Speeches & Floor Statements
Posted on May 6, 2010
Madam President, I congratulate the Senator from Alabama for his comments and for his proposal, which he described as a Republican proposal. Of course, what all of us hope is that it becomes a bipartisan proposal as our friends on the other side look carefully at it. That is what happened with the big bank bailout provision we worked on yesterday. Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby worked for a while, Senators Corker and Warner had worked before that, and we came up with a conclusion that all but five Senators agreed to. Now we have moved to address two of the other major deficiencies in the Dodd bill that we have wrapped up in one proposal here, and it is really wrapped up with the central issue that is before the American people.
President Obama said in September of last year that the health care bill was a proxy for a larger issue about the role of government in Americans' lives. The President was exactly right about that, and we have seen the issue of government’s role over and over again. I don't think it will change between now and the November election. In fact, the President said at our health care summit that is why we have elections, and I think he is correct about that. We have seen a Washington takeover of banks; we have seen a Washington takeover of car companies; we have seen a Washington takeover of many aspects of health care; we have seen a gratuitous Washington takeover of student loans. In this financial regulation bill, instead of dealing with the high jinks of big banks, we are going to take over Main Street lending and, on top of it, create a new czar or czarina to make decisions about millions of transactions across America that are on Main Street.
So what Senator Shelby's proposal offers -- and we hope it receives the same kind of bipartisan consideration that the resolution authority or the big bank bailout discussion did yesterday that we finally agreed on -- is that we would like to change this bill in two ways. Republicans would like to say: Let's take Main Street lending out of it. The Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, said it is not in there. But the language makes it look as if it is in there. It looks like we’re about to start regulating your daughter’s dentist bill, the plumber, and the store owners up and down Main Street who give you flexible credit. In other words, if you say: You can pay me over time -- it looks as if Congress is going to start regulating that transaction.
That’s going to make credit harder to get because the dentist or the plumber or the store owner is going to say: I’m not going to fool with it. I don't want to be regulated by some Washington bureau, so if you want to buy my goods, go to the bank and get some money or get another credit card.
And you know what that is going to do? That’s going to slow down the economy. That’s going to make jobs harder to create because it is going to make credit harder to obtain and credit harder to offer.
Making credit harder to get is not what we need at this time. We just had the reports of the economic growth of our country during the first quarter. It was 3.2 percent. That is not very good. I can vividly remember flying on a helicopter with President Bush when I was Education Secretary in 1992, and the economic growth of the third quarter of the year was better than that; it was 4.2 percent. And Bill Clinton beat George Bush, Sr., on the "It's the Economy, Stupid" campaign. So 3.2 percent is not going to cut it for our country. Most economists say that if our economy continues to grow over the next year, through 2010, at the same rate it grew in the first quarter, the unemployment rate will not change. The unemployment rate will still be about 9 or 10 percent at the end of this year, as it is today.
What can we do to change that? Well, we have to create an environment for job growth. We have done pretty good in creating job growth in Washington. The one place the stimulus has really worked is in Washington, DC. Salaries are up. Jobs are up. There are plenty of new jobs around here. But out across America, we are not creating enough new jobs, and too many of the things we are doing here make it harder to create new jobs.
The health care bill makes it harder to create new jobs because it imposes taxes on job creators and it imposes taxes on investors. Tax increases make it harder to create new jobs. Running up the debt -- the President’s budget doubled the debt in 5 years and tripled it in 10 years -- makes the economy less certain and it makes it harder to create new jobs. And the threat of creating a czar or czarina in Washington, DC, and a new bureau to supervise and make Main Street lending more difficult and expensive makes it harder to create new jobs. We should take it out of the bill.
If the Senator from Connecticut, who is one of our finest Senators, and is well intentioned, wants Main Street lending out of the bill, let's just take it out of the bill. Let's don't leave in there the possibility that someone might come along and interpret "significantly" involved financial activities to include the plumber and the dentist. This has attracted the attention of a lot of people from Tennessee: community bankers, credit unions, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses. They are talking about office suppliers, jewelers, health professionals, and furniture stores who are all concerned with this bill. The NFIB estimates that about 50 percent of small businesses let you pay over time. In other words, they offer you credit. They make special arrangements. They say: OK, we know you don't have all of the cash right now. You might not want to run up your credit card or maybe your credit card is near the limit, so we will sell you whatever we have to sell you or we will provide the service you need. You can pay us in 6 months. You can pay us in 5 months.
Well, under this bill, if you offer payment plans you could be "significantly" involved in financial activities. Then this czar or czarina in Washington, DC, is going to be regulating you. You might be a very small business and you might not have a lot of extra money to fill out regulatory forms, but you are going to be filling out forms and suffering more regulations. And you are going to be offering less credit and credit will be harder to get up and down Main Street.
If our real intention in this body on both sides of the aisle is to not interfere with Main Street lending, then let's actually do that. That is what the Republican amendment - which we hope becomes a bipartisan - does.
Then there’s the second big idea that is in this Republican amendment. So far as I am concerned - we don't need another czar. This bill is supposed to be about big banks, about financial high jinks on Wall Street, about this recession we are in, and about issues that will change the regulations in a sensible way that will avoid as many future recessions as possible and, at the same time, about creating an environment in which we can grow the largest number of good new jobs. But suddenly, we have this new Washington agency not only possibly regulating Main Street lending but creating an unaccountable person at the top to write the rules and the regulations. When I say "unaccountable," that means she or he is just over here at the Fed. Once confirmed by the Senate, this person has no boss. This person doesn't report to the President, doesn't have to come before Congress for appropriations, and has a steady stream of money and really unlimited authority. There is nothing to keep this new czarina or czar from writing the kinds of regulations and rules that got us into trouble in the first place with housing. Nothing to keep this person from writing rules that might encourage irresponsible home ownership. That is what we had before. So the Dodd bill might encourage irresponsible borrowing.
So the second major idea in the Republican amendment is, let's make this person accountable. The President appoints a Director who is confirmed by the Senate, but this person would be in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. This Director would be accountable to other people appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and would have to come before the Congress multiple times annually to give us a chance to inquire about things.
I have come to the floor today to say we made an important step in the right direction when we worked on the first part of this bill yesterday across party lines.
We addressed one of the five issues we need to deal with. The issue of, what to do with banks that are too big to fail and get the rest of us into trouble, has been addressed.
But we have four more big issues to deal with here and other smaller issues. Two of the big issues are addressed in this Republican amendment. One is: let's not take over Main Street lending and make it harder to loan money, harder to get money, and harder to create jobs.
No. 2 is: let's not create another czar in Washington. The last thing we need is another Washington takeover and another Washington czar.
We hope our amendment will attract significant bipartisan support, and then we can move on to the other important questions in this legislation.