{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2014-12-16-pt1-PgS6908-4", "2014-12-16", 113, 2, null, null, "UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 1898", "SENATE", "SENATE", "SCONSENTREQUEST", "S6908", "S6909", "[{\"name\": \"Elizabeth Warren\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Patrick J. Toomey\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"113\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1898\"}, {\"congress\": \"113\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1898\"}]", "160 Cong. Rec. S6908", "Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 155 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 155 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S6908-S6909]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 1898\n\n  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I came to the floor last week to ask a\nsimple question: Who does this government work for? Does it work only\nfor the billionaires and the biggest corporations or does it work for\nall of us?\n  I asked that question last week as Congress considered the government\nfunding bill--a bill that included a completely unrelated provision\nliterally written by Citigroup lobbyists that increased the risk of\nfuture taxpayer bailouts just so the biggest banks in this country\ncould rake in more profits. Sadly, that bill was just the latest\nexample of how the government works just fine for those who have\nalready made it.\n  In the past few years, Federal agencies have entered into a number of\nmajor settlement agreements with big banks and other large corporations\nafter those companies have broken the law. These agencies have touted\nthese settlements as being worth millions or in some cases billions of\ndollars. That sounds like a great deal for taxpayers, but often that\nsticker price is much higher than the actual value at the settlement.\nAgencies have often permitted corporations to deduct the cost of the\nsettlement from their taxes, which can cut the actual value of the\npayment by more than 30 percent. And instead of requiring corporations\nto actually pay the full settlement amount, agencies often give\ncorporations credits toward the settlement amount for taking certain\nactions--actions the corporations would have taken even if the\nsettlement had never existed. By structuring the settlements this way,\nagencies can get credit for being tough on corporate wrongdoers even\nwhen the actual deal paints a much different picture.\n  In January I introduced a bill with Senator Coburn to shed more light\non this kind of backroom dealmaking. This bipartisan bill, the Truth in\nSettlements Act, is pretty simple. It just requires Federal agencies to\npublicly disclose certain basic information about the major settlements\nthey enter into with corporations--information such as whether a\nsettlement is going to be tax deductible or whether it lets companies\nclaim credit for things they are already doing. That is pretty much it.\n  The idea behind the bill is straightforward. If the government is\ngoing to cut deals on behalf of the American people, the American\npeople are entitled to know what kind of a deal they are getting. That\nis the only way the public can hold agencies accountable.\n  The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee approved the\nTruth in Settlements Act in July without any objections from any\nDemocrats or any Republicans. The CBO found the bill wouldn't cost\ntaxpayers a single dime. This is a nonpartisan, commonsense measure\nthat simply brings more transparency to\n\n[[Page S6909]]\n\ncritical actions the government takes on behalf of the public.\n  Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the\nconsideration of Calendar No. 566, S. 1898; that the committee-reported\nsubstitute amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a\nthird time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made\nand laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?\n  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cornyn, I object.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.\n  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I am disappointed but not surprised that\nthere is an objection to this request because although there is\nbipartisan support for this bill and only one outside group has raised\nconcerns--that group is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a powerful\nlobbying organization that represents the interests of large\ncorporations. The chamber's concern about this bill demonstrates just\nhow much the interests of these giant corporations that break the law\nconflict with public interests.\n  In its letter opposing the bill, the Chamber wrote that the bill\n``would remove the incentive for investigation targets to settle and\nforce the government to expend more resources to prove its assertions\nin court.'' Think about that for a second. The chamber's position is\nthat agencies shouldn't disclose basic facts about settlement\nagreements to the public because if the public were aware of those\nfacts, they would demand more accountability for corporate wrongdoers.\n  The chamber's position boils down to this: Let's keep the details of\nthese agreements hidden from view so that corporate wrongdoers don't\nhave to worry about any real accountability for their illegal actions.\nThat sounds great if you are a big company that breaks the law, but I\ndon't think it sounds great to the American people. I think the\nAmerican people are tired of seeing large corporations break the law\nand then negotiate sweetheart deals behind closed doors.\n  While we will not be able to pass the Truth in Settlements Act this\nCongress, I will be reintroducing it in the next Congress, and I will\ncontinue to fight for the public to get access to the details of these\nagreements because we weren't sent here to work for big companies and\nto protect them from accountability when they break the law; we were\nsent here to stand up for everyone.\n  Mr. President, I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2014-12-16-pt1-PgS6908-4"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 37.61952102649957, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}