Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I thank my colleague for his remarks and concur in all respects.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to engage my colleagues, Senators Dodd and Levin, in a colloquy regarding some key aspects of our legislative intent behind sections 619 through 621, the Merkley-Levin rule on proprietary trading and conflicts of interest as included in the conference report. First, I would like to clarify several issues surrounding the ``de minimis'' investment provisions in subsection (d)(4). These provisions complement subsection (d)(1)(G), which permits firms to offer hedge funds and private equity funds to clients. ``De minimis'' investments under paragraph (4) are intended to facilitate these offerings principally by allowing a firm to start new funds and to maintain coinvestments in funds, which help the firm align its interests with those of its clients. During the initial start-up period, during which time firms may maintain 100 percent ownership, the fund should be relatively small, but sufficient to effectively implement the investment strategy. After the start up period, a firm may keep an ongoing ``alignment of interest'' coinvestment at 3 percent of a fund. Our intent is not to allow for large, revolving ``seed'' funds to evade the strong restrictions on proprietary trading of this section, and regulators will need to be vigilant against such evasion. The aggregate of all seed and coinvestments should be immaterial to the banking entity, and never exceed 3 percent of a firm's Tier 1 capital. Second, I would like to clarify the intent of subsection (f)'s provisions to prohibit banking entities from bailing out funds they manage, sponsor, or advise, as well as funds in which those funds invest. The ``permitted services'' provisions outlined in subsection (f) are intended to permit banks to maintain certain limited ``prime brokerage'' service relationships with unaffiliated funds in which a fund-of-funds that they manage invests, but are not intended to permit fund-of-fund structures to be used to weaken or undermine the prohibition on bailouts. Given the risk that a banking entity may want to bail out a failing fund directly or its investors, the ``permitted services'' exception must be implemented in a narrow, well-defined, and arms-length manner and regulators are not empowered to create loopholes allowing high-risk activities like leveraged securities lending or repurchase agreements. While we implement a number of legal restrictions designed to ensure that prime brokerage activities are not used to bail out a fund, we expect the regulators will nevertheless need to be vigilant. Before I yield the floor to Senator Levin to discuss several additional items, let me say a word of thanks to my good friend, Chairman Dodd, for taking the time to join me in clarifying these provisions. I also honor him for his extraordinary leadership on the entire financial reform package. As a fellow member of the Banking Committee, it has been a privilege to work with him on the entire bill, and not just these critical provisions. I also would like to recognize Senator Levin, whose determined efforts with his Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations helped highlight the causes of the recent crisis, as well as the need for reform. It has been a privilege working with him on this provision.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Dodd for yielding to me and for his leadership on financial reform. I yield to Senator Levin.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to address the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill and to share the reasons it makes a great deal of sense to restore the lane markers and traffic signals to our financial system--lane markers and traffic signals that were ripped away carelessly, thoughtlessly over the course of a decade and led to the economic house of cards that melted down last year, doing enormous damage to America's working families. There may be many in the financial world who feel pretty good about the most recent billion- dollar quarterly profits or million-dollar bonuses, but families in America's working world are not feeling so good. They are looking at their retirement savings being decimated. They look at the value of their house and realize it is worth less than it was 6 years ago. For many families, the amount they owe on the house is more than it is now worth. Families are looking at lost jobs and lost health care that went with those jobs. They are looking at an economy that struggling to recover, that is providing them few opportunities to get back on their feet. The meltdown triggered by the economic house of cards built up over the last decade is enormous. It is not only the damage done to families, it is the damage done to the economy as a whole. We cannot talk to any room with owners of small businesses and not hear stories about frozen lending, about credit lines cut in half, about opportunities to expand a business, but, despite a regular banking relationship extended over a decade, that bank cannot now extend the loans that would enable them to seize that opportunity to create jobs. We still have massive disruption in our securities market that provides the credit that fuels not only home mortgages but many other parts of the economy. This economic meltdown has been a huge factor in contributing to the national debt. In every possible way, the absence of responsible lane markers and traffic signals has wreaked havoc on the American family and the American economy. We are here now to set that straight, to restore those lane markers and traffic signals. What really happened? It can be summed up in two words: irresponsible deregulation. Let's get into the details a bit further. Let's start with irresponsible deregulation that led to new predatory mortgage practices. One of those practices was liar loans, loans in which the loan officer was making up the numbers and putting them in because they knew they could turn around and sell that loan to Wall Street and have no responsibility for whether that family succeeded in making the payments. Another predatory practice was steering payments--mortgage originators getting paid huge bonuses to sign people up for mortgages that had in the fine print hidden exploding interest rates, so the family could easily make the payments at 5 percent, but when that hidden language triggered 9 percent, there was no way the family was going to be able to make those loan payments. Since most of those were on a 2-year delay, we can think of it as a 2-year fuse, a ticking timebomb, a ticking mortgage timebomb that was going to go off and destroy that family's finances. Then the prepayment penalty that locked people into those loans. These retail mortgage practices resulted in irresponsible deregulation. Then we had the securities that were made from those bad mortgages by financial firms, packaging those bad mortgages, putting a shiny wrapper on them, and then selling them with AAA ratings to financial institutions, to pension funds, to investment houses, tossing those mortgage securities hither and yon without full disclosure. When those mortgages that were in those packages went bad, those securities were going to go bad. That is what happened in 2008 and 2009. It melted down this economy. Another piece was the irresponsible deregulation lifting leverage requirements on the largest investment houses. Bear Sterns in a single year went from 20-to-1 leverage to 40-to-1 leverage. That means they were going to make a lot more money when everything is going up, but it means the moment things turn down, they can't cover their bets and they are going to go out of business. Then we had credit default swaps. That is a fancy term for insurance on the success of a bond. That new insurance was issued by AIG without any collateral being set aside to cover the insurance--complete failure to deregulate this new product. Those insurance policies, those credit default policies created an interwoven web in which if one firm failed and couldn't pay off its responsibilities under the credit default swaps or insurance policies, then the firm that it owed was going to fail. It set up a web of potential collapse. Those are the types of dramatic issues created through irresponsible deregulation that we must address in this body and that are addressed in the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. First, the bill ends those three predatory mortgage practices I spoke of. It ends liar loans. It creates underwriting standards. My colleague from Tennessee mentioned he would like to see underwriting standards in this bill. They actually are in the bill. That is a very important part of this legislation. This bill ends the steering payments, the bonuses paid to mortgage originators to basically guide people into tricky mortgages with hidden exploding interest rate clauses. This bill stops prepayment penalties that were used to lock families in. If you are in a mortgage and you have to pay several pounds of flesh to get out of that mortgage--and by that, I mean perhaps 10 percent of the value of your house--where is that 10 percent coming from? You can't do it, so you are locked in. You are chained to the steering wheel of a car going over a cliff. We have gotten rid of that practice. The second main thing we have done is establish real-time consumer protection to end scams and tricks and traps in financial documents. There was a woman from Salem, OR, who wrote to me. She wanted to share her story, just one of the little pieces of malfeasance that had occurred. She had paid her credit card bill on a timely basis month after month, year after year. She was very surprised when she received a letter saying she had a late payment and owed a fee. So she called up the credit card company and said: How can this be? I always pay on time. The person on the other end said: Yes, we received your payment, as you indicated. But your contract says we don't have to post your payment for 10 days, and so we didn't post your payment right away. We posted it at the end of that 10-day period. At the end of the 10-day period, your payment was late. So you owe us this fee. It is all in your contract. She said: How can that be fair? That is why we need a consumer protection agency for citizens across the country. Members know what I am talking about because virtually every one of us has opened up a statement and gone: Wait, how can that be fair? We did have the delegation of consumer protection responsibilities to the Fed, but the Fed had its monetary mission in the penthouse of their office building. They had safety and soundness on the upper floors, but they put consumer protection down in the basement. They ignored it. They didn't act on the responsibilities they had. So we put those responsibilities in an organization, a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that has a single mission--not a third mission or a fourth mission, not a forgotten mission, not a mission we put in the basement, but a first mission--so that Americans can choose from responsible financial products, not ones that compete to see who can have the biggest scam, the biggest deception, the biggest trick or the biggest trap but instead can compete on the cost of the product and on the quality of the service. The third thing this bill does is redirects banks to the mission of providing loans to families and small businesses. This is the core function of the banking world. What happened over the last few years is some of our banks said: It is a lot more fun to bet on high-risk investments than it is to make loans to families and businesses. But that is not the mission of the banks that have access to the Fed window for discounted funds from the Federal Reserve. That is not the mission of the banks that we insure their deposits. The function of those banks is to make sure there is liquidity in the hands of our businesses so they can thrive and so families can thrive. This bill redirects them to that mission. Let me put it this way: High-risk investing is a little bit like high-speed car racing. You know as you watch cars going around the race track they are going to push the boundaries, the limits of speed and traction, and they are going to do quite well. They are going to try to nudge ahead of the rest of the cars. But then, eventually, one is going to hit some rubber on the track or some oil or some gravel or get bumped by another car and the race car is going to crash. When you go to the track, you pretty well know in advance you are going to see a car crash. That is the way it is with investment houses. They are competing with each other to find the best opportunities for the highest return, so we know they are going to crash--that some of them will--and we accept that. This is an important role in the formation, aggregation, allocation of capital. But we want them to crash on the race track, not to crash out on the streets of the city or the streets of the countryside. That is why this bill moves high-risk investing out of the banks that should be dedicated to the mission of providing loans to small businesses and families. Another key thing this bill does is restore integrity in the formation of securities. Let me put it to you this way. Imagine that an electrician comes to your house because you are asking that electrician to wire up your basement. The electrician leaves, and you find out he or she took out a fire policy on your house. I think you might be a little worried about the quality of the wiring that was done in your basement. Or consider this possibility: You buy a car and you find out the person who sold you the car took out a life insurance policy on you. Well, you do not like the idea, I do not like the idea, of the possibility that someone would sell a car that is defective so they can take out a life insurance policy and maybe cash in. Yet that was what was happening with securities: companies taking bad loans, putting them in a shiny wrapper, selling them, and then taking out an insurance policy--a credit default swap--so when that security went bad they could cash in. Well, we need to have a level of integrity in the formation of our securities or our bonds. This bill takes us in that direction. This bill puts the sale of swaps on organized markets. What are swaps? Again, they are insurance policies, based on interest rates; insurance policies, based on exchange rates; insurance policies, based on the success of securities. You cannot sell insurance to the general public without setting aside reserves, but these swaps were sold without reserves. So this bill before us today says reserves are necessary so the bet can be covered if the event you are insuring should happen. It also creates a market for them so the customer--that is normally a business that wants to hedge its interest rate risk or its exchange risk or its investments in securities, that wants to hedge and protect itself against the possibility that those will go down or change--they can get that at a much better price when they can do so through the power of a transparent, organized market. So being able to hedge risk at a much cheaper price is a huge contribution to the formation and allocation of capital in our country. Finally, this bill allows a systematic way to dismantle failing firms in the financial world so it minimizes systemic risk and so the industry itself picks up the cost of their failure, so we the taxpayers are not in a position of having to pick up that cost. I know some of my colleagues on the other side have simply asserted the opposite to try to confuse the issue. Well, I think that is irresponsible because so much was done in this bill to make sure American taxpayers are never again on the hook for the failure of financial firms in our Nation. This is the type of responsible lane markers and traffic signals we need in our system. Certainly every one of us here believes there are further strides that could be made. There are standards in this bill that I would like to have crisper. There are terms for which I know we will need fierce, vigilant regulation to make sure those terms are not expanded into loopholes. This bill does not do as much as I would like to address the issue of perverse incentives in the system of rating securities, something the Presiding Officer was a huge advocate for, and put forward a terrific policy to address. We are going to have to keep working on that piece. But in each of these areas I have described, this is a quantum improvement. I think colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that. So beware of efforts to confuse the debate trying to say what is north is south and what is east is west. So these are the reasons--these core improvements to our financial system that enhance the ability to aggregate and allocate capital efficiently--why I am supporting this bill. I applaud the chairman of the Banking Committee, who steered this bill through enormous sets of obstacles. It is reported that Wall Street hired 1,000 extra lobbyists to try to torpedo the bill that is before us. That is a lot of obstacles to get through. These are complex issues that required thoughtful analysis and had to be worked and reworked. So I applaud the chairman's work in taking us to this point where we are prepared to send this bill on to the President's desk. I would like to particularly thank my colleague, Carl Levin, who teamed up to work with me on a proposal to take high-risk investing out of the bank holding companies and to improve the integrity of bonds. That was work that came straight out of the committee work he did in such a capable and timely fashion. So with that, I conclude by saying we need a financial system that is not about quarterly profit margins on Wall Street, that is not about the size of bonuses on Wall Street but is about providing a foundation for business to thrive, for employment to be increased, for families to find work, and to build financial foundations for the success of those families over the next several decades. That is the type of financial foundation we need, and this bill certainly is a huge stride in accomplishing that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak to legislation I am introducing today, with my colleagues, Senator Crapo of Idaho, Senators Baucus and Tester of Montana, and Senator Wyden, from my home state of Oregon, to protect and restore the Columbia River Basin. The Columbia River Basin is the great river system that defines the Pacific Northwest. It runs 1,243 miles from Columbia Lake in British Columbia to its mouth at Astoria, OR, the first permanent European settlement west of the Rocky Mountains. Its basin drains 258,000 acres in seven states, including many of great geological provinces of the West: the Yellowstone Plateau; the Rocky Mountains; the volcanic Snake River Plain; Hells Canyon, America's deepest canyon; the basalt plains and high desert of eastern Oregon and Washington; the majestic Columbia River Gorge; the volcanic slopes of the Cascade Mountains; and the temperate rain forests of the Coast Range. The Columbia River's tributaries are the major rivers of the Northwest. The Snake River, its longest tributary, runs more than 1,000 miles from near the continental divide in Wyoming's Yellowstone Park to its mouth with the Columbia in eastern Washington. The Clark Fork is Montana's largest river by volume, draining much of western Montana and turning into the Pend Oreille River in Idaho before it flows into the Columbia just across the border in Canada. It is also the lifeblood of our economy and has been the foundation of a trade-based economy stretching back thousands of years, even before European settlement. Today it is the cornerstone of the region's shipping network, with ports dotting the river as far upstream as Lewiston, Idaho, the farthest inland seaport in the west. It was once the world's largest wild salmon run, with as many as 30 million salmon returning to spawn in our rivers, and is still a foundation for much of our commercial and recreational fishing industries and an important source of fish for many of our Indian tribes. The Columbia River Basin is the backbone of our energy system, with a network of dams that provide the majority of the region's electricity, more electricity than any other river in the country generates. Indeed, when we measure generating capacity, we talk about 100- and 200- Megawatt capacity wind farms and we talk about 600- and 800-Megawatt coal plants. Well, the Grand Coulee dam in central Washington state has a capacity of 6,800 Megawatts. It was the availability of low-cost power that brought the industrial era to the Northwest and brought a host of benefits to our rural residents, from rural electrification to irrigation for agriculture, as memorialized in the 1940s by Woody Guthrie. About four million acres of income-producing farm and ranch land across the Pacific Northwest are irrigated by the Columbia River, contributing $10 billion to our economy every year. Unfortunately, the Columbia River Basin is also a river basin that faces serious challenges. Our rivers are severely polluted. When EPA completed its Columbia River Basin Fish Contaminant Survey, the agency looked for 131 chemicals in fish tissues that could be taken up by humans because of contamination entering the food chain. The study detected 70 percent of the chemicals EPA was looking for. All 11 species of fish they tested had some level of contamination in their tissue. The contamination in these fish poses a health problem for people throughout our region, but it is the Indian tribes, our neighbors who have made this basin their home for thousands of years--including the Warm Springs, the Nez Perce, the Umatilla, and the Yakama--who are among the most affected. A survey conducted by the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission found that tribal members consume between 6 and 10 times as much fish as the national average. High consumption rates exist among all tribal members consuming fish as well as among specific high-risk groups, including breastfeeding women. In addition, the salmon and steelhead, upon which the tribes and the fishing communities of the Northwest have so long depended, are in serious decline. The good news is that stakeholders across the region are working to clean up and restore the river. Since the Lower Columbia River estuary was added to the National Estuary Program, a robust partnership involving 28 cities, 9 counties, and the states of Oregon and Washington has come together to coordinate habitat restoration and toxic contamination reduction in that part of the basin. The EPA has coordinated stakeholders throughout the basin, including the states of Idaho and Montana and tribal governments, working to improve toxic pollution monitoring and reduce and clean up contamination. But more needs to be done. While EPA has designated the Columbia River Basin as one of the nation's Great Water Bodies and has an active program in the basin, it is the only one of these Great Water Bodies that doesn't receive designated appropriations to support its restoration. Unlike the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes, where Congress has authorized and funded restoration programs, the Columbia River Basin has no such program. It is in that context that I introduce today, along with Senate colleagues from the Northwest, the Columbia River Basin Restoration Act of 2010. The bill establishes a clear stakeholder-driven process to oversee implementation of toxic contamination reduction plans. It directs EPA to provide technical support to a Working Group of stakeholders representing important constituencies and representing every geographic area in the Basin, and it allows those stakeholders to prioritize projects to implement toxic contamination reduction and to propose those projects to the EPA for funding. We have also included an important component related to the Flathead River Basin in this bill. As my colleague the senior Senator from Montana can tell you, the Flathead is an amazing pristine gem of a water body on the far eastern edge of our basin. It forms the western and southern boundaries of the world's first international peace park, Glacier-Waterton, and it contains Flathead Lake, the largest freshwater lake in the West. Senator Baucus has made protecting the Flathead Basin a major focus and has discussed it many times in our work together on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and we have been working together for several months now to make sure we could protect the Flathead River Basin in this bill. I am glad we were able to include his provision to do so. I would particularly like to thank my colleague Senator Crapo from our neighboring State to the east. Senator Crapo and I have been able to work together in a true collaborative partnership to propose what we believe will be an effective, stakeholder-driven program to help our constituents reduce toxic contamination in waterways that matter so much to them, and to do so in ways that our constituents design and prioritize. This bill reflects the interests and concerns of people from every State in the Northwest, and we will continue to hear and address their interests and concerns as the legislative process continues. I am proud to stand with my colleagues from the Northwest today as we introduce this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak to legislation I am introducing today, with my colleagues, Senator Crapo of Idaho, Senators Baucus and Tester of Montana, and Senator Wyden, from my home state of Oregon, to protect and restore the Columbia River Basin. The Columbia River Basin is the great river system that defines the Pacific Northwest. It runs 1,243 miles from Columbia Lake in British Columbia to its mouth at Astoria, OR, the first permanent European settlement west of the Rocky Mountains. Its basin drains 258,000 acres in seven states, including many of great geological provinces of the West: the Yellowstone Plateau; the Rocky Mountains; the volcanic Snake River Plain; Hells Canyon, America's deepest canyon; the basalt plains and high desert of eastern Oregon and Washington; the majestic Columbia River Gorge; the volcanic slopes of the Cascade Mountains; and the temperate rain forests of the Coast Range. The Columbia River's tributaries are the major rivers of the Northwest. The Snake River, its longest tributary, runs more than 1,000 miles from near the continental divide in Wyoming's Yellowstone Park to its mouth with the Columbia in eastern Washington. The Clark Fork is Montana's largest river by volume, draining much of western Montana and turning into the Pend Oreille River in Idaho before it flows into the Columbia just across the border in Canada. It is also the lifeblood of our economy and has been the foundation of a trade-based economy stretching back thousands of years, even before European settlement. Today it is the cornerstone of the region's shipping network, with ports dotting the river as far upstream as Lewiston, Idaho, the farthest inland seaport in the west. It was once the world's largest wild salmon run, with as many as 30 million salmon returning to spawn in our rivers, and is still a foundation for much of our commercial and recreational fishing industries and an important source of fish for many of our Indian tribes. The Columbia River Basin is the backbone of our energy system, with a network of dams that provide the majority of the region's electricity, more electricity than any other river in the country generates. Indeed, when we measure generating capacity, we talk about 100- and 200- Megawatt capacity wind farms and we talk about 600- and 800-Megawatt coal plants. Well, the Grand Coulee dam in central Washington state has a capacity of 6,800 Megawatts. It was the availability of low-cost power that brought the industrial era to the Northwest and brought a host of benefits to our rural residents, from rural electrification to irrigation for agriculture, as memorialized in the 1940s by Woody Guthrie. About four million acres of income-producing farm and ranch land across the Pacific Northwest are irrigated by the Columbia River, contributing $10 billion to our economy every year. Unfortunately, the Columbia River Basin is also a river basin that faces serious challenges. Our rivers are severely polluted. When EPA completed its Columbia River Basin Fish Contaminant Survey, the agency looked for 131 chemicals in fish tissues that could be taken up by humans because of contamination entering the food chain. The study detected 70 percent of the chemicals EPA was looking for. All 11 species of fish they tested had some level of contamination in their tissue. The contamination in these fish poses a health problem for people throughout our region, but it is the Indian tribes, our neighbors who have made this basin their home for thousands of years--including the Warm Springs, the Nez Perce, the Umatilla, and the Yakama--who are among the most affected. A survey conducted by the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission found that tribal members consume between 6 and 10 times as much fish as the national average. High consumption rates exist among all tribal members consuming fish as well as among specific high-risk groups, including breastfeeding women. In addition, the salmon and steelhead, upon which the tribes and the fishing communities of the Northwest have so long depended, are in serious decline. The good news is that stakeholders across the region are working to clean up and restore the river. Since the Lower Columbia River estuary was added to the National Estuary Program, a robust partnership involving 28 cities, 9 counties, and the states of Oregon and Washington has come together to coordinate habitat restoration and toxic contamination reduction in that part of the basin. The EPA has coordinated stakeholders throughout the basin, including the states of Idaho and Montana and tribal governments, working to improve toxic pollution monitoring and reduce and clean up contamination. But more needs to be done. While EPA has designated the Columbia River Basin as one of the nation's Great Water Bodies and has an active program in the basin, it is the only one of these Great Water Bodies that doesn't receive designated appropriations to support its restoration. Unlike the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes, where Congress has authorized and funded restoration programs, the Columbia River Basin has no such program. It is in that context that I introduce today, along with Senate colleagues from the Northwest, the Columbia River Basin Restoration Act of 2010. The bill establishes a clear stakeholder-driven process to oversee implementation of toxic contamination reduction plans. It directs EPA to provide technical support to a Working Group of stakeholders representing important constituencies and representing every geographic area in the Basin, and it allows those stakeholders to prioritize projects to implement toxic contamination reduction and to propose those projects to the EPA for funding. We have also included an important component related to the Flathead River Basin in this bill. As my colleague the senior Senator from Montana can tell you, the Flathead is an amazing pristine gem of a water body on the far eastern edge of our basin. It forms the western and southern boundaries of the world's first international peace park, Glacier-Waterton, and it contains Flathead Lake, the largest freshwater lake in the West. Senator Baucus has made protecting the Flathead Basin a major focus and has discussed it many times in our work together on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and we have been working together for several months now to make sure we could protect the Flathead River Basin in this bill. I am glad we were able to include his provision to do so. I would particularly like to thank my colleague Senator Crapo from our neighboring State to the east. Senator Crapo and I have been able to work together in a true collaborative partnership to propose what we believe will be an effective, stakeholder-driven program to help our constituents reduce toxic contamination in waterways that matter so much to them, and to do so in ways that our constituents design and prioritize. This bill reflects the interests and concerns of people from every State in the Northwest, and we will continue to hear and address their interests and concerns as the legislative process continues. I am proud to stand with my colleagues from the Northwest today as we introduce this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we have a chance on the floor of this Chamber to come and debate issues that are important to the success of our families across this Nation. There are some who will come to this floor and they will argue that we should do everything possible to help the most successful; that we should do everything possible to help the most powerful; we should do everything possible to help the wealthiest, those who already have secured the American dream. They have it in their hands. I come tonight to argue a different case: that we should put our energy behind helping the working families of this Nation, families who are struggling in an economy where jobs have been disappearing left and right; where families are looking for work but there are multiple applicants for each and every job; where someone may be clinging to a job and then losing it when another firm goes under. I am delighted we have arrested the slide into another Great Depression. We didn't know a year ago whether we were going to see every single month a 1-percent increase in unemployment until we were at 25 percent unemployment or 30 percent unemployment. So we did what we could to break that cycle, and it has been broken. But we remain at a very high level of unemployment--10 percent plus, on average, across this country and much higher in my home State of Oregon. I have Crook County in eastern Oregon, central Oregon, 17 percent unemployment; Harney County, nearly 16 percent unemployment; Deschutes County, 15 percent unemployment; Josephine, 14.5, and so forth. Folks are struggling. I have been hearing a lot of stories from people back home, and I thought I would share a couple of those stories tonight to put a face on the challenge. Dear Jeff: I have worked for 42 years and will lose my unemployment benefits after 6 months without your help. I have 3 girls in college and unemployment benefits are helping to keep us current on basic needs. We need your help in the Senate. This is our only lifeline. Please convince your fellow Senators to do the right thing for everyday families and not throw us under the bus. That is Mike from Happy Valley. When Mike is saying ``don't throw us under the bus,'' he is saying don't spend our time and energy helping the already successful, the wealthy and the powerful; strengthen the financial foundations of our working families. Before us tonight is a key measure in that, which is the extension of unemployment benefits for families who are working, doing everything right. Let me share another story. Dear Senator Merkley: I have now been without unemployment benefits since May 16. I have been unable to buy food, gas, or pay bills. My son is home from college for the summer and I can't provide for him, either. There are essentially no jobs in Central Oregon. I apply daily. I would go to work tomorrow given the opportunity. Thank you. That is Donald writing to me from Redmond. He has been without the ability to buy food, gas, or pay bills since May 16. Extension of unemployment benefits is a very real method to help families when we are in times of great economic duress. It is intriguing to me that my colleagues across the aisle want to take away from the job creation efforts to pay for help for those who are unemployed. In other words, they want to create more unemployed in order to pay unemployment benefits. Let's step back and realize that it is the policies of my colleagues across the aisle that created this economic crisis. They deregulated Wall Street. They allowed the leverage of major financial firms to double in a single year. Bear Stearns went from 20 to 1 leverage to 40 to 1 leverage in a single year. They allowed retail mortgages to become a form of scam upon working families with prepayment penalties and steering payments, which is a very polite term for payments that are made to brokers so they will sell a mortgage that is wrong for the family but which creates a big bonus for themselves. They allowed the corruption of the most important financial document that is central to building the financial foundations of our families. They allowed Wall Street to put those into securities and poison all of the financial foundations of the firms that bought those securities. All this built a house of cards that came down, and now they want to take away from job creation as a way of saying: well, we do care about people who are unemployed. We are just going to create more unemployed in the process. The logic of that escapes me. Kate from Covallis writes to me: I am 62 years old and was laid off my job a year ago last March.

Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. President. It is an honor to come and say we need to do right by working families in America, and we need to not do it by creating more unemployment.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time on our side be divided as follows: myself, 2 minutes; Senator Udall of Colorado, 5 minutes; Senator Lautenberg, 5 minutes; and Senator Boxer for the remainder of the time.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today I rise in opposition to the resolution before us from my colleague from Alaska. Since 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency has been charged with responding to and identifying threats to our atmosphere, threats that affect public health, threats that affect weather, threats that affect climate. During this time, the EPA has identified and responded to many threats: sulfur dioxide; nitrogen dioxide; mercury, a potent neurotoxin; lead, lead that was poisoning the air our children breathed and affecting their mental development. In each of these cases, we had a force that said: We must respond. Now, today, we have before us a resolution which says: It does not matter that our public health is being affected. We are going to overturn the finding. We are going to call the science invalid. We are going to say politics, not science, should be the foundation of our policy. This, of course, is the attitude that was put forward year after year during the Bush administration: Take the scientific papers and shred them. Take the scientists and set their views aside. Today, we have a continuation of that Bush strategy of burying science. It is the wrong foundation for public policy to bury science. We should take and respond responsibly. We have now before us a finding that was developed actually by the scientists in the Bush administration. You might recall, it was the Bush administration scientists who first developed the finding related to changing the atmosphere with the global warming gases of methane and carbon dioxide and other gases that are changing the chemistry of the environment, and that we have to respond to protect the health of our citizens--a straightforward concept, supported by the scientists of the last administration and by the scientists of this administration. Not only that, but we are proposing in this resolution to undo the tailpipe emissions rules that reduce our demand on foreign oil. This resolution will increase our demand for foreign oil by 455 million barrels per year. That is a lot. Let me translate that. That is not equivalent to the amount of gasoline to drive around the Equator once. No. That is not equal to the amount of gas to drive around the Equator 10 times. Not at all. It is not even equal to the amount of gas to drive around the Equator 1,000 times. This is an increase in our dependence on foreign oil equal to the amount of gasoline that would propel a car around the Equator 10 million times. This means far more money in the hands of foreign governments that do not share our national interests. This means a compromised national security. This means a lot of additional carbon dioxide being put into the air. And this means a lot more harm to the citizens of the United States. Burying science is wrong. This resolution that challenges our national security, diminishes our economy, and threatens the atmosphere and our public health is also wrong. It must be defeated in this Chamber. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this debate is not about the overreach of an agency because indeed this Congress charged EPA with responding to threats to our atmosphere that endanger the public health of our citizens. We asked them to do that because we know that if it was decided on this floor piece by piece, it would be politics over policy. So we gave them the responsibility to respond to lead, to respond to mercury, to respond to global warming gases, and they are exercising that responsibility in a very moderate fashion. Second, this is about science because this resolution does not say we accept the science but we are going to change the way we respond to it. It doesn't say that. It says we reject the science. It says we reject the endangerment findings to the public health of our citizens. Third, this is about big oil. Have no doubt, this resolution increases our dependence on the Middle East and Venezuela to the tune of an enormous amount, so much that you would have to drive a car around the Equator 10 million times to consume that oil. It is wrong for our national security and wrong for our economy, and if you have any doubt, take a look at the impassioned plea from the oil industry, saying: Please, don't pass this. Why do they not want us to pass this? They want to sell us that gas from the Middle East and Venezuela and drive a car around the Equator 10 million times or the equivalent across America. So for our national security and for our economy to create jobs, we must reject this resolution.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my as modified amendment No. 4251 to printed in the Record.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a huge challenge in the State of Oregon--specifically, a drought that is affecting the southern Klamath Basin. This is an area that had a terrible drought in 1992. This drought set everyone in this basin against each other. How do you allocate those few precious drops of water between the river and the lake and the irrigation, the fish, the farmers? It is terribly tough when it doesn't rain. It so happens that this year, the water that has come into the lake is lower than at any time the water levels have been recorded and lower by very significant amounts. So this isn't just a shortfall of rain below the average or a modest few weeks without precipitation; this is the worst drought in the Klamath Basin in recorded history. That is why it has received status as a Federal disaster. The Governor of Oregon wrote on March 16 and on April 5 requesting a disaster designation for Klamath County, OR, due to the losses caused by the ongoing drought and related disasters, and the Department of Agriculture assessed that and issued that disaster declaration. There are well over 1,000 families--about 1,400 families--who farm the Klamath Basin and about 200,000 acres of land in that very productive region. As we have immersed ourselves in discussions with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior, there are a couple key strategies that can be pursued to prevent what is a terrible situation right now from being an utter and total disaster by August and September. Those strategies are pumping ground water, which is quite expensive due to the power needs, and idling land--asking some farmers who have water rights to set aside their rights for modest payments, and by modest, meaning less than $200 an acre for highly fertile ground. But that greatly reduces the size of this disaster to the community. I applaud the hard work the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior have done. They have worked to reprogram, to make those modest changes so they are allowed to free up a small amount of funds, a modest amount of funds. But to really address this situation, to idle basically what amounts to a fourth of that land, would take $10 million. I have an amendment filed, amendment No. 4251, that I hope will have a chance to be brought up and considered later on because we are addressing some major disasters around the country in this appropriations legislation, and it is certainly appropriate, when you have a declared Federal disaster in my State, to have this modest amount of money, in comparison to the other requests, receive consideration for the community. I note that Senator Wyden from Oregon and Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein are very supportive and cosponsors because this Klamath Basin is on the boundary between Oregon and California, so there is territory within both States that is affected by this disaster and would be assisted by this revenue. So I will wrap up my remarks to give an opportunity for others to take the floor, but I do ask my colleagues: We have a federally declared disaster in Oregon that needs a modest amount of help, and I ask for the opportunity to have this request duly considered by this body as this debate progresses. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment, amendment No. 4251.

Mr. MERKLEY. I very much, thank the leader.

Mr. MERKLEY. Reserving the right to object--I thank the leader--it is very hard for me to go and explain to folks in Oregon we have calamities in other parts of the country being addressed and this one is not. I would greatly appreciate the unanimous consent to modify my amendment. I do understand from what the Senator has said there is probably not a pathway to have it considered. But I would appreciate the Senator's support and my colleagues' support from Mississippi to try to--there should be no party line when it comes to addressing a federally declared disaster.

Mr. MERKLEY. Reserving the right to object, this is an amendment that addresses the terrible drought we have in southern Oregon. Of course, we are addressing many natural disasters, and we have a natural disaster, a federally declared natural disaster in Oregon, in which we have been seeking to have a conversation about spending $10 million on the front end of what is a terrible situation: the worst drought in recorded history of the Klamath Basin, with 1,400 farming families and 200,000 acres affected. I was seeking the opportunity to have a discussion and a vote on this which, in consultation with the committee, the esteemed Chair and his team had suggested a pathway. It would mean a tremendous amount to the families in trouble to have their disaster considered while we are addressing other national disasters. This is the moment. This is the moment when we can still have an impact, through land idling and the pumping of water, to save families' financial foundations and, for a few families, through the pumping of water, to save their farming season. If my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would be amenable, I would certainly ask this request be amended to allow a debate and a vote on amendment No. 4251.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, can I ask for a clarification if this would prevent a pathway through which my amendment No. 4251 might be considered?

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Comprehensive Problem Gambling Act, a bill I introduced just moments ago with Senator Mike Johanns. This bill would establish and implement programs targeted at preventing, treating, and researching problem gambling. Currently, the Federal Government provides millions of dollars to treat alcohol and drug addiction, but does not dedicate resources to treat the effects of problem gambling, which can destroy a person's career and financial standing, disrupt marriages and personal relationships, and encourage participation in criminal activity. Over the past decade, gaming and gambling has grown significantly in the United States. According to the National Council on Problem Gambling, approximately 6 to 9 million American adults are problem gamblers. The recent economic downturn only compounds this situation as many States consider relaxing gaming laws in an effort to raise state revenues. At the same time, the Federal Government and most states have devoted very little, if any, resources to the prevention and treatment of compulsive gambling. In fact, no Federal agency is currently responsible for coordinating efforts for treatment and prevention. Prevention and treatment programs have been proven to save money by decreasing the severity and prevalence of problem gambling, but cash- strapped states are struggling just to maintain funding for pre- existing programs. I believe that if State governments benefit from gambling and lottery proceeds, then those governments have an obligation to provide assistance to those suffering from a gambling addiction. I am proud that the State of Oregon understands this concept and has one of the most comprehensive treatment systems in the country. Through Oregon's Gambling Treatment Fund, one percent of Oregon Lottery revenues are transferred to the Oregon Department of Human Services for the administration of problem gambling services. However, decreasing lottery revenues has resulted in reduced treatment dollars. I'd like to share the story of one of my constituents. For Toni, gambling started out as a fun trip to Reno or Las Vegas. She began playing video poker on occasion, and when she ran out of money, she would simply go home. But then the casinos brought in ATM machines, and she no longer had to leave the facility to access money. She could stay for hours, and did. Gambling quickly went from being a fun activity to an escape from problems and stresses in her life. Before long, gambling had consumed Toni's life. She gambled away her life savings and went through credit card after credit card, racking up the cash advance limits and borrowing money from family members to pay it off. She tried to quit numerous times, but, as she describes it, the urge to gamble was much stronger than she was. Eventually, she couldn't do it anymore. She couldn't stop thinking about how she was going to get her next ``fix''. She ``felt about as low as you can go.'' She knew she had to get help. Toni sought treatment in May 2009, and will soon reach the one year goal she set with her counselor to be gambling-free. However, she continues to face the long-term impacts of her gambling. Toni and her family live paycheck to paycheck and she worries that the debt she has accrued could cause her family to lose their house if the bank decides to raise interest on their mortgage. But Toni sees hope in her future because she had access to treatment and critical support services. While Toni has been able to start her own recovery, thousands of individuals across the country continue to struggle with their gambling addictions because there are so few prevention and treatment resources in place. Unfortunately, the lack of education and research surrounding this issue has made it difficult to allot the appropriate resources to address these problems. The Comprehensive Problem Gambling Act would provide $14.2 million in competitive grants annually for 5 years to non-profits, universities, state agencies, and tribal governments for prevention, research, and treatment of problem gambling. Recent studies show conclusively that every $1 spent on treatment saves more than $2 in social costs. This legislation is a minimal investment with life-changing returns. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Toni and the countless other individuals who struggle without supports by cosponsoring the Comprehensive Problem Gambling Act of 2010. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to propose legislation to address the problem of medical debt and credit scores. While historic health reform legislation enacted this year sets us on a path towards ending the crushing problem of Americans who lack health insurance, the challenges of our health care billing system remain a work in progress. One of those problems arises when our system of third-party payment leads to errors in billing and payments that, through no fault of the borrower, nevertheless undermine a borrower's credit scores. The borrower then must pay more for a home, a car, or his or her credit card, and in some cases, cannot at all get the loan he or she needs and deserves. To address this unfair burden, I have introduced the Medical Debt Relief Act. Unlike consumer debt, Americans do not get to choose when accidents or medical emergencies happen. Medical debt is not the result of irresponsible consumer spending and is a not an indicator of poor credit. According to the Commonwealth Fund, accrued medical debt plagued nearly 72 million adults in 2007, and over 28 million American consumers were harassed by collection agencies for unpaid medical bills that same year. Research done by the Federal Reserve has found that medical bills make up the majority of non-credit card related accounts in collection and found on credit reports. Nor is the problem of medical debt in relation to credit scores simply a question of whether one has insurance or not. Rather, medical debt credit challenges are a direct function of the nature of our insurance system. Because of the third-party payment system of insurance, medical debt is far more likely to be in dispute, inconsistently reported, mired in the complex medical payment bureaucracy, or transferred to collections without the consumer's knowledge. It can often take months, if not years, to adjudicate these claims. Unfortunately, even one negative medical collection mark can damage a consumer's credit score, thereby costing the consumer higher interest rates on automobile loans, home loans, and credit cards. It can even block the consumer from making purchases entirely. Sadly, even after the consumer has paid off or settled delinquent medical debt, the negative mark on the credit report continues to plague the consumer for years. The Medical Debt Relief Act is a straight forward solution to this problem. It would require the removal from a consumer's credit report those medical-related debts that have been fully paid. Companion legislation has already been introduced in the House by Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy and presently enjoys the support of 70 cosponsors. This legislation is also supported by the Consumer's Union, National Consumer Law Center and the National Association of Consumer Advocates. I am honored today to be joined by Senators Dorgan, Schumer, Menendez, and Harkin in this effort to fix this important problem in how Americans access credit. This is common sense legislation that will offer tangible relief to the ordinary Americans who work hard, pay their bills, and want to borrow money at reasonable rates to finance the next step in their American dream. I urge my colleagues to join us in the effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Comprehensive Problem Gambling Act, a bill I introduced just moments ago with Senator Mike Johanns. This bill would establish and implement programs targeted at preventing, treating, and researching problem gambling. Currently, the Federal Government provides millions of dollars to treat alcohol and drug addiction, but does not dedicate resources to treat the effects of problem gambling, which can destroy a person's career and financial standing, disrupt marriages and personal relationships, and encourage participation in criminal activity. Over the past decade, gaming and gambling has grown significantly in the United States. According to the National Council on Problem Gambling, approximately 6 to 9 million American adults are problem gamblers. The recent economic downturn only compounds this situation as many States consider relaxing gaming laws in an effort to raise state revenues. At the same time, the Federal Government and most states have devoted very little, if any, resources to the prevention and treatment of compulsive gambling. In fact, no Federal agency is currently responsible for coordinating efforts for treatment and prevention. Prevention and treatment programs have been proven to save money by decreasing the severity and prevalence of problem gambling, but cash- strapped states are struggling just to maintain funding for pre- existing programs. I believe that if State governments benefit from gambling and lottery proceeds, then those governments have an obligation to provide assistance to those suffering from a gambling addiction. I am proud that the State of Oregon understands this concept and has one of the most comprehensive treatment systems in the country. Through Oregon's Gambling Treatment Fund, one percent of Oregon Lottery revenues are transferred to the Oregon Department of Human Services for the administration of problem gambling services. However, decreasing lottery revenues has resulted in reduced treatment dollars. I'd like to share the story of one of my constituents. For Toni, gambling started out as a fun trip to Reno or Las Vegas. She began playing video poker on occasion, and when she ran out of money, she would simply go home. But then the casinos brought in ATM machines, and she no longer had to leave the facility to access money. She could stay for hours, and did. Gambling quickly went from being a fun activity to an escape from problems and stresses in her life. Before long, gambling had consumed Toni's life. She gambled away her life savings and went through credit card after credit card, racking up the cash advance limits and borrowing money from family members to pay it off. She tried to quit numerous times, but, as she describes it, the urge to gamble was much stronger than she was. Eventually, she couldn't do it anymore. She couldn't stop thinking about how she was going to get her next ``fix''. She ``felt about as low as you can go.'' She knew she had to get help. Toni sought treatment in May 2009, and will soon reach the one year goal she set with her counselor to be gambling-free. However, she continues to face the long-term impacts of her gambling. Toni and her family live paycheck to paycheck and she worries that the debt she has accrued could cause her family to lose their house if the bank decides to raise interest on their mortgage. But Toni sees hope in her future because she had access to treatment and critical support services. While Toni has been able to start her own recovery, thousands of individuals across the country continue to struggle with their gambling addictions because there are so few prevention and treatment resources in place. Unfortunately, the lack of education and research surrounding this issue has made it difficult to allot the appropriate resources to address these problems. The Comprehensive Problem Gambling Act would provide $14.2 million in competitive grants annually for 5 years to non-profits, universities, state agencies, and tribal governments for prevention, research, and treatment of problem gambling. Recent studies show conclusively that every $1 spent on treatment saves more than $2 in social costs. This legislation is a minimal investment with life-changing returns. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Toni and the countless other individuals who struggle without supports by cosponsoring the Comprehensive Problem Gambling Act of 2010. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to propose legislation to address the problem of medical debt and credit scores. While historic health reform legislation enacted this year sets us on a path towards ending the crushing problem of Americans who lack health insurance, the challenges of our health care billing system remain a work in progress. One of those problems arises when our system of third-party payment leads to errors in billing and payments that, through no fault of the borrower, nevertheless undermine a borrower's credit scores. The borrower then must pay more for a home, a car, or his or her credit card, and in some cases, cannot at all get the loan he or she needs and deserves. To address this unfair burden, I have introduced the Medical Debt Relief Act. Unlike consumer debt, Americans do not get to choose when accidents or medical emergencies happen. Medical debt is not the result of irresponsible consumer spending and is a not an indicator of poor credit. According to the Commonwealth Fund, accrued medical debt plagued nearly 72 million adults in 2007, and over 28 million American consumers were harassed by collection agencies for unpaid medical bills that same year. Research done by the Federal Reserve has found that medical bills make up the majority of non-credit card related accounts in collection and found on credit reports. Nor is the problem of medical debt in relation to credit scores simply a question of whether one has insurance or not. Rather, medical debt credit challenges are a direct function of the nature of our insurance system. Because of the third-party payment system of insurance, medical debt is far more likely to be in dispute, inconsistently reported, mired in the complex medical payment bureaucracy, or transferred to collections without the consumer's knowledge. It can often take months, if not years, to adjudicate these claims. Unfortunately, even one negative medical collection mark can damage a consumer's credit score, thereby costing the consumer higher interest rates on automobile loans, home loans, and credit cards. It can even block the consumer from making purchases entirely. Sadly, even after the consumer has paid off or settled delinquent medical debt, the negative mark on the credit report continues to plague the consumer for years. The Medical Debt Relief Act is a straight forward solution to this problem. It would require the removal from a consumer's credit report those medical-related debts that have been fully paid. Companion legislation has already been introduced in the House by Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy and presently enjoys the support of 70 cosponsors. This legislation is also supported by the Consumer's Union, National Consumer Law Center and the National Association of Consumer Advocates. I am honored today to be joined by Senators Dorgan, Schumer, Menendez, and Harkin in this effort to fix this important problem in how Americans access credit. This is common sense legislation that will offer tangible relief to the ordinary Americans who work hard, pay their bills, and want to borrow money at reasonable rates to finance the next step in their American dream. I urge my colleagues to join us in the effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.