Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. This is the ATM amendment that I have had filed since the beginning. I have had it filed since this bill was brought to the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I have that amendment too. I didn't know there was a limit. I have two amendments. I have an annuities amendment and an ATM amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. I will not be able to because there will be a cloture vote tomorrow, and I will have been precluded for 3 weeks from offering my amendment. That is not quite fair ball around here. I said I would do my amendment in 5 minutes. I don't need to take much time.

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend, the leader, that we seem to have an impasse. I have an annuities amendment. I don't know what is going to happen to that. I don't know if they are going to bring it up, vote on it or not vote on it. No one has said to me what they are going to do with it. I have an ATM amendment I have been trying to bring up. I heard my friend from Connecticut--and he is my friend; I respect him highly--say: Stay around here tonight and offer amendments. I just offered an amendment, and now I can't offer the amendment because they will not set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, until we find some way to work something out, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank my friend from Connecticut. Every time I see my good friend here, I think of all the work that he did in getting our health care bill through, and now this. Talk about going out on a high note. I am sorry, as he knows, that he is not going to be here after this year. Again, I think the fact that Senator Dodd did the health care bill and got it through was a great achievement for the people of this country and now this financial reform, to make sure we don't go through what we did a few years ago again and to help our consumers have a little better balance in their dealings with the big banks and the big investment houses. This is a great bill, and I compliment him for it. I know it has been a long tough slog, as they say, but future generations will look back and thank Senator Dodd both for the health care bill, and I think for this financial reform bill. A lot of people may not understand all the intricacies of it--the high finance and all that stuff. Sometimes you can get a little dizzy thinking about all this stuff. But he understands it. He gets it. And Senator Dodd has done a magnificent job in putting this bill together. It is going to help protect our consumers in this country. So that is why I am proud to support it. I hope he doesn't mind if I offer an amendment to it, as I am going to do on the ATM piece. But I thank the Senator, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about an amendment I have filed along with Senators Schumer and Sanders, amendment No. 3812. The purpose of the amendment is very simple: to protect consumers from being charged unfair and unreasonable fees by ATM machines. How often have you gone to an ATM machine to access your own cash from your own credit union or your own bank and they charge you a couple bucks, $2.50, $2.25, $3, $4? We have seen as high as $5 in parts of the country. I wish to talk about that issue, how unfair it is. In recent years, Congress has acted to protect consumers by setting appropriate limits on the types of fees that financial institutions can charge consumers in areas such as credit cards, and spurred by a good proposal by Chairman Dodd, the Federal Reserve is now considering rules regarding overdraft fees. One area that remains unregulated is the fees consumers pay to use ATMs. Right now there is no limit that the operator of an ATM can charge a consumer for using that machine. Currently, the only regulation in this area--clearly insufficient, I might add--is that the operator must disclose how much they will charge. So when you access an ATM it has to tell you how much they are charging you and you can then refuse to do that, if you want. But this nominal disclosure requirement does nothing to ensure the charges are not arbitrary ways for banks and third-party owners of these machines to make an unreasonable sum on the backs of consumers. Some of my colleagues may remember that until 1996, most processing networks actually prohibited the operators of ATMs from adding an additional surcharge for the use of the ATMs. Instead, to cover the cost of the transactions, banks paid fees that passed between the consumers' banks, the ATM operating bank, and the card network. That fee of about 50 cents still changes hands today to cover the cost of processing. Simply put: By charging consumers these fees while collecting fees from other banks, these big banks are double-dipping on the backs of consumers. My amendment would end that double-dipping. Enticed by the prospect of easy money, in 1996 the rules that prevented banks from charging consumers were overturned by the big card networks--Visa, Mastercard, and the big banks. For this reason, in, 1997, I was a cosponsor, along with Chairman Dodd and others, of a measure introduced by then-Banking Committee Chairman D'Amato that would have required the card networks to restore these rules and charge nothing for ATMs. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful in that effort. But it was bipartisan. Chairman D'Amato was a Republican. As a result, because we were unsuccessful in 1997, the amount of fees that consumers pay has skyrocketed. According to estimates by the Federal Reserve, the average surcharge fee paid by consumers for accessing their own money is $2.66. As I said, in some cases--in airports and other places--it is as much as $5 for gaining access to your own money. That doesn't seem right to me, and it doesn't seem right to a lot of consumers. It is unfair for people to pay that much to access their own cash. If ATM operators want to charge a fee to cover the cost of providing a service, I can understand that. But that fee needs to relate to what it actually costs to process the transaction, not just the maximum they think they can get away with. To ensure these fees are reasonable and related to the costs of processing the transaction, my amendment would require the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to ensure that fees charged consumers at ATMs bear a reasonable relation to the cost of processing the transaction. The best data available suggests that the cost of processing a transaction today--ready for this--is 36 cents. Think about that the next time you go to the ATM and you have to get some cash and it comes up and says they are charging $2.50. The real cost of that is about 36 cents. Where does the rest of the money go? The rest of the money goes to the big banks and the big card networks, and they are making a fortune. We got that data from a survey conducted by the Office of Thrift Supervision, which suggested in 1997--the time we had our amendment-- that the cost of processing a transaction was only 27 cents. So we factored in inflation, and that would bring the cost to about 36 cents today, and that assumes any improvements in technology have not brought down costs, which, obviously, they have. We have new technologies, faster speed networks, which probably has brought the cost down. So when I say the cost of going to an ATM machine to access money is 36 cents, that is on the high side. So what our amendment basically says is that they can set up a reasonable charge based upon what the costs are, but we put an upper limit. We say no more than 50 cents per transaction. So our amendment would basically say anytime you go to your ATM machine they have to charge you a reasonable fee based upon what would be set, but in no case more than 50 cents, in no case more than 50 cents. Again, I would just point out that until 2002, in my State of Iowa, the law required any bank establishing an ATM had to make that available at no cost--no fee to all users. So Iowa did not charge any fees at all, and Iowa banks did just fine under this agreement. Iowa consumers were protected from unfair fees. But in 2002, this reasonable Iowa law was preempted by Federal banking regulators. Federal banking regulators preempted this. Again, in the absence of these laws, the Federal banking regulators have taken no action to limit the amount of fees consumers can be charged. According to the New Rules Project, national banks--these big banks-- collected almost $5 million in ATM fees from Iowa consumers in the first 6 months after the Iowa law was overturned. Iowa credit unions data said it was about $10 million just in the first year. Well, add that up, and that can come to a lot of money. Anyway, I bring this example of how things were in Iowa before 2002 because it is the kind of balance that the bill pending before us should restore. Quite frankly, things have tipped so far in favor of big banks in this country, and so far away from consumers, that we often don't even know what a reasonable balance looks like anymore. But the example of Iowa from several years ago in which consumers were protected from unfair ATM fees while banks still profited, is an example--I think an excellent example--of the balance we need to return to. So this broader bill that Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby have brought forward isn't antibusiness or antibank, but it does seek to return us to a situation in which the needs of consumers and the rights of businesses are considered alongside one another. It restores some balance for consumers in our society. When I looked at this bill, I thought: Well, there is one area that kind of seems to be getting overlooked. I suppose a lot of people might say: Well, $2 is not much. Well, here is the other unfair thing about it. The average person going to an ATM machine probably takes out $20, $50 to get them through a day or 3 or 4 days in the week, and they are charged $2.50 for accessing that $20 or $50. Someone else goes in and wants to get $500, and they are charged the same $2.50. So the burden falls more heavily on low-income people, moderate-income people who need to use the ATM machines to get some cash to get them through. That is grossly unfair. It is unfair that the banks and the ATM operators can charge whatever they want to charge. As I pointed out earlier, according to the Office of Thrift Supervision and the data they collected, the average cost of processing this ATM transaction is only 36 cents. Why are you being charged $2.50 or $3 or as much as $5? Well, that is what this amendment seeks to stop; again, to get this balance back where it should be. My amendment is also supported by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Action, Consumers Union, and the National Consumer Law Center on behalf of its low-income clients. I close by thanking my colleague, Senator Dodd, for his tireless work to move this critical bill forward and to again help establish that balance in our country between our consumers, our depositors, our community banks, and the big banks. As I said, we have gotten so far off track we hardly recognize what a balance is any longer. I think this bill does a great thing in trying to restore that balance. I just want to make sure that consumers are no longer taken advantage of by these unfair ATM fees that are out there, and that is why I will be offering this amendment at the appropriate time. Mr. President, I see the chairman is here.

Mr. HARKIN. Sure.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Theodore Dirkx and Christina Blackcloud-Garcia of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's proceedings.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor, today, to introduce the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Act. I am very pleased that Senator Hatch has joined me in introducing this legislation, as well as Senator Dodd, who has been a long time supporter of the Best Buddies program. We are also joined by 8 other co-sponsors, both Republicans and Democrats, demonstrating the bipartisan support for this legislation. The Special Olympics program is respected around the world as a model and leader in using sport to end the isolation and stigmatization of individuals with intellectual disabilities. For more than 40 years, Special Olympics has encouraged skill development, sharing, courage and confidence through year-round sports training and athletic competition for children and adults with intellectual disabilities. Through their programs, Special Olympics has helped to ensure that millions of individuals with intellectual disabilities are assured of equal opportunities for community participation, access to appropriate health care, and inclusive education, and to experience life in a nondiscriminatory manner. Special Olympics gives athletes with intellectual disabilities the tools they need to be included in society, and it gives society the understanding and tools it needs to include them. I can speak first-hand about what a rewarding experience it is for all of us who have been involved in Special Olympics. In 2006, my State of Iowa hosted the first USA National Summer Games. Thousands of athletes, volunteers, coaches, and families attended our Games, in addition to 30,000 fans and spectators. Ames, IA, was transformed into an Olympic Village, and it was thrilling to experience. Similarly, the Best Buddies program is dedicated to ending the social isolation of people with intellectual disabilities by promoting peer support and friendships with their non-disabled peers. The aim is to increase the self-esteem, confidence and abilities of people with and without intellectual disabilities. Equally important, the Best Buddies program has provided opportunities for integrated employment for individuals with intellectual disabilities. Research shows that participation in activities involving both people with intellectual disabilities and people without disabilities results in more positive support for inclusion in society, including in schools. This new bill is named in honor of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, who devoted her life to improving the lives of people with intellectual disabilities around the world. Mrs. Shriver founded and fostered the development of Special Olympics and Best Buddies, both of which celebrate the possibilities of a world where all people, including those with disabilities, have meaningful opportunities for participation and inclusion. In addition to reauthorizing the former Special Olympics Sports and Empowerment Act and providing an authorization for the Best Buddies program, this bill will also allow the Department of Education to award competitive grants to support increased opportunities for inclusive participation by individuals with intellectual disabilities in sports and recreation programs. I am pleased to be the chief sponsor of this legislation, which will continue our support for these important programs which promote the extraordinary gifts and contributions of people with intellectual disabilities as well as broader community inclusion. I urge all my colleagues to join with me, Senator Hatch, Senator Dodd, Senator Casey, Senator Collins, Senator Franken, Senator Johanns, Senator Mikulski, Senator Reid, Senator Risch, and Senator Snowe in supporting this very worthy bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor, today, to introduce the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Act. I am very pleased that Senator Hatch has joined me in introducing this legislation, as well as Senator Dodd, who has been a long time supporter of the Best Buddies program. We are also joined by 8 other co-sponsors, both Republicans and Democrats, demonstrating the bipartisan support for this legislation. The Special Olympics program is respected around the world as a model and leader in using sport to end the isolation and stigmatization of individuals with intellectual disabilities. For more than 40 years, Special Olympics has encouraged skill development, sharing, courage and confidence through year-round sports training and athletic competition for children and adults with intellectual disabilities. Through their programs, Special Olympics has helped to ensure that millions of individuals with intellectual disabilities are assured of equal opportunities for community participation, access to appropriate health care, and inclusive education, and to experience life in a nondiscriminatory manner. Special Olympics gives athletes with intellectual disabilities the tools they need to be included in society, and it gives society the understanding and tools it needs to include them. I can speak first-hand about what a rewarding experience it is for all of us who have been involved in Special Olympics. In 2006, my State of Iowa hosted the first USA National Summer Games. Thousands of athletes, volunteers, coaches, and families attended our Games, in addition to 30,000 fans and spectators. Ames, IA, was transformed into an Olympic Village, and it was thrilling to experience. Similarly, the Best Buddies program is dedicated to ending the social isolation of people with intellectual disabilities by promoting peer support and friendships with their non-disabled peers. The aim is to increase the self-esteem, confidence and abilities of people with and without intellectual disabilities. Equally important, the Best Buddies program has provided opportunities for integrated employment for individuals with intellectual disabilities. Research shows that participation in activities involving both people with intellectual disabilities and people without disabilities results in more positive support for inclusion in society, including in schools. This new bill is named in honor of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, who devoted her life to improving the lives of people with intellectual disabilities around the world. Mrs. Shriver founded and fostered the development of Special Olympics and Best Buddies, both of which celebrate the possibilities of a world where all people, including those with disabilities, have meaningful opportunities for participation and inclusion. In addition to reauthorizing the former Special Olympics Sports and Empowerment Act and providing an authorization for the Best Buddies program, this bill will also allow the Department of Education to award competitive grants to support increased opportunities for inclusive participation by individuals with intellectual disabilities in sports and recreation programs. I am pleased to be the chief sponsor of this legislation, which will continue our support for these important programs which promote the extraordinary gifts and contributions of people with intellectual disabilities as well as broader community inclusion. I urge all my colleagues to join with me, Senator Hatch, Senator Dodd, Senator Casey, Senator Collins, Senator Franken, Senator Johanns, Senator Mikulski, Senator Reid, Senator Risch, and Senator Snowe in supporting this very worthy bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, yesterday, in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, we learned more about the reckless actions of traders and executives at Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs was hardly the only bad actor in bringing our financial system to the brink of collapse in 2008. Traders and executives at many other financial institutions got fabulously wealthy by gaming the unregulated casinos on Wall Street. They walked away with fortunes, even as millions of Americans lost their jobs, their savings, and their homes. Yet as we witnessed in yesterday's hearing, Wall Street remains quite arrogant and quite unrepentant and quite unwilling to change its ways. It has the gall to believe it should remain free to do business as usual. To that end, I am told it has mobilized a legion of lobbyists-- an estimated 1,500 of them; 15 lobbyists for every Senator--to try to kill or water down, stop this financial regulation reform from coming to the floor. It is deeply unfortunate that every one of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--every single Republican--has joined with Wall Street in obstructing this legislation--every single Republican not just filibustering the bill but preventing it from even coming to the floor for debate and amendment. They keep saying they want to improve the bill. Well, is that not what the debate and amendment process is about? If someone has a better idea, offer it as an amendment. Let's debate it. Maybe it is a better idea. Maybe we will adopt it; maybe we will not. But it seems that is the way we ought to be conducting the Nation's business on the Senate floor. So I say to my Republican colleagues, Senator Dodd and Senator Lincoln have bent over backwards to consult with them and invite bipartisan cooperation. Their good-faith efforts have produced solid, commonsense legislation. But if people on the other side of the aisle want some changes, that is what the amendment process is for. We are not cutting off anyone. It will be open for amendment. Why are the Republicans so afraid of offering amendments on the Senate floor if they have a better idea on how we should do this? It is a bitter irony that, even as we spent a fortune in taxpayer dollars to rescue the global financial system, the self-appointed masters of the universe on Wall Street rewarded themselves with billions in bonuses and have geared up to fight the efforts to prevent--to prevent--this from happening again. Well, it seems Wall Street is all too used to living a different life, playing by different rules than the rest of the country. Nowhere is this disconnect between Wall Street and Main Street more stark than in the area of compensation. Over the last decades, compensation in the financial sector has skyrocketed, with some executives walking away with annual compensation of hundreds of millions of dollars, even as the inflation-adjusted incomes of ordinary working Americans have remained stagnant. This chart I have in the Chamber traces the financial industry profits as a share of domestic profits since 1948. From 1948 to about 1980, as you can see, it remained fairly stable, between 8 percent and 18 percent. Think about everything in this country, all the profits made. About 8 percent to 18 percent was taken by the financial sector on Wall Street. But starting in 1984, financial profits began to rise dramatically. We can see it on the chart, going way up. In 2001, financial industry profits were almost 45 percent of all domestic profits in America--almost half; 45 percent--up from about 8 percent to 18 percent. Today, despite the 2008 meltdown, they are back above 35 percent. So 35 percent of all the profits made in America are going to Wall Street, going to the financial sector. This is a concentration of wealth unprecedented in our history. This second chart I have in the Chamber contrasts this explosion of wealth on Wall Street to what happened to ordinary Americans on Main Street. From 1990 to 2008, real median household income stagnated at about $50,000 per year. It just stagnated. Since 2000, real median household income has actually fallen. From 2000 to today, real median household income has stagnated and has actually fallen from where it was. We had a steady increase over the years. Then, since 1990, it stagnated. Since 2000, it has fallen. That is what is happening to the average household in America, the median household in America. Well, let's see what was happening to our friends on Wall Street then. Just as median household income was stagnating from about 1990 on, look what happened to the average Wall Street bonus--huge. Wall Street compensation skyrocketed nearly 300 percent during this period of time. Since 1990, the average Wall Street bonus--I am not even talking about salaries; I am just talking about bonuses--soared from just under $50,000 in the early 1990s to more than $200,000 in 2006. Now, go out and talk to our constituents, go out and talk to the Main Street businesspeople who run our shops, and talk to anybody out in America today. Did their income increase 300 percent during that period of time? No; it stayed level. But look at the bonuses--and that is just the bonuses. I am not even talking about their salaries. These are bonuses. Well, I dwell on this and point this out because I think it points to a larger issue. In my view, a big reason for the financial collapse of 2008 is that things got out of balance and they got out of whack. As Glass-Steagall was repealed--and I might say this forthrightly--there were eight Senators on this floor who voted against the repeal of Glass-Steagall. I am proud to say I was one of them. I remember at that time saying: Wait a minute, there is a reason in the 1930s, under President Roosevelt, we did not want to have this happening again. So we said to commercial banks: If you want to be a bank and take bank deposits, fine; you can be a bank. But you cannot do insurance and you cannot do investments. You cannot do swaps and derivatives and all that kind of stuff. You are a commercial bank, and for that we give you FDIC protection. We also give you Federal Reserve protection. We said to insurance companies: If you want to be insurance companies, fine; but you cannot be a bank. We said to investment houses: If you want to take money in to invest, fine; that is your deal. But you cannot take deposits. You are not a depository bank, and you do not get the protections of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve. Well, in 1999, this Congress repealed that, and allowed them all to come together. I said at the time--and the record will show I said it-- I hope it does not happen. I hope all these smart people know what they are doing, but I do not trust them. I do not trust them because we are going to start having a lot of funny games playing. In the last 10 years, we saw the games they played. Well, after Glass-Steagall was repealed, the special interests attacked the very idea of government regulation. The SEC and other watchdog agencies failed to regulate and Wall Street stepped into the void. And they just drove our economy off a cliff, and ordinary, hard- working Americans had to pick up the tab. That is why we need this serious financial reform. As others have noted--and I say again--financial crises in this country should not be looked upon as floods that just come every 10 years or some kind of natural disaster that we sort of accept; that every so often we are going to have a flood or have a hurricane hit the coast or we are going to have a drought someplace. Financial collapses that happened in the past were not preordained kinds of happenings to our system. They happen because we let people run amok with large sums of money and gamble it. So, again, to protect ourselves against floods, what do we do? Well, we do a lot of upland treatment. We build dams. We build levees. We do all kinds of things to protect ourselves from these things. Well, there are some things we can do to protect ourselves from a financial collapse too. It is putting into place the kinds of oversight and transparency and regulations that allow our capitalist system to operate, but to operate within some bounds. I don't think anyone wants to return to the boom and bust cycle of unbridled capitalism that we had in the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century. I don't think anybody wants to go back to those days. Yes, we believe in a capitalist system where people can take their savings and invest it, make their money work for them, loan it out to other people so they can start businesses. That is the capitalist model. But should we let people take our money we have saved up for pensions, for example, or other kinds of investments, and go to Las Vegas? I don't think so. We want some rules and regulations so they can make true investments, so those investments can be used to start businesses, to invest in economic growth on a broad basis, but not to be used for gross speculation on Wall Street. That is why we need this financial reform bill we are trying to get to the floor. It will guard against future massive meltdowns that always cost us, not only money, but also in ruined lives. Strong financial reform must include regulations of the derivatives market. This is something I have been involved in for a long time on the Agriculture Committee, for all the years I have served, working with the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. I am pleased to say the legislation we are trying to bring to the floor includes the provisions that passed out of the Agriculture Committee under the leadership of our chairman, Senator Lincoln. Derivatives contracts have been at the heart of Wall Street's financial manipulation. From December of 2000 to June of 2008, the height of the Wall Street boom, the notional value of over-the-counter derivatives grew from $95 billion in 2000 to $683 trillion in 2008. I wish to make it clear. People say, Are you against all derivatives? I say, No. There are basic derivatives that can be helpful for our economy and for individuals, from businesses to farmers. Farmers use derivatives. Businesses use them to protect against currency fluctuations. That is fine. These are basic derivatives.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, since I see no one else on the floor, I ask unanimous consent for another 7 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. Thank you. As I said, I have no objection to basic derivatives. It is when these derivatives get out of hand; it is when you have a derivative on a derivative on a derivative and on and on and on. That is what is happening in the derivatives markets. So, despite the usefulness of derivatives in certain cases, it got out of hand. The bill we reported out of the Agriculture Committee will bring all of these transactions into the light of day. No more behind the scenes; derivatives would be reported to regulators in real time. It would bring the vast majority of these into clearinghouses and exchanges. It would help to reduce the concentration of risk and bolster public transparency. The legislation we are trying to bring to the floor that the Republicans keep blocking gets to the heart of the too-big-to-fail problem by prohibiting swaps entities from also being commercial banks. A commercial bank backed by the government or the FDIC should not be able to use that government backing to support high- stakes gambling. That only magnifies the level of risk in the banking system. It is unfair to taxpayers, bank customers, and community banks. I met in my office yesterday with some of the community banks in Iowa. They don't deal in swaps and derivatives. They take deposits, they loan them out for business starts, people who need a loan for different things. They are not dealing in swaps and derivatives, so why should we allow these big banks on Wall Street to do it? We also need a strong, independent financial consumer protection agency to guard against rip-offs and abuses in mortgages, credit cards, payday loans, and other financial profits to protect consumers. It is sorely needed. We also need to slam the door on too-big-to-fail financial institutions. No more AIGs or Citigroups. When companies make bets and lose, there ought to be a process for liquidating those companies, period. To further improve the bill, I have cosponsored legislation introduced by Senator Cantwell that would recreate the Great Depression-era regulation that prohibited the mixing of commercial banks, investment banks, and insurance companies. We ought to return to the Glass-Steagall law that worked well for so many years. Senator Cantwell has been a strong leader for this, and I thank her. I am also a cosponsor of the SAFE Banking Act offered by Senators Brown and Kaufman that would limit the size of the largest institutions. No more too big to fail. In addition, I support legislation by Senators Merkley and Levin that blocks institutions that are insured by the FDIC from proprietary trading with their own funds. We can't have high-risk gambling with money that is backed by the taxpayers of this country. Mr. President, America has been through financial collapses and deep economic downturns before. In charting the way forward, we can learn important lessons from the financial crash of 1929 that led to the Great Depression. FDR answered that crisis by implementing tough new regulations to stabilize the financial system, rein in risk taking and recklessness on Wall Street, and made the economy work for ordinary Americans. Because of those reforms made in the 1930s, we had decades of shared economic prosperity unprecedented in our Nation's history. Well, what we did in the 1930s needs to be our model. Not exactly the same--we have a different system--but it needs to be our model as we shape today's financial reform legislation. Financial reform legislation ought to separate these big entities out. We can't have too big to fail. We need to have transparency. We need to stop banks from engaging in swaps and derivatives if they are backed by the FDIC. These amendments--the Cantwell amendment, the Merkley-Levin amendment, the Brown-Kaufman amendment, and others I happen to be supporting--again, we can't offer them unless we get the bill to the floor. I don't know if they will win, but we ought to have the right to offer those amendments. I wish to thank Senator Dodd. He has been at the forefront of this fight for a long time, trying to bring this bill to the floor, to crack down on abusive speculation, to put in strong regulation, to have a consumer protection agency to protect our consumers. Senator Dodd has led this effort. I know where his heart is. I know how he is trying to make certain this system works for everybody, not just Wall Street. I don't want to be on a roll of bashing Wall Street all the time. I know that is a popular sport. Wall Street has a role to play in our society. They surely do. But, let's get Wall Street back to what Wall Street does best: accumulating capital and investing that capital in the economic growth of America. That is what the Dodd bill does. It gets us back to that system. It straightens things out and helps to protect us from these kinds of collapses in the future. I do not understand why the Republicans will not let this bill come to the floor. I don't mind if they want to vote against it. If they want to be on the side of keeping Wall Street speculating with taxpayers' dollars and letting these banks get too big to fail, that is their right, but why not let the bill come to the floor so we can debate it and amend it. If they want to change it, let them offer amendments, but we can't do that unless we bring the bill to the floor. I hope the American people understand this. I hope they understand that the Republican side of the aisle will not let this bill even come to the floor for debate.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for all the hard work he has put into this, he and his staff and the committee. It is a good bill. Again, we may not agree on every detail. There are some things I would like to see in it; maybe they will, maybe they won't. It is a good bill, a solid bill, and it will help us get control back again over Wall Street and all the wild speculations and it will help our country grow as it should, not in one small area, but broadly-based economic growth in our country. I thank Senator Dodd for his great leadership on this. I hope my Republican friends will understand that we have to get this bill up on the floor so we can protect the American people from these financial collapses that have happened over the last couple of years. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I am pleased that this bill provides significant support to continue outreach and default aversion activities through the College Access Challenge Grant Program funded at $750 million, more than double the amount we have provided for these grants in years past. However, I agree that these activities are very important and we could do more to assist students.

Mr. HARKIN. I do.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Curtis Sturgill and John Forristal of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, each year, we set aside April 28 as Workers Memorial Day, a time to remember and honor those who have been killed or injured or have contracted a serious illness in the workplace. Since the passage of the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act and Occupational Safety and Health Act four decades ago, countless lives have been saved and the number of workplace accidents has been dramatically reduced. Yet too many workers still remain in harm's way. In 2008, over 5,200 people were killed at work in the United States and roughly 50,000 workers died from occupational diseases. Millions more were injured on the job. This means that, on an average day, 151 workers lose their lives, 14 from injuries and 137 from job-related diseases. These are workers from all walks of life--firefighters, police officers, coal miners and farmers, men and women who are working to put food on the table to support their families and loved ones. These deaths are tragedies that can and should be prevented. Our entire Nation mourned when we learned of the terrible tragedy that killed 29 miners in Montcoal, WV. But it is important to remember that mines aren't our only dangerous workplaces. Our Nation suffered another great loss when we learned of the 11 missing oil rig workers off the coast of Louisiana, and we still mourn the lives of those workers who died in explosions in Washington State and Connecticut earlier this year. All of these incidents could have been prevented. These terrible tragedies illustrate the dangers hardworking Americans face on the job every day, and why we need to redouble our efforts to make every workplace a safe workplace. Every April 28, for the past 9 years, Mary Davis and her family have observed Workers Memorial Day in honor of her husband Jeff Davis, a boilermaker who was killed in a sulfuric acid tank farm explosion at a refinery in Delaware. His body was never recovered, most likely because it was dissolved in acid. The disaster also injured eight other workers and caused major environmental impact in the surrounding area. Motiva, the company that owned the refinery, pleaded guilty to discharging pollutants into the Delaware River and negligently releasing sulfuric acid into the air, both in violation of the Clean Air Act, resulting in a $10 million fine. For the same accident, OSHA initially cited three serious and two willful violations against Motiva for Jeff Davis' death. The Agency proposed a penalty of $175,000 that Motiva later was able to reduce through settlement for a total of only $132,000. I recently spoke with Holly Shaw, a school teacher living in Pennsylvania. Her husband Scott drowned after falling into the Schuylkill River while working on two barges, helping to dredge the river. The barges had no life jackets for workers to wear, and no life preservers in the event of an accident. The two barges were connected by a series of old tires that workers had to navigate to move from barge to barge. OSHA found Armco, the company that employed Scott, had committed four serious violations and was fined $4,950. Holly later found out that Armco was given the opportunity to plead down the fine and ended up only paying $4,000 for Scott's death. It is truly shocking that the company faced such minor consequences for its appallingly inadequate safety practices. Unfortunately, stories like Jeff Davis's and Scott Shaw's are all too common. Although a willful or repeat violation of OSHA carries a maximum penalty of $70,000 and willful violations a minimum of $5,000, most penalties are far smaller. In both cases, current penalties weren't sufficient to force recalcitrant employers to take workplace safety more seriously even when a worker is killed. To date, OSHA has cited Motiva for nearly two dozen other violations since Jeff Davis' death. In 2009, workers went on strike against the same company that leased its barge to Armco, protesting unsafe workplace practices, after a deckhand was crushed to death between two barges. As Holly said to me, ``another family suffers because of the same negligence.'' This has to change. We need to increase penalties for irresponsible employers who ignore the law, and give our federal agencies the enforcement tools they need to keep workers away from imminent danger. This week we held a hearing in the HELP Committee to explore these challenging issues. And, in the weeks ahead, I intend to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on legislation to make our mines and all our dangerous workplaces safer. Workplace safety is an issue that is very personal to me. My father was a coal miner, and I saw firsthand the devastating effects of the lung problems created by his work in the mines. We still have a long way to go to ensure that our sons and daughters, moms and dads, brothers and sisters all come home safe from a hard day's work, and we should not rest until workplace tragedies are a chapter in the history books, and we no longer have any need to observe a day of mourning for American workers killed on the job.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am joining with Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken to introduce the Federal Response to Eliminate Eating Disorders, FREED, Act. This important bill is the first comprehensive legislative effort to confront eating disorders in the U.S. Eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa are widespread, insidious, and too often fatal diseases. Today, at least 5 million Americans suffer from eating disorders. Because these diseases often go undiagnosed and uncounted, the actual number is closer to 11 million Americans. Adolescent women are by no means the only people suffering from eating disorders; these diseases don't discriminate by gender, race, income, or age. Eating disorders are dangerous conditions, but their consequences are often underestimated. These diseases can lead to serious heart conditions, kidney failure, osteoporosis, infertility, gastrointestinal disorders, and even death. The National Institute of Mental Health estimates that one in 10 people with anorexia nervosa will die of starvation, cardiac arrest, or some other medical complication. One in 10! That is deeply disturbing, and cries out for a much more aggressive Federal response. Moreover, fatalities resulting from eating disorders are grossly underreported, because deaths are typically recorded by listing the immediate cause of death, such as cardiac arrest, rather than the underlying cause, which is the eating disorder. But, despite their prevalence and very serious impacts on health, research funding for eating disorders has lagged behind funding for research into similar diseases. We simply don't know enough about the causes and consequences of eating disorders, or how to stop them from developing in the first place. We have research suggesting that there's a genetic component to eating disorders, but we have got to learn more so we can effectively prevent these diseases before they start. The good news is that eating disorders are treatable. With appropriate nutritional, medical, and psychotherapeutic interventions, they can be successfully and fully cured. But right now, only one in 10 people receive treatment. The FREED Act takes a major step forward in promoting research, screening, treatment, and the prevention of eating disorders. First, the FREED Act expands research efforts at the National Institutes of Health to examine the causes and consequences of eating disorders. We need to understand these diseases to more effectively prevent and treat them. The FREED Act also improves surveillance and data collection systems at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention so we'll have accurate information and epidemiological data on eating disorders. Second, the FREED Act expands access to treatment services and screening for eating disorders for Medicaid beneficiaries, and creates a patient advocacy network that will help individuals with eating disorders find treatment. Furthermore, the FREED Act improves the training and education of health care providers and educators so they know how to identify and treat individuals suffering from eating disorders. Finally, we need to step up efforts to prevent these diseases in the first place. As I have said so many times, we don't have a genuine health care system in America, we have a sick care system. In other words, if you get sick, you get treatment. But we can spend just pennies on the dollar to prevent disease and illness in the first place by placing a much more robust emphasis on wellness, nutrition, physical activity, and public health. With this in mind, the FREED Act authorizes grants to develop and implement evidence-based prevention programs and promote healthy eating behaviors in schools, athletic programs, and other community-based programs. Sadly, eating disorders are not rare. These diseases touch the lives of so many of our families and friends. Nearly half of all Americans personally know someone with an eating disorder. We have got to do a better job at the Federal level of investing in research, treatment, and prevention. The FREED Act builds on the investments we made in prevention, wellness, and mental health in health reform and mental health parity. I thank Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken for partnering with me on this bill, and urge our colleagues to join us in dramatically stepping up the federal response to eating disorders. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am joining with Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken to introduce the Federal Response to Eliminate Eating Disorders, FREED, Act. This important bill is the first comprehensive legislative effort to confront eating disorders in the U.S. Eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa are widespread, insidious, and too often fatal diseases. Today, at least 5 million Americans suffer from eating disorders. Because these diseases often go undiagnosed and uncounted, the actual number is closer to 11 million Americans. Adolescent women are by no means the only people suffering from eating disorders; these diseases don't discriminate by gender, race, income, or age. Eating disorders are dangerous conditions, but their consequences are often underestimated. These diseases can lead to serious heart conditions, kidney failure, osteoporosis, infertility, gastrointestinal disorders, and even death. The National Institute of Mental Health estimates that one in 10 people with anorexia nervosa will die of starvation, cardiac arrest, or some other medical complication. One in 10! That is deeply disturbing, and cries out for a much more aggressive Federal response. Moreover, fatalities resulting from eating disorders are grossly underreported, because deaths are typically recorded by listing the immediate cause of death, such as cardiac arrest, rather than the underlying cause, which is the eating disorder. But, despite their prevalence and very serious impacts on health, research funding for eating disorders has lagged behind funding for research into similar diseases. We simply don't know enough about the causes and consequences of eating disorders, or how to stop them from developing in the first place. We have research suggesting that there's a genetic component to eating disorders, but we have got to learn more so we can effectively prevent these diseases before they start. The good news is that eating disorders are treatable. With appropriate nutritional, medical, and psychotherapeutic interventions, they can be successfully and fully cured. But right now, only one in 10 people receive treatment. The FREED Act takes a major step forward in promoting research, screening, treatment, and the prevention of eating disorders. First, the FREED Act expands research efforts at the National Institutes of Health to examine the causes and consequences of eating disorders. We need to understand these diseases to more effectively prevent and treat them. The FREED Act also improves surveillance and data collection systems at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention so we'll have accurate information and epidemiological data on eating disorders. Second, the FREED Act expands access to treatment services and screening for eating disorders for Medicaid beneficiaries, and creates a patient advocacy network that will help individuals with eating disorders find treatment. Furthermore, the FREED Act improves the training and education of health care providers and educators so they know how to identify and treat individuals suffering from eating disorders. Finally, we need to step up efforts to prevent these diseases in the first place. As I have said so many times, we don't have a genuine health care system in America, we have a sick care system. In other words, if you get sick, you get treatment. But we can spend just pennies on the dollar to prevent disease and illness in the first place by placing a much more robust emphasis on wellness, nutrition, physical activity, and public health. With this in mind, the FREED Act authorizes grants to develop and implement evidence-based prevention programs and promote healthy eating behaviors in schools, athletic programs, and other community-based programs. Sadly, eating disorders are not rare. These diseases touch the lives of so many of our families and friends. Nearly half of all Americans personally know someone with an eating disorder. We have got to do a better job at the Federal level of investing in research, treatment, and prevention. The FREED Act builds on the investments we made in prevention, wellness, and mental health in health reform and mental health parity. I thank Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken for partnering with me on this bill, and urge our colleagues to join us in dramatically stepping up the federal response to eating disorders. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today Americans are observing Equal Pay Day. It is the date that marks the 110 extra days that women must work into 2010 in order to equal what men earned in 2009. In 1963, responding to the fact that the 25 million female workers in our workforce earned just 60 percent of the average pay for men, Congress enacted the Equal Pay Act to end this brazen yet widely tolerated discrimination. Over the past 47 years, we have made progress towards the great goal of equal pay for women. But, progress has been stalled in the last decade. As we observe Equal Pay Day this year, it is a sad fact that too many women in this country still do not get paid what men do for the exact same work. On average, a woman makes only 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes. The circumstances are even worse for Latinas and women of color. This is wrong and unjust. But, even more, it threatens the economic security of our families. Millions of Americans are dependent on a woman's paycheck just to get by, put food on the table, pay for child care, and deal with rising health care bills. Two-thirds of mothers bring home at least a quarter of their family's earnings. In many families, the woman is the sole breadwinner. And, during the latest economic downturn, more men have lost jobs than women, making households even more dependent than ever on women's earnings. The fact is, America's women are working harder than ever, but they are not being fairly compensated for their contributions to our economy. On average, women lose an estimated $700,000 over their lifetimes due to unequal pay practices, and this inequality means real hardships for their families. And, while many factors influence a worker's earnings--including educational attainment, work experience, and family status--even when controlling for many of these variables, a substantial portion of the wage gap cannot be explained by anything but discrimination. This issue is highlighted by the experience of Lilly Ledbetter. Over nearly two decades of work, Lilly received performance awards and outstanding reviews. Yet, late in her career, she learned, through an anonymous note, that she had been paid significantly less than men in the company doing the exact same job. When she sued, a jury reviewed the evidence and concluded that she was paid less because of her gender. Outrageously, the Supreme Court reversed the jury's verdict. They held that, even though Lilly's company, like so many others that discriminate, do so covertly and do not reveal what male workers earn, Lilly somehow should have known that she had been discriminated against within 180 days of when she was hired. Because workers like Lilly do not learn of pay inequities for years, the decision left no recourse for her and for other victims of wage discrimination. Largely because of Lilly's determination to win justice for women, the first legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Very simply, this law reversed the Court's severely flawed decision. We celebrate enactment of this important law, but we must recognize that it was only a first step. We need to do much more. First, there are too many loopholes and too many barriers to effective enforcement of existing laws. That is why I strongly support the Paycheck Fairness Act. This bill--sponsored by Senator Dodd, Senator Mikulski, and Representative Rosa DeLauro--would strengthen penalties for discrimination and give women the tools they need to identify and confront unfair treatment. In January, the House of Representatives passed the bill overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. And, last month, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which I chair, held a hearing on this long-overdue bill. I hope that the Senate can pass the bill and send it to the President's desk this year. In addition, we must recognize that the problem of unequal pay goes beyond insidious discrimination. As a nation, we unjustly devalue jobs traditionally performed by women, even when they require comparable skills to jobs traditionally performed by men. Why is a housekeeper worth less than a janitor? Why is a parking meter reader worth less than an electrical meter reader? To address this more subtle discrimination, last year on Equal Pay Day I introduced the Fair Pay Act to ensure that employers provide equal pay for jobs that are equivalent in skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions. My bill would also require employers to publicly disclose their job categories and their pay scales, without requiring specific information on individual employees. Giving people better bargaining information in the first place will help alleviate the need for costly litigation by giving employees the leverage they need to have informed pay discussions with their employers. Right now, women who suspect pay discrimination must file a lawsuit and go through a drawn out legal discovery process to find out whether they make less than the man working beside them. With pay statistics readily available, this expensive process could be avoided. In fact, I asked Lilly Ledbetter: If the Fair Pay Act had been law, would it have prevented her wage discrimination case? She made clear that, if she had been aware of the information about pay scales that the bill provides, she would have known she was a victim of sex discrimination. The Fair Pay Act removes many of the systematic barriers that lead to unequal pay. We must act this year to pass this important legislation to eliminate the longstanding biases that prevent America's women workers from achieving true equality in the workplace. On this Equal Pay Day, let us recommit ourselves to eliminating discrimination in the workplace and ensuring that all Americans receive equal pay for equal work. America's working women--and the families that rely on them--deserve fairness on the job. And, let me be clear, as chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I pledge to fight pay discrimination until we have achieved true equality in the workplace and there is no longer a need to observe Equal Pay Day.