with the infrastructure of everyday people who 
make this country the great place we have become. They do not stand for 
opportunities such as the ones that allowed Americans to come together 
after World War II to get an education, get jobs, become the greatest 
generation that built our Nation into the greatest on Earth.
  Instead, our friends across the aisle stand with Wall Street 
lobbyists who demand that we do not take up this bill. What an outrage. 
They stand for maintaining a banking system that denies people and 
businesses the funds they need and sells people mortgages they cannot 
afford, while lining executives' pockets with billions in compensation. 
The picture is quite clear. It is very obvious as to what has taken 
place here. After hearing the demands of the Wall Street lobbyists, the 
other side of the aisle systematically marches down here and votes no 
in lockstep, not once, not twice but three times. There is no one bold 
enough to say: Yes, we ought to do something about this situation that 
hurt our economy so; that destroyed jobs, lives, and homes.
  What the Republicans voted against three times this week was simply 
to start debating the Wall Street reform bill, to make it an even 
fairer system. The banking lobbyists may not want us to take up this 
bill, but everyday people do want reform. They do want change. They do 
want to see capital flowing into small businesses so they can get on 
with work and planning their families' and their children's future.
  On behalf of the everyday people, whose side we are on, we will keep 
voting to take up this bill until the other side understands that is 
what the American people want and gives them a break.
  Some say they voted no because they wanted more time to make a deal. 
The reality is, the American people are fed up with backroom deals that 
leave them out in the cold. We have carefully listened to testimony 
that has been developed these days. We are shocked to find out how they 
think hiding the deals was OK, but they didn't want it to be known to 
the public. They want us to roll up our sleeves, talk aloud about this 
bill, tell the public the truth, vote on amendments, and pass a strong 
Wall Street reform bill. That is what the average person in this 
country wants.
  Why don't the banking lobbyists like our bill? There are several 
reasons: Because it puts an end to giant, taxpayer-funded bailouts by 
creating a safe, responsible way to liquidate failing firms. They don't 
like it because it will end the era of too big to fail and stop 
protecting irresponsible executives who mismanaged their companies and 
because it will help prevent reckless gambling with investors' money by 
starting a new consumer protection watchdog. They don't want those

[[Page S2730]]

things to happen. They don't like it because it moves the derivatives 
markets from the shadows to the sunlight so these transactions are 
transparent, so people understand what is going on.
  Right now across our country, ordinary Americans are facing real 
tough problems. Many struggle to find a job, meet their monthly bills. 
Many are struggling to pay for a college education. Far too many of our 
people are unable to keep their homes from falling into foreclosure. 
That is why we have been working so hard to reform our financial 
system, to make big banks accountable, and shine the light on Wall 
Street--but not on the other side of the aisle.
  They literally have taken their marching orders directly from Wall 
Street. We know key Republicans met with Wall Street executives and 
political consultants about how to attack this bill, about not 
permitting us to exercise the responsibility we have. But it is not 
working because we are on the side of everyday people, the people who 
sent us here. They sent us here with a plea: Help us, help us with our 
lives, help us take care of our families, help us educate our kids, 
help us protect ourselves when health care is required.
  The American people have made it clear they are not fooled by the 
delaying tactics and secret deals. They want Wall Street reformed.
  In the last decade, we saw how much power the financial sector has 
over our entire economy. Irresponsible actions by big banks led to the 
subprime bubble that led homes to appreciate far beyond their worth and 
led millions of Americans to take on loans for which they should never 
have qualified.
  The results were catastrophic and the collateral damage immense. Many 
of these people were seduced into taking loans they were advised they 
could handle. They didn't use good judgment, but they paid a heck of a 
price for it. Eight million jobs were lost, retirement accounts 
shriveled, and small businesses shut their doors.
  The ethical failures of Wall Street almost brought our economy to the 
brink of a second Great Depression. As a former CEO of a major company, 
I understand the need for a strong financial sector. But I also come to 
work every day reminded of the millions of people who have lost their 
jobs through no fault of their own.
  Make no mistake, Wall Street reform, Wall Street change is absolutely 
necessary, and that is why we are going to keep moving forward on this 
critical bill. We have to continue to take our message to the American 
people and let the other people, on the other side of the aisle, say: 
No, no, no. Those on the other side of the aisle may try to disrupt. 
They may try to distort. They may try to destruct. But we are going to 
continue the fight for ordinary Americans, for people who wake every 
morning and play by the rules and work hard.
  I repeat something I said a moment ago; that is, how can we ignore 
supporting the infrastructure in our country, the people who make the 
things happen every day, who are there to do whatever the jobs are that 
are necessary, and reserve the best and the most for those few at the 
top? We can't do it that way. We have an infrastructure that is even 
far more precious than our fiscal infrastructure; that is, our human 
infrastructure. We are going to continue to tell the American people 
what is happening so we can make changes necessary to avoid the 
catastrophe we have had over this last couple years.
  Thank goodness that through the leadership of President Obama and the 
administration and the work of colleagues we are making progress, but 
the progress is not rapid enough nor broad enough. We are going to 
insist on moving down the road of progress. We are going to insist on 
doing what is right for our country and for our families and for our 
future. I hope somebody, someone on the other side of the political 
aisle, will say: Listen, we are not getting anywhere by just walking 
down the steps together and saying no and not permitting change to take 
place that is critical for our society and our world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, first, I wish to make a couple comments 
about what has just transpired on the floor of the Senate. For the 
third time, we had a vote, not on anything relating to the ingredients 
of a bill dealing with financial reform or Wall Street reform, just on 
the question of the motion to proceed to debate the bill. Just the 
motion to proceed, yes or no, shall we proceed to bring the bill to the 
floor and debate it? For the third day in a row, all the members of the 
minority voted, no, we will not even allow the Senate to proceed to 
debate Wall Street reform.
  It is unbelievable to me. In the shadow of yesterday's hearings, with 
one of the major investment banks of this country and the disclosure of 
e-mails deep from the bowels of that bank that clearly suggested they 
were peddling securities to clients and customers that they knew to be 
bad securities and also betting against the position of their clients, 
betting against a recovery for our country--in the shadow of all that, 
how on Earth can the minority decide we should not even move to debate 
Wall Street reform?
  I find it interesting we have people saying government cannot solve 
this. There is too much government, too much this, too much that. When 
we had suffered a Great Depression in this country, it was the Federal 
Government that took action to put in place some things to try to 
protect our country's economy and did so for about 60 or 70 years. They 
said: We are not going to allow banks and FDIC-insured banks and 
investment banks and securities dealers and others to commingle under 
one corporation. We are not going to take banks and put risky 
enterprises fused to those banks. It doesn't make any sense. So 
legislation was passed to protect this country.
  About 10 years ago, there were a bunch of smart people who decided 
that stuff is old-fashioned. We have to compete with the Europeans, 
let's allow holding companies to be created, and we will bring banks 
and investment banks and real estate and all these things together into 
one big holding company, under one roof. It will be fine.
  It turns out it was not fine. At the same time this was happening, 
big holding companies now being created in which you brought risky 
things in the middle of banking enterprises whose very perception of 
safety and soundness is critical to their future--at the very same time 
that was happening, we had a bunch of people come to town who were 
supposed to be regulators, the referees, who said: You know what. We 
are going to be willfully blind. We are not going to regulate. We don't 
even like government. So do what you want. We will not watch, we will 
not look.
  At the same time that was going on, Alan Greenspan, at the Federal 
Reserve Board, decided we will let all these institutions behave in 
their own self-interest, and their self-interest will be what governs 
what will be the right thing.
  He now says that was a huge mistake. Yes, I guess so, probably a $15 
trillion mistake. But the fact is, those who were supposed to be 
regulating and decided not to regulate, those who were supposed to be 
the referees to call the fouls, wear the striped shirts, blow the 
whistle, call the fouls when the free market system was being abused, 
were not around. They were out to lunch someplace for years and years 
and years.
  My colleagues who say, well, we do not want government to do this--
look, I do not know who else is going to set the rules here to decide 
we are not going to let this happen again. Does it take any amount of 
intelligence to understand a mortgage company advertising to people in 
the following way: Do you have no credit? Slow credit? No pay? 
Bankrupt? Come to us. We would like to give you a loan.
  On the floor of the Senate, I have shown solicitation after 
solicitation by companies that said: If you have got bad credit, slow 
pay, no pay, come to us. We would like to give you a home loan. It does 
not take a lot of intelligence to understand that does not work.
  And by the way, they also said: If you have got bad credit, come to 
us. In fact, we will not even ask you what your income is. We will give 
you a no-document loan. You do not have to document your income. It is 
called a no doc. By the way, we will give you a liar's loan. They do 
not call it that, but a no-doc is a liar's loan.

[[Page S2731]]

  It does not take a genius to understand that is not working very 
well. But why was everyone anxious to do all of that? Because you could 
wrap it into a big fat security. Then you could sell it to an 
investment bank. They could sell it to a hedge fund. They could sell it 
back again. And, meanwhile, whoever made the original loan got rid of 
the liability once they sold it upstream.
  They got the rating agencies to rate these things as triple A. 
Incidentally, conveniently, the rating agencies are paid by the very 
companies whose securities they rate. Sounds like trouble to me. So all 
of these things were happening, and everybody understands that is not 
going to hold up. Ultimately all of this is going to collapse. It is a 
house of cards that is being built. So how do you put this back 
together?
  Well, Senator Dodd and the Banking Committee put a bill together. 
That is the bill we are trying to get to the floor of the Senate. I 
think it is a pretty good bill. It tightens things up. It gives 
authorities to regulators they are going to need and will try to 
prevent this from ever happening again.
  This was not some Hurricane Katrina that came ashore and flattened a 
bunch of buildings. This was not a volcano erupting. This was not a 
tornado that came sweeping through and destroyed the town. This was an 
economic catastrophe that took away $15 trillion from this country. It 
devastated a lot of families, put a lot of people out of work, a lot of 
people out of their homes, and in the meantime we see what has 
happened. And while there are substantial amounts of misery around this 
country for families and people who have still not recovered from the 
devastation of this financial near collapse, the folks at the top are 
now making record profits.
  Yes, the investment bank that testified yesterday, record profits, 
big bonuses. I described earlier bonuses of $142 billion were projected 
on Wall Street. I talked about in the year 2008, at a point when this 
all began to collapse, we had something like $36 billion in losses just 
on Wall Street. And those firms that had $36 billion of losses paid $17 
billion in bonuses to their employees.
  I have an MBA and went to business school. There is not any book that 
teaches that in business school: Lose a ton of money and get big 
bonuses. Yet that is what has been happening. It is a carnival of greed 
at the top.
  By the way, the instruments they created with these mortgage 
securities and others, securitizing almost anything they could get 
their hands on, with exotic titles such as credit default swaps--credit 
default swaps. We have always known about derivatives. I wrote an 
article which was the cover story for the ``Washington Monthly'' 
magazine in 1994. That is almost 16 years ago. My cover story for that 
magazine was titled ``Very Risky Business.'' It was about the danger 
that derivatives posed to the banking system. That is almost 16 years 
ago now.
  I made the same point in the year 1999 when Glass-Steagall was 
repealed, and I opposed it. Very risky business. So they create 
synthetic credit default swaps. Synthetic would be the same as calling 
it naked credit default swaps. That means, instead of having something 
at either end of a contract, there is nothing. It is two people making 
a wager or a bet that something else will happen.
  I happen to think there ought not be what is called a naked credit 
default swap. I think they ought to be outlawed. That is gambling. That 
is not investing. That is betting. If you want to bet, there are plenty 
of places to bet in this country, starting with Las Vegas and Atlantic 
City. They have a business doing that. No one ought to show up on an 
airplane in Las Vegas or Atlantic City, however, with their depositors' 
money or with their clients' money and decide that is what they are 
going to wager on a craps table or a keno table.
  Yet that is exactly what has been happening with what are called 
naked credit default swaps. One study I have seen suggests that of the 
credit default swaps in England, and I suspect it would hold true here, 
80 percent of them had no insurable value on the other side.
  I would not be allowed today, this afternoon, to decide I am going to 
buy an insurance policy on the house of the Presiding Officer in North 
Carolina. It would be illegal for me to say my interest today is to 
invest in fire insurance on the Presiding Officer's home, because I 
have no insurable interest in that home. And it might be that I would 
buy fire insurance, if I could, and walk around with a box of matches. 
That is a problem. Right? So I have no insurable interest. It would be 
against the law for me to buy fire insurance on the home of the 
Presiding Officer.
  That is not the case with respect to naked credit default swaps. You 
do not have to have an insurable interest in anything. You, with 
someone else, say let's make a wager here on what is going to happen to 
this bond. There is an investment bank. Perhaps the investment bank 
will take part of that wager. They will certainly want to arrange it 
because they get great big fat fees. That is not investing in America. 
That is not making loans to small and medium-sized businesses. That is 
not investing in America's future and strength; that is gambling. And 
that is what we have come to.
  You cannot, in a country such as ours, expand our economy without two 
things: production and finance. There have been, over 200 years, times 
when production has the upper hand and when finance has the upper hand. 
We have been through a period here in the last couple of decades where 
the financing system of our country has the upper hand.
  We need a banking system, we need a financing system, with all of the 
levels of finance. Yes, FDIC-insured banks. Yes, investment banks, 
venture capital. We need all of those things. But we need to get back 
to the basics of the old-fashioned standard of what banking should and 
used to be; that is, taking deposits and then making loans.
  When you make a loan, you do what is called underwriting; that is, 
you sit across the desk from someone who needs a loan, and you look 
them in the eye and you evaluate: What is their income? What is their 
idea; their need; their property; and you decide, yes or no. There has 
been no underwriting on many of those loans that helped create this 
foundation of sand in this economy.
  There was no underwriting. Because if you could say to someone: You 
know what, we will give you a new home mortgage and you do not have to 
pay any interest, and you do not have to pay any principal, even, and 
you do not have to tell us what your income is--that is a no-doc liar's 
loan--we will do that for you. Why would someone do that? Because they 
are not going to have any risk. The minute they do it, they get it 
wrapped into a fat security and sell it to someone else.
  And because the rating agencies think all of these things are triple 
A, whoever else bought it thought it was a safe security, and then they 
sold it again and again and again. You passed the risk forward. This 
was a cesspool of greed with a lot of people making a lot of money and 
creating a structure that was destined to fall.
  The question is: Are we going to do something about that? Is somebody 
going to take some action to say that you cannot do that any more? That 
is what the Senator from Connecticut asks with a bill coming from the 
Banking Committee.

  The fact is, he brought that bill out of the Banking Committee, and 
not one Republican offered an amendment. Not one. They said, we are not 
going to participate. After they had had hearings for a year, and the 
Senator from Connecticut had negotiated with them for 5, 6 months, 
following all of that, they had a markup on a bill to write the bill, 
and the Republicans said, we are not going to participate. We will not 
offer any suggestions, no amendments.
  Then when the bill is now brought to the floor of the Senate, the 
Republicans say: Well, we were not part of it. Well, sure, they decided 
they did not want to be part of it, and that is why they were not part 
of it. That was an action they took. They say: Well, we believe this is 
a bailout bill. It is not a bailout bill. I will tell them what a 
bailout bill is. I voted against it. A bailout bill was when George W. 
Bush and his Treasury Secretary came to the Congress and said: I want 
you to pass a three-page bill in the next 3 days, putting up $700 
billion to bail out America's biggest financial firms. Yes, that was a 
bailout bill. And most of

[[Page S2732]]

those who called this a bailout bill voted for that. They know what a 
bailout is because they voted for it. I did not.
  But, nonetheless, this is not a bailout bill. This is a bill that 
finally begins to shut the door on activities that should never have 
been taking place. Is the bill perfect? No. Should it be changed? There 
are a number of areas where I think it will be changed once it gets to 
the floor. But you cannot even address those unless you get past the 
motion to proceed.
  What the minority is doing is saying, we do not intend to let you 
proceed at all. Well, how about deciding that we are going to do this 
together and we will get the best of what both political parties have 
to offer, get the best amendments that can be offered. I have suggested 
one; that is, naked credit default swaps. If you have no insurable 
interest, ban them.
  Mr. Pearlstein, who writes a column for the Washington Post, made a 
suggestion that makes a lot of sense to me. Why would you allow more 
securities in the form of credit default swaps to insure bonds? Why 
would you allow more of them than there are bonds to insure?
  Well, the answer is obvious, because that is gambling above that 
level. It is very much like about a year and a half ago when the price 
of oil, or almost 2 years ago, the price of oil went to $147 a barrel 
in day trading, and I made the point on the floor: There was 20 times 
more oil bought and sold each day than there was produced each day--an 
unbelievable orgy of speculation in the oil market. Nearly broke that 
market. Well, it finally came back down and the people who made the 
money on the upside also made money on the downside. But, you know, 
that is what has been happening in this country now for too long.
  The bill that should come to the floor of the Senate--and my hope is 
that perhaps the next vote will have a couple of folks on the other 
side who agree with us, let us bring a bill to the Senate, let us 
address these issues that caused this unbelievable avalanche of greed 
on Wall Street and elsewhere, and let us tighten the reins so this 
cannot happen again.
  Do we want to continue the practice? I showed yesterday on the floor 
of the Senate I think four examples of companies that are still 
advertising: Do you have bad credit? Come to us. We will give you a 
loan. Do you have no credit? Slow pay? Come to us, we will give you a 
loan. Okay. Are you bankrupt? Come to us, we will give you a loan.
  It is still going on. All of this is about securitizing everything 
and everybody making big fees and being paid big bonuses. There is a 
smarter way to do financing and banking in this country. We have 
watched it work for decades, and it has gotten far afield in the past 
decade or two. We need to pull it back in and say, that is not what our 
country is about. The free market system is the best allocator of goods 
and services that I am aware of, but it is not perfect. Sometimes there 
are fouls in the free market system. Sometimes people try to manipulate 
it and do so successfully. That is why you need a referee and that is 
why you need effective regulations that work.
  That is what the bill is about. Put together those effective 
regulations that work. Prevent this kind of economic collapse from 
happening again. This is not just some academic exercise. There are 
somewhere around 16 to 17 million people today in this country who woke 
up this morning and they are jobless and do not have any work. Some of 
them not only feel jobless, but they feel helpless and hopeless because 
they cannot find work. Some of them, by the way, have not only lost 
their jobs, they have lost their homes. This is a very deep recession 
we have been in, and it has caused unbelievable pain across this 
country. But not for everybody. Because once again, some of the largest 
financial institutions in this country are now showing record profits 
and paying record bonuses.
  The question is, are they doing that because they are making loans 
out there to businesses that are ready to recover and to expand? No. 
The answer is, unfortunately, no. Once again they are trading 
securities back and forth, exchanging fees, securitizing virtually 
everything. There is a much better way to do financing and banking in 
this country that will strengthen the future of this country. I want to 
get at the business of getting this bill to the floor, having the 
minority stop blocking us, and begin offering amendments so we can get 
the best of what both parties have to offer.
  It has been a long time since we have had that sort of thing happen 
on the floor of the Senate. I was hoping that if there is one thing 
that might galvanize some bipartisanship in this body, it might be an 
understanding of the unbelievably excruciating pain the American people 
have felt as a result of the deepest recession since the Great 
Depression and perhaps an understanding that the American people demand 
that this Congress stand up and do something about it, to try to do the 
things that plug the holes and shut the gates and prevent this sort of 
thing from ever happening again. I guess that was too much to hope for, 
at least until now, on Wednesday. We will have an opportunity on 
Thursday and Friday, perhaps, and I hope perhaps we can get one or two 
people who agree with us to say: Yes, let's bring this to the floor, 
have it wide open for amendments, offer amendments, debate amendments, 
and do what is necessary for the people.
  I know the biggest financial institutions have some big disagreements 
with this bill, but I have some big disagreements with them. I think 
what has gone on is pretty unbelievable. They have a role to play in 
this country's future going ahead, but it is not a role I consider 
betting; it is a role I consider to be investing. If they want to 
continue to simply make wagers about America and about securities, that 
is not the financing system we have known and grown to believe is 
important for this country's future.
  I know there is a lot of disappointment after this last vote. My hope 
is there will be some who continue to think and rethink. Is this what 
my constituents want? Do they want me to decide to block even the 
opportunity to address these unbelievable gaping holes in our financing 
structure that allowed this country to be steered right into the ditch, 
the biggest economic wreck in 70 years? I think they would understand 
that is not what citizens and their constituents want for the future.
  I yield the floor and 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. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, let me express to my colleagues how 
disappointed I am that we were unable to move forward with debate on 
Wall Street reform. People should know that what we recently voted on 
was a motion to proceed so a bill could be brought to the floor for 
debate. It did not speak to how that bill would be considered. It is 
open to amendment. Each Member of the Senate would have the opportunity 
to submit amendments for consideration.
  The bill Senator Dodd has brought out of his committee is a bill that 
establishes the types of reforms of Wall Street that are necessary, 
strict new regulations to stop Wall Street gambling so that we have a 
clear responsibility in the regulatory framework, so each of the 
financial institutions understands the clear roles which they must 
operate under and how those regulations will take place. The framework 
is based upon the size of the institution and the jurisdiction.
  The bill provides for adequate capital to prevent too big to fail. 
Our first goal is to avoid an institution from becoming so large, so 
vulnerable that its failure jeopardizes the economy. If we have a clear 
regulatory structure and the right capital rules and the right 
regulatory oversight, we have a much better chance of protecting the 
public's interest. That is why the strict new guidelines to stop Wall 
Street gambling are critically important, so that we don't run into 
that situation from the past.
  No more taxpayer bailouts. I hear that over and over again from my 
constituents. I agree. If an institution can't make it, it should fail. 
It should not be getting a government bailout.

[[Page S2733]]

This bill makes it clear: no more government bailouts. It gives the 
regulators the authority they need to intervene a lot earlier and, if 
necessary, to restructure the institution or to break it apart or to 
have it merge or to close it down. It does not involve public funds. We 
will have a regulatory structure.
  Today, we see institutions that call themselves banks that are not 
regulated under banking statutes. We find insurance companies that 
claim they are insurance companies but they do things other than 
insurance and get themselves into trouble, and there is no regulatory 
consistency. That will change with the bill Senator Dodd has brought to 
the floor.
  This bill puts consumers in control of information in plain English, 
by a strong consumer provision within the bill. This is absolutely 
necessary. We know today that consumers and small businesses are being 
victimized under the current financial structure. Consumers have been 
victimized by predatory lending. Small businesses have been victimized 
by banks that won't make loans to small businesses. We need a strong 
consumer presence. Senator Dodd, in his bill, has brought out an 
independent consumer agency.
  What this bill provides is tough regulation, the framework in which 
we can intervene earlier in order to protect the economy, no government 
bailout, and a way in which consumer issues can be handled 
independently to protect consumers.
  Why not move forward? I am puzzled. I listened to my colleagues who 
oppose bringing this bill forward speak on the floor. I still don't 
understand their argument. If we move forward, amendments are in order. 
Amendments that are germane will have to be considered, will have to be 
voted on. Those are the rules of the Senate. For us to move the bill 
off the floor, we will need at least 60 votes. We know that. It should 
not take it. It should be an up-or-down vote. But we know from the 
prior record that the minority will insist upon 60 votes. We should be 
willing, on an important issue such as this, to vote up or down on 
amendments and final passage, but they will still have that right. So 
they are not jeopardizing the ability of the minority to block final 
consideration of the bill.
  What they are doing is blocking debate on the bill. The only thing I 
can think of is that they would prefer to work out their issues behind 
closed doors rather than on the floor of the Senate. The reason is kind 
of self-evident: If you are trying to weaken the regulatory framework 
and you don't want your fingerprints on it, it would be easier to do 
that outside of the spotlight of the Chamber. If you are trying to 
diminish the consumer protections in the bill, you certainly would 
rather have that in a bill brought to the floor than having to offer an 
amendment to change it. I can only presume from the delay that the 
opposition is not to negotiate in good faith; the opposition is to 
avoid the public knowing the changes they are seeking in the bill or to 
weaken this bill or, even worse, in the hopes that major sections of 
this bill will be deleted or struck. That is not what the process 
should be about.
  We need to move forward with Wall Street reform. We all know how our 
economy was brought to near the brink of destruction. We know how many 
millions of Americans have been adversely affected by what happened on 
Wall Street. People of Maryland, the people of the Nation are saying: 
Let's reform Wall Street. Let's make sure the reckless gambling doesn't 
take place in the future. Let's make sure too big to fail ends. Let's 
make sure those who are responsible are held accountable. The Dodd bill 
is a very good start to the process.
  Debating the issue is what we should be doing in the Senate. The 
delay is aimed at preventing the public from knowing what is going on 
or, even worse, weakening this bill or making sure it doesn't pass.
  I urge my colleagues to reconsider. Let's move forward and debate the 
Wall Street reform bill. Let's get on with the people's business first, 
our Nation's security first, our Nation's economic growth first. Let's 
bring this bill to the floor for immediate debate.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

                          ____________________