[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8655-8656]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      FINANCIAL REGULATORY REFORM

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as I stand here this morning, the U.S. 
Government is in dire fiscal condition, with the Federal debt now about 
to break $13 trillion for the first time in history, a level that was 
unthinkable a few years ago. Meanwhile, Democrats in Washington seem to 
think there is some law out there that will somehow prevent us from 
experiencing the same kind of crisis that is currently engulfing 
Europe.
  The fact is, Washington can't even pay its bills. Yet over the last 
16 months it has taken over banks, insurance companies, car companies, 
the student loan business, and health care. Now it has its sights set 
on anyone in America who engages in a financial transaction. The 
arrogance of this approach to governing is truly astounding.
  Everyone recognizes the need to rein in Wall Street to prevent 
another crisis, but the bill the majority wants to end debate on today 
does not do that. Instead, it uses this crisis as yet another 
opportunity to expand the cost and size and reach of government. It 
punishes Main Street for the sins of Wall Street. Worst of all, it 
ignores the root of the crisis by doing nothing whatsoever to reform 
the GSEs.
  But all this should sound very familiar to anyone who followed the 
health

[[Page 8656]]

care debate. Remember that the problem with health care was that it 
cost too much and the administration's solution was to spend even more 
money on it. This time, the Fed, the SEC, and Treasury all missed the 
housing bubble and the irresponsible risk-taking that led to the 
financial crisis, and the administration's solution to this is to hire 
more of these people to give them even more authority than they had 
before. So we have been down this road before.
  The administration used the cost crisis in health care as an excuse 
to force a government takeover on a public that didn't want it. Now it 
is using the financial crisis as a way to intrude into the lives of 
people and businesses that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with 
the problem, and to hire thousands of government employees and spend 
billions of dollars in taxpayer money to pay for it all. At the outset 
of this debate, Republicans argued that getting on to the bill would be 
a mistake since Democrats had no intention of improving it. As it turns 
out, we were right. Not only does the bill still contain a massive new 
government agency with broad new powers over consumer spending and Main 
Street businesses, it does nothing--nothing--as I indicated, to rein in 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the main protagonists in the financial 
meltdown. This is absolutely worse than irresponsible. It is the 
legislative equivalent of wrongful conviction.
  What is more, Democrats even opposed putting these two government-
sponsored companies that were behind the housing crisis on the Federal 
budget and accounting for the billions they got from taxpayers in 
bailout funds.
  Republicans tried to address the concerns we have been hearing from 
Main Street, many of them targeted at this new Federal agency that 
would regulate all aspects--all aspects--of a consumer's life, but 
Democrats rejected them. We offered an amendment that would sunset this 
agency if it led to unwanted government intrusion. They rejected it. We 
offered an amendment that said banks that fail should go bankrupt 
rather than giving their Wall Street creditors a bailout. They rejected 
it. We offered an amendment that would have strengthened lending 
standards. They rejected it. We offered three amendments to rein in 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They rejected them.
  They can call this bill whatever they want, but there is no way--no 
way--it can be viewed as a serious effort to rein in Wall Street or to 
address the problems that caused the crisis. How do you explain to the 
average American--the average American--that a bill that was meant to 
rein in Wall Street can be supported--supported--by Goldman Sachs and 
Citigroup but opposed by car dealers, dentists, florists, furniture 
salesmen, plumbers, credit unions, and community banks?
  Let me say that one more time. How do you explain to the people of 
this country a bill designed to rein in Wall Street that is supported 
by Goldman Sachs and Citigroup but opposed by car dealers, dentists, 
florists, furniture salesmen, plumbers, credit unions, and community 
banks? How do you explain how a bill that was supposed to target Wall 
Street now threatens to subject manufacturers to a broad new financial 
regulation and new layers of government bureaucracy? How do you justify 
new costs and regulations on small businesses struggling to dig 
themselves out of a recession, while the biggest banks--the ones that 
caused it--don't seem to mind it? How do you explain how a bill that 
was supposed to end bailouts will be used to collect financial data on 
Americans?
  Look, the only thing we need to know about this bill is that a bill 
that was meant to rein in Wall Street is now being endorsed--now being 
endorsed--by Goldman Sachs and is opposed by America's small business 
owners, community banks, credit unions, and auto dealers. A bill that 
was supposed to rein in Wall Street is opposed by the Chamber of 
Commerce but supported by Citigroup.
  Small businesses don't like it, but the biggest beneficiaries of the 
bailouts support it, because regulations never hurt them as much as 
they hurt the little guys. Our friends on the other side are happy as 
long as they pass something called reform, and the administration is 
happy because it is bent--absolutely bent--on expanding government at 
any cost.
  But the American people are watching, and they are not happy. They 
are astonished at the arrogance of elected leaders who seem to do more 
to create problems up here than to solve them: Health care costs too 
much, so let's spend more on it. Regulators missed the housing crisis 
and the financial panic; hire more of them.
  The Federal Government has doubled in size over the past decade, and 
yet every day this administration devises some new way to make it 
bigger, costlier, and more intrusive. In my view, the administration 
has lost all perspective about the limits of government and, frankly, 
it is losing the confidence and the trust of the American people.
  Americans look at what is happening in Europe. They feel as though 
they are seeing the same movie playing out right here. They feel as 
though the one way to avoid this crisis from spreading across the 
Atlantic is to stop the spending and the government expansion that led 
to it; and they feel as though the administration doesn't see any of 
this and is so bent on its government-knows-best solution to everything 
that it can't even see when the government itself is the problem.
  The goal of legislating is not to say we have solved the problem when 
we haven't. It is to prevent or alleviate real hardships and expand 
opportunities for the people who sent us here.
  But until the administration actually delivers on that promise, 
Americans cannot and should not be expected to endorse its plans for 
even more government because, for most Americans, what all these crises 
reveal is not a need for more government but a need for less 
government. I will vote against this so-called reform bill, and I urge 
my colleagues to do the same.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________