Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there are no further votes today. As I understand it, there will be no votes tomorrow. But there will be a session tomorrow for Members to come and to be heard on the remaining parts of the bill or amendments we still have to consider. I think we all heard the majority leader, Senator Reid, make the point that I made earlier; that is, I intend to be here all weekend. My staff and Senator Shelby's staff will be as well. So for those Members who still have amendments, we are more than happy to sit down and try to resolve and work together on those amendments to see if we can't reach agreement on some or at least to work with the authors of the amendments or their staffs. So we will be here to do that. Let me just thank all Members again. Mr. President, it is Richard Shelby's birthday today--my seatmate on the Banking Committee, the former chairman of the Banking Committee--and I would just note that, even though he was late for his dinner with Annette, his lovely wife, we stepped aside around 4 p.m. this afternoon--the members of the Banking Committee, his staff, and I--and we brought out a nice cake for Senator Shelby. So we celebrated in the midst of the debate. It is important for the people of the country to know that we have very strong differences--I had strong objections to the Shelby amendment today, and we debated that. Yet despite those very strong differences, and while we disagree with each other on substantive issues, we can enjoy each other's company on a personal level, on a civil level. So let me, on behalf of all of us today, wish Richard Shelby a very happy birthday on this day. Again, I thank him for his cooperation and that of his staff. I thank our floor staff today as well, working hard every day. They are here every day early in the morning and they stay here with us until late in the evening. So I want to thank them all for their tremendous work. With that, Mr. President, I am all done, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Let me say to my friend from Arizona--and he is my friend-- I have no intention of immediately tabling anyone's amendment. I have not done that at all in the process. I think most Members appreciate I have been trying to make sure everybody has a chance to be heard and to work out amendments where we can so we can move along. You can also understand my dilemma, in a sense. We have 100 Members here who basically all have amendments on which they want to get heard. Everyone thinks their amendment is pretty important, and I respect that. All I am trying to look for are some time agreements so we can say: How long do we need? So we can then set up a schedule whereby, with some predictability--Members want to go home tomorrow. Are we going to have votes tomorrow? Are we going to have votes on Monday? I am just trying to have a schedule so I can accommodate as many people as I can so they can be heard on their matters. That is all I am seeking. I am not trying to shortcut anybody, although I would ask for reasonableness on time so everybody gets a crack at what they would like to do. That is all I am inquiring.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator from Arizona. We have Senator Sanders' pending amendment, on which I think we have reached a lot of consensus. I would like to see us get a vote on it. I know there are some issues that are--I will not mention them at all, but my hope is my colleagues might let us go to this. Is there any chance of that at all? Would someone get back to me and let me know it we can-- I urge a vote on the Sanders amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. Is there a sufficient second?

Mr. DODD. I would like to be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as I recall the unanimous consent agreement, there were 5 minutes. Is there time allocated? I do not believe there is any opposition to this amendment; therefore, if there is any, we yield back the time. I say to the Senator, did you want to be heard on the Cantwell amendment?

Mr. DODD. I am sorry.

Mr. DODD. 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. DODD. If my colleague would yield quickly, I appreciate everyone wanting to make my bill stronger. We have a pretty good bill here, but every bill could use a little improvement, I admit. I want to compliment the Senator from Oregon, a member of the Banking Committee. He has been a very valued member of the committee. I mentioned earlier--I say to the majority whip--in the committee meetings we have had, it is by seniority, and so I have this cluster of new members down at the end of that committee table. The Senator from Illinois and I have been in that position at those tables over the years. But Senator Tester, Senator Merkley, and Senator Bennet kind of occupy those last three seats on the Banking Committee. I say that with great respect to all the rest around the committee. Those three new members on the committee have added tremendous value to our debates, and in particular, the Senator from Oregon has been wonderful in his concern about mortgages, prepayment penalties, what has happened to the 7 million foreclosures in our country, the 8\1/2\ million jobs that got lost in our Nation, why we need to address this issue, and why it is so critically important. I want to make one more point about this Shelby amendment that may be lost on our colleagues, and that is in our bill there is no assessment on a nonbank or a bank, but there are assessments in this amendment. We just went through the Tester-Hutchison amendment to actually lower the assessments on community banks. What a great irony that the next amendment--there will be those having supported the earlier amendment to reduce cost--sets assessments. In fact, it asks community banks to have assessments on the nonbanks out there in order to pay for their consumer bureau within the FDIC. So for those who are concerned about the burdens on community banks-- and I think it is a legitimate concern, one I think the Hutchison- Tester amendment did a great deal to alleviate--we are going to turn right around on these institutions that are struggling to stay alive to serve their communities and add a financial burden to them. So for all those reasons the Senator from Oregon mentioned, plus that one, the Shelby amendment deserves to be defeated. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me briefly express my gratitude to my great pal and friend from New Jersey, Bob Menendez, once again. We look around. There are 100 of us here. I do not often acknowledge these things, but if I had to pick one of our colleagues to be in my corner as an advocate, I would pick Bob Menendez every time. He is a strong advocate. When he is focused and passionate about a matter, as he is on this one, there is no better advocate in the Senate. He has been a great member of our committee and a great help over the last few years where we have worked together on a number of bills coming out of the committee. His understanding of this issue is exactly right. I say, there are ideas people can offer on which they can make a case that they strengthen our particular provision. But I say, respectfully, this is such a step backward, it is even hard to imagine someone could actually conjure up an amendment that would step us this farther away from even the status quo. I thought I might get an amendment that would strike this and leave the world as it is. Senator Thune made that argument, that somehow this is not broken, leave it alone. Yet there is not a person I know of in the country who does not recognize this problem all began because there were unscrupulous brokers, there were people willing to put ratings on bundled securities that were worthless, there were bankers willing to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear, pushing out mortgages they knew people could not possibly afford, luring them into it by promising them they could meet all their obligations. To suggest the system is not broken--you would almost have to have been living on a different planet over the last few years not to recognize what happened because consumers were forgotten. Safety and soundness, we were told, were in great shape. Institutions were making money. This was a very stable situation. We had a hearing almost 3 years ago in our committee. It was in June of 2007. A guy by the name of David Berenbaum from the National Community Reinvestment Coalition came before the committee. Let me quote, if I can--this is 3 years ago--from his testimony: For the past 5 years, community groups, consumer protection groups, fair lending groups, and all of our members in the National Community Reinvestment Coalition have been sounding an alarm about poor underwriting--underwriting that not only endangered communities, their tax bases, their municipal governments, their ability to have sound services and celebrate home ownership--but [underwriting that] was going to impact on the safety and soundness of our banking institutions themselves. Those cries for action fell on deaf ears, and here we are today. I remember my colleague from New Jersey, almost 3 years ago--I remember his words--I do not have them written down in front of me, but I remember them very clearly. I say to the Senator, your words that day were: This is going to be a tsunami. It was the first time I heard those words used to describe the looming foreclosure crisis. We were told then there would be maybe 1 million, maybe 2 million foreclosures. Now we know the number is in excess of 7 million that have occurred--not to mention job loss and the like. The consumer people were arguing for underwriting standards. It was the safety and soundness regulators who were refusing to acknowledge we did not have underwriting standards or were refusing to acknowledge we needed to do something about it. So I wanted to commend my colleague.

Mr. DODD. Right.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. The last point I want to make on the amendment is, under this proposal, any person who is subject to one of the enumerated statutes could be assessed--under this bill, in section 1015(a)--and this amendment, by the way--talk about a bureaucracy, it is a long amendment--but in 1015(a), it says: The Chairperson shall establish, by rule, an assessment schedule-- So we are going to assess now these various institutions that are already burdened with assessments-- including the assessment base and rates, applicable to covered persons subject to section 1023. . . . I know this sounds like a lot of gibberish, but what is section 1023? What does it say? Section 1023 talks about nondepository institutions subject to consumer laws--just consumer laws. One of the complaints about our underlying bill--which is totally false--is that florists and butchers and dentists and accountants and lawyers would be subject to the provisions of this act. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the language in our bill makes it explicitly clear that you must be significantly involved in financial services or products. That is the language of our bill. Section 1023: Nondepository institutions subject to consumer laws could be levied with assessments. That is your florist, your butcher, your dentist, your accountant, your lawyer. So as to those who argue against my bill and argue for this alternative--in fact, explicitly in here, at least as I read this--it could very well impose assessments on the very people they claim are affected by our legislation. Again, I invite my colleagues to read it. It is not a speech I am reading. I am reading from the proposed amendment. That section 1023-- specifically, you can look it up in here; it is a section of the bill-- it speaks about nondepository institutions subject to consumer laws. And the definition, accordingly, is the very people who are not financial institutions, who could be levied with those assessments. So for all those reasons, respectfully, I would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I do not claim perfection in our underlying consumer protection language. We think we have a very strong bill. I am always anxious to hear from people who think they can make it stronger or better in some way. Fine. But to propose a whole new regulatory structure here, with new people coming on, at great cost, with no power whatsoever to do anything about the very problem that confronts us, seems to me to be the height of what we are trying to avoid: creating a bureaucracy that does not do much. That, it seems to me, is what the American taxpayers want us to avoid. With that, we have completed on our side the debate against this amendment. Unless there is some further comment, then I would ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment and call for a vote.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, again, before we get to this vote, let me make this appeal. We are going to have this vote, and then we will go to the Sanders amendment and then to the McCain amendment. Again, we are going to try to go back and forth and move along. The number of amendments now has increased to over 150. I say to my colleagues, there are actually more amendments on the Democratic side than the Republican side--not many more but more. I urge my colleagues, if you have very like minded amendments, it may be in your interests to combine these ideas in a single amendment--maybe rally around one that actually makes the point, to either extract from the bill or add to the bill because we all realize we are not going to be on this bill forever, and I want to accommodate as many people as I can and have the kind of discussion we just had on this amendment. But to do that in the timeframe we have is going to require cooperation and some indulgence on the part of people to not be demanding. To the extent you have an amendment up, let's try to get to it and have a good discussion but not too long so we give other people a chance to be heard as well. I make that plea to everyone involved. With that, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3826 to Amendment No. 3739

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me give my colleagues some idea of how we are going to proceed. Senator Sanders has the next amendment. We entered into a unanimous consent agreement a few minutes ago. Senator Sanders has asked for 80 minutes to be equally divided on his amendment. We then turn to the McCain amendment. I am hoping we get a time agreement on that amendment as well. There are 141 amendments, about equally divided between us. I want to accommodate everybody as much as I can. If some people take too much time, it means others do not get a chance to offer their amendments. I make a request of my good friend Senator Shelby to inquire, before we get to the McCain amendment, what kind of time agreement we can have on his amendment. Then my intention is to go to a Democratic amendment and possibly a Republican amendment tonight. There are going to be votes tomorrow. I am letting my colleagues know we will have votes tomorrow. I gather Monday and Friday of next week are nonvote days. If we have 141 amendments and Members want to be heard--and I want to give them time to be heard and have good debate-- obviously we cannot go on forever.

Mr. DODD. I will be happy to.

Mr. DODD. Yes, he has.

Mr. DODD. If everybody demands more time, everyone suffers. There is not unlimited debate. With 141 amendments equally divided between us, we have to provide time for people. I cannot do that if people insist on unlimited time or more time. We know these issues pretty well. It is not as if it is a new bill.

Mr. DODD. I agree. I say to my friend the Republican leader, we spent 24 hours on one amendment. We have to do better than that. I cannot accommodate people if we are going to spend a day on one amendment. It just does not work. All amendments may not be equal, but all Members are, and all Members deserve an opportunity to be heard. I appreciate the majority leader's point of trying to consolidate if several Members have the same idea about something. Maybe it can be brought together in one amendment rather than five--I say that to both Democrats and Republicans--as a way of moving the process along, and we can have a good discussion. I cannot spend 24 hours on one amendment and accommodate people. It just is not going to happen. That is my point.

Mr. DODD. I will take advantage of the moment to say that I will be here all weekend. We are not going to have votes on the weekend. I will be here all weekend. For people who would like to have amendments and would like us to consider them, Senator Shelby's staff will be around and my staff will be around to work on their amendment to see if we can accommodate it, modify it, or talk about it. I will spend Saturday and Sunday here all day for people to go over their products so maybe we can expedite things next week as well.

Mr. DODD. Senator Sanders.

Mr. DODD. I will just take 30 seconds. I will speak longer on this a little later. But let me thank our colleague from Vermont. He is a remarkable individual who brings great intelligence and passion to this cause. He does not get involved in every issue that comes up on the floor of the Senate. I admire that. Some believe they have to have something to say about everything. But when Senator Sanders gets involved with something, you better believe he does it with a great deal of conviction and passion and purpose. I am a cosponsor of this amendment he has just modified. I think it is absolutely correct. On the transparency issues, there are no excuses. When as much American taxpayer money has been exposed as has been, we have the right to know where it is going and who is involved in it. There was a concern about whether the independence of the Fed would be compromised. He has guaranteed in his language that is no longer an issue whatsoever. I thank him for it. It is a great amendment. I know Senator Grassley wants to be heard, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 789, the nomination of Larry Robinson to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere; that the nomination be confirmed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that any statements be printed in the Record; the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 6, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.