[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 71 (Thursday, May 17, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3243-S3248]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SAFETY AND INNOVATION ACT--MOTION TO 
                                PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 400.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 400, S. 3187, a bill to 
     amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to revise and 
     extend the user-fee programs for prescription drugs and 
     medical devices, to establish user-fee programs for generic 
     drugs and biosimilars, and for other purposes.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are now on the motion to proceed to FDA 
user-fees legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks and those of the 
Republican leader, the time until 10:30 a.m. be equally divided and 
controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the 
Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the 
final half.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, at 10:30 a.m. today the Senate will proceed 
to executive session to consider the Stein and Powell nominations, both 
nominees to the Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve system. At 
noon, there will be two votes on the confirmation of their nominations. 
At this stage, there likely will be no more votes after that, but we 
will keep everyone advised as to what is going to happen.
  Mr. President, when someone we love gets sick, the only thing on your 
mind is how to help them get well, how to get them the care they need.
  But before every miracle drug or innovative new device comes to 
market, there is a rigorous approval process to make sure that device 
or that medicine is going to be safe. To get lifesaving drugs and 
devices to the patients who need them as quickly and efficiently as 
possible, Congress must give the Food and Drug Administration the tools 
it needs to review and approve these products. Today the Senate will 
begin consideration of legislation which gives FDA the resources to 
ensure medical devices, drugs, and treatments are safe and effective.
  I applaud the work of my colleagues Senator Harkin and Senator Enzi 
to bring this legislation to the floor. These two fine Senators have 
different political philosophies on things generally, but they work 
well on this committee and I am very proud of each of them. I consider 
them both friends. And bringing this bill to the floor in the manner 
they did is indicative of the work that needs to be done around here 
more often. So I hope to see the strong bipartisan effort these two 
Senators began continue as the Senate considers this important 
legislation.
  The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act authorizes 
the FDA to charge manufacturers of new medical devices user fees. These 
fees are used to ensure their products are reviewed quickly and 
thoroughly before they are approved. But this legislation does more 
than maintain the status quo; it also enacts crucial reforms that will 
prevent drug shortages

[[Page S3244]]

and bring the lifesaving medicines to market more quickly, it will save 
high-tech jobs in the medical field, make new treatments available to 
patients quickly, and preserve America's role as a global leader in 
biomedical innovation.

  The legislation will expedite the processes of approving new drugs 
and medical devices--including many designed for children--while 
ensuring these products are safe for consumers. It will help spur the 
innovations that bring the next groundbreaking cancer or Parkinson's 
drug to market.
  The bill will hold foreign manufacturers who sell drugs in the United 
States to the same high standards met by American companies. This is 
extremely important because of all the misleading attempts by these 
manufacturers to sell them on the Internet.
  It will help prevent drug shortages by opening the lines of 
communication between manufacturers and the FDA. The Senator from 
Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, and the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, 
Senator Casey, have been leaders in this drug shortage issue, and I 
applaud them. They are doing this to safeguard Americans' health. Every 
day hospitals across the country experience shortages of lifesaving 
FDA-approved drugs and treatments.
  As most Senators know, my wife has been ill with cancer and she had 
20 weeks of chemotherapy. Every week, we were worried that the drugs 
wouldn't be there on that Monday morning at noon when she got those 
treatments. Fortunately for us, they were. But that isn't the way it is 
with everyone around the country. People who need these lifesaving 
medications have found those medicines not available, and we have to do 
everything we can to stop that.
  These shortages threaten public health and prevent patients from 
getting the care they need. The shortage of one drug used to treat a 
rare form of childhood leukemia--a drug that is an effective cure in 90 
percent of those cases--has literally put young lives at risk by not 
having those drugs. And when I say a 90-percent cure rate, it is 
amazing. One of my high school buddies had a son who was playing Little 
League baseball. Running around the bases, he couldn't do it. This was 
a macho family with all these tough boys in the family, and they were 
concerned that he was not being as aggressive as he should be. He had 
leukemia, and this boy died. There was nothing they could do for him. 
He died. Now 90 percent of these cases are cured.
  I have spoken on the floor before--others have--there is one form of 
leukemia that has been almost stopped in its tracks by the scientists 
discovering a bush called periwinkle, and they use the products from 
that little weed to cure cancer.
  We need to do everything we can to make sure these lifesaving drugs 
are available. No mother or father should have to watch a child suffer 
as he waits for a lifesaving medicine. But as the number of drug 
shortages increases each year, more parents wait and worry; more 
husbands and wives and daughters and sons wait and worry.
  In 2005, the FDA reported shortages of 55 medications. Last year, the 
number jumped to 231, including the leukemia drug I mentioned and some 
chemotherapy medicines. These shortages are caused by a variety of 
factors: problems with factories, limited manufacturing capacity, or 
lack of raw materials.
  Another thing we have learned is the manufacturers of these products 
want to be able to sell everything. They don't want to waste valuable 
money on storing medicines. One of the big businesses that used to be 
in America is warehouses storing things. In Reno, NV, we were a big 
warehouse storage area because we had no tax on storage. But anymore, 
there is not as much being stored because manufacturers determined that 
is a waste of money. That is one of the things that happened with these 
pharmaceuticals.
  Some, though, are caused by a lack of financial incentive--or profit 
motive is what it is. There is nothing wrong with that, but companies 
simply don't manufacture enough because they don't make enough money.
  Public awareness and pressure have prompted drugmakers to voluntarily 
notify the FDA of any impending shortages, preventing almost 200 more 
shortages last year than I just talked about. But Congress can, and 
must, do more to improve communication with drugmakers, the FDA, and 
hospitals providing this crucial care.
  Passing this legislation without delay will be a leap forward in that 
process. That is why last night I said--and I say today--I hope we 
don't have to file cloture on a motion to proceed to this lifesaving 
legislation. Let's get on this legislation. If we have to vote on 
cloture on this Monday, then we can't get on this until Wednesday and 
start legislating. How foolish.
  We will have amendments. I have had a number of Republican Senators 
come to me and say, We want to be able to offer amendments, relevant 
amendments. Good. Let's do it. If someone has a problem with this bill, 
don't stop us from going to it; offer an amendment. If it is a worthy 
cause, we will vote with him or her and get rid of what is in that 
legislation. But don't hold up the legislation.
  I would hope my Republican colleagues talk to one of the Senators who 
is holding us up and say, Don't do that; it is making us, the 
Republicans, look bad. And it does.
  I hope we can get on this legislation and work to make the health 
care delivery system in America more effective and efficient.
  Would the Chair announce the business of the day.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 10:30 will be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the 
majority controlling the second half.
  The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as if in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    Second Amendment Sovereignty Act

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, our Nation's Founding Fathers amended the 
U.S. Constitution more than two centuries ago to guarantee a bill of 
rights for its citizens. Since then, our democracy has stood strong and 
Americans have enjoyed liberties and freedoms unparalleled in the 
world, including the fundamental right to keep and bear arms guaranteed 
by the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
  Today our freedoms and our country's sovereignty are in danger of 
being undermined by the United Nations. To ensure our liberties remain 
for generations, today and for the future, I am offering legislation to 
protect the rights of American gun owners from the effects of any U.N. 
arms treaty.
  In October of 2009, at the U.N. General Assembly, the Obama 
administration voted for the United States to participate in 
negotiating an arms trade treaty--a reversal of the previous 
administration's position. This treaty is supposedly intended to 
establish ``common international standards for the import, export and 
transfer of conventional arms,'' including tanks, helicopters, and 
missiles. However, by threatening to include civilian firearms within 
its scope, the arms trade treaty would restrict the lawful private 
ownership of firearms in our country. Whether that is true depends upon 
what the treaty actually says.
  Less than 2 months from now, the U.N. Conference on Arms Trade Treaty 
will take place in New York, and that presumably will determine the 
language that is ultimately included as the treaty will be finalized 
for its adoption.
  Given where the process stands today, I am concerned that this treaty 
will infringe upon the second amendment rights of American gun owners. 
I am also concerned it will be used by other countries that do not 
share our freedoms to wrongly place the burden of controlling 
international crime and terrorism on law-abiding American citizens.
  Currently, proposals being considered by the preparatory committee at 
the U.N. would adversely affect U.S. citizens. I have several concerns 
with these proposals. First, there have been regular calls for bans or 
restrictions on the civilian ownership of guns Americans use to hunt, 
target shoot and defend themselves.

  Second, by requiring firearms to be accounted for throughout their 
lifespan, the Arms Trade Treaty could

[[Page S3245]]

lead to nationwide gun registration. This despite evidence that the 
costly bureaucratic system has been a complete failure in solving any 
crimes or stopping criminals from getting access to guns everywhere 
it's been tried.
  Third, other proposals could require the marking and tracking of all 
ammunition, including ammunition for civilian sale and use.
  To make sure that our country's sovereignty and the rights of 
American gun owners are protected as the administration negotiates this 
treaty, I have sponsored S. 2205, the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act. 
This legislation is simple.
  First, it says that the administration cannot use the ``voice, vote 
and influence of the United States'' to negotiate a treaty that in any 
way restricts the second amendment rights of American citizens. This is 
a commonsense requirement that even the Obama administration maintains.
  In an August letter I received from the U.S. State Department, they 
wrote:

       The Administration will not agree to a treaty that will 
     infringe on the constitutional rights of American citizens . 
     . . We will not agree to treaty provisions that would alter 
     or diminish existing rights of American citizens to 
     manufacture, assemble, possess, transfer, or purchase 
     firearms, ammunition, and related items.

  This bill will hold them to that pledge.
  Second, S. 2205 specifically prohibits the administration from 
seeking to negotiate a treaty that regulates the domestic manufacture, 
possession, or purchase of firearms and ammunition. In other words, 
this bill seeks to maintain the sovereignty of our laws within our 
borders. U.N. member states regularly argue that no treaty controlling 
the transfer of arms internationally can be effective without controls 
on transfers inside a country's own borders. This is unacceptable.
  Again, the administration claims to agree, saying it ``will oppose 
any effort to address internal transfers.'' Congress should hold them 
to this pledge. At stake is our country's autonomy and the rights of 
American citizens protected under the Constitution.
  More specifically, this legislation seeks to ensure that U.S. 
citizens will not be subjected to restrictions on the use or possession 
of civilian firearms and ammunition. It prohibits the administration 
from negotiating a treaty that would result in domestic regulations on 
civilian firearms like hunting rifles that are often mischaracterized 
as ``military weapons,'' ``small arms,'' or ``light arms.'' Civilian 
firearms must be excluded from the Arms Trade Treaty.
  Preparatory committee meetings have made it clear that many U.N. 
member states aim to craft an extremely broad treaty that includes 
civilian firearms within its scope. For example, Mexico and several 
countries in Central and South America have called for the treaty to 
cover ``all types of conventional weapons (regardless of their 
purpose), including small arms and light weapons, ammunition, 
components, parts, technology and related materials.''
  If those provisions were included in a treaty, that treaty would be 
incredibly difficult to enforce, and would pose dangers to all U.S. 
businesses and individuals involved in any aspect of the firearms 
industry, from manufacturers to dealers to consumers.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to adopt this commonsense 
legislation. On July 22 of last year, 57 U.S. Senators joined me in 
reminding the Obama administration that our firearm freedoms are not 
negotiable.
  We notified President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton of our 
intent to oppose ratification of a treaty that in any way restricts 
Americans' second amendment rights. Our opposition is strong enough to 
block the treaty from passage, as treaties submitted to the U.S. Senate 
require two-thirds approval to be ratified.
  As the treaty process continues, the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act 
seeks to further reinforce to the administration that our country's 
sovereignty and firearm freedoms must not be infringed upon by an 
international organization made up of many countries with little 
respect for gun rights. America leads the world in export standards to 
ensure arms are transferred for legitimate purposes and my bill will 
make certain that law-abiding Americans are not wrongfully punished.
  In the days ahead, I will continue to work with my colleagues to 
ensure an Arms Trade Treaty--if negotiations result in one--that 
undermines the Constitutional rights of American gun owners is dead on 
arrival in the Senate.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. 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.


                            A Second Opinion

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today, as I have 
week after week since the President's health care law was signed, to 
talk as a doctor, someone who has taken care of patients all around 
Wyoming, someone who has run the Wyoming health fairs, giving low-cost 
medical screenings to thousands of citizens around our State, and 
someone who knows we need health care reform in a way that gives 
patients the care they need from the doctor they want at a cost they 
can afford. There were so many promises made with this health care law 
that I come week after week because there are so many broken promises.
  Today I want to remind the body that the former Speaker of the House, 
Nancy Pelosi, once predicted that the health care reform ``will create 
4 million jobs; 400,000 jobs almost immediately.'' It is now 2 years 
later, and we know that actually the exact opposite is happening. We 
continue with high unemployment. We continue with people out of work, 
unemployed, underemployed, and the promise both from the President of 
new jobs and of Nancy Pelosi of 4 million jobs is another broken 
promise. Instead of creating jobs, this new law is destroying jobs all 
across the country. You say, how is it they can actually be destroying 
jobs? That is exactly what we are seeing as a result of the health care 
law.
  Recently, columnist George Will wrote about how the President's law 
will impact Cook Medical. It is the world's largest family-owned 
medical devices company. He explained in his column that the Democratic 
Congress ``included in the legislation''--and all the people on that 
side of the aisle voted for this--``included in the legislation a 2.3 
percent tax on gross revenue''--that is not profits, that is gross 
revenue--``which generally amounts to about a 15 percent tax on most 
manufacturing profits--from U.S. sales in medical devices beginning in 
2013.'' So it is something that is happening very soon. ``This will be 
piled,'' as he said, ``on top of the 35 percent federal corporate tax, 
and state and local taxes.''
  Mr. Will went on to say that this 2.3 percent tax will be a $20 
billion blow to an industry that employs more than 40,000 people, and 
$20 billion is almost double the industry's annual investment in 
research and development.
  We want them to do research. We want development. We want new and 
innovative treatments that will actually help people. Instead, this 
administration--the Democrats in Congress in the House and the Senate 
and the President of the United States--put on a 2.3-percent tax, a $20 
billion blow to those who do the research and the development. This tax 
is going to lead to ``fewer jobs but also fewer pain-reducing and life-
extending inventions--stents, implantable defibrillators--which all 
have reduced health care costs.''
  That is a quote from the article.
  Cook Medical is not the only medical device company that is bracing 
for the President's new penalty on jobs and innovation. In fact, let's 
take a look at some of those.
  Boston Scientific is planning for more than a $100 million charge 
against earnings in 2013. They recently built a $35 million research 
and development facility. This is called Boston Scientific--Boston. 
Where did they build their research center? Ireland. And they are 
building a $150 million factory called Boston Scientific in China. That 
is as a result of what we see with this health care law and the impact 
of what this administration is doing to jobs in America.
  Stryker Corporation, based in Michigan, blames the tax for 1,000 
layoffs.

[[Page S3246]]

  Zimmer, based in Indiana, is laying off 450 and taking a $50 million 
charge against earnings related to this tax.
  These are companies that, as an orthopedic surgeon, I say have made 
new advances in technologies, in artificial joints over the years I 
have practiced in Wyoming. These are companies that have longstanding 
reputations. Yet they are laying off people because of the new Medicare 
law--American workers.
  Medtronic expects an annual charge against earnings of $175 million.
  Other companies--Covidien, now based in Ireland, has cited the tax in 
explanation of 200 layoffs and a decision to move production to Costa 
Rica and to Mexico.
  Once again, the column by Mr. Will makes it clear that the 
President's health care law is destroying jobs and is having a 
devastating impact on our economy.
  In March, Senator Coburn and I released our third health care law 
oversight report. We entitled the report ``Warning: Side Effects, A 
Check-Up on the Federal Health Law.'' One chapter in our report is 
dedicated to the health care law's job-killing Medicare device tax. It 
is a tax the analyses predict will negatively impact job creation and 
also--incredibly important for people around this country--will stifle 
medical innovation.
  As an orthopedic surgeon, I can tell you that I have seen firsthand 
how cutting-edge technology saves lives and also supports jobs across 
the country. Scientists have invented medical devices, such as 
pacemakers, defibrillators, and artificial joints, that have improved 
the quality of life for so many Americans. But now, today, because of 
this health care law, the future of the medical device industry in 
America is under attack. In September of 2011, the Manhattan Institute 
issued a report showing the devastating impact the President's device 
tax will have on industry. The Manhattan Institute's report shows the 
medical device tax will eliminate at least 43,000 American jobs. This 
number represents more than 1 out of every 10 jobs in the device 
manufacturing sector. It is not a record the Democrats should be proud 
of, but it is clearly a record caused by the other side of the aisle, 
the Democrats, and specifically the President who signed this bill into 
law.

  Not only will this tax kill 43,000 jobs, workers are going to lose 
about $3.5 billion in wages. This is money these workers could have 
spent in their local communities to help the economy of those 
communities and, therefore, the Nation's economy.
  So what does all this mean to U.S. device manufacturers? Well, these 
companies are more likely to close their plants in the United States. 
They will close the plants here and do what others have done: replace 
them with plants overseas. Foreign manufacturers will improve their 
competitiveness compared to American firms. This will severely threaten 
U.S. leadership in the device industry and in the world. Do we want to 
see plants closing at high-tech medical device research facilities in 
States such as Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New Jersey, New 
York, and Wisconsin?
  Finally, the President's medical device tax is going to increase 
costs to American consumers. These are the American consumers who said 
what they wanted with the health care law is care they need, the doctor 
they want, at a price they can afford. Yet this health care law is 
going to increase costs to American consumers. The Congressional Budget 
Office has warned that the health care law's tax imposed on medical 
device manufacturers and drug manufacturers and health insurance 
providers would be passed through to the consumers in the form of 
higher insurance premiums. Wasn't it the President who promised that 
under his health care law insurance premiums would lower by $2,500 a 
year? Is that a promise the President and Democrats in Congress have 
forgotten? The American people have not forgotten, which is why the 
health care law is even more unpopular today than the day it was signed 
into law.
  The administration's own Medicare Chief Actuary, Richard Foster, came 
to the same conclusion. He estimated these taxes could be passed 
through to health care consumers in the form of higher drug prices, 
higher device prices, and higher insurance premiums.
  If the administration wants to get serious--and I wonder if this 
administration wants to get serious--about reducing regulatory burdens 
and creating good jobs, then the President should start today by 
repealing his onerous medical device tax. Not only will this device tax 
suppress job creation and limit economic growth, it will also slow, and 
perhaps even stop, research and development into new lifesaving medical 
devices.
  We must take action to repeal this anticompetitive, job-destroying 
device tax before it begins to take effect in 2013. If the White House 
wants to work with Republicans on progrowth policies, policies that 
support innovation, policies that get the Nation's economy moving 
again, then President Obama would support repealing this device tax.
  Senator Orrin Hatch has introduced legislation, S. 17, that would do 
just that. I am proud to be a cosponsor of that bill, and I believe the 
Senate should take up the Hatch bill and pass it.
  As we are now 2 years after the passing and signing into law of the 
President's health care law, I will continue to come to the Senate 
floor because this is a health care law that is bad for patients, it is 
bad for providers, the nurses and the doctors who take care of those 
patients, and it is terrible for the American taxpayers. We need to 
repeal and replace this broken health care law.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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.
  The minority leader is recognized.


                              Time to Act

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday in the Senate we got a vivid 
look at why the challenges we face in this country are so difficult to 
address. With a looming fiscal crisis some have called the most 
predictable in history, with a national debt at a level none of us ever 
even imagined, with millions unemployed and millions more 
underemployed, with the biggest tax hike in history looming at the end 
of the year, and with entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social 
Security drawing ever closer to insolvency, here is what Senate 
Democrats did yesterday: They ducked. They were presented with five 
different options for dealing with these problems and they voted 
against every single one of them.
  No one was particularly surprised to see Democrats reject the 
Republican proposals. We hoped some of them would support them, but we 
weren't altogether surprised they didn't. But every American should be 
surprised that Democrats didn't offer a single plan of their own, and 
they didn't even support the plan offered by the President of their own 
party. But, sadly, that is what passes for leadership in the 
Democratic-led Senate these days: Oppose everybody else--including a 
President of your own party--and hope nobody notices you are not doing 
anything yourself. Most people would say it is the responsibility of 
the party in power to propose solutions, and they would be right.
  The problems we face are simply too serious and too urgent to avoid 
any longer, and yet Democrats continue to duck any responsibility for 
addressing them. We certainly saw that yesterday. I would imagine there 
are some Democrats this morning who are having second thoughts about 
their party's performance yesterday. And if I am right about that, I 
would invite them to stand and work with us. Put aside what is 
politically safe and do what is right. The problems we face are too 
great to put off for another day. It is time for all of us to come 
together and to act.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S3247]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                      Federal Reserve Nominations

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to debate and 
oppose the two Federal Reserve nominees President Obama has sent to the 
Senate. First, let me say I think it is very important, very good, very 
healthy that we are having this debate and we are having these votes. 
That is how the Senate should operate, particularly on very important 
Presidential nominations, and these certainly fit into that category.
  The Federal Reserve is an extremely important body for all sorts of 
reasons, but I will mention three in particular. First of all, it sets 
monetary policy, and that is a very important economic tool and set of 
economic policies. Right now this Federal Reserve, under Chairman 
Bernanke, has an unprecedented policy of zero-interest rates--easy 
money for an extended period of time--which is historically 
unprecedented.
  Secondly, the Federal Reserve is the primary regulator of our 
Nation's biggest banks, including Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells 
Fargo, and another that has been in the news quite a bit in the last 
few weeks, JPMorgan Chase. Obviously, all of these entities were 
involved in the recent economic crisis, so, again, the Federal Reserve 
is extremely important as those megabanks' primary regulator. We should 
be talking about that.
  Finally, the Federal Reserve has other important authority and 
responsibilities, including in situations where they have taken action 
to bail out these megabanks. They have that authority. They also have 
authority to issue regulations under Dodd-Frank. All of these points 
are reasons why these two nominations are extremely important. That is 
why I demanded this debate and these votes.
  Fundamentally, I demanded this debate and these votes for two 
reasons. First of all, I oppose these nominations. I am voting no. 
There was a UC promulgated, and that UC, had it been accepted, would 
have meant a ``yes'' vote for me. I couldn't vote that way for the 
reasons I will explain.
  Secondly, more broadly, I think it is important we have this debate 
and we have these votes, and this used to be the norm in the Senate. 
Between 1994 and 2000, all but two nominations to the Federal Reserve 
Board were voted on by the Senate. Yet since 2001 that has flipped, for 
some reason. Since 2001, only two nominees have received votes and 10 
nominees were confirmed to the Board of Governors without a recorded 
vote. I think that is unfortunate. I think this is the proper way for 
the Senate to do its business, particularly when such important issues 
are at stake.

  Now let's talk about those issues.
  First of all, monetary policy. The Federal Reserve's primary 
responsibility--one of its two huge mandates--is to set healthy, proper 
monetary policy for the United States. Personally, I think that should 
be its only mandate--there are efforts here in the Congress to move the 
law to that position--but it certainly is a major role of the Federal 
Reserve and is extremely important.
  Once more, this Federal Reserve, under Chairman Bernanke, in this 
economy has set monetary policy in an unprecedented way, and that is 
not editorializing. That is a factual assessment, a factual 
description. Because this Federal Reserve has set essentially a zero-
interest rate policy, an extremely easy money policy for an extended 
period of time, a very long period of time, without any end in sight, 
and that has never before happened.
  There are many experts, economists, and commentators who think this 
is very dangerous policy, and I share their concerns. I do not pretend 
to be an expert, as they are. I do not pretend, quite frankly, to have 
the economic training and background of Chairman Bernanke and others. 
But many of those who do have grave concerns with this unprecedented 
easy money policy. Let me mention a few.
  Dr. Allan Meltzer, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, sees 
signs of this building up future inflation and a weakening dollar and 
believes the Fed did great harm in these categories with its 
Quantitative Easing 2, so-called QE2. Dr. Meltzer has read Fed minutes 
for years and has written the definitive ``History of the Federal 
Reserve'' and says the central problem is there is a lack of discussion 
of alternatives and consequences of their policies.
  Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City President Thomas Hoenig said the 
Fed's plan to push down long-term interest rates may produce very 
adverse accidental outcomes and policymakers risk creating real 
``imbalances'' in the economy. He said:

       I have real concerns about trying to fine-tune and micro-
     manage the economy when monetary policy is a blunt tool.

  Richard Fisher of Dallas said he believes the Federal Reserve's 
monetary policy has yet to show evidence of working. He is the Federal 
Reserve Bank of Dallas president. He says in particular, the Fed's plan 
to buy $400 billion of long-term bonds while selling the same amount of 
short-term debt is benefiting financiers and not aiding job creation.
  Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser, in a speech on economic 
outlook to the Business Leaders Forum at the Villanova School of 
Business, expressed extreme skepticism with that so-called Operation 
Twist, trading long-term debt for short-term debt, and he did not think 
it would encourage business investment or consumer spending. He said:

       I dissented from these decisions because I believe that 
     they will do little to improve the near-term prospects for 
     economic growth or employment and they do pose risks.

  So there are very legitimate, strong concerns which I share on the 
current monetary policy of this Federal Reserve, and it is very clear 
from the statements of these two nominees that these two nominees will 
support that policy, will support that direction for the foreseeable 
future, will not provide dissent, will not provide alternative 
viewpoints.
  In addition, let me mention three other things about the Fed. As I 
mentioned, the Fed in general is the primary regulator of the 
megabanks, and, still, I believe we do not have adequate focus and 
adequate regulation in that category. I would only point to the recent 
disastrous announcement of JPMorgan Chase.
  Also, the Fed, with five affirmative votes, passes regulations under 
Dodd-Frank under its authority. That process is ongoing right now.
  Why are these two nominations significant in impacting the 
development of those Dodd-Frank regulations one way or the other? Well, 
it is pretty simple. Those Dodd-Frank regulations coming out of the Fed 
need five affirmative votes. Right now, there are five members of the 
Board of Governors, so they need to reach complete unanimity with 
regard to those regulations. When the possible negative impact of those 
regulations is such a threat, I think that required unanimity is 
actually very healthy and a real protection.
  These two new members of the Fed change the map, change the 
requirement from needing five out of five to needing five out of seven. 
I think that will significantly push these regulations to the left, if 
you will, and require and therefore produce less consensus, which those 
with economic viewpoints such as mine wish to see continued.
  In the same vein, the Fed is certainly significant in not only 
regulating the megabanks but, in instances like 2 years ago, bailing 
out the megabanks. They have that authority and they have that role. 
Just as with Dodd-Frank regulations, that requires five affirmative 
votes of the Fed Board. Again, right now, before these two 
confirmations, that would need five out of five. It would require 
unanimity. I think that is healthy, actually, with regard to such an 
extreme measure as huge taxpayer-funded bailouts, as we have seen in 
the last 3 years.
  If these two new nominees to the Board are confirmed, that math, 
again, would change in exactly the same way: The requirement would move 
from five out of five to five out of seven. It would shift the outcome 
to the left, if you will. It would make it much more likely that the 
Fed would act sooner to bail out megabanks with taxpayer funds.
  I have all of these concerns about these nominations. These two 
nominees are fine, decent men. They are smart. They are qualified in 
the professional sense. However, they clearly also support the current 
direction of Chairman Bernanke and the Fed. For that reason, I cannot 
support the nominations, and I have real concerns.

[[Page S3248]]

  But, in closing, let me say that at least I think it is positive we 
are having this debate and we are voting. As I cited, that used to be 
the norm in the Senate, including with regard to Federal Reserve Board 
of Governors nominations. These are very important nominations because 
of monetary policy, because of their regulatory authority, because of 
bailouts, and Dodd-Frank, and all the rest. It is more important--now 
more than ever--because of the unprecedented nature of Chairman 
Bernanke's and the Fed's monetary policy and because of the history of 
the last 3 years.
  We need this debate. We need these votes. I do not think spending 
about 2 hours on it on the floor of the Senate is too much to ask, so I 
am glad I asked for that. I am glad I demanded that. With that 
opportunity, I will be voting no.
  Mr. President, I yield back my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Senator withhold his 
request?
  Mr. VITTER. I will.

                          ____________________