Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am delighted to be here this morning. I am anxious to get started on voting on amendments so we can tackle the issue of Wall Street reform. We have to keep an eye on what happened to our economy, because Wall Street had no reasonable regulation. Markets were operating in the dark. There was very little fiduciary responsibility involved. There was all of this gambling with credit default swaps and CDOs. I am reading a book called ``The Big Short.'' If anyone wants to try to understand what happened, read that. It is unbelievable what happened with derivatives, all operating in the dark. I wish to say to Senator Dodd how much I appreciate the work he has put into this bill. To put it simply, what the bill does is it ends taxpayer bailouts, flat out. That is why I was shocked when Members of the Senate on the other side of the aisle came down to the Senate floor and started criticizing the bill, saying it didn't end taxpayer bailouts, when that is what it does. That led me to think I would like to work with Senator Dodd on an amendment that clarifies this main point in the bill. Senator Dodd and his staff--and I worked with the Obama administration on it as well--said let's sit down and work it out. So we have a very strong amendment here that is not a sense of the Senate; it is real law. It is strong law. I hope it passes. I say to my friend Senator Dodd I hope this passes by a huge number of votes. What we do here is summed up in part C: Taxpayers shall bear no losses from the exercise of any authority under this title. This isn't saying they shouldn't bear a loss; it says taxpayers shall bear no loss. They shall bear no loss. The rest of it basically says: No company is going to be kept alive in this bill with any taxpayer money. If a company is in trouble and they need to be liquidated, then the funds that are used will be recovered from the disposition of assets of such financial company or shall be the responsibility of the financial sector, through assessments. It is very similar to FDIC. As we know, when we put our hard-earned dollars into the bank, we are covered now up to $250,000 because there is an insurance program which is paid for via an assessment on the banks. It is called the FDIC, and we all know because we worry about that. If there was anything that was learned from the Great Depression, it is that there was a run on the banks, and guess what. The banks were out of money. People literally lost their world. So after those years a long time ago, FDIC insured. It is very important. We are doing the same thing here. We are saying that if there is a liquidation required of some of these hot-shot firms that continue to gamble, that continue to take risks and something goes wrong, they are not going to be kept alive, they are going to be put to sleep and the money that is expended to do that will come from the financial sector itself, and taxpayers, again, shall bear no losses from the exercise of any authority under this title. What else does the Dodd bill do? It ends taxpayer bailouts and, with my amendment, that is going to be even clearer. It puts a cop on the beat for consumers. Why is this important? Because the people who were trampled upon during the whole Wall Street crisis were middle-class families who depended on these big firms to protect their pension funds, to protect their assets that they might have had in mutual funds. Instead, all of that went out the window. We need to also have a cop on the beat to look at credit card companies and the kinds of things they do that harm our people. The third thing is it brings disclosure to dark markets. The bill eliminates loopholes that allow reckless speculative practices to go unnoticed, and it brings real regulation to the derivatives markets and the shadow banking system that grew up around it. These kinds of instruments, as they are called--derivatives--they are based on--let's take an example of a bunch of mortgages that are packaged together and sold. Somebody came up with the great idea: Well, maybe we should take insurance against them going broke, and they played both sides of it. They had derivatives on derivatives on derivatives. The house of cards came down. We want disclosure for these dark markets; otherwise, the regulators simply don't know what is going on. Risky behavior on Wall Street will be curbed. There are strict new capital and borrowing requirements as financial companies grow in size and complexity. There are restrictions on proprietary trading, which means a bank trading for their own interests. We had circumstances where a bank was telling its customers to buy a stock or a bond and they were shorting. They were making a bet that it would go down while they were selling it to people and saying, Oh, it has a great future. There is something so unfair about this and, frankly, corrupt about this. Where is the fiduciary responsibility? How do you go out and tell your best customers: Hey, this is good. We are going to go forward. Buy this. Then they go back to their office and short it so they can make money on it collapsing. There is something very wrong with that. We have lost our way. They have lost their way. We have protection against securities market scams, improvements at the FTC, where we will have the Office of Credit Rating Agency that will strengthen the regulation of credit rating agencies, many of which failed to correctly rate risky financial products. My colleagues know that Moody's is one example, Standard & Poor's is the other. They said, Oh, this is a AAA. These assets that are based on all of these mortgages, this is a AAA, feel comfortable with it, when they knew, frankly, it wasn't. It was a conflict of interest. They were getting paid by the people who wanted them to come out and say they were rated AAA. There is something awful about this. If we cannot trust a rating agency, how are we going to know what we want to buy for our portfolio? I don't care if you are a very small investor or an institutional investor, an investor who is investing say for a pension company that you work for. I think we have to have even greater oversight over these rating agencies than is in the bill. I applaud what is in the bill. I am going to be offering something that holds these people accountable. Again, if my colleagues read the book I am reading, they realize how the people who work at these rating agencies were doing the bidding of those who wanted to get a AAA rate. So we end taxpayer bailouts in this bill. The Boxer amendment is going to ensure that is so clearly stated. We put a cop on the beat for consumers. We bring disclosure to these formerly dark markets. We curb risky behavior on Wall Street because we require them to have more capital, less gambling. We create an early warning system with a financial stability oversight council to make sure we see trouble coming before it hits. We protect against securities market scams by going after these rating companies and saying, Hey, you have a responsibility to be honest when you rate an instrument; it shouldn't be rated a certain way because the person who is paying you wants it rated a certain way. That should be criminal. I think it is going to be very clear as we get into this bill. I am a little surprised it is taking so long. I say to Chairman Dodd, I am a little surprised it is taking so long to get a vote on the simplest amendment of them all. Let's put this chart back up. What is the problem here? If people want to talk about making this stronger, let's talk, but don't hold us up. I would ask my friend, do we have any agreement yet on voting on the Boxer amendment, which is so clear? Here it is on one board. This is the whole amendment. Do we have an agreement yet?

Mrs. BOXER. I will yield.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague. I would say the reason I think it is important to have a vote is because for days and days and days, my friend, the Senator from Connecticut, and my friend, the Senator from Virginia, were down on this floor defending this bill and making it clear that this would finally put an end to too big to fail; that, in fact, taxpayers are not going to be on the hook. We are going to wind these companies down and they are going to have to be gone. They are going to go to sleep. They are going to be gone. They are going to be liquidated, and then taxpayers are going to be made whole. This is clear. Our colleagues on the other side were all over national television. I don't know how many times they said this bill is ensuring that there will be more taxpayer bailouts. That is why I wrote this. It seems to me a little odd that we are waiting and waiting. Since our friends say they want an amendment such as this, why don't we get started. There are lots of amendments on both sides of the aisle, some of which will make this bill stronger, in my opinion, and some of which will make this bill weaker, in my opinion. We will do what the Senate does. We will debate these issues. I know my friend is waiting. It seems to me that if we are going to this crisis--and I ask to show the charts--we cannot sit around here day after day and waste time. These are some of the headlines we had: ``Economy In Crisis.'' ``What Now?'' ``Tax Problems.'' ``This Is A Nightmare.'' This is what we saw. We have another chart that shows the headlines. ``U.S. Consumer Sentiment Decreases to 28-year Low.'' ``Jobs, Wages Nowhere Near Rock Bottom yet.'' What a mess. ``Wall Street Crash Leaves New Yorkers In The `Eye Of The Hurricane.' '' This is just a smattering of these headlines. We have some more to share: ``Where Do We Go From Here?'' ``Nightmare On Wall Street.'' This is what the country went through. I know we want to forget it. We never want to have it happen again, but we can't wish it away. ``Nightmare On Wall Street.'' ``Where Do We Go From Here?'' Today we are ready to answer the question. No more nightmares and no more taxpayer bailouts, and no more gambling. Will this bill solve every single problem? No. There will be people who think something else up. But here is the good news about this bill: It puts a cop on the beat, so any of these new ideas that come to the forefront--these new instruments, these new derivatives--will finally be under the watchful eye of a consumer regulatory agency that has only one thing on its plate: protecting consumers from the rip-offs and the gambling and the callous disregard for morality that we saw on Wall Street. So I say to my friends on the other side: Let's go. Let's do this. Let's get started. Let's have the Senate work its will, and let's be able to tell the people of this country that in a bipartisan fashion, we took a stand against the nightmare on Wall Street and we basically said those days are gone and we will get back to sensible rules of the road. I will close with this. A lot of us I think were interested in watching the Kentucky Derby, a few minutes of the most exciting sport. I thought to myself as I watched that there are rules of the road in this sport. It is all about gambling. People out and out gamble. There is no hiding it. They just go out and gamble. They put the dollars on the horse they choose. But there are rules of the road. You can't have a horse running that has been drugged. You cannot do that. You cannot have a jockey in the race who uses foul play to knock over another jockey or run in a fashion that would disqualify him. So even in a sport like horseracing, which is out- and-out gambling, there are rules of the track, rules of the road. It seems to me that on Wall Street, where you are dealing with the life savings and the hopes and dreams of our people, our businesses, and our children, that there need to be reasonable rules of the road and no more taxpayer bailouts. Let's get started and vote aye on the Boxer amendment and make this bill even better. It is a terrific bill, but we can make it even better. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague. The reason I did this, frankly, was because the other side seemed to be misunderstanding what this bill did. So I was hopeful that they would just say: Terrific; now it is clear. No losses to taxpayers--``taxpayers shall bear no losses from the exercise of any authority under this title.'' I understand Senator Kyl said yesterday this was a sense of the Senate. It is clear. It is not a sense of the Senate: liquidation required, recovery of funds, taxpayers shall. There is no ``should.'' It is real. So that is why I am hopeful that if we can get started with a bipartisan vote, it will make the life of our chairman a lot easier because at least we would come forward with something on which we can stand together. I thank the Senator so much for working with me to make sure this is clear as a bell. As the Senator says, bills are complex. And people say: Why is this bill 800 pages? Well, it is complicated because we have to amend language in so many parts of the Federal law. But this is clear. We sum it up. We sum up the title in this way. I am excited about voting on this. I will be back after the luncheon hour to--if I need to--make the case again--not that my colleague hasn't done it for me, but I want to lift a little bit of the burden off his shoulders.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Dodd for all his work on so many issues. Just the way things worked out, he has been so pivotal in health care reform and now in Wall Street reform. This is an era of reform. My friend should be very proud that he happens to be here at this time, because we can't go back to the days we left. As a reminder, I will show you some of the headlines. It is worth a minute of looking at these headlines. This is taken from 2007 and 2008, some of the headlines we had to face in those times: ``U.S. unemployment rate hits 10.2 percent, highest in 26 years.'' How about this one: ``Nightmare on Wall St.'' ``The bailout to end all bailouts.'' ``Wall Street's latest downfall: Madoff charged with fraud.'' ``Credit crunch continues as lending rates climb.'' ``Jobs, wages nowhere near rock bottom yet.'' ``Where do we go from here?'' ``The Nasdaq in biggest fall since the dot.com crash.'' ``Dow dives 778 points.'' ``U.S. loses 533,000 jobs in biggest drop since 1974.'' We can see the look on this man's face. He is obviously standing in the middle of the New York Stock Exchange. That explains how everybody felt as our constituents lost their wealth. They lost their wealth and with it their confidence in America. I want to continue with one more chart because all of us want so much to put this behind us. That is what we will do with this bill. But we have to remember. ``Economy in crisis, what now?'' ``U.S. pension insurer lost billions in market.'' ``Housing prices take biggest dive since 1991.'' ``Full of doubts, U.S. shoppers cut spending.'' ``Wall Street employees set to get 145 billion 2009,'' the bonuses during this time. ``How low can they go?'' ``Home prices drop 42%.'' ``Carnage continues: 524,000 jobs lost in December.'' And from the San Jose Mercury News: ``Foreclosure Wave, San Jose Fights to Protect Neighborhoods.'' What we are doing here is so important. I am so proud of the work Senator Dodd did in his committee that has brought us to this point. I am grateful that our Republican friends let this bill move forward. We will have our debates. That is fine. But we can't afford to go back to those old days. Those old days could happen unless we act, as the President has stated. I want to take the time to thank Senator Dodd in particular for working with us, as well as to thank the administration for working with us, to come up with an amendment which will synthesize exactly what the bill does. The purpose of this amendment--which is pending at the desk, which I am hopeful we will vote on Tuesday--says in its purpose: ``To prohibit taxpayers from ever having to bail out the financial sector.'' When I heard my colleagues on the other side say Senator Dodd's bill would ensure taxpayer bailouts, I knew it was false, and I went to Senator Dodd and colleagues on the committee and said I did not understand why these comments were coming from the other side, as if saying this glass of water on my desk is a cup of coffee. No. This glass of water is a glass of water. It is not coffee. And if you say seven, eight, and nine times that it is coffee, somebody might believe it. That is how I view the comments from the other side that this is guaranteeing bailouts, when in fact it is not. So I said to Chairman Dodd: I have an idea that we should put together a very simple amendment to the bill that basically says what we know is true: All financial companies put into receivership under this title shall be liquidated. No company is ever going to be kept afloat. No taxpayer funds should ever be used to prevent the liquidation of any financial company under this title, that all funds expended will be repaid to the taxpayers by the financial sector through assessments or the sale of the assets of the company. Then, we repeated at the end: Taxpayers shall bear no losses from the exercise of any authority under this title. I am going to put up the Boxer amendment. It simply fits right on this chart, I say to my friends. It is very simple. If a company is taken into receivership, liquidation must follow. Nobody is being kept afloat. No one's business is being kept afloat. They are liquidated. Recovery of Funds.--All funds expended in the liquidation of a financial company under this title shall be recovered [either] from the disposition of assets of such financial company, or shall be the responsibility of the financial sector, through assessments. Lastly, just in case people really wanted it stated--and I see some smiles on faces because we worked together to make sure no one could turn this around-- No Losses to Taxpayers.--Taxpayers shall bear no losses from the exercise of any authority under this title. So let there be no mistake. Senator Dodd's arms were open to this amendment. He said this reflects exactly what we have done. But he said: Senator, if you feel better if we put it in one place, we will do it. I think it is important for the American people to understand the simplicity of the approach: No loss to taxpayers, period, end of quote. So if somebody goes on TV this weekend and says this bill is about bailing out companies and keeping them afloat with taxpayer funds, it cannot be done under the bill, and this amendment certainly brings it home in a very simple, plain English fashion. I am proud to be working with my colleague Senator Dodd. I used to sit on the Banking Committee, and I was kind of lured off the committee because the people in California said: We have to have somebody on the Commerce Committee. We have so much at stake there. So it was tough for me to walk away, but I did walk away. But I still retain the relationships. I am going to go through what is in the Dodd bill that I think is so terrific--then I am going to yield the floor--because Senator Dodd has been talking about this by himself, and I think he deserves to have a bit of a rest and the rest of us should come over here and talk about it. Again, taxpayer bailouts are done. We know the bill itself does it, but we have made it clear. Taxpayers are covered. We will have a cop on the beat for our consumers. We will know that a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has only one job, and that is the job to look after our consumers so they are protected from the kind of deceptive and abusive practices that fueled this crisis. Let's face it, this crisis was fueled by Wall Street, by speculation, no leverage requirements--lots of things--dark markets. This bill takes on these issues. We see another part: brings disclosure to dark markets. The bill eliminates the loopholes that allow reckless speculative practices to go unnoticed. It brings real regulation to derivatives markets and to the ``shadow banking system.'' I think we are probably going to have some debate over this. But I can say right now, when I worked on Wall Street so many years ago, I have to say--too many years ago to remind myself of, but let's say it was a long time ago, and it was in the 1960s--those were the years when a $12 million share day on Wall Street was breaking all the records. Now a $1 billion share day isn't that much. We did not have these kinds of instruments. We did not have these kinds of toxic instruments that were so complex. When I asked Treasury Secretary Paulson about it--he was George Bush's Secretary of the Treasury--he essentially held his head in his hands and said: You know, it is hard for me to explain this to you. That is a fact. It did not build up my confidence very much. I have to say, we need to have a financial system that is understandable by everybody. But certainly the Secretary of the Treasury should not have to hold his head in his hands and say: I can't explain it. We have to end those days, and the best way is sunshine. So I say to Senator Dodd, you did a great job in working to bring disclosure to the dark markets. Senator Lincoln, working through the Agriculture Committee, I think brought us even more protection, and that is very good. Because I think the President said it well. The President said: We want everyone to prosper. We want everyone to be innovative. But we do not want to put our people at risk. When people start losing in the ways we were losing--20 percent of our net worth; 40 percent, 50 percent the market went down--50 percent of its value--a lot of people lost their dreams, and it was unnecessary. But it happened because there were markets that were in the dark, and there were people who were not fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to their clients. What else does the Dodd bill do? It curbs risky behavior on Wall Street. The bill provides for strict new capital and borrowing requirements as financial companies grow in size and complexity and pose a risk to the financial system. Regulators will restrict proprietary trading--speculative gambling-- by critical financial firms. We have situations where a firm is advising a client--and we know this happened with Goldman Sachs-- advising clients to buy a particular instrument which happened to be worthless. And I cannot use the word the traders used to describe it because this is a family audience. These were junk, and they called them worse than that. They were junk. They were being sold to the customers of Goldman while Goldman was taking a short position--in other words, a position that bet on these instruments' failure. The kind of e-mails that came out were reminiscent of the e-mails that came out during the Enron scandal, bragging about how widows and orphans were going to get hurt. Well, if there is anything we should do here, it is to protect our people, not put them at greater risk. There is going to be an early warning system created to prevent a future crisis--the Financial Stability Oversight Council--to focus on the risks before they lead to a crisis. As a last resort, the regulators can break up a company that is too big to fail. Lastly, of the big accomplishments of the bill, the bill protects against securities markets scams. It mandates management improvements and increased funding for the SEC. The bill creates a new SEC Office of Credit Rating Agencies to strengthen the regulation of credit rating agencies, many of which failed to correctly rate risky financial products. I have to say, I am working on an amendment that is even stronger because, for me, as someone who relied on, so many years ago, the honesty of these rating companies--these are the companies that say: This is AA, this is AAA, this is A, this is B, this is bad--they are getting paid by the people who have an interest in them giving a good rating. That is wrong, and we have to do something here to insert some type of responsibility to the public. These rating agencies have a responsibility to the public. I am working on some approaches. We do not have it ready. We are going to talk to Senator Dodd, and we hope he will be amenable to it. But we have some thoughts about it. In this area, the people of this country are putting their hopes and dreams into the financial markets. It has been a great thing, in general, over the years. It has been a great thing because America is a great country, and we have innovation and innovators, and we have venture capitalists who put it all on the line, and they hit, and we can all do very well if we invest, even if we do it through our 401(k) or our company does it through a pension plan. We know most Americans have a stake in these markets. I heard some things from Goldman Sachs--they said something like this: Well, the people we were selling to were sophisticated, and they should have known better. But they stop short of the truth. Maybe they were sophisticated, and maybe they were not doing their job either; therefore, it trickles down to the people who were relying on that so- called sophisticated investor. All we are saying is, we need reasonable rules of the road. We want to know a rating agency is giving it their best shot to tell the truth about a security. We want to ensure that. If there are new, exotic instruments being traded, that is fine, but let's take a look at them in the light of day so people are fully informed. Then, if you take a gamble, if you are fully informed, that is one thing. But if you do not understand you are taking a gamble, that is another. So again, I am very pleased we are at this point. Somebody said the only reason we got here is we threatened to work through the night. Maybe there is some truth in that. Frankly, it does not matter to me. We are at this point. We can get to this bill. My Republican friends who say they want to improve it--they did not try to do it in the committee, is my understanding--but if they want to do it now, I welcome that because I am sure I will support some of their amendments if they are in the spirit of this bill. The spirit of the bill is protecting consumers, protecting taxpayers, making sure taxpayers are never on the hook, and stopping a situation like this one, as shown on this chart, where every newspaper had pictures of people like this who were at a loss to understand: How could this happen in America? I get the chills thinking about the conversations many Democratic Senators had. I know Republicans had the same conversation with the Secretary of the Treasury and with Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, in which they basically said: We are on the brink of collapse. We may never come back from this situation. We cannot forget that. If we do not move to correct the system in ways that are not overly burdensome, but we get it right--and I think Senator Dodd pretty much has gotten to that sweet spot on this thing; we may want to move here or there with an amendment--if we can do this, if we did nothing else--and, by the way, we have done other things, and we will do more--this is crucial. It is crucial to consumer confidence. Consumer confidence fuels 70 percent of the market. Let's do this right. I thank my Republican friends who decided to work with us. I thank Senator Dodd for his patience, for his passion, and I am very happy he is leading us because he is so effective and he knows what he is saying. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Feinstein, to introduce legislation to honor recipients of the Distinguished Flying Cross--the oldest military aviation award created by Congress. This bill would designate the Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial at March Field Air Museum in Riverside, California as the National Distinguished Flying Cross Memorial. Companion legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Ken Calvert and recently passed by a vote of 410-0. The Distinguished Flying Cross honors members of the armed forces who perform an act of ``heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight.'' Since it was established by Congress in 1926, tens of thousands of brave Americans have been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, including Wilber and Orville Wright, Charles Lindbergh, Amelia Earhart, former President George H. W. Bush, Senator John McCain, former Senator John Glenn, Chuck Yeager, General Jimmy Doolittle, and Admiral Jim Stockdale. More recently, it has been awarded to a number of American men and women serving our Nation in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am proud that so many of the service members who have received the prestigious Distinguished Flying Cross are from my home State of California. This legislation has the support of the Distinguished Flying Cross Society, the Military Officers Association of America, the Air Force Association, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Association of Naval Aviation, the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association, and the China Burma Indian Veterans Association. This is a fitting tribute to those who have served our country with honor and distinction. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring these brave service men and women by supporting this legislation, and I look forward to seeing it enacted into law.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Feinstein, to introduce legislation to honor recipients of the Distinguished Flying Cross--the oldest military aviation award created by Congress. This bill would designate the Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial at March Field Air Museum in Riverside, California as the National Distinguished Flying Cross Memorial. Companion legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Ken Calvert and recently passed by a vote of 410-0. The Distinguished Flying Cross honors members of the armed forces who perform an act of ``heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight.'' Since it was established by Congress in 1926, tens of thousands of brave Americans have been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, including Wilber and Orville Wright, Charles Lindbergh, Amelia Earhart, former President George H. W. Bush, Senator John McCain, former Senator John Glenn, Chuck Yeager, General Jimmy Doolittle, and Admiral Jim Stockdale. More recently, it has been awarded to a number of American men and women serving our Nation in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am proud that so many of the service members who have received the prestigious Distinguished Flying Cross are from my home State of California. This legislation has the support of the Distinguished Flying Cross Society, the Military Officers Association of America, the Air Force Association, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Association of Naval Aviation, the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association, and the China Burma Indian Veterans Association. This is a fitting tribute to those who have served our country with honor and distinction. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring these brave service men and women by supporting this legislation, and I look forward to seeing it enacted into law.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the order?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for as much time as I may consume.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you very much.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is good news we just received that our Republican colleagues have decided to allow us to proceed to the debate on the Wall Street reform bill. I was, frankly, confused as to why they were objecting. But in any event, without going through that, I am very pleased they have backed down in terms of their objection because we want to get to this bill. Many of us have ways we feel it can be made stronger. I bet there will be some amendments to make it weaker. And that is what the process is all about. The most important thing for the American people to know tonight is that an issue of critical importance is moving forward in the Senate. I think it is important for us to remember the real reasons as to why we are taking up this bill. Even though it is painful to review the dark times of 2008, when our economy and the world economy were really on the brink, I believe it is important for us to do that review. I asked my staff to put together some of the headlines from those days. We are going to go through a couple of charts and I will read a few of them, because we need to remember what it was like in those dark moments in our history. Here is a picture of a Wall Street trader and he is under a headline that says ``Black Monday.'' It was at a moment when the first bailout happened. It says, ``Bailout Fails, Stock Drop Most In History.'' Then we look at this one: ``Where Do We Go From Here?'' ``NASDAQ: The Biggest Fall Since Dot.com Crash.'' ``Dow Down 778.'' ``Time'' magazine, ``Wall Street's Latest Downfall: Madoff Charged With Fraud.'' ``Feds' Rescue Plan: The Bailout To End All Bailouts.'' ``Jobs, Wages, Nowhere Near Rock Bottom Yet.'' ``Credit Crunch Continues As Lending Rates Climb.'' ``U.S. Consumer Sentiment Decreases To A 28-Year Low.'' ``U.S. Loses 533,000 Jobs In The Biggest Drop Since 1974.'' That is one chart, and I have one other, just to remind us where we were. San Jose Mercury News: ``Foreclosure Wave: San Jose Fights To Protect Neighborhoods.'' ``Carnage Continues: 524,000 Jobs Lost.'' ``Wall Street Employees Set To Get $145 billion.'' That is in bonuses during all of this. ``Economy In Crisis,'' ``Foreclosure,'' ``Lehman Files For Bankruptcy,'' ``Merrill Sold,'' ``AIG Seeks Cash.'' We know all about that. ``What now?'' ``The Dow Falls 777,'' ``Economy On The Brink.'' ``U.S. Pension Insurer Lost Billions In The Market.'' ``Housing Prices Take Biggest Dive Since 1991.'' ``U.S. Drafts Sweeping Plan To Fight Crisis As Turmoil Worsens In Credit Markets.'' And here is one: ``Full Of Doubts, U.S. Shoppers Cut Spending.'' I read these headlines to my colleagues to bring back those dark, dark, dark days and why we are here today trying to make sure it never happens again. If we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it, and we have learned and we are ready to make sure this never happens again. Those dark times came because we allowed Wall Street to engage in unregulated and unsupervised gambling. I have to say I am an economics major. That goes back quite a bit of time. Many years ago, before any of these kinds of exotic instruments were created, I worked on Wall Street as a stockbroker. I can tell my colleagues that every time the President of the United States would sneeze and the market went down a few points, I worried. I can just imagine how I would have felt if I would have had clients in this kind of situation where there was no control. A shadow banking system grew up that fueled an unsustainable housing bubble. From 2001 to 2007, the issuance of toxic private mortgage- backed securities increased by over 400 percent. These securities were rated by credit rating agencies--the credit rating agencies that were supposed to be tellers of the truth. They are supposed to say to the consumer, uh-oh--I sound like my grandchild who says uh-oh--that is what they are supposed to say: Don't buy those securities because they are not good. But these credit agencies, rating agencies such as Moody's and Standard & Poor's, frankly, acted as though they were in the pockets of the issuers who paid them. In other words, they gave a good answer. If you wanted to issue securities--I don't care whether it is Goldman or anybody else--you go to these fellows, you pay them, and they tell you something good. What went wrong? That is a disaster. Where is the fiduciary responsibility in any of these relationships? The unregulated over-the-counter derivatives market also grew by over 400 percent to a value greater than the entire U.S. economy. The unregulated over-the-counter derivatives market grew by over 400 percent to a value greater than the entire United States economy. Wall Street institutions critical to our economy purposely created complex paper instruments that had no real value. In these hearings Senator Levin is holding, we see what happened when one company--Goldman-- knew--and I can't use the words they used because it would be improper on the floor--they knew a product they were selling was just plain junk and they sold it to their customers, to their clients. One of the people said in an e-mail: Wow, think of all the orphans and the widows we are hurting. That sounds to me like the Enron scandal where we had traders doing the same thing when energy prices went through the roof. In 2007 and in the first part of 2008, the house of cards began to collapse, because backing up these new complex instruments Wall Street created were these exotic loans that consumers could never repay unless housing prices continued to soar to unrealistic levels. So they created these instruments that were backed by these mortgages that were doomed to fail unless the economy continued to shoot like a star straight up and the housing market went up. The housing bubble began to deflate, and think about all of these derivatives and all of these exotic securities that were based on housing. Mortgage lenders and financial institutions began to fail; first Countrywide, then Bear Stearns. The Federal Reserve had to intervene behind the scenes to try and keep credit flowing. Remember, in a capitalist society, in our economy, we have to have credit flowing. Credit, that is what the small businesses need. That is what governments need, overnight credit. The State of California couldn't even get overnight credit. The worst crisis hit in September 2008--the worst since the 1929 Great Depression. Listen to this: Over just 3 days, September 13, 14, and 15, three major financial institutions failed--Lehman, AIG, and Merrill Lynch. Oh, my God, the shock in the country. Regulators were unprepared. They had no warning. Panic spread from this Wall Street debacle as banks lost confidence in the solvency of the financial system and they refused to lend. Credit was frozen. Consumers started to withdraw their money from failing money market funds, and some of them found out that they weren't insured, the money markets. We had to actually create insurance. The stock market dropped 25 percent in September alone, part of a larger 50-percent drop from 2008 to 2009. Trillions of dollars in pensions and savings wealth were lost. Without the tools to handle the crisis, the Bush administration was forced to approach us for direct taxpayer assistance. I will never forget the day when the Republican Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson looked me in the eye, along with all of my colleagues, and said capitalism was on the brink of collapse. I will tell my colleagues, I asked him a number of questions that day about the role that credit default swaps played in this, and derivatives, and to be totally candid, he didn't have an answer. He was so concerned about staving off this collapse. It was too late. It was too late to stop Wall Street's crisis from impacting the rest of our economy. Business lending plummeted. I know the Presiding Officer knows that small businesses have created 64 percent of all of the new jobs in the last 15 years. When those good, strong businesses couldn't get credit, some of them couldn't keep the doors open. I can tell my colleagues that none of them expanded. They couldn't. They didn't have the capital. Retail spending fell by 14 percent, driven by historic declines in consumer confidence, and because consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of our economy, this was another disaster on another disaster on another disaster. As the recession fueled by the financial crisis spread, job losses exploded to 750,000 a month, the highest ever recorded. Some 8.4 million jobs were lost in 2008 and 2009. In my own home State of California, almost 1 out of every 10 jobs was lost--1 out of every 10 jobs. To put a human face on that and think about those families in that situation where not only did they lose a lot of their net worth in the stock market which was going down, down, down, they were losing the value of their home, and then they lost their job, and it exacerbated the problem. Unemployment rose above 10 percent for the first time in 28 years. In my State it is over 12 percent today. Even though we are now creating jobs in California and in the country, they are not at a fast enough pace as more people come into the jobs market. We had a situation where almost one out of every five Americans who wanted to work was underemployed. I don't see how anyone who knows this history--and all you had to do was wake up and read the paper or, if you didn't do that, put on the TV or, if you didn't do that, look at your Internet or, if you didn't do that, listen to the radio. And if you were without all that, you could have listened to what we were debating here, and there were probably not too many people doing that. So how could we ever for one second deny the need for the Dodd bill, which reflects the President's Wall Street reform bill, even for a minute? I can't imagine anyone living through this crisis could ever doubt the need to do the bill that we, thank goodness, are on right now. The bill directly addresses the problems that led to the crisis. It gives regulators the tools they need to prevent a crisis in the future without ever turning to taxpayers. I am going to quickly go through the provisions of the Dodd bill. I am going to go through six provisions. First, the bill ends taxpayer bailouts. The bill guarantees taxpayers will never again be forced to bail out Wall Street firms. Failing companies will be liquidated. Any losses will be absorbed by companies and the financial sector, not taxpayers. That is a jobs bill. By the way, when I heard my colleagues on the other side say they didn't think this is true, I went up to Senator Dodd and I talked to the administration. I said I am going to offer an amendment that says this in plain English; will you accept it? They did. So we will have that amendment accepted. If anybody ever says to you this bill is about giving more taxpayer funds to bail out Wall Street, you can say: Excuse me, you are looking at the wrong bill. Second, it puts a cop on the beat for consumers. The bill creates the consumer financial protection bureau, which will have the sole job of protecting the American consumers from the kind of deceptive and abusive financial practices that fueled the crisis. It will also look out for credit cards and other things. We will finally have disclosure in these dark markets. Remember, I talked about these toxic assets--assets made up of slices of mortgages, many of which had no value. They were in the dark. Now these dark markets are over, derivatives markets will be open, and the shadow banking system will be over--over. No more darkness but transparency, openness, and the rest that goes with it. Here is what the Dodd bill does. It curbs risky behavior on Wall Street. It says, essentially, no more gambling. There will be strict new capital and borrowing requirements, so you cannot go out and superleverage. You have to be able to have some balance in your bank. There will be an early warning system to prevent a future crisis. There will be a financial stability oversight council to focus on problems before they lead to a crisis. As a last resort, the regulators can break up a company that is too big to fail. Too big to fail is over. If anyone tells you it is not over, they have not read the bill, because this bill completely and clearly says if a company is too big to fail, the regulators can break it up. We will see protection against securities market scams. The bill mandates management improvements and increased funding for the SEC. A new office in SEC will be created to look at credit rating agencies. Remember, I mentioned that, the credit rating agencies were just giving AAA ratings to junk. No more. They will have someone looking over their shoulders. That is very important. I want to put the headlines back up. Clearly, this bill does what we need to do. The bill stops taxpayer bailouts, and if ever there was a time to agree on one thing, it would be that. Again, to eliminate all doubt, I proposed an amendment to Senator Dodd, which he is in agreement with and the President's people are in agreement with, to make it clear that failing firms cannot be bailed out. It is very clear because it says it in this amendment. It cannot keep a company alive, on life support, and it cannot stop it from failing. When it is liquidated, the cost of that liquidation will be paid for by Wall Street firms. I am excited about the fact that we are finally moving to this bill. By the way, the last sentence in the Boxer amendment is very short on this page: Taxpayers shall bear no losses from the exercise of any authority under the title. So if anyone says to you this bill isn't clear, I have to say they are making it up because it is very clear. Senator Dodd would never have accepted this amendment if it wasn't in concert with the bill. Again, I know that many colleagues have ideas for changing the bill. That is why we are here. My Republican friends decided not to make any amendments in committee, so this is their opportunity to do so. I look forward to seeing their ideas. I say that with sincerity. A lot of Republican amendments were included in the health care bill, and that is good. We want to see some of their ideas to strengthen this bill because, as Senator Dodd has said many times, no Senator has a corner on wisdom. We have to work together, and we can get our best ideas by working together. I am going to work with anyone on either side of the aisle who has the goal of protecting the American taxpayers and has the goal of protecting the American economy from future crises. I will vote for a couple of colleagues' amendments to strengthen this bill. I am looking forward to that. Let's not oppose this bill on the grounds that to do nothing is better, because, clearly, to do nothing will lead us back to this road of getting up in the morning and shaking in our boots about what is happening with unemployment and with the loss of our pension funds. It is extraordinary to go back, just to 2007, not that long ago, when this all started. We have to commit ourselves to never having it happen again. Now is the time for Wall Street reform. I am very pleased at this change of heart on the other side. I was ready to spend the evening here, and I am happy that I can actually go home to my family tonight. As much as I enjoy my colleagues' company, I would prefer to be with my family, my grandkids, my husband, and not have to spend the night here. But I was prepared to spend the weekend here or whatever it took because once in a while an opportunity for reform comes along. It did with health care. We are in an era of reform, and we have to keep doing it. It is all expressed right here on this chart. We know what will happen if we keep this going. Deregulation on steroids didn't work. We need sensible regulations, sensible rules of the road. We want everyone to prosper, but we don't want to see gambling lead to the pain and suffering that is still going on throughout this country. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that tomorrow, following the recognition of Senator Lincoln, Senator Chambliss be recognized for up to 20 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 359, H.R. 5146, an act to prohibit a cost-of-living adjustment for Members of Congress in 2011, an act that is identical to S. 3244, which passed the Senate on April 22; that the bill be read the third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record, as if read.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5147, received from the House and at the desk.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record, with no intervening action.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 504, which was submitted earlier today.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12:15 p.m., Thursday, April 29; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of S. 3217, as provided for under the previous order.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring the memory of a remarkable man, Ernest Braun of Marin County, CA. Ernest was a passionate photographer and avid environmentalist who loved sharing the gifts of photography and nature with his family and community. He passed away on March 23, 2010. Ernest Braun was born on September 13, 1921, in St. Louis, MO, to Maurice and Hazel Braun. At their home in San Diego, the Braun family celebrated the out of doors during Ernest's early years. Maurice Braun, an impressionist painter inspired by California's landscape, shared his deep appreciation of nature with his children. While still very young, Ernest was given his first camera as a Christmas gift, and his world would never be the same. The camera became Ernest's tool for sharing his perspective of the world with those around him. During World War II, Ernest served in the U.S. Army as a combat photographer, capturing images of the atrocities of war in Europe. Ernest's photos of concentration camps and numerous battles brought the conflict home to American shores. He served his country greatly with his portrayals of the human cost of war. Following the end of the war, he lived briefly in New York before he and his new wife, Sally Long, settled in San Anselmo, CA. Inspired by the beautiful vistas of Marin County, in the 1960s Ernest discovered his true love: nature photography. He believed strongly in the importance of humanity's relationship to the natural world, and he created images to help people see and maintain that connection. Ernest became an award-winning photographer serving architectural, industrial, and commercial clients while nurturing his dedication to showcasing the beauty of Mother Nature. Ernest was deeply committed to his craft and worked to ensure others had the opportunity to explore photography. Ernest taught photography at several schools including the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of California, San Diego. In addition, he traveled around the world teaching environmental photography workshops in Peru, Kenya, New Zealand, Alaska, Ecuador, China, New Zealand, the Galapagos Islands, and elsewhere. Ernest was a revered and sought-after photographer whose gift for the art form was admired by many. Ernest's photography has been exhibited in prestigious institutions all over the country, including the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art and the Time-Life Gallery in New York City. In 1968, Ernest was voted the Nation's top architectural photographer by the American Institute of Architects, and in 1970 he won first prize in the landscape division of Life magazine's photo contest. Many of his images have also been published in books celebrating our environment. Ernest was a kind and decent man with whom I had the great pleasure of being personally acquainted. He will certainly be remembered for his skillful photographic representations of the world around him and for his love and dedication to nature. Although he will be dearly missed, we take comfort in knowing that future generations will continue to benefit from the timeless gifts of the photographs he left behind. Ernest is survived by his daughter Jennifer; his sons Jeff, Christopher, and Jonathan; and his four grandchildren. Our hearts go out to Ernest's family and friends during this difficult time.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, last August, California Highway Patrol Officer Mark Saylor, his wife, 13 year old daughter, and brother-in-law were killed in a tragic car accident that shocked the community of San Diego and the nation. Their vehicle, a rental Lexus ES350, reached speeds of 120 mph as the family desperately called 911 in vain for help. This tragedy should not have occurred, and sadly, it is just one of many examples across California and the country of accidents involving Toyota and Lexus vehicles. These accidents raise serious questions about the effectiveness of the recalls and whether Toyota and federal regulators at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, took appropriate and timely action to protect the public. At the Senate Commerce Committee hearing on the Toyota recalls this past March, I called attention to reports that former NHTSA employees now employed by Toyota worked to limit Toyota's recall. In fact, Toyota's own internal documents stated that the company had achieved a ``win'' by ``negotiating an equipment recall'' on the Camry and Lexus ES vehicles that saved Toyota $100 million. It is a shocking example of a company counting profit wins at the expense of the public's health and safety. The revolving door that exists between government regulators at NHTSA and the auto industry is unacceptable, and it puts consumers at risk. In fact, the Washington Post reported that as many as 33 former NHTSA and Department of Transportation, DOT, employees continue to work on vehicle recalls and safety compliance, capacities that deal directly with NHTSA's oversight authority over the industry. That is why I am introducing the Motor Vehicle Safety Integrity Employment Act, to end the revolving door that exists between our vehicle safety regulatory agency--NHTSA--and the auto industry. My bill prohibits NHTSA employees from working for auto manufacturers for three years in any job that involves written or oral communication with NHTSA, representing or advising a manufacturer with respect to motor vehicle safety, or assisting a manufacturer with responding to a request for information from NHTSA. This restriction applies to high ranking NHTSA officials, as well as any individual whose responsibilities during the last 12 months at NHTSA included administrative, managerial, legal, supervisory, or senior technical responsibility for any motor vehicle safety-related program. My legislation provides penalties for individuals and manufacturers who violate the law. Manufacturers are subject to fines not less than $100,000 and the amount equal to 90 percent annual compensation paid to that employee. Finally, our bill requires the Inspector General to conduct a comprehensive study of DOT's policies related to post-employment restrictions for employees who handle motor vehicle safety related work beyond NHTSA at DOT, and DOT employees who handle all safety related work across all transportation modes. My legislation gives DOT the authority to take appropriate action as warranted. We need to ensure that consumer safety is not compromised by cozy relationships between government regulators and industry. I am proud to introduce this bill to protect the public and look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation as quickly as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, last August, California Highway Patrol Officer Mark Saylor, his wife, 13 year old daughter, and brother-in-law were killed in a tragic car accident that shocked the community of San Diego and the nation. Their vehicle, a rental Lexus ES350, reached speeds of 120 mph as the family desperately called 911 in vain for help. This tragedy should not have occurred, and sadly, it is just one of many examples across California and the country of accidents involving Toyota and Lexus vehicles. These accidents raise serious questions about the effectiveness of the recalls and whether Toyota and federal regulators at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, took appropriate and timely action to protect the public. At the Senate Commerce Committee hearing on the Toyota recalls this past March, I called attention to reports that former NHTSA employees now employed by Toyota worked to limit Toyota's recall. In fact, Toyota's own internal documents stated that the company had achieved a ``win'' by ``negotiating an equipment recall'' on the Camry and Lexus ES vehicles that saved Toyota $100 million. It is a shocking example of a company counting profit wins at the expense of the public's health and safety. The revolving door that exists between government regulators at NHTSA and the auto industry is unacceptable, and it puts consumers at risk. In fact, the Washington Post reported that as many as 33 former NHTSA and Department of Transportation, DOT, employees continue to work on vehicle recalls and safety compliance, capacities that deal directly with NHTSA's oversight authority over the industry. That is why I am introducing the Motor Vehicle Safety Integrity Employment Act, to end the revolving door that exists between our vehicle safety regulatory agency--NHTSA--and the auto industry. My bill prohibits NHTSA employees from working for auto manufacturers for three years in any job that involves written or oral communication with NHTSA, representing or advising a manufacturer with respect to motor vehicle safety, or assisting a manufacturer with responding to a request for information from NHTSA. This restriction applies to high ranking NHTSA officials, as well as any individual whose responsibilities during the last 12 months at NHTSA included administrative, managerial, legal, supervisory, or senior technical responsibility for any motor vehicle safety-related program. My legislation provides penalties for individuals and manufacturers who violate the law. Manufacturers are subject to fines not less than $100,000 and the amount equal to 90 percent annual compensation paid to that employee. Finally, our bill requires the Inspector General to conduct a comprehensive study of DOT's policies related to post-employment restrictions for employees who handle motor vehicle safety related work beyond NHTSA at DOT, and DOT employees who handle all safety related work across all transportation modes. My legislation gives DOT the authority to take appropriate action as warranted. We need to ensure that consumer safety is not compromised by cozy relationships between government regulators and industry. I am proud to introduce this bill to protect the public and look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation as quickly as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I support the recent actions by both the Senate and House of Representatives to suspend the 2011 cost of living adjustment for Members of Congress. Although there has been encouraging news on some sectors of our economy, too many Californians are unemployed or underemployed. It is fitting that we forgo a cost of living adjustment at this time.