[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 69 (Monday, May 10, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3453-S3456]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL NURSES WEEK
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, in honor of National Nurses Week, I wish
to recognize the more than 3 million nurses who work hard day-in and
day-out to give patients the care they deserve. Because my wife Mary is
a nurse, I have seen firsthand what an enormous impact nurses have on
both patients and families. Their compassion and devotion to their
patients give families the peace of mind that their loved ones are in
good hands. They also play an irreplaceable role in making sure our
hospitals and clinics run smoothly. Unfortunately, many nurses are
overworked, underpaid, and our hospitals and clinics have trouble
retaining them.
Through the Health Care Reform Act Congress passed earlier this year,
we made significant strides in addressing many of the challenges nurses
face. We expanded the nursing student loan program to help make nursing
programs more affordable. We also expanded the nursing loan repayment
program and scholarship programs to students who commit to working at
an accredited nursing school for 2 years. This will help ensure our
nursing schools have the teachers they need to train additional nurses.
We invested $1.5 billion over 5 years in the National Health Service
Corps scholarship and loan repayment program for primary care
providers, including nurses who practice in underserved areas. In
addition, we included $50 million in grants for nurse-managed health
clinics that offer primary care and wellness services to low-income and
uninsured Americans.
While we made good progress easing many of the difficulties nurses
face, much more still needs to be done. Nurses play such a crucial role
in the delivery of care. We need to provide them with the resources
they need to do their jobs.
The nursing shortage also remains a serious issue, especially in
hard-hit rural areas. To find commonsense solutions to the problems
nurses face, I formed the Senate Nursing Caucus with Senator Johanns,
Senator Mikulski, and Senator Snowe. I urge all of my colleagues to
join the caucus to help strengthen the nursing profession and advance
the goals of the nursing community. Together, we will explore ways we
can enhance the role nurses play in our health care system and address
the nationwide nursing shortage.
I ask my colleagues and my fellow Americans to take a moment during
National Nurses Week to show your appreciation to nurses across the
country for their hard work, commitment, and dedication to their
patients. Their dedication is invaluable to the success of our health
care system and, most of all, to the patients who depend on them.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague from the State
of Oregon in speaking on behalf of nurses across America.
We know that with the baby boom generation, we are going to need more
nurses than ever, and with these nurses, we will have the professional
medical care we need across this Nation, but we better get busy. We are
falling behind. We don't graduate enough nurses now to take care of the
anticipated needs, and we have to change that.
Sadly, in many instances we have been poaching nursing talent from
other poor nations around the world. Filipino nurses in Chicago play a
major role at many hospitals, particularly inner-city hospitals, and
nurses from other parts of the world. Many times, the Philippines, for
example, generates more medical professionals and expects they will
serve overseas, but some places in Africa lose their best medical
professionals to higher and more predictable pay in places such as the
United States, England, France, and Germany. So we have to reach a
point where we are graduating more nursing students each year. Last
year in Illinois, 2,000 qualified nursing applicants were turned down
because we didn't have the capacity in our nursing schools.
We don't have enough nursing faculty, enough clinical opportunities.
We need to really focus on that. So in addition to lauding the nursing
profession--I certainly echo my colleague in that regard--we also need
to think ahead to make sure we have more nurses when we need them, and
that day is going to be fast upon us. So I thank the Senator from
Oregon for his words.
FINANCIAL REGULATORY REFORM
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for those who are here following the
Senate today, as announced earlier, we are resuming consideration of
this bill, and, of course, it is the Wall Street reform bill, the
Financial Stability Act. It is over 1,400 pages long.
The Senator from Virginia who is presiding over the Senate now is a
member of the Senate Banking Committee. Senator Mark Warner has worked
on this bill, and large sections of it are his handiwork in an effort
to try to deal with changes on Wall Street which will protect our
economy and make certain we don't relive some of the horror stories we
have seen over the last several years, and we all know those stories
pretty well.
There was a time not that long ago--about a year and a half ago--
when, under the previous President, I was brought into a meeting just a
few steps away from the Senate floor with the chairman of the Federal
Reserve, Ben Bernanke, and the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry
Paulson. They basically sat down in the first meeting and said: We
wanted to let you know the largest insurance company in the world, AIG,
is about to go broke. When it goes broke, it is going to bring down so
many companies and corporations with it that it can literally crater
the American economy. At that point, Chairman Bernanke said: So the
Federal Reserve is giving $85 billion to AIG Corporation.
There was a moment of silence in the room, and finally someone in the
[[Page S3454]]
room--I don't remember who it was--had the nerve to ask: Where did you
get $85 billion at the Federal Reserve?
Chairman Bernanke said something like: Oh, we have our resources.
Someone asked: Where did you get the authority to give it to a
private company?
They said: Well, there was a law passed during the Great Depression
which said that if it looks as if the economy is going to crater, the
Federal Reserve can step in.
So an obscure law that was over 75 years old and a fund of money most
Members of Congress had never seen--since they are a separate agency
and don't go through our appropriations process--ended up propping up a
company. And it didn't cost $85 billion; I think when it was over it
was $180 billion or somewhere in that range. The reason, of course, we
couldn't let that company go down was they had literally insured
contracts and corporations all around America, that there would be no
default. They insured more contracts than they had a reserve to cover.
As the contracts started to fail, they didn't have the reserves to back
up their promise of insurance.
That was the first meeting. Only a few days later, they asked us to
meet again, and I thought, this ought to be equally interesting, and it
was. They brought us to a meeting, and Secretary Paulson, the Secretary
of the Treasury, said: Now we are seeing, with the failure of Lehman
Brothers and other companies, the potential that many large financial
institutions in America are also going to fail. Then Secretary Paulson
said: So we need a fund of money immediately, by Friday--and this was a
Tuesday meeting--we need a fund by Friday of $800 billion to buy the
so-called toxic assets, TARP funds, toxic assets relief program.
Again, there was a stunned silence in the room because even those of
us in Washington who deal with millions and billions on a regular basis
were stunned to get a request for $800 billion in a matter of days.
So the first question that was asked was: Who is going to prepare the
legislation that actually asks for the money?
They looked around, and no one had kind of thought of that detail,
and we said: We think the White House should. President Bush's White
House, with Secretary Paulson, prepared a bill and sent it to us. The
bill was exactly three pages long asking for $800 billion. Naturally,
many of us thought that was not adequate. We needed to put provisions
in there about how the money would be spent, the supervisory authority
in Congress, and so forth.
Eventually, it was passed on a bipartisan rollcall. People like
myself who voted for it did it out of a feeling of desperation. What
else could we do? If we were being told by the financial leaders of our
government that our economy was about to fail--we had seen it already
in the stock market going down in value, and we knew people were losing
their jobs and businesses were failing--we felt this was the only way
to try to stop this terrible crisis from becoming much worse.
Well, the toxic assets relief program ended up sending billions of
dollars to these struggling financial institutions. They were
struggling because they made bad judgments. They bought, created, and
sold securities, derivatives, and interest which were, in fact, toxic.
They were based on a mortgage market and the premises of that market
which turned out to be totally wrong. They had made bad business
decisions. Their companies were about to fail.
The Federal Government--make that the taxpayers of this country--was
expected to step in and save them, which we did. To show their
gratitude for this act of mercy--rescuing them from their own bad
works--they declared bonuses for one another. They gave one another
bonus checks after the Federal taxpayers bailed them out. Is it any
wonder people across this country have a bad taste in their mouth about
Wall Street, about the TARP program, about the bonuses? Is it any
wonder we are here this week considering a bill to make sure we never
relive this financial crisis? It is overdue--long overdue.
We know what this crisis cost us in real human terms. The estimates
are that it took $17 trillion out of the American economy--$17 trillion
in value--and it hit almost everybody. Anybody with a savings account,
a retirement account knows what I am talking about. The value of the
account went down 20, 30, 40 percent or more. So your net worth, your
nest egg, your retirement plan was diminished because of this
recession.
In addition to that, 8 million people are currently unemployed across
America, having lost their jobs by this recession, and another 6
million have been unemployed long term and are not trying as hard as
they once did. Even though those numbers are getting better--in fact,
last week there was a good report--we know it is still serious. There
are still too many people out of work because of this recession.
When we tried to bring this bill to the floor 2 weeks ago, we had a
tough time. We had three votes Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, 2 weeks
ago, and they were filibustered from the Republican side of the aisle.
They refused to let us bring the bill to the floor.
While the filibuster votes were going on on the floor of the Senate,
though, on another stage on Capitol Hill, the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations of the Homeland Security Committee, chaired by Senator
Carl Levin of Michigan, was holding a historic hearing and bringing in
the top leaders of Goldman Sachs, including its CEO, asking them about
their practices that had led to financial difficulties at that company
and were being questioned now even in a lawsuit that has been brought
by our government against that company.
That display and that testimony was happening at the same time the
Republican filibuster to stop this reform bill was going on here on the
floor. Finally, several Republican Senators spoke up to their
leadership and said: That is it. We want to engage in this debate. We
want to get it started. We want to do it in a prompt way.
The filibuster finally broke and we started, nominally, the debate
last week. You could count, I think, on one hand all the amendments we
considered in that week. We could have done much better. We wasted a
lot of time. There are important policy considerations that have to be
asked and answered by votes on the Senate floor--some from the
Republican side, valid questions, and some from our side. What we are
looking for--and I think the American people are looking for--is for
the Senate to be the Senate, not just a dead end for debate, to
deliberate these issues and cast a vote and move forward.
There was an amendment--of great moment--offered by Senator Sherrod
Brown of Ohio and Senator Ted Kaufman of Delaware as to whether we
should limit the size of financial institutions. They had a very catchy
mantra, which was: Too big to fail means too big. They would limit the
size of financial institutions so you could not have these big giants
dominating the scene. There would be more competition and more
financial institutions involved in our economy's business. That
amendment failed. It got 31 votes. I was 1 of the 31 who voted for it.
I was disappointed, but let's be honest, that amendment had its day in
court, on the floor of the Senate. We debated it and a vote was taken.
Now we are moving on to other amendments. Senator Sanders of Vermont
will offer an amendment, probably tomorrow, as to whether there should
be an audit of the activities of the Federal Reserve. This is a big
amendment and one that is somewhat controversial, but I think we have
reached a point where Senator Sanders is likely to prevail. He came up
with a bold idea, and now I think we are going to move toward that
idea. The Senate is doing what it is supposed to do. There are other
things we need to take up as well.
Senator McCain will offer an amendment about the future of Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac, which are two government-type entities that literally
back up the mortgages for most of the homes across America. They are in
trouble because so many homes across America are going underwater; that
is, the value of the home is lower than the mortgage balance. If that
affects one of the homeowners across the country, you can understand
that these agencies are going to be in trouble financially. What are we
going to do about it? If we eliminate the agencies, the housing market
will collapse without this government guarantee. But if there is going
to be a government guarantee,
[[Page S3455]]
how much will the taxpayers be on the line for? It is an important
policy issue.
I am glad we are moving into that debate. I wish to offer an
amendment on credit cards. Two years ago, we debated credit card
reform. At the time, we passed a historic bill that changed some of the
rules and gave consumers across America more rights and disclosure when
it came to the use of credit cards. If there was one mistake made in
that credit reform, it was the argument between the large banks and
credit card companies that they could not implement the changes, unless
they were given a long lead time before it occurred. They were given
that lead time in the bill, and they have used that lead time
consistently to raise interest rates on credit cards across America. It
was a mistake. We should not have given them that much time. We should
have anticipated they would have done the wrong thing during that
period of time.
There is another aspect of credit cards I would like to discuss,
which I will offer an amendment on, which is the interchange fee. If I
reach in my wallet and pull out my credit card at a restaurant in
Chicago and use it to pay, I am going to be billed for the cost of that
dinner on my monthly bill, and I have to deal with the credit card
company about how much interest I would pay on the balance I owe, for
example. However, there is another part of the transaction that takes
place between the restaurant and the credit card company. If I use a
credit card, then the restaurant is going to pay to the credit card
company some percentage of the bill for my dinner. It turns out this
so-called interchange fee between the retail establishment and the
credit card companies has become a serious problem.
Let me give you an illustration. I go to the same restaurant and
instead of using a credit card, I pay by check. It used to be done a
lot but not much anymore. The restaurant takes your check to their bank
and their bank calls your bank, transfers the funds in, and no fee is
involved. However, if you use a debit card, which would take the money
directly out of my checking account, the same as with my check, it
turns out the interchange fee is applied. So many restaurants and
retail establishments are saying: Why is it with a check the bank gets
no extra money and with a debit card the credit card company gets
money. What is that all about? Should it be the same fee as a credit
card?
These are legitimate questions that aren't a minor issue. They turn
out to be a major issue. I had the CEO of Walgreens contact me last
week. He told me that when they look at the expenses of this national
chain of drugstores, the No. 1 expense is compensation of employees,
personnel costs; No. 2, mortgage and rent payments; No. 3, health
insurance; No. 4, interchange fees. It turns out the fees Walgreens
pays to credit card companies is the fourth largest item of cost for
their business.
Imagine that instead of being Walgreens, a national chain of
drugstores, you are a small town store. Let's think it through. How
many times have you gone to the cash register and stood behind as
somebody handed them a credit card or a debit card for a pack of
chewing gum or something even smaller? I saw it at National Airport.
After the person left, I said to the person at the cash register: What
is the smallest amount anybody has ever put on a credit card here? He
said it was 35 cents.
When you look at the interchange fees, it turns out that the retailer
loses money on that sale. Most of these involve a flat fee that is
certainly more than the profit they are going to make on a 35-cent or
even a $5 sale and a percentage of the actual item that is charged to
the credit card. I would say, when you look at this circumstance, you
can understand why some smaller businesses want to say there will be a
minimum amount you can charge--not 35 cents but obviously something
where they are not losing money. They will lose money if somebody uses
a credit card under the current interchange fees.
The major card companies currently--Visa and MasterCard--prohibit
companies that accept their credit cards from establishing a minimum
amount that can be charged. They are going to make money, and they are
not going to give the retail establishments that kind of opportunity.
Of course, they also prohibit that company--that small retailer--from
saying: I get a better deal on the interchange fee from Visa than
MasterCard, so I will favor Visa. They used to say: If you go to the
Olympics, so and so is the official credit card of--they can say that,
but the retailer cannot say that. If you own a restaurant and say: I
prefer this credit card or that credit card, you violate the agreements
of the credit card companies.
With this amendment, we are trying to establish that the fees charged
to retailers for debit card usage at their establishments will be
reasonable and proportional. It will be monitored by the Federal
Reserve, which has that responsibility when it comes to credit card
charges for consumers. So there is some parallel thinking here. The
Federal Reserve will look at both sides--the retail establishment as
well as the retail customer--in terms of the reasonable fees that can
be charged by credit card companies.
Secondly, we eliminate the prohibition against what I consider to be
competitive practices, where you would say you cannot use a credit card
or a debit card at my establishment if your bill is less than $5 or
something of that nature. That is currently prohibited, but it would
not be under my amendment. This amendment has the support of some of
the largest retailers and small businesses in America. Thousands have
come to me and said: Please give us a fighting chance with the credit
card companies. They are killing us. I cannot tell you how many
speeches have been made on the floor of the Senate--on both sides of
the aisle--about small businesses. We believe--I think both parties
believe--if we are going to come out of this recession, it will be
because of the strength and recovery of small business. This amendment
is the No. 1 priority of small businesses across America. I wish to
bring this amendment to the floor for a debate and a vote.
My colleagues can decide, do they want to come down on the side of
retail establishments and small business or on the side of the credit
card companies? Some will say: Wait a minute, what about community
banks, the small banks that issue credit cards too? We specifically
exempt them when it comes to this question of debit cards. If your
establishment has less than $1 billion in assets--your bank--you will
not be subject to this regulation. We are going after the largest banks
that make the largest amount of money out of this, not the smalltown
banks with local credit cards. We are trying to make this focused and
fair and help small businesses.
On Friday, I went to a press conference at a supermarket in downtown
Chicago. Potash Brothers have been around for decades, and it is a
great success story of a family that came and opened a store. They have
two or three and they are well liked and respected. They came and
testified at this press conference about what they are going through,
the struggle they have to make it as a small business in downtown
Chicago--a supermarket that has to pay these high fees to the credit
card companies. All they are asking is that the fees be fair.
We know that with the use of a credit card, the credit card company
runs a risk that you would not pay off the balance. With the debit
card, it comes out of your checking account or it doesn't. There is not
a big risk factor involved.
Many people don't realize the size of this credit and debit card
involvement in today's economy. Those cards are rapidly replacing cash
and checks. There are over 1 billion credit and debit cards in the
United States. In a nation of 300 million, that is more than three
cards per person in the United States. Last year, Americans conducted
$1.7 trillion in transactions on credit cards and $1.6 trillion on
debit cards.
Credit cards and debit cards are now used in more than half of all
retail sales in America, and the number is growing. Yet while paying
with plastic may be a convenience for some, it turns out to be a real
problem for small businesses. That is why this amendment is so
important--to give small businesses a fighting chance. Individual
businesses have no chance against the giants. Visa and
[[Page S3456]]
MasterCard control about 80 percent of all the credit and debit cards
in the United States. About $50 billion in interchange fees were
collected in 2008, and about 80 percent of that money went to 10 big
banks--the ones we think should be the subject of this requirement that
the fees be reasonable and proportional, based on the amount of work
that is being done.
It is no surprise these 10 banks hate the Durbin amendment like the
Devil hates holy water. They cannot wait to see it defeated on the
floor. I wish to debate it on the floor on behalf of retailers and
small businesses across America, and I would like my colleagues to have
a chance to join me in this effort. I don't think it is unreasonable.
The big banks will try to stop this amendment from coming to the floor,
but I will fight for it, and we are going to put people on record on
how they want to vote on this issue. This will be the first time
interchange fees will be taken up, to my knowledge, in the history of
the Congress. It is about time. It is a major part of our economy. I
think a fair and reasonable fee for the use of credit and debit cards
is something we should stand behind and unreasonable charges should be
basically prohibited based on the regulation of the Federal Reserve.
I will be offering that amendment this week. Those who want to
cosponsor it are welcome to.
I suggest 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. SESSIONS. 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.
____________________