Scott Brown

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I am a little under the weather, so if my voice fades in and out, I will do my best to muscle through it. It has been a tough three against one in a battle like I will have to do for the next half hour. I enjoyed the signs. I didn't bring one. Maybe I can borrow that sign because I agree, it should be made in America. How are we going to do that when we make America uncompetitive, when we don't give America the tools and the resources businesses need to be competitive worldwide? This is not a U.S. economy solely where we just sell to Americans; we have to sell and compete worldwide. I know I have said this before, but I am the new guy. I am the second newest guy here now. What I have observed is that there is plenty of blame to go around. We talk about President Clinton and everything wonderful he did. Yes, he did some great things, but he did it with a Republican Congress and their help as well. It was a bipartisan effort to solve problems. Unless I am mistaken, the majority party has been in the majority for the last 5 years, with the Presidency for almost 2 years. You don't hear about the problems we have had since that happened. I say there is plenty of blame to go around. Quite frankly, the rhetoric is white-hot. We should try to solve problems instead of pointing fingers at each other and saying that back then this happened or back then that happened and we should do it this way or that way. We have to focus on today, what is happening today. Right now, we are not competitive. To think this effort to so-called close a corporate loophole is going to help--have you actually gone out to businesses and asked: Will this help you? Are you in favor of this? It doesn't work unless we also lower the corporate tax rates to make them competitive worldwide; otherwise, if we keep the corporate tax rate the second highest in the world, we are just going to chase huge amounts of jobs overseas. We are going to exacerbate the problem we are experiencing now. I often wonder, why does it take the Chinese less than a year to build, say, a 500,000-square-foot building? I have experiences with shopping malls, just to put on an addition, and it takes years, the siting, the permitting, the regulation at the local level, the harassment businesses get. If you are a business or a corporation, the mentality is that you are evil, that you are not good. We should be embracing businesses for employing. What is a corporation? Last I heard, it is a group of individuals forming together to take advantage of protections and opportunities to expand and be competitive globally. Since when did being a corporation become a bad name in Washington? Am I missing something? How do you think we are going to get out of this economic mess? It is not going to be by hammering corporations and small mom-and-pop businesses and raising taxes in the middle of a 2- year recession. Are you kidding me? It makes no sense. High taxation, overregulation, reregulation, siting, permitting--take the municipal laws and regulations, couple them with State laws and regulations and Federal laws and regulations, then throw in the EPA just for the heck of it, or any other agency--the National Labor Relations Board; just pick an agency--then throw in the taxation levels at the city and town levels, State levels, the Federal level. Why do you get out of bed to turn on the lights? Are you kidding me? What is the incentive for people to actually keep jobs in the United States of America? In Massachusetts, the NFIB and AIM, Associate Industries of Massachusetts, have deemed Massachusetts the worst business climate in decades. That feeling is around the country. When I got elected, they sent a very powerful message. They were tired of business as usual in Washington, the disconnect when we deal with taxes and regulation and debt and spending. You don't seem to have learned the lesson. We are going to do something right now where we are going to offer a little piece of candy by offering a potential tax break for closing a corporate loophole. The majority party is apparently protecting Main Street. Isn't that nice. Apparently, I, the new guy here, am protecting Wall Street, apparently, and big corporations. I didn't know that. I thought I was fighting for the people of Massachusetts to get this body working together to solve real problems. Enough of the rhetoric. Enough of the blame. Enough of the posturing for the upcoming November elections. How about just solving problems? How about getting our country moving again and get us competing globally? We just can't wave a magic wand and all of a sudden the tax policy in the United States is competitive with the world. If we do this, if we move this forward, we will be in deep, deep trouble, especially if we don't mirror it with a corporate tax rate reduction to counter the moves that will absolutely happen almost overnight. If you think that by doing this, jobs are going to come flooding back--if you fire a foreign worker and hire a U.S. worker, you get a tax credit. Oh, that will really work. How about if you do this, you get a payroll tax reduction. Correct me if I am wrong, I made that offer about 3 months ago, a payroll tax reduction paid for by unallocated stimulus dollars. I got four votes. Want to talk about jolting the economy and giving money to people? Want to talk about helping corporations and businesses stay competitive? How about making the R&D tax credits permanent. How about fixing that 1099 mess? How about accelerated deappreciation for small and medium-size businesses to give them incentives to create jobs? Do you know how much money is on the sidelines? I have done my homework. In this position, I have to be prepared or else. Do you know how much money is actually on the sidelines? Corporations and businesses are saying: You know what, the health care bill, that is going to cost me about $440 million. One corporation in Massachusetts, one of the biggest employers, has the market on a device that saves people's lives; hires, I guess, about 25,000 people throughout the world. If we do this, if we close this loophole, so-called, those jobs that were in Massachusetts in the United States are going. So let me see, it costs them $200 million because they are a medical device company. Then with the implementation of the health care bill, that is another $240 million. So that is $440 million. So where does that come from? R&D, employees, expansion? Why would they hire or even talk about hiring workers? Why? That is just one effort, one thing that has been passed by this Congress and this administration to crush jobs. It crushes Massachusetts' businesses and jobs. We already had 98 percent of our people insured. Now we are getting lesser coverage, potentially longer lines, $\1/2\ trillion in Medicare cuts. Give me a break. There is no end in sight. The true numbers are coming out. So why would a corporation or a mom-and-pop business or anybody who is even thinking of starting a business make that effort? Why would they even bother to open the door? There is the high cost of doing business, transportation costs, energy costs. They are concerned about cap and trade. They are concerned about maybe card check. They are concerned about a whole host of things that are keeping them on the sidelines. To take this and throw this in, forget about it. The one thing I didn't hear and I thought I would was that Main Street--you know, you guys in the majority party, you are protecting Main Street. I didn't hear that I am protecting corporate America. I hear it in everything else. It is usually Wall Street. Up until this year, I have never been on Wall Street. I think I walked through it once. I am fighting for the people of this country, the people of my State, to get us financially viable, to get us to solve problems. Sometimes I am the 41st Senator. I am. When it comes to debt and spending and taxation, I am going to be the guy who is going to hold it up to make sure we don't go further in debt. When I got here, $1.95 trillion was the national debt. It is over $13.2 trillion now, in 7 months. I have been blessed. I am so honored to be here. You can't even imagine my life. I am the most honored guy to be here in this Chamber. I have been honored to visit the troops in Afghanistan. I went to Pakistan, Dubai, Israel, Jordan in that 7-month period. The thing that was fascinating to me was, from the kings and queens and prime ministers and leaders all over those regions, all they talked about was jobs. That is all they talked about: jobs so al-Qaida would not infiltrate their youth, to get produce to market, to secure the region so we can leave--jobs, jobs, jobs. I am sorry, Mr. President. If I faint, will you save me? Thank you. I felt it was that important to come and make my point that I have been here about 7 months, and we have spent 10 days talking about jobs. Am I on a different planet or something? We should be talking about jobs every single day we are in session. We have spent 4 days, 3 or 4 days talking about the DISCLOSE Act. Give me a break. Do you think the 15 million, give or take, unemployed people throughout the country are concerned about the political content of political ads in the middle of an election season to give one party a tactical advantage or are they concerned about jobs? I know the people I speak to in Massachusetts and throughout the country want to talk about jobs. How can we do it immediately? We can talk about the R&D tax credit and making that permanent. That 1099 bill--there is no reason we can't take that separately and put it forth in a bipartisan manner, clean up- and-down vote to protect the small businesses that are getting crushed through paperwork. There is no reason we should not be able to fix that. If we can't do that, we are in deep trouble. Accelerated depreciation, an across-the-board payroll tax reduction, a freeze on Federal hires, a freeze on Federal pay increases--I know it is not popular, but we have to look at these things. We have to look at entitlements. We have to collect moneys owed to us from contractors whom we overpaid or through fraud and abuse. Common sense, folks. The thing I kind of get sad about--I know it wasn't popular in some circles for me to work on the financial reform bill. I got a lot of heat. But I looked at it, and I said: That doesn't include Fannie or Freddie. I know that. Do we do nothing? We do nothing, right? We don't fix the regulations that have potentially been outdated for 50 years? We don't prohibit the closing of an entire industry overnight? We allow dentists and doctors and people who are going to finance the fillings in your teeth to be all encompassed in this thing? We are going to allow that? I am not going to allow it. I knew they had the votes anyway, but I took the time to work it through. I will tell you what. Since I have been here, that is the most proud I have been to work across the aisle with people for what we did--11 weeks, I think, working with every thinker and leader in this country when it dealt with financial issues. I have to admit, I learned a lot, sleeping 5 hours a day maybe, slept in my office trying to figure it out and do it right. I was the most proud to work on that bill in a bipartisan manner. I am part of history. Is it the best bill? No. Is it going to get better? I hope so. Can we fix it after November? I hope so. Did we close TARP? Yes. Did we stop too big to fail? Yes. Did we stop the bank tax? Yes. Did we do a lot of things people are concerned about? Yes. Did we do some things wrong? Yes. But--do you know what--ever since we got back after July it is as though we do not talk anymore. We are just filing bills with no hope of them passing. The Defense authorization bill--give me a break. I remember being in committee on the Defense authorization bill. I was sitting there in the Armed Services Committee, all eager, ready to go, being someone who was in the military. ``Gosh, I am going to make a difference. I am going to make a difference, everybody.'' You get there, and it was an invigorating process. We worked our tails off. The chairman said: ``You know, Scott, the things you are concerned about that affect Massachusetts and the New England area, we will do it on the floor.'' ``Oh, good.'' I find out when it gets to the floor the amendment tree is filled. We were offered 20 amendments. That is not good enough. The process is about just scoring points, political points for November. I think the American people are fed up. They are tired of the rhetoric. They are tired of the finger pointing. They are looking for leadership. They are looking for somebody to say: Do you know what? Sometimes I am going to be the 41st Senator, but other times when it comes to getting this country moving, I am going to be the 60th Senator. I do not care if I get reelected or not, but while I am here, I am going to fight every single day to get this country moving again because we are in deep trouble, folks. And if you do not recognize it, by doing this piece of legislation--this is helpful? It is not helpful on its own. They say: Well, it is the first step. Do not come to me with a first step. Come to me with a real plan, one that is comprehensive and can actually work and that can get some full support from your own party. Tell me you have every member of your party and I will say you are not being truthful. And then try to blame us as the party of no. With all due respect, since I have been here that has changed. But do you know how many times the majority party has voted with me? Zero. OK. So the party of no thing, I will tell you what, it is getting a little old--from the administration and the majority party, a little old. The numbers do not speak for themselves on that one. I do not want to seem like a downer, Mr. President, because you are a good man. I respect you greatly, and I respect the people who spoke prior to me. Being here and being in this historic Chamber--are you kidding me? To be part of this process is like the greatest honor in the world. Aside from my marriage and the birth of my kids, this is it. And to think we are wasting this amazing opportunity, this amazing opportunity to get our country competitive again and to get us firing on all cylinders. You cannot tell me we cannot find one thing to agree on. The leaders cannot get together and find one thing? Take the Energy bill. You are telling me we cannot do one thing, take the easiest thing everybody agrees on and do one thing, make it clean and get it through, and send it over to the House and make sure it comes clean and not filled with a substitution bill and comes back clean? Can we do one thing--just one? Am I the only one who believes this? I get that the bill on the floor tonight is important to the majority party, and I respect that. I do. I get it. And pollsters, if you listen to them--which I tend to not--when they talk about companies that ship jobs overseas, I get that too. I understand that is bad. But it is what is in play now. If we change this one thing and not change and reduce the corporate tax rate to make them have an incentive to staying, it is not going to work. I believe without a doubt this bill will cause real harm to the economy, and that job creators are united in their opposition to this legislation. I guess it is bad to make money in America, to pay the bills. I am in favor of corporations making money. I am in favor of the employees making money. I am in favor of free trade and free enterprise. I am also in favor of government regulation. It has its place. But the government needs to know when to get out of the way too and to stop overregulating. There is a role for government, absolutely. But government needs to know when to get out of the way, to let free enterprise, free market--you cannot regulate every single thing. You cannot do it. I have gone around. I have tried to do my research. As I said, I have to. The major employers in Massachusetts whom I have talked to--and we have a tremendous amount, thank goodness. They are not hiring, but they are there. They are not going to expand because of health care and regulation and taxation and the uncertainty of the business world. I remember I read it or I heard it, Senator Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee, said he was worried that this bill would put the United States at a ``competitive disadvantage.'' Those words are his, not mine. This bill puts the United States at a ``competitive disadvantage.'' I believe that in my heart. Again, echoing his words, this bill will make American multinational companies less competitive. So it is not just Republican Senators. My colleague, whom I have great respect for on the other side of the aisle, is questioning also the wisdom of this legislation. Having the second highest corporate tax rate--I notice my colleagues who spoke earlier said--well, I do not want to characterize how they speak. But the companies that are going overseas, yes, they are taking advantage of lower tax rates. Absolutely. But you would believe, in listening to them, that there are also lower labor costs as well. Yes, in some countries that is absolutely true. But in places such as Belgium and Ireland, I respectfully disagree. Companies are doing this to get a good solid workforce, paying good wages, but taking advantage of the 11-percent, 12-percent corporate tax rate versus a 35-percent corporate tax rate. But I have to take exception to the statement that everybody is going overseas to take advantage of the tax rates. Well, yes, this is a global economy. We are fighting a battle here. And when China can do the things they are doing and basically provide-- well, let's step back. I remember growing up, and you would look at space exploration, roads and bridges, and teachers, and all that, R&D tax credit money, all that great stuff we would use to lure businesses from other parts of the world here. Do you know where that is now? It is all debt service to China. So when I see and when I speak to the companies back home in Massachusetts, and they say: We need A, B, C, and D, I am like, we have no money. It is all in debt service to China right now. I would love to give it to you. So how do we get our financial situation moving forward? We are not going to do it by having the tax cuts expire. We need to address the tax extenders. We cannot play games and push it off and push it off. How about the death tax? Oh, my God, how many billionaires have died and we have not gotten a penny? Good for them. One over on the government. But is it good for the Federal Government to not get a piece? I am all for people getting money, but we have not even addressed the death tax. I remember in my first caucus, when I went in, we were talking about it, and in the second caucus, the third caucus, the fourth caucus, and on and on. It is time to kind of come together to solve some real problems so tax planners and families can kind of get their planning done. It is all about uncertainty. The reason we are in part of this mess is because of the financial uncertainty associated with the continued overregulation, the fear of more taxation, the fear of governmental interference, and the things we are trying to do. You can go on and on and on. So as I said, what is the point? Why even bother getting out of bed? Mr. President, may I ask, how much time do I have?

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Six minutes 20 seconds. Mr. President, I am fading fast, and I would ask if my colleague wishes to take the remaining part of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a very important piece of legislation before this body, and that is, obviously, the Defense authorization bill--a bill that provides the tools and resources for our men and women serving in the military. It has been my honor to serve on the Armed Services Committee with the chairman, who is sitting right here. Being the new person on the block, I have greatly enjoyed the back-and-forth of that committee process and the fair and free way we are able to debate amendments-- some of which passed and some didn't. But always, at the end of the day, there was a handshake and a smile, and we would go on and do our business. I remember a lot of us, especially the newer people, asking about our concerns, which haven't been addressed here, and I remember the chairman saying that we would be able to handle these things during the bill process when it came to the floor. That was the general consensus by Senator McCain and others--don't worry, we will handle a lot of these things on the floor. So I was actually looking forward to that fair and open process, similar to what we did during the financial reform bill. Unfortunately, what has traditionally been a very open and bipartisan process has, in fact, evolved into a dynamic display of political grand standing. My question is, What happened? I feel the majority party is using our men and women in uniform as a tactic to pass politically expedient legislation entirely unrelated to the Defense authorization bill, which, in my view, is not appropriate. There has been much discussion by the leader about his plan to add the DREAM Act as an amendment to the Defense bill. Let me be clear: I am willing to debate the merits of the DREAM Act, and even comprehensive immigration reform, but not in a manner that exploits our men and women who are serving in the military by using legislation that is supposed to be solely focused on supporting them, and additionally not allowing for that open amendment process that I thought was promised to us during the committee process and something I have understood as being part of the very important history of this body. As my colleague from Arizona pointed out yesterday on the floor, the extraneous legislation the leader intends to attach to the Defense authorization bill would never, ever be referred to the Armed Services Committee if it was introduced independently. In the past, the authors of the Defense bill, led by Senator Levin and Senator McCain, have been allowed to come to the floor and debate the process and enact necessary pieces of legislation that keep our men and women in the armed services safe and keep the military going. It is a traditional custom that, by and large, has been shunned. It has been shunned for political gamesmanship and posturing in favor of advancing the defense authorization process. Once again, Mr. President, as the new person here--well, I guess the second newest person here now--it is an incredible but not surprising turn of events that we have suddenly decided to refuse an open debate on the things we have been working on for some time--certainly since I have been here. An amendment process would allow for everyone's ideas to be considered, as we did during the financial reform and as we did during the actual committee process itself. Not only have the authors of the bill been effectively shut out, but so has every other Senator. Are my needs and the concerns of Massachusetts not the same as the majority leader's needs or the President's needs? We have issues that affect Massachusetts, and all the other Senators have needs that affect their States that they feel can contribute to the men and women and the way they serve and are protected. When an issue as critical as our national defense comes to the Senate floor, we should absolutely allow for an open process. This is too important an issue to cut off debate and control the process. I know it is football season, but we should not use this as a political football. It is inappropriate. On another issue of critical importance, as I said before, we spent 4 weeks on the financial reform legislation, and we had over 30 votes on that particular bill. When the process was over, everyone was able to offer any amendments they wanted. I am disappointed that we are not having that same opportunity here. We should absolutely go through that same process. In closing, I am hopeful that in the days ahead we will turn our focus back to jobs and the economy, where we can start listening to the American people, who are demanding we focus on reducing our Nation's debt, our out-of-control spending, lowering taxes on individuals and families, and getting our economy moving again. I believe that is the biggest national security issue we have in front of us right now-- making sure we have the economic engine to not only continue with our economic strength throughout this world but obviously providing the tools and resources for our men and women who are serving.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, today I rise to speak about our Nation's longest serving Senator who dedicated his life to public service. Senator Byrd first came to the Senate the same year I was born, 1959, and I took office just a few months before he passed away. Though I did not have the opportunity to know him well, each day I learn more of his legacy and his impact on what he referred to as the Second Great Senate. Robert Byrd was a staunch defender of the Constitution and the institution of the Senate. Many have told the story of how he carried his pocket Constitution in his jacket wherever he went to remind us all of that document's importance in making the laws of today. His speeches on the Senate floor were legendary and illustrated his devotion to the place where he served for more than 50 years. In his role as a Senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd worked tirelessly to modernize his State and end its economic isolation. But he did more than just serve his State. Robert Byrd's dedication to the complexity and the many traditions of the Senate was extraordinary. He was passionately, and often solely, committed to the Founders' wise intent that the Senate was to remain a bulwark against the power of the Presidency. Through relentless effort, dedication, and commitment, Robert Byrd rose from humble beginnings to become one of our Nation's most skilled legislators. I thank him for his many years of public service in representing West Virginia and our Nation. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family and friends as they mourn his great loss.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I come to the floor of the Senate to talk today about the recently passed Wall Street reform bill. I believe elected officials should come to Washington to solve problems not ignore them. The American people know that we need to enact major changes to our financial regulatory system. With the bill that passed into law earlier this month, Congress has begun the process of repairing a regulatory system that did not work as it should have and contributed to the financial meltdown that shook our economy in 2008. This action, long overdue, will help our regulatory structure catch up with the realities of the market so as to provide a more secure economy. Although no bill will ever be perfect, and I remain seriously concerned that we must take further actions if we are going to prevent another financial crisis, this bill takes important steps towards greater market transparency and consumer protection. It will help make sure that taxpayers are never again put on the hook for bailing out the financial sector. It strengthens the regulatory safety net in key respects. For these reasons, I supported cloture motions and final passage of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. I did my utmost to work in a bipartisan manner on this bill, filing or cosponsoring 27 amendments, working across the aisle on almost all of them. For example, we amended the bill to remove unnecessary provisions that would have severely constricted small startup businesses around the country as they worked to raise capital from angel investors. Massachusetts is one of America's hotbeds for innovation and business startups, and I was proud to stand up for small startup businesses and the investors who help give life to their ideas. Another amendment I proposed with Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, which was adopted 99-1, created a dedicated liaison office for military families within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, so that members of our Armed Forces and their families can fight back when they are targeted by unscrupulous lenders or sold fraudulent life insurance policies. As a 30-year member of the National Guard, I have seen the pain caused when members of the Guard are hit by financial predators. I was also proud to join my colleagues in supporting assessment and regulatory relief for small community banks and a safer role for the credit rating agencies in our financial system. Since the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs did not hold a full markup of the bill before it came to the Senate floor, I spent a lot of time exploring how certain provisions were drafted and how they might work if enacted into law. One of those areas was the so- called Volcker rule. I believe that the principles behind the Volcker rule, which was proposed in earnest only after the House had passed its own Wall Street Reform bill, are very well-intentioned and in many respects will be quite effective. The Volcker rule was conceived as a way to limit certain risky proprietary trading activities so that Wall Street firms start to look more like the safe banks, mutual funds, and insurance companies we have in Massachusetts. After the collapse the country suffered, no one can argue with a straight face anymore that all banks should be able to take huge risks on anything they want, whenever they want, without any regard to the consequences. This was an important issue for financial institutions and regulators across the country. Senator Kay Hagan of North Carolina also worked hard to find the right balance within the Volcker rule for bank asset management, and I would like to associate my views with her statements in the Senate Record on this topic. Without changes, the original Senate bill would have unreasonably regulated limited purpose trusts--institutions throughout our Nation that never should have been captured in the regulatory ``net'' of Volcker rule bank regulation. Since the drafting did not match the intent, this problem was addressed by clarifying that these companies should not be subject to bank holding company oversight or the Volcker rule restrictions by virtue of operating a limited purpose trust regardless of charter. In other words, bank regulation should only apply to the trust itself, not its parent and affiliates. Without this clarification, the Volcker rule restrictions, as well as the capital requirements under the adopted Collins amendment, would have led to widespread disruption in providing products and services to customers and investors, job losses, and uncertainty around the nation. The final version of the legislation appropriately does not regulate institutions with limited trusts--including mutual funds and insurance companies--because these institutions do not take customer deposits, make loans, or access the Fed discount window. The original Volcker rule also would have gone too far in preventing banks from offering appropriate investment services to their clients as a limited and safe part of their business model. At a time of deep economic uncertainty, when millions of Americans are looking for work, this could have a devastating impact on jobs in Massachusetts and across the country while unfairly targeting safe institutions and driving their business to riskier ventures. Even the Glass-Steagall law clearly permitted banks to serve as investment advisers, and yet the original Volcker rule language threatened the ability of banks to offer these services, including seeding new investment funds that they then offer to clients. Bank-affiliated investment funds are sponsored for clients and comprised almost entirely of client money. Most are not excessively speculative or risky investment vehicles--they include simple cash funds, stock index funds, and other nonleveraged strategies. Preventing banks from offering such services, which provide banks with a steady source of fee income, will make the banks more reliant on other more volatile revenue streams--a danger the bill was supposed to head off. Furthermore, in order to remain in the asset management business, these banks must be allowed to invest a very small amount alongside their clients in these funds so that all interests are aligned. Many large state pension plans, as well as large endowments and foundations, value such ``skin in the game'' investments as a key factor in deciding with whom they will place their money. If banks can't offer these services or invest a small amount to seed funds and keep skin in the game, institutional investors will be forced to take their money elsewhere, and in many cases, that will be to less regulated hedge and private equity funds. In negotiations during Senate consideration of the legislation, I advocated for limiting the maximum aggregate investment level in all bank affiliated funds to somewhere in the vicinity of 5 percent of a bank's tier 1 capital. In the end, the final compromise landed on 3 percent. Although it could be higher, this is an appropriate role for alternative asset management within the banking industry. To put this number in perspective, even if all of these investments collapsed, the bank losses would equal only half of the typical losses charged off from bank retail lending operations last year. To address concerns that fresh bank capital could be put at risk in the event of a fund failure, the final language makes it explicit that these investment funds are segregated and that it is against the law for the banks to bail them out. It is also important to remember that new systemic risk authorities have been created to identify and halt activities at key firms that threaten financial stability. One other area of remaining uncertainty that has been left to the regulators is the treatment of bank investments in venture capital funds. Regulators should carefully consider whether banks that focus overwhelmingly on lending to and investing in start-up technology companies should be captured by one-size-fits-all restrictions under the Volcker rule. I believe they should not be. Venture capital investments help entrepreneurs get the financing they need to create new jobs. Unfairly restricting this type of capital formation is the last thing we should be doing in this economy. Another area of potential confusion is in the language governing ``fund of funds.'' These are funds that invest in a wide range of other investment partnerships, hedge funds or private equity funds, so that investors can benefit from the good investment ideas of a variety of funds. Banks' investments in the fund of funds that they sponsor for clients are to be limited under this bill to only 3 percent of the fund. But that fund, which will be comprised of, at a minimum, 97 percent client money, under Dodd-Frank, is not restricted as a percentage of any of those investment partnerships, hedge funds, or private equity funds that it might be invested in, because the bank's exposure is still limited to 3 percent in the original fund, mitigating any chance of a concentration risk or bailout incentive. Finally--and this should go without saying--I want to make it clear that throughout all the negotiations to write the legislative language of the conference report, it was always clear to me that the Volcker rule was never intended to prohibit banks from offering alternative investment options as a part of a company-wide retirement plan, or as an offering to ERISA customers. Any other regulatory treatment would be arbitrarily punitive and would have no public policy impact. The legislation is clear on this, but I would also like to point out that the FDIC-sanctioned traditional bond and equity market investments made by small community banks for the purpose of diversification are not the intended target of Volcker rule restrictions. I want to spend a moment or two discussing consumer protection--one of the most controversial elements of this bill. During the crisis, more than half of the people who ended up in subprime mortgages with ballooning rates would have qualified for more conventional fixed rate loans. Some of that was caused by consumer greed, but it was also because of bad incentives and deceptive practices where the true costs of loans were hidden in the fine print. The new CFPB has the power to use its broad authority to simplify and dramatically improve the quality of information going to the consumer, and I expect that's how they will use their authority. I also expect that unifying financial consumer protection under one roof at the Federal Reserve will help to simplify and consolidate some of the compliance burdens on our financial institutions. Talking to local bankers, it is clear that banks are being forced to spend a lot more money and time on compliance. I worry about community banks' ability to compete in this area with the bigger banks. I am hopeful that the CFPB will improve the current state of affairs on both of these fronts. There are a number of other provisions in the bill that bear review. Section 113 of the conference report details multiple criteria that must be considered by the Financial Stability Oversight Council to determine that an institution is a ``nonbank financial company supervised by the Board of Governors.'' These criteria should not be given equal weighting. In fact, the Council should place most of the weight on one important measure--the leverage of the financial institution. If the recent financial crisis has proven anything, it has demonstrated the systemic de-stabilization that can be caused when too many firms are overleveraged, with only a slim cushion available to absorb losses. Excessive leverage is by far the most dangerous characteristic for any business. A poorly run company that faces numerous problems can feel relatively safe if it has limited leverage; conversely, a thriving, profitable company that has excessive leverage can be wiped out after a single stumble. As a result, leverage should be the primary consideration when deciding whether to put a financial institution into the special category of ``nonbank financial company supervised by the Board of Governors.'' I also believe that the size of an institution should be de- emphasized as a consideration for making determinations as to which companies are ``nonbank financial companies supervised by the Board of Governors.'' There is nothing inherently destabilizing or risky about the size of a large company. If anything, size usually coincides with significant benefits, including economies of scale and a diverse portfolio of assets. The Council and regulators should be very careful not to use size as a proxy for risk or it will capture some very healthy companies in the Fed supervisory web while simultaneously discouraging the growth of up-and-coming firms. Size is not as important a factor when it comes to the safety and soundness of an institution and it should be given less weight as a consideration. Furthermore, considering the burdens that come with being categorized a ``nonbank financial company supervised by the Board of Governors,'' it is critical that the Council make its determinations on a company- by-company basis and not attempt to make determinations by grouping multiple institutions together based solely on a set of similar characteristics. For instance, the Council should never make a determination that all firms in a financial subsector that are above a predefined size should be ``nonbank financial companies supervised by the Board of Governors.'' This would inevitably subject otherwise healthy firms to a long list of unnecessary regulations and will distract regulators from focusing on the most potentially problematic financial firms and activities. In title II of the bill, the orderly liquidation authority includes provisions that allow the FDIC to unwind firms that threaten stability. While I repeatedly supported amendments that would have relied more heavily on the bankruptcy code rather than this approach, I also believe that if used appropriately, resolution authorities can be an important and useful tool in unwinding financial institutions that threaten market stability. I will be watching closely as these provisions are implemented by the FDIC. Under this section, the FDIC has the power to ``take any action'' to provide disparate treatment to similarly situated creditors if the FDIC ``determines that such action is necessary to maximize the value of assets of the covered financial company; to initiate and continue operations essential to the receivership of the financial company; to maximize the present value return from the sale or other disposition of the assets of the covered financial company; or to minimize the amount of any loss realized upon the sale or other disposition of the assets of the covered financial company.'' Without clear rule writing, this language could be wrongly interpreted to include a range of unnecessary, arbitrary actions to favor certain creditors. Instead, the FDIC should only provide disparate treatment to similarly situated creditors if the sole purpose of the action is to cover the cost of indispensable services required to keep the physical operations of the financial institution or bridge financial company functioning during the early stages of liquidation. Examples of such services include the delivery of electricity, computer maintenance and janitorial services. The flexibility in these provisions should not be used by the FDIC to provide disparate treatment to holders of financial instruments, especially financial instruments that are widely distributed and held by multiple parties. For instance, issuances of loans, notes and bonds are normally held by various parties. The FDIC should not use its authority to discriminate among holders of the same instrument or holders that own different instruments that hold the same unsecured priority. In other words, it would be a clear abuse of these provisions if the FDIC makes a determination to provide disparate treatment to similarly situated creditors based on ``who'' owns the claim. The FDIC should take all necessary precautions to avoid even the impression of playing political favorites. The expectation of receiving a financial return consistent with similarly situated creditors is a bedrock principal of American capitalism. It is my hope and expectation that the FDIC will fulfill its obligations and report to Congress any actions that involve any different treatment of similarly situated creditors under resolution authority. The FDIC should disclose the details of any parties given disparate treatment and the categories and names of similarly situated parties that did not receive the benefits of this treatment; how much, in absolute dollars, and as a percentage of its claim, a favored recipient of the disparate treatment received, and how that compares to the returns realized--or may be realized--by similarly situated creditors who did not receive the favorable treatment; and a thorough explanation as to why the treatment was necessary to maintain the physical operations of the financial institution or relevant entity, including an analysis of any conflicts of interest that the FDIC, or related government authorities, may have had when providing the disparate treatment. I also want to be clear about my views on derivatives regulation. The derivatives title of the law is extremely important, and if implemented appropriately, will bring much needed transparency and accountability to a market that played a central role in the near collapse of our financial services sector in the fall of 2008. This bill appropriately regulates large Wall Street swap dealers for the first time by subjecting them to new clearing, capital and margin requirements. But these provisions also could significantly impact thousands of end-user firms that use derivatives to reduce their exposure to risk rather than merely to speculate. It is very important that we manage how this bill impacts these Main Street businesses. If the regulations imposed on swap dealers are inappropriately extended to Main Street businesses that are only trying to hedge risks, we could unwittingly exacerbate the economic challenges we still face. Many experts think that greater transparency will drive risk-management costs down for businesses in the long run, but the government clearly needs to go about the implementation of these provisions very carefully. While the conference report has many good features, it also suffers from a glaring omission: any attempt to regulate government-sponsored enterprises--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These institutions played a key role in triggering the financial crisis we suffered. To date, over $140 billion of taxpayer funds have been spent bailing out Fannie and Freddie, and estimates of additional risk to taxpayers runs into the hundreds of billions of dollars. We clearly need to address these institutions, which risk burdening future generations of Americans with mountains of debt. I look forward to working on this issue as soon as Congress and the administration move forward on legislative proposals. I believe we had a choice: do nothing or try to address a real problem that shook the very financial foundation of our country. While the bill was far from perfect, the final version was vastly improved from the version we started with at the beginning of the process. I believe it includes important measures that will help prevent another financial meltdown like the one in 2008 that left millions of Americans out of work and saw our economy take its worst dip since the Great Depression. Equally important, the bill is not funded through higher taxes, which is something I could not support at a time when nearly one in ten Americans is unemployed and our economy is still struggling.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I enjoyed the prior speeches. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I enjoyed them. There is plenty of blame to go around. We can go back to the fact that the majority party has been in charge for 4 years and President Bush is no longer in charge, so saying Bush this and Bush that--that gets old. We need to focus on problem-solving today. One of the prior speakers mentioned that it takes 60 votes for cloture to move things forward. Sometimes you have those 60 votes. Other times, there are going to be 41. There are going to be 41 when you try to overspend, overtax, and overregulate and, I feel, make it so businesses cannot move forward to create those jobs that were just referenced and that we need to start to focus on. Since I have been here, with all due respect, we haven't done much on jobs at all. That is frustrating not only for me but for the American people and the people of Massachusetts. I am standing before you today to once again consider legislation to extend the unemployment benefits, and once again this legislation, as we know, will add approximately $30 billion to our Nation's debt, which is currently $13 trillion and rising. To put that into perspective, I have been here about 6 months, and I remember that when I first got here, the debt calculator was about $11.95 trillion. It is now $13.1 trillion--give or take--and rising, with no end in sight. I find that deeply troubling. While it is clear that it appears we have the votes to advance this measure and it will pass the Senate, I have felt--and I have talked about it for a month now--that there is a better way. I stand before you to propose an alternative that will be fully paid for by using the bank account and not the credit card because rather than putting the cost on that credit card and passing it on to our children and grandchildren, it is the great-grandchildren who are being affected as well. Listen, we on this side of the aisle want to help as well, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do too. It is not a partisan issue. I agree with the Senator who spoke before me. I agree with her. But no one is disputing the value of these programs, not only what it means to the citizens of Massachusetts and across the country who are having a difficult time, but our economy, as we know, is slow. It is showing signs every once in a while of recovering, but it is very slow. People out of work need extra assistance while they search for that new employment. What I want to debate is whether we continue our spending ways to add to the credit card, to the debt, versus finding ways to pay for it with the money we have. I can tell my colleagues as the ranking member on the contracting subcommittee, looking at the amount of waste in Federal Government, we can find a way to pay for this program by using the bank account, not the credit card. I am flabbergasted as to why we do not think outside the box. Some of the speakers before me said the Republicans are doing this; the Republicans are doing that. With all due respect, I have made many efforts to work across party lines, as you know, Mr. President, and as the other Members do too. Bipartisanship is a two-way street. You cannot tell me we also do not have good ways and good ideas to finance, to find ways to solve these problems. The American people have made it very clear they want elected Representatives in Congress to start paying for the initiatives we are trying to push without raising taxes and start exercising the type of fiscal restraint they use in their own homes and that they use in their businesses. Last month's vote on larger tax extenders legislation raised taxes by almost $60 billion and increased the deficit by $33 billion. It was defeated, and I feel rightly so. Congress must start listening to the American people. They are telling us they are tired of the overspending, the overtaxation, the increasing debt, the overregulation, and the involvement in their lives. They just want to be left alone and be able to go to work, pay the bills, take the kids out to a movie, pay for their mortgages, pay for school, and they do not want to have this constant reaching into their pockets--just take your wallet and give it to them, just give it to them. Enough. We have to start listening as a body. Forget the party bickering. Forget all that. I am way past that. I proposed a fiscally responsible way to pay for everything we are trying to do today. We can find a funding source without adding to the credit card, to that debt we all know about and is rising uncontrollably. We cannot keep spending like we are doing. I know it and many people in America know it. This is not the first time Republicans have come to the floor to offer a path forward on emergency unemployment insurance that is paid for. We tried four times already to do just that, and each and every time it has been opposed. As I said, my amendment pays for the cost of extending unemployment insurance by rescinding unobligated stimulus funds and cutting other stimulus funds that are estimated not to be used for years. We have already heard the stories about the waste and the fluff. Let's get the money out the door right now. Let's put it to work right now. If this is an emergency as is being said, then let's get the money that is not being used out the door right now. My amendment reduces the deficit by $7 billion instead of increasing it by $34 billion, as the present legislation that is being proposed will do. Yes, my amendment is about hard choices. Recently, the Governors of both parties expressed concerns about how the stimulus funds have been spent and whether the true impact is accurate. States have also weighed in asking Congress for extended unemployment benefits and additional FMAP funding. I believe we have a clear choice where we can offset the amount of money we have and get it out the door, not using it as a Washington, DC, slush fund, as it is looked at in America. The amendment I am offering today represents another compromise-- listening to the concerns of so many Americans and their calls to extend emergency unemployment insurance specifically but also not burdening future generations and making sure we can actually pay for things, truly pay for things. As I mentioned earlier, I have been in Washington for a little over 6 months now. Sometimes, as you might know, Mr. President, it seems like 6 years. You have followed my voting record, as I said. When I see a good bill, regardless of party, I will support it, no questions asked. Once again, it is a two-way street. Bipartisanship is a two-way street. It needs to come both ways. Motion to Suspend In closing, I move to suspend rule XXII, paragraph 2, for the purpose of proposing and considering my amendment No. 4492.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend rule XXII, paragraph 2, for the purpose of proposing and considering the following amendment: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the following:

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation that I have introduced today in the Senate. The name of the bill is the Fiscally Responsible Relief for Our States Act of 2010. As you know, over the past week, the Senate has vigorously debated three different versions of the extenders bill, and we will be debating a version of it again today. Even though it is true each of these packages contained extensions of programs important to all of our constituents, especially in these tough economic times--such as emergency unemployment benefits, which I know we are trying to work on again today; increased FMAP reimbursements; and funding for summer jobs for the youth throughout America--it is also true that each of these packages contained billions of dollars of tax increases for businesses, and each added billions to our record $13 trillion and rising national debt which our kids and grandkids and great-grandchildren will have a difficult time paying back, and they will have the responsibility to pay it back. A lot of what I am proposing today in this bill, and other bills that we will probably be discussing, is whether we should use our bank account or we should put it on our credit card. That is all we are talking about. We are not talking about the viability of these proposals. Of course we want to help with summer jobs. Of course we want to help people who are hurting with unemployment insurance. Of course we want to provide FMAP and Medicaid reimbursements to help our struggling States. But do we use our checking account or do we use the credit card? I am in favor of using the checking account by using unallocated stimulus dollars, by finding other monies that are in the so-called slush funds that haven't been used in years or are still available or cutting across the board in various entities to come up with the money we need to fund these programs. As I said, no one is disputing the value of these very important programs, especially in my home State of Massachusetts, but throughout the country as well. Our economy has shown signs of slowly recovering, but people out of work certainly need some help to search for new employment and, as I said, States need help in providing funding for some of the most vulnerable in our population. But we also have to make tough choices, and we have to live within our means. It is clear the American people want their elected Representatives in Congress to start paying for the initiatives and start exercising the type of fiscal responsibility as each and every citizen in Massachusetts and in America is already doing. They are looking to us for guidance to show a better way. They are challenging us to do it better, to look outside the box and pay for things with the checking account, not the credit card; to not continue to add to the debt, continuously adding to the debt. As evidenced by what the Banking Committee chairman did--and he is sitting in the Chamber of the Senate--they thought about it a little better. They found a way to pay for the financial reform bill. They did better. They thought outside the box. Why can't we do the same? Today I introduce the Fiscally Responsible Relief for Our States Act of 2010. It provides for an extension of emergency unemployment benefits through November 30, 2010. It also includes extension of enhanced FMAP reimbursements for States. But also, as has been previously discussed, it includes the gradual drawdown of the enhanced funding because we need to send a clear message to the State governments that they must get their own fiscal houses in order and they cannot always come to the Federal Government with a can saying: Please help us. So we need to ensure that we do the necessary reforms to ensure their future budgetary viability is real and so is that of the Federal Government. Last, this proposal I am making provides important summer jobs-- obviously summer is just starting--for the youth in our cities and towns. The cost of extending these programs is fully paid for through the rescission of unobligated Federal funds including stimulus funding as well as cuts in other areas. In fact, my legislation reduces the deficit, all of this accomplished without raising taxes on businesses at a time they cannot afford it, or when our economy is just about to recover, putting more and more burdens on businesses and individuals in the middle of a 2-year recession. Some of these pay-fors are even provisions the majority party has supported in previous bills. My legislation is an attempt to compromise, listening to the concerns of so many Americans who have called for us to extend these programs but also taking into consideration not burdening future generations. Some of them are sitting right here. It will allow us to provide for the needs of our citizens without putting more debt on the credit card. Once again, it is the checking account versus the credit card. Commending Senator Dodd for what they did with the bill we are going to be discussing next week, that is a perfect example of thinking outside the box and finding a way to pay for a lot of these things we are trying to do. If we use these commonsense steps, we can get our fiscal house in order, and we will continue to put our country on the path to recovery. Madam President, I have great respect for you and everyone in this Chamber. I have been in Washington a little over 5 months now. I have been following you and others--it seems that everybody is following my voting record. It speaks for itself in that I worked to work across party lines to solve problems. But the thing that is a problem is, it needs to be a two-way street. Bipartisanship is not just from the new Senator from Massachusetts. It needs to be with the majority party looking outside the box, as Senator Dodd and his team did, to find a realistic solution to pay for a lot of these things the people are requesting, that they expect. But they also expect us to use fiscal sanity and fiscal responsibility to do our very best, to get the job done. It is not only good for Massachusetts, it is good for this Nation.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation that I have introduced today in the Senate. The name of the bill is the Fiscally Responsible Relief for Our States Act of 2010. As you know, over the past week, the Senate has vigorously debated three different versions of the extenders bill, and we will be debating a version of it again today. Even though it is true each of these packages contained extensions of programs important to all of our constituents, especially in these tough economic times--such as emergency unemployment benefits, which I know we are trying to work on again today; increased FMAP reimbursements; and funding for summer jobs for the youth throughout America--it is also true that each of these packages contained billions of dollars of tax increases for businesses, and each added billions to our record $13 trillion and rising national debt which our kids and grandkids and great-grandchildren will have a difficult time paying back, and they will have the responsibility to pay it back. A lot of what I am proposing today in this bill, and other bills that we will probably be discussing, is whether we should use our bank account or we should put it on our credit card. That is all we are talking about. We are not talking about the viability of these proposals. Of course we want to help with summer jobs. Of course we want to help people who are hurting with unemployment insurance. Of course we want to provide FMAP and Medicaid reimbursements to help our struggling States. But do we use our checking account or do we use the credit card? I am in favor of using the checking account by using unallocated stimulus dollars, by finding other monies that are in the so-called slush funds that haven't been used in years or are still available or cutting across the board in various entities to come up with the money we need to fund these programs. As I said, no one is disputing the value of these very important programs, especially in my home State of Massachusetts, but throughout the country as well. Our economy has shown signs of slowly recovering, but people out of work certainly need some help to search for new employment and, as I said, States need help in providing funding for some of the most vulnerable in our population. But we also have to make tough choices, and we have to live within our means. It is clear the American people want their elected Representatives in Congress to start paying for the initiatives and start exercising the type of fiscal responsibility as each and every citizen in Massachusetts and in America is already doing. They are looking to us for guidance to show a better way. They are challenging us to do it better, to look outside the box and pay for things with the checking account, not the credit card; to not continue to add to the debt, continuously adding to the debt. As evidenced by what the Banking Committee chairman did--and he is sitting in the Chamber of the Senate--they thought about it a little better. They found a way to pay for the financial reform bill. They did better. They thought outside the box. Why can't we do the same? Today I introduce the Fiscally Responsible Relief for Our States Act of 2010. It provides for an extension of emergency unemployment benefits through November 30, 2010. It also includes extension of enhanced FMAP reimbursements for States. But also, as has been previously discussed, it includes the gradual drawdown of the enhanced funding because we need to send a clear message to the State governments that they must get their own fiscal houses in order and they cannot always come to the Federal Government with a can saying: Please help us. So we need to ensure that we do the necessary reforms to ensure their future budgetary viability is real and so is that of the Federal Government. Last, this proposal I am making provides important summer jobs-- obviously summer is just starting--for the youth in our cities and towns. The cost of extending these programs is fully paid for through the rescission of unobligated Federal funds including stimulus funding as well as cuts in other areas. In fact, my legislation reduces the deficit, all of this accomplished without raising taxes on businesses at a time they cannot afford it, or when our economy is just about to recover, putting more and more burdens on businesses and individuals in the middle of a 2-year recession. Some of these pay-fors are even provisions the majority party has supported in previous bills. My legislation is an attempt to compromise, listening to the concerns of so many Americans who have called for us to extend these programs but also taking into consideration not burdening future generations. Some of them are sitting right here. It will allow us to provide for the needs of our citizens without putting more debt on the credit card. Once again, it is the checking account versus the credit card. Commending Senator Dodd for what they did with the bill we are going to be discussing next week, that is a perfect example of thinking outside the box and finding a way to pay for a lot of these things we are trying to do. If we use these commonsense steps, we can get our fiscal house in order, and we will continue to put our country on the path to recovery. Madam President, I have great respect for you and everyone in this Chamber. I have been in Washington a little over 5 months now. I have been following you and others--it seems that everybody is following my voting record. It speaks for itself in that I worked to work across party lines to solve problems. But the thing that is a problem is, it needs to be a two-way street. Bipartisanship is not just from the new Senator from Massachusetts. It needs to be with the majority party looking outside the box, as Senator Dodd and his team did, to find a realistic solution to pay for a lot of these things the people are requesting, that they expect. But they also expect us to use fiscal sanity and fiscal responsibility to do our very best, to get the job done. It is not only good for Massachusetts, it is good for this Nation.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Brown of Massachusetts pertaining to the introduction of S. 3551 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I want to shift gears and kind of get back to business a little bit. Today, I rise to discuss the extension bill we are considering on the floor of the Senate. I will be brief. As you know, this week our national debt crossed the $13 trillion mark and is on pace to reach almost $20 trillion by the year 2015. That is $20 trillion with a T. Let's stop for a minute and take note of that amazing number. I know I am the new guy around here, and I will probably be racing you home in a little bit to get back to Massachusetts and New Hampshire, Madam President. But in my short time in Washington, it has been a little unsettling to hear the words like ``billion'' and ``trillion'' thrown with little regard to the impact these incredible numbers have on our economy, both now and in years to come. For example, yesterday the Federal Reserve Chairman warned us that the federal budget is on an unsustainable path. In 1987, when the national debt was approaching $1 trillion, then-President Ronald Reagan called it ``out of control.'' One can only imagine what he would be saying today. Some on the other side of the aisle argued that voting against the debt extenders is about partisan politics and that borrowing another $80 billion from China to pay for these programs is somehow just another drop in the bucket. I have to respectfully disagree. That could not be further from the truth. When, if not now, when our Nation's debt is growing at a record pace with no end in sight, will we as elected officials start standing up and making the hard decisions we were sent here to make? Today I am saying to my colleagues: Please start to tear down the terrible prison of debt we are building for our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren. We need to start finding ways to pay for things and stop spending so much, stop treating everything as an emergency to try to get around the pay-go rules put in place before I got here. If we continue down this path of reckless spending and borrowing, I believe--and others do throughout the country--the consequences are dire. To be blunt, the push for higher taxes and more dependence on government debt threatens American leadership in the world as well as our national and economic security. As we continue to borrow more and more from countries that are not necessarily friendly to us, it leads us down a path similar to what we are seeing with the European model as it is decaying before our very eyes. Look at Greece right now, where unchecked government spending has threatened the financial stability of the entire European Union. We are at a point where soon our excessive level of debt will start to hinder the economic growth we so desperately need to get the economic engine moving and continue to create jobs and be competitive. Make no mistake, I believe we should temporarily extend unemployment benefits and other measures such as the summer jobs program and address the critical issue of lack of jobs for American citizens. We can and should provide temporary relief for the neediest among us, but we need to find a way to pay for it without taxing or resorting to borrowing more money. The fact is, we could easily pay for these extensions by cutting unnecessary spending such as the nearly $50 billion of unused, unallocated, or unobligated stimulus funds. Instead we are raising permanent taxes by more than $50 billion extra, including taxes on entrepreneurial businesses and investors, the venture capitalists that hope to be the economic engine and job creators of tomorrow. The administration and the majority party say these taxes are necessary to help to partially offset this extension, but these taxes are necessary because of our reckless spending habits. During the last 18 months, this administration and the Congress have spent more money than the previous administration spent on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Katrina recovery combined. It was with straight faces they promised to usher in a new era of fiscal responsibility. Last year the President and the Congress pushed through an Omnibus appropriations bill that included an 8-percent increase in discretionary spending. This was followed by the infamous, nearly trillion-dollar stimulus bill that has not created one new net job. In fact, the unemployment rate in Massachusetts alone since its passage has increased. The President signed another omnibus spending bill with a 12-percent annual increase and jammed through the trillion-dollar, government-run health care bill that was at great cost and clearly was opposed by the American people. The problem is on both sides of the aisle. The President has said he would like to go through the Federal budget line by line and identify wasteful programs. By golly, let's do it. Let's do a top-to-bottom review of every Federal program, weed out the waste and fraud and put what is left over to help with these needed programs. In his budget, the President has identified programs to terminate and cuts that would save nearly $25 billion next year. Let's do it. This could help pay for some of these emergency extensions. Yet year after year, Congress continues to earmark their special pet projects within the budget without any hope for any type of termination of that practice. In addition, we need to do a top-to-bottom review of all Federal programs, including the military, and we must get aggressive about reining in waste, fraud, and abuse and demand a clawback of some of the billions in overpayments made to Federal contractors that have been owed to us for many years. Let's use that money to help offset the amount we are trying to pay in the extenders bill. Fraud in Medicare and Medicaid costs the taxpayers more than $60 billion annually, and the GAO has investigated numerous programs that are failing to fulfill their missions. Yet more money from Congress is given to them each year, year after year. No respectable business would be run this way, not in Massachusetts, not in New Hampshire, not anywhere. There is no shortage of ways Washington can rein in its excessive spending habits while also funding these worthwhile programs. But it is going to require elected officials to make hard and even sometimes unpopular choices. If we begin using commonsense steps to get our fiscal house in order, we can absolutely put our country back on a path to fiscal security, get back to fiscal sanity, and get our appetite for spending and borrowing under control. Both are crucial for the fiscal and economic stability of our country. We can start down the path today by saying no to the extender bill that would add close to $80 billion to our over $13 trillion national debt right now, an amount we cannot afford and something our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will be forced to pay back. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I certainly want to offer my congratulations to the city of Chicago. Being from Massachusetts, having the World Champion Red Sox, Celtics, New England Patriots, Bruins, New England Revolution, I can certainly appreciate the victory that was brought to the city of Chicago. Certainly when the President has them to the White House, I am hoping he will offer the same courtesy to the NCAA Champion Boston College mens' hockey team as well.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I would like to recognize Dr. Joseph W. Bascuas for serving as interim president of Becker College and for his dedication to high academic standards and expectations. The Becker College board of trustees named Dr. Bascuas as interim president on September 26, 2008. Dr. Bascuas gave his leadership and support to the Becker College community in various ways during his tenure and succeeded in bringing a united vision to the college during a challenging time. Throughout his tenure as Becker College's interim president, Dr. Bascuas advocated strong steps to bolster transparency and the fiscal responsibility of the college, such as maintaining a budget surplus at a time of economic uncertainty. As president, Dr. Bascuas championed cost containment for working families by urging the trustees to freeze tuition and room and board for 2009-2010. He promoted high academic standards and expectations, thus increasing pride in the institution. I have been proud to hear of the record of Becker College under his leadership. Becker College serves more than 1,700 students from 18 States and 12 countries and offers over 25 diverse, top-quality bachelor degree programs in unique, high-demand career niches. Dr. Bascuas brought more than 25 years of experience in higher education to Becker College. In addition to his teaching and leading experiences, he has written and coauthored numerous papers on psychological topics and has presented at symposia and conferences. Dr. Bascuas utilized his great volume of experience and passion for quality higher education in his role as Becker College interim president. I stand here today to congratulate Dr. Joseph W. Bascuas on the completion of his honorable work as Becker College's interim president. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing Dr. Joseph W. Bascuas continued success.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I thank Senator Reed from Rhode Island for his idea and his thoughtfulness in trying to protect our troops. I want to discuss this amendment, as well. Senator Reed has a distinguished career in both the Army and as a Senator. He has always done his duty looking after the men and women not only of his State but also those in uniform. I thank him for the opportunity to work on this particular amendment with him. As a 30-year member of the Army National Guard, I share Senator Reed's interest and commitment to our Nation's soldiers and their loved ones. As we all know, they make extreme sacrifices to keep us safe and keep our Nation safe. This amendment would dedicate resources within the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to serve as a watchdog for military personnel and their families. As you know, our military culture of honor, courage, and commitment demands prompt repayment of debts. As a result, payday lenders often congregate outside military facilities. Unfortunately, the financial terms offered by these lenders are not always clear, not always offered up in free form, and typically lead to very expensive and bad loans. Other financial predators have sold military personnel bogus life insurance policies. These practices take advantage of our soldiers. Our young enlisted soldiers are particularly vulnerable. They don't have the necessary tools, resources, guidance, and financial assistance to make their decisions. They often spend time deployed far from their support networks at home, have steady paychecks, and promised pension benefits. As a result, those financial predators see them as a way to make money. As they risk their lives defending our Nation in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, at home they also wear a big target on their back. If a soldier gets into financial trouble with an unscrupulous lender, how is that soldier going to dispute those charges while they are deployed or getting ready to be deployed? Debts can pile up quickly. This dedicated office would be able to help sort out the truth and get them back to financial stability. This issue, as you know--and I am about to conclude--has received a lot of attention. Today, there was an article in the Washington Post talking about how extra consumer protections are needed for our fighting men and women, citing the specific example of car dealerships employing high-pressure tactics to trap military families into expensive loans. I urge colleagues to support this amendment, to put a cop on the beat to make sure our men and women in uniform have a chance to fight back against financial predators. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you to my colleague from Montana. I have enjoyed working with him very much over the last couple days and the Senator from Texas as well. I know we have been working very hard on this amendment. I wished to commend the Senator who just finished speaking as well--I have privately and publicly--for taking this effort and trying to work through it in a bipartisan manner because, as I have said many times, this is an issue that affects the American people in very serious ways. I don't want to rush in. I want to do it right so we don't have to come back next year or next month and try to fix problems we may have inadvertently created. So I appreciate the Senator from Connecticut allowing me to come and speak to him privately in his office and his staff and work through this and I am hoping we can continue with that bipartisan effort. As a reflection of that, I have signed on to many amendments, some by my Democratic colleagues and some by my Republican colleagues, and I am thankful the majority leader has said publicly that we are going to get a full and fair discourse on these issues. The one I am referring to today is the Tester-Hutchison amendment, of which I am also a cosponsor, amendment No. 3749. For more than 75 years, the presence of FDIC deposit insurance has meant that Americans who deposit savings in insured banks sleep soundly at night. That is kind of the basic small community bank. You know when you are giving your money to a bank it is not going to be treated as a casino; it is going to be protected. But as our banking sector has consolidated and large national banks have emerged, our smaller community banks have been getting squeezed. These small banks pay approximately 30 percent of the total of the FDIC assessments but hold only 20 percent of the Nation's banking assets. I feel it is time for the larger institutions to pay their fair share. This amendment will improve competition in the marketplace and help small businesses. Everyone knows small businesses across the country are having a hard time getting loans. Lowering the assessments on these community banks, I believe and others who are sponsoring this amendment believe, will help increase loans to small businesses. On a relative basis, our small community banks are far more active in the market compared to larger banks. As someone who was, in a prior life before I got here, involved in representing some of those banks, I can tell my colleagues they are the ones that are continuing to keep the economic engine going in these small towns. I am pleased the amendment we will vote on today also makes sure the institutional custodial banks and bankers' banks are protected from unfair assessment levels that are not in line with the true role in the financial system. This matters a great deal to my State of Massachusetts--the global hub of institutional asset management--and will allow us to restore fairness to the FDIC assessment system without imposing large, unjustified assessment increases on custodial banks. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Thank you, Madam President, and the Senators from Montana and Texas.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about a hero: Massachusetts Army National Guard SGT Robert J. Barrett who was killed in Afghanistan on April 19. I had the sad honor of attending his funeral this past weekend. So everyone knows, Robert was on foot patrol south of Kabul when an IED exploded, killing him and injuring eight of his fellow soldiers of 1st Battalion, 101st Field Artillery Regiment. He was 21 years old. Robert was from Fall River, a city of 90,000 in the southeastern part of Massachusetts. He was a long-time member of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Regiment. He geared his life toward helping others, especially veterans. He was selected for the regiment's honor guard in early 2008 and took part in more than 350 events honoring our fallen soldiers, including marching in the President's inaugural parade a little more than a year ago. His primary mission in Afghanistan was of the utmost importance. He was training Afghan soldiers so they would be able to stand up and provide security for their own country. Rather than spend his free time relaxing, he gave of his time and knowledge by volunteering at local orphanages and schools. Robert was a shining example of ``selfless service,'' one of the seven Army values. Before his deployment, Robert wrote several lines that summarized his thoughts about his service and our mission overseas. I wish to take one final moment to read one of his thoughts: I volunteered to put my life on the line for freedom and country. For my fellow soldiers, for my little girl, for my weeping mother and father. I am going to a land where American freedom is just a dream, a hope, a slow reality. I am an American Soldier. That was by Robert J. Barrett before he mobilized. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I thank the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. First of all, I wish to begin by thanking our leader on the trip, the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper. It was a joy to be on a trip with people who had different experiences, different military experiences, and take that experience and work it together in such a short period of time to form such a powerful team. If this is how every CODEL is going to be, I am excited to be a part of that experience. This trip enabled me--now that the campaign is over--to learn and make sure that everything we were talking about then was accurate. If that is so, how do we take that and use it in a productive way to give the troops the tools they need to be, No. 1, safe; and No. 2, to finish the job. My analysis is, General McChrystal's effort to do just that-- the new combined effort working with the Afghan police and national army, as well as local tribal leaders and our coalition forces in the military--has enabled us, I think, in all sincerity, to have the best chance to do just that; to keep our troops safe and ultimately to finish the job. What is finishing the job? Finishing the job, to me, and to General McChrystal and others, is to provide that safety, that security net around the citizenry in Afghanistan, to protect them and to allow them to flourish and start to grow and weed out the corruption and not rely so much on the poppy fields and ensure that they can bring their produce to market or keep their government safe and secure so they can start to be more self-sufficient. Working with our coalition partners, President Karzai, and others, I think gives us the best chance of success. I wish to thank the team members for their patience. It was a long haul, long flights--12- to 15-hour flights. We weren't partying there, I can assure you. We were there, up at the crack of dawn and going to bed late at night, working with the Ambassadors, the Presidents, the Foreign Ministers of every country we visited. It made me feel, first of all, proud to be an American and thankful that I am an American. In recognizing the true challenges other parts of the world face--and I know the leader of our team will talk briefly about the refugee camp we saw in Pakistan with 150,000 people and kids from 3 years old up to 18 years old in school, with the smiles on their faces, and seeing the hope and the excitement that they were learning for the first time in their lives--it made all of us look at each other and say: Geez, can we come back in August and help out? Because it was so intellectually rewarding, and it made me, and I know other Members, so excited to be there and to see the hope. What does education do in countries such as Afghanistan and Pakistan? It gives them the tools to make sure they know how to deal with the Taliban and other entities coming in to try to influence their lives. It gives them the knowledge to be able to say no. It is almost like the DARE program, the drug program we have in Massachusetts, where it is the resistance education program where they give you the tools to not succumb to peer pressure and take drugs and make bad choices. When I left that refugee camp, I felt there was hope there. I will defer to our leader to continue with this conversation.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, in conclusion, I concur with all the comments made by the Senators before me. One of the things I found most interesting--and I have a hearing in about an hour on the Afghan police and the contracting associated with our supporting the police force in Afghanistan--is that I was able to ask very direct questions to our Ambassadors and to the military and civilian leaders who helped me better understand where the $6 billion we have spent to uplift the Afghan police force has gone. Another reason I went there was self-serving in that it gave me the tools to make sure I can better inquire to find out on behalf of the American people where their money is going, how it is being spent, and whether we can find a way to spend it better. In addition to that, one of the things that was glaring to me is that even in Pakistan there is an illiteracy problem that needs to be addressed. I think that illiteracy problem, if not addressed, will be fertile ground for the Taliban to come in and try to influence the youth of that country. They have a lot of hope, yet they have some very serious problems. Once again, I thank our leader. I have great respect for him, someone I didn't know before we went. I encourage others to do that and have that bipartisan feel, as I tried to do often. We saw Senator Baucus over there with his team kind of shadowing us, making sure we were actually working. It was a lot of fun to see them over there as well, even with their travel problems. But I am looking forward to doing it again. I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to speak.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I thank Senator Roberts for bringing this very important issue to the forefront. Many of you know I live in Massachusetts. We have over 225 medical device companies there. Before I got here, I visited many of them and the message was very clear, that if in fact that 3-percent medical device tax goes into effect, it is virtually all of their profit for many of these young companies and established companies. Placing a tax on medical devices, in my opinion and their opinion, will dramatically affect jobs, not only in Massachusetts but throughout the country. Unemployment in my State is hovering near 10 percent and we should be doing everything we can at this point to create jobs and stimulate the economy. I am hopeful that in the effort I made in the beginning for a bipartisan effort to start jobs with the first jobs bill that we can look at the areas we are trying to focus on to make this bill better. I am hopeful once again, through the Senator's leadership and that of Senator Roberts and others who sponsored it, we will look twice at what we are trying to do here in order to pay for the so-called health care bill. As we are in the middle of a 2-year recession, taxing companies, especially vibrant companies throughout my State and throughout the country, I am fearful they will leave and go to other countries to do their business. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, we have a vote coming on cloture on a matter that has been moving through the Senate, the tax extenders bill. I wish to make clear that I will be voting for cloture. That does not mean I will support the actual legislation when it comes to a vote. That being said, I have serious concerns about the overall cost of the bill, but my vote for cloture signals my belief that we need to keep the process moving and allow the measure to be considered by the full Senate. I promised my constituents I would try to change the tone of politics as usual in Washington. There has been a week of debate. Allowing this bill to receive an up-or-down vote would be a step in the right direction. However, I am opposed to the bill at this point because it adds more than $100 billion to our national debt and provides no way to actually pay for it. Our national debt is at a record high, and we cannot continue to burden future generations with a mountain of debt and bills they cannot pay. I believe in process. I believe we should have an opportunity, after full and fair debate, to move bills forward so the House and others can get a crack at it and hopefully send back a product with which we can all live. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.