Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Virginia. He is absolutely right. That is exactly the case. Under the Constitution of the United States, all revenue-rising measures must originate in the other body, the House of Representatives. Despite the merits of his amendment, with which I agree, we have what we call a blue slip. When an amendment originates over here and it impacts the Internal Revenue Code, it is subject to an objection, what we call a blue slip. It does not go to the merits of the amendment. It goes to the constitutionality of such a proposal where revenue is affected. Those matters must begin in the House. I say to my colleague from Virginia, there will be opportunities, I am sure, with revenue measures coming from the House for our consideration to raise this amendment again. I, for one, am attracted to the amendment and what he is proposing and hope at another point-- and I presume that opportunity will arise in the next couple months because I gather revenue measures will be coming over--that we will have another chance to address this issue. I appreciate his consideration of this matter and look forward to working with him on this question the next opportunity we have to do so. It is my understanding the amendment would suffer from that constitutional question at this point.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, while we are waiting, there are two pending amendments which we can voice vote, but I gather there may be a second- degree amendment offered to one of these amendments. It will be the first time a second-degree amendment has been offered to one of these amendments. We are trying to go through the process and give everybody a chance to air their ideas. There have been no tabling motions, no filibusters, at least none declared on the bill at this point. Nonetheless, Senators have the right to offer second-degree amendments, if they wish. We have avoided it up to now, having considered quite a few proposals on the floor of the Senate. I count about 15, 16, at least on my list of amendments, on the Democratic side Members who would like to be given the opportunity to raise. I cannot speak to the number on the other side, but it is not a large number. Our Republican colleagues, at least based on the list I have seen--it is about six or seven or eight. I may be off a little bit on that count, but it is not a large number. Here we are again, it is almost 12:30 p.m. and sitting here, potentially going to a quorum call. I am hearing again my colleagues say we have to stay on this bill and don't get off it. I am prepared to stay and work, but we cannot work when Members will not come over and at least allow us to vote up or down on rollcall votes on these amendments. On Saturday, I submitted to my good friend from Alabama, Senator Shelby, and his staff a list of technical amendments, as well as bipartisan amendments and others that I thought were noncontroversial that we could make part of a managers' amendment. We can only do a managers' amendment when we get consent. Obviously, any objections to any of the suggestions I sent over on Saturday would exclude them from a managers' amendment. It is now Wednesday, and I have not heard back whether we can subtract or add to those amendments. It would help tremendously to clean out a lot of issues on which I believe there is consensus. I made it privately and I make a plea publicly. At some point, the leader is going to say enough is enough on the bill. We are trying to go back and forth in an orderly fashion so Members will have a chance, on either side of this so-called political divide, which I wish did not exist--even in this Chamber--for people to offer amendments. In a dead time such as this, the clock is ticking. We have no votes this Friday. We will not be in on Saturday or Sunday. We would like to move on to other issues. We have taken a lot of time on this bill. I am a strong advocate of doing that to prove this body can function, we can consider each others' ideas, modify them, vote for them, vote against them but to do what we tell every high school class or elementary school class we talk to as Senators about how the Senate functions. I think we are proving we can do that on this bill, despite the significance of it--the first time in almost 100 years reforming the financial structure of our Nation. My hope is we will continue and finish it without having to get involved in procedural motions that would deprive people of being heard on their ideas, whether you like it or not, but at least have the opportunity for it to come up. I am trying to orchestrate the votes that relate to the matters with which we are dealing. It does not work perfectly. It is what every manager tries to do. I know some Members are frustrated because they have not been able to be heard yet on their ideas. I wish to give them an opportunity to do so. When we get delays such as this, when the time could be filled on considering these matters, it sets us back from the goal of having a bill completed in this Congress where all Members have had a chance to be heard, that we were able to tackle a significant issue and come to a conclusion about it. There are those who think we cannot do that any longer. I believe we can, and we have been proving it in the last couple weeks. After 2 weeks of a good, spirited, civil, in some cases partisan but civil debate, let us complete the work as we have begun it. My plea to my colleagues, particularly on the minority side right now, is please respond to these requests so we can have some idea of what can be accepted, what can be modified and not accepted so we can move forward with the legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield for a minute, I thank the Senator from Arkansas. She is chairperson of the Agriculture Committee, which is a huge undertaking. Every State is affected by decisions made in that committee. Even small States in New England, contrary to what many people may think, have agricultural interests, maybe not to the extent of Oregon and Arkansas but we have them. I am very grateful to her and members of her committee for the work they engaged in. We are truly fortunate to have the Senator from Arkansas in the position she is in--making decisions, providing valuable contributions, not just to this effort; we have worked together on a lot of issues over the years. She is a great advocate of her State, but I also say she is a great advocate of our country. That is the quality we hope people bring. We have an obligation to keep an eye out for what happens in our States but also to keep an eye out for what happens to our country. Striking that balance is a challenge we face at one time or another. No one does it better than the Senator from Arkansas, striking a balance. I have heard that word about Arkansans over and over during her tenure. She is as tenacious a fighter as any State has had in my 30 years here. She is also mindful that Arkansas, similar to Connecticut, is part of a country, and we all have to be mindful of each other's interests. Striking that balance has been invaluable in this debate. I did not want the moment to pass without thanking her immensely and her staff and others for the contributions they have made.

Mr. DODD. First, Mr. President, are we temporarily laying aside the Snowe-Landrieu? What is the pending amendment?

Mr. DODD. OK.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I believe we are prepared to have a voice vote on the Snowe-Landrieu amendment, which is the pending amendment, if I am not mistaken.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me once again thank Senators Snowe and Landrieu for their very valuable contribution to this bill in more clearly refining and making it abundantly clear that merchants and retailers and others are not included as financial services or financial products companies and are not to be covered by the consumer financial product bureau. I am very appreciative to both of them for their contribution. With that, Mr. President, I see my colleague from North Dakota is here, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object at all, I have chatted with my friend, Senator Chambliss, as well. I know he is inquiring among his members, as is my colleague from Arkansas as well, about a time agreement on the Chambliss amendment. My hope would be it would not take too long. I know that is the plea of every manager, majority and minority leader. So if they can inquire as soon as possible on a time. There are several other amendments tonight I think we will be able to deal with, some of which will not require any rollcall votes. But, obviously, Members like to get some sense of when votes will occur. I am not trying to suggest we truncate anything. I know my colleagues agree that we need to find a time agreement. So I make that plea to both the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee. With that, I have no objection.

Mr. DODD. I say to my good friend, he is on the list. We are going to try to get to that amendment as soon as we can. I promise the Senator that.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of our colleagues to give them some sense of things. Senator Reed and Senator Brown of Massachusetts have an amendment which will take just a very few minutes to discuss, and then they would like to have a vote on that, which we have agreed to. At the conclusion, that would be the last vote of the evening. Then the next amendment would be the Sessions amendment. Senator Sessions has agreed to debate his amendment tonight. We will vote on that in the morning. Senator Specter would be the following amendment and we will debate his amendment this evening and vote on that tomorrow as well. Senator Collins, I know, has an amendment and she can debate, if she would, this evening and we will try and line that up in the morning so we have a series of votes when we come in. So the last vote today would be on the Reed-Brown amendment, if Members would stay around for just a few minutes to hear that, and then we could be free of any more votes. At least that is the plan.

Mr. DODD. I strongly support the amendment offered by our two colleagues from New England, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Senator Brown of Massachusetts. Both of these colleagues speak with some authority on this amendment. Jack Reed is a graduate of West Point and served in uniform for our country for a number of years with great distinction. Senator Brown has spent some 30 years in the National Guard in Massachusetts and also speaks with more than just passing authority about the importance of the amendment they offer. It is a very important amendment because it sets the table for a debate tomorrow regarding a certain area of finance companies. The amendment establishes an Office of Military Liaison within the consumer bureau we have created in the overall legislation. In today's New York Times, there was a description of the case of Matthew Garcia, a 25-year-old Army specialist who was recently subjected to a trick called yo-yo financing by an unscrupulous car dealer, just as he was preparing to deploy to Afghanistan. According to the story, Specialist Garcia, stationed at Fort Hood, TX, bought an automobile at a used car lot and signed up for a loan at a 19.9-percent interest rate. That is not even the abuse, believe it or not, as high as that rate is. The problem came when Specialist Garcia drove the car home. The dealer called Specialist Garcia several days later to say that the financing contract had actually fallen through and demanded an additional $2,500 in cash. To make sure he paid up, the dealer blocked the soldier's car in so that no one could leave. That is the way some-- few but some--auto dealers are treating our men and women in uniform. That is why we need the Office of Military Liaison within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Unfortunately, the story of Specialist Garcia is not unique. It is all too common, whether it is in the area of auto financing, payday lending, mortgage lending, check cashing, these unregulated areas of finance so many of our fellow citizens are subjected to on an hourly basis, let alone a daily one. Creating an office within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to focus on the problems of our young men and women in the military and their families is an important contribution to this legislation. I thank both of our colleagues for offering this proposal. The office we are creating with this amendment will help resolve many of the complaints brought to the office by our service men and women. It will help advise the director of the bureau's rule writing to take into account the special needs of military families. By doing this, it will help our military readiness as well. I have letters from the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army, sent to me and to other Members, laying out the value of having some protection within the automobile financing area. It is important we have this language in the bill. Let me emphasize as well that unfortunately we are not talking about many auto dealers that engage in financing that cause these problems, but, like most laws on the books, if they were only written because there were a majority of people committing the offenses, it would be hard to make the case against them. But we don't write laws for the many; we write laws for the few, those who will abuse their offices, abuse their operations in such a way as to cause harm to people who otherwise have no protection. I have talked a lot about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau over the last number of days. The importance of this is that for the first time in the history of our country, individuals who are taken advantage of in the financial services sector will have someplace to seek redress for the grievances to which they have been subjected. I don't think this is a radical idea, particularly in light of what so many of our fellow citizens have been through over the last several years where homes have been lost, jobs lost, the tremendous abuse that has occurred in too many of the areas of what I call the shadow economy, the unregulated areas of our economy. The most important purchase the average American makes is buying a home, and we all know what can happen, as we have seen with brokers and mortgage lenders who were unregulated taking advantage of people by getting them into situations they knew they couldn't afford. People say it ought to be buyer beware. I don't argue with that. Obviously, we all bear responsibility to be better informed about financial arrangements. But to suggest this is a level playing field when it comes to home mortgages or car financing is to belie the facts. The analogy may not be perfect, but it has some value. We don't expect patients necessarily to be as well informed when they are making decisions about their health care. There is something called medical malpractice. Obviously, we have an obligation to ask questions before we submit ourselves to surgery or other things. But we know in the end that if a doctor has abused the Hippocratic Oath and put a patient at risk, there is an ability to seek redress of those harms. It is called medical malpractice. It allows a person who has been injured or harmed because of the misfeasance or malfeasance of someone in the medical profession to get recovery. We understand it is not exactly a level playing field when the average person is trying to make intelligent decisions about their medical care. The same could be said for mortgage lending. You can't expect the average person to understand all of the details, necessarily, involved. I suggest there is a higher degree of responsibility in the area of mortgage financing by a borrower than there would be necessarily in the case of medical malpractice, but nonetheless there are some legitimate comparisons. Some have suggested mortgage malpractice may be an appropriate description for what happens when you are across that table from a lender. You have picked out the home you have fallen in love with. Your family is excited about this new place. In many instances, it is the first home you are buying. The idea that you will have your own home to raise your family in is a very emotional time. That lender across the table who is being unscrupulous in his or her behavior can extract commitments, and so forth, from that borrower that could put them at a distinct advantage. We believe in those instances there should be good underwriting standards by law. And if there is some harm done through the misfeasance or malfeasance of someone in the mortgage lending business, you can get some redress when that occurs. Car financing is not the same as a home mortgage, but if you are an 18- or 19-year-old young person in uniform and you find that automobile you love and you are so attracted to it--I am not suggesting borrowers don't have a responsibility to be well informed--most Americans know what happens. All of a sudden, you end up like Specialist Garcia. You think you have bought the automobile. And at 19, almost 20 percent financing, that in itself ought to be illegal. But the fact that you then find you have a $2,500 extra charge and the wheels have been blocked so you can't drive away--that is the kind of individual who ought not to be allowed to continue to operate under those circumstances. We believe when it comes to financing such as this we should not say to one sector: You are exempt; we will carve you out; you don't have to worry about any of the laws. We make that local banker, who also might like to extend that loan, subject to the law's protections. The credit union is subject to the same laws. Why should someone engaged in the financing of a product--an automobile--be exempt? The local bank isn't. They have to meet their requirements under the law to make sure they are not abusing--not that many do but some do--the rights of an individual and protect them from a disadvantage in that second largest purchase a person may make aside from their home. I know tomorrow there will be a debate. Senator Brownback will offer an amendment to exempt auto dealers and financing. Auto dealers are not covered. If you are a dealer, you are not affected by this any more than you are if you are a butcher or a dentist or any other retailer merchant. If you are in the financing business, you are the one who is engaging in that contract despite the fact the papers may have been written up by some other lender that is doing business with the auto dealer. Shouldn't we provide to that individual the same kind of protection they would expect if they went to the local bank, the community bank to get a car loan or to the credit union to get a car loan? We require them to meet basic rules, not exaggerated rules but basic protections so you are not taken advantage of. I have a wonderful relationship with the auto dealers in my State. I fought hard for them last year. The program we had on the clunkers that allowed for people to turn in older automobiles, I fought hard for that. I have a great relationship. In fact, they offered me a nice award last year for my efforts on behalf of auto dealers in my State. I am very proud of it. The overwhelming majority of my dealers, as I know is the case in all of our States, do a good job and are fair. They wouldn't be in business very long if they did not. But all of us also know there are people who take advantage. Certainly to be exempt from any kind of rulemaking when it comes to protecting people ought not to be the decision we are making. Here we have the Reed-Brown amendment that says we will establish within the office of consumer financial protection an office to protect the men and women in uniform from the abuses of people who would take advantage of them. Then less than 24 hours later we write an exemption and take away one of the major problems these young men and women have. What an irony. What is this institution saying? On the one hand, we say our young men and women in uniform ought to be protected from people who take advantage of them. Then less than 24 hours later we say: But, by the way, in a major area of abuse that occurs, you are exempt. Don't worry about it. The law doesn't apply to you. I am sorry, Mr. Community Banker. I am sorry, Mr. Local Credit Union. You will have to live by the rules. So there is a great disadvantage at the local level. The community bankers and credit unions are rightfully annoyed that they may be subjected to one set of rules and the person down the street who finances an automobile for an unsuspecting purchaser is exempt. That doesn't make any sense to me. I hope that tomorrow my colleagues will react as I am to this. Again, I am not in any way indicting automobile dealers--quite the contrary. They have been through an awful lot. They have seen the struggle with major problems of the industry in this country. We made major efforts here to get them back on their feet. I am proud to have been involved in that, to see to it we restore and maintain a strong manufacturing sector in our country of automobile dealerships and manufacturers. But to turn around at the local level and say: I will give you a pass on those who would abuse the law and take advantage of people--in fact, it is an invitation to do it. It seems to me, by carving this out, we are not just sending a message to those who are presently engaging in this but to those who may decide this isn't a bad area of business in which to get involved. The local bank has to meet those obligations and the local credit union or some other financing operation covered under our legislation. Now we will no longer have shadow operators. We cover payday lenders. We cover the check-cashing operations involved in financial services or products. But in the second largest purchase the average American ever makes, you are going to be exempt from any of the laws involving consumer protection when it comes to financing. I know there is a lot of pressure, a lot of lobbying going on all over the place to carve out this exception. But I urge my colleagues to please be careful about this, to walk in tomorrow and to basically gut the Reed-Brown amendment by saying in this one major area of abuse-- read the letter from Secretary Gates. Read the letter from the Secretary of the Army. Listen to our colleagues who are listening to the people on their military bases in the respective States, what goes on every single day by those who take advantage of people who are in uniform. I urge my colleagues, tomorrow, when we have an opportunity to debate the Brownback amendment, not be lured away from their support of putting an office within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and basically gut the very bureau before the ink is dry on the amendment by allowing for a massive exception which would allow for consumers, particularly men and women in uniform, to be taken advantage of.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield to the minority leader.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily lay aside the Landrieu-Isakson amendment.

Mr. DODD. I appreciate that. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider Calendar Nos. 887, 888, 889, and 890; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that no further motions be in order; that any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, May 13; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of S. 3217, Wall Street reform, and that the Senate recess from 1 p.m. until 2 p.m.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we have eight amendments pending and Senators should expect rollcall votes throughout Thursday's session as we continue to process amendments on the Wall Street reform legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 523 submitted earlier today.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.