[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 13, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5415-S5429]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       CREDIT CARDHOLDERS' BILL OF RIGHTS ACT OF 2009--Continued

  Mr. BAYH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I fully support the bill offered by the 
distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Dodd. It would 
create a long overdue reform of the credit card industry whose 
practices have been increasingly predatory and abusive. I have heard 
from many hundreds of Iowans who have been victimized by credit card 
companies. These are good people who, in the current economic downturn, 
have had no choice but to resort to their credit cards in order to put 
food on the table or to make a car payment or even help pay for college 
tuition. As a result, they have found themselves on the receiving end 
of a whole array of unfair and often outright abusive practices; things 
such as double billing, unwanted fees, and arbitrary interest rate 
increases. I applaud the Dodd-Shelby legislation for cracking down on 
some of these abuses. I think the legislation is a good first step.
  However, this bill still allows credit card companies to charge 
excessive and, for millions of Americans, ruinous interest rates. 
Currently one-third of all credit cardholders in the United States are 
being forced to pay interest rates above 20 percent, sometimes as high 
as 41 percent. These interest rates are grossly excessive. It is time 
to set a reasonable limit on what credit card companies can charge.
  In times past, an interest rate of 20 percent, 30 percent, or 40 
percent would have been condemned by religious leaders of all faiths as 
being the sin of usury. People daring to charge these interest rates 
would have been prosecuted for loan sharking. But today the credit card 
industry tells us that charging people these grossly excessive interest 
rates is both fair and necessary. I totally disagree. It is not fair, 
and it is not necessary. What is more, many Iowans have pointed out to 
me the very financial institutions that are victimizing and squeezing 
ordinary hard-working Americans have already received billions of 
dollars from the taxpayers. Now these institutions are lending money 
that came from taxpayers to people at interest rates as high as 41 
percent. Someone tell me, what is the logic of that? No wonder people 
are upset all over this country. We take their hard-earned tax dollars, 
give it to the big institutions. They have a credit card and in hard 
times they have to use that credit card for some necessities. Now they 
are being charged 20, 25, 30 percent interest. It is a sweet deal for 
the financial institution. It is nothing more than an old-fashioned 
rip-off of consumers.
  For these reasons, I have joined with Senators Sanders, Whitehouse, 
Leahy, Durbin, and Levin to offer an amendment to cap credit card 
interest rates at 15 percent. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. No 
credit card could charge more than 15 percent interest rates. Why did 
we pick 15 percent as an appropriate top rate? Thanks to a law passed 
by this Congress 30 years ago--I was here at the time--we put a cap of 
15 percent on the maximum interest charges a credit union could charge 
their customers. That was 30 years ago. We left a safety valve for 
special circumstances. This rate cap of 15 percent has protected 
millions of consumers at credit unions. I belong to a credit union 
right here in the Senate. I have always belonged to a credit union. I 
belonged to one in the House when I was there, and before that, in the 
Navy, I belonged to the Navy Federal Credit Union. These credit unions 
have performed a viable, good service for millions of Americans without 
harming the safety or soundness of the institutions and without 
negatively impacting access to credit for credit union members. I have 
been a member of a credit union all my adult life. I have never once 
seen them constrict the amount of credit involved to borrowers. If you 
need a car, you have been able to get consumer loans from credit 
unions.
  I would also point out, not one single credit union--not one--had to 
line up with the big banks begging for a bailout. Not one credit union. 
Yet they are capped at 15-percent interest rates. Interesting, isn't 
it?
  Credit unions have remained strong and stable despite the meltdown in 
much of our financial system.
  Chris Coliver, a regulatory analyst for the California Credit Union 
League, was recently asked about the effect of the interest rate cap on 
his institutions--the 15-percent cap. He answered:

       It hasn't been an issue. Credit unions are still able to 
     thrive.

  Of course, there may be some special circumstances under which an 
interest rate above 15 percent is temporarily necessary. Currently, 
credit unions are allowed to charge higher interest rates if their 
regulator--which is the National Credit Union Administration--
determines this is necessary to maintain the safety and soundness of 
the institutions. At the present time, the NCUA, the National Credit 
Union Administration, allows credit unions to charge interest rates as 
high as--get this--as high as 18 percent, though most credit unions 
continue to have a top rate that is actually much lower than that, and 
some of them lower than 15 percent, some as low as 12 percent, 11 
percent. Well, our amendment includes a similar, reasonable exception. 
It would allow credit card companies to charge interest rates higher 
than 15 percent in circumstances where Federal regulators determine 
that higher rates are necessary to protect the safety and soundness of 
financial institutions.
  It seems as if this is deja vu all over again for me. I have been 
advocating

[[Page S5416]]

for a 15-percent cap since I was an attorney for the Iowa Consumer 
League in 1973, fresh out of law school. I was a lawyer for the Iowa 
Consumer League, and we were trying to get the Iowa Legislature at that 
time to put a cap of 15 percent on credit cards. So this issue has been 
around for a long time. As a legal aid lawyer at that time, I saw 
firsthand the devastation and hardship caused to Iowa families by 
excessive interest rates charged by credit card companies and others. 
Again, many of these Iowans turned to their credit cards in a time of 
crisis--a medical emergency, for example--but because of the 
prohibitive interest rates, they found themselves falling further and 
further behind in their payments. Some were forced into bankruptcy.
  Well, it is no different today. As I said, I have received many 
hundreds of letters and e-mails from Iowans who have been victimized by 
credit card companies' abusive practices. For example, Madam President, 
let me share an all-too-common story from one of my Iowa constituents, 
and I will read it verbatim as she wrote it:

       I am a single mom with a pretty good job, [for] which I am 
     very thankful. I have 3 credit cards. Recently, I received 
     notices from 2 of them that they were raising my interest 
     rate due to the ``economic conditions.'' I don't mean a 
     little, I mean a LOT.

  She capitalized ``LOT.''

       Capital One--

  We all know who Capital One is, and their credit cards--

     Capital One sent me a notice that they were raising my rate 
     from 13.9 percent to 23.99 percent. I had the option of 
     cancelling my card and paying off the existing balance at my 
     current rate of 13.9 percent, which I did. The other one is 
     Washington Mutual. They were recently purchased by JP Morgan 
     Chase. I received a notice from them a couple of weeks ago 
     that my rate was going from--

  Get this--

     10.4 percent to 23.99 percent.

  Now, you wonder: Here is JPMorgan Chase, operating through Washington 
Mutual, increasing their interest rate to 23.99 percent. Capital One 
increasing their interest rate to 23.99 percent. Why weren't they off 
just 1 percent? Why are they both exactly the same? Well, it looks as 
if they are all ganging up to charge the same high interest rate.
  Anyway, let me continue to read from her letter. The rate was going 
from 10.4 percent to 23.99 percent.

       I have never missed a payment or been late on either one of 
     these. Tonight I called JP Morgan Chase and they told me I 
     missed the deadline to say I wanted to decline the changes in 
     my cardholder agreement. I said I wanted to close my account 
     and pay off the existing balance at the 10.4 percent. They 
     refused! . . . I could see it if I had missed any payments or 
     even paid a day late, but I have NOT. This is just WRONG.

  End of her letter.
  Imagine that. She actually had the wherewithal to pay it off at 10.4 
percent, and JPMorgan said: No. You missed the deadline.
  We all get this mail. We all get this junk mail and all that stuff 
from credit card companies. I just throw them away. Well, maybe there 
is some notice in there that, oh, if it is not a bill, maybe they have 
sent you a notice that maybe you have to do something. Who reads all 
that junk mail? Nine times out of ten, it is some kind of promotion 
they are promoting: You can get a free airline pass or you can get a 
cut rate on going to Cancun or something like that. You get all that 
junk. Then they slip in there another little letter that says: Oh, by 
the way, if you do not cancel your previous agreement, we are going to 
do this, this, and this. Good luck in finding that out.
  This constituent who wrote me would clearly benefit from the 
provisions in the Dodd-Shelby bill that would prohibit retroactive rate 
increases on existing balances in accounts with no late payments. But 
the larger issue remains: Why should any bank be allowed to charge an 
interest rate of 24 percent under any circumstances--under any 
circumstances? Why should banks be allowed to charge other customers 
interest rates as high as 41 percent--41 percent?
  As I said, I support the underlying bill, but the bill will continue 
to let them charge those kinds of interest rates. The bill does clean 
up some of the other stuff, and that is why I am supporting it. But 
this does not get really to the nub of the problem; that is, we are 
allowing usurious interest rates to be charged for credit cards. We 
know why they are charging these interest rates. They can get by with 
it. It is legal. Well, the credit unions can survive and provide credit 
and issue credit cards to their holders and survive on 15 percent. Are 
you telling me these big companies cannot? Of course they can. But 
guess what. They probably would not be able to pay their executives $50 
million a year in salaries and bonuses or--$50 million; I am being a 
piker--try $200 million or $300 million a year. That is what they are 
paid. So to keep up this lavish lifestyle for their executives, for 
their corporate offices, they charge 20, 30, 40 percent.
  Well, as I said, take a lesson from the credit unions. Take a lesson. 
That is what we have to put a limit on. That is why I cannot emphasize 
enough that unless and until we cap interest rates, we are still going 
to have these problems because people will get credit cards, they will 
get into dire straits. This is their only way of paying a bill--to use 
their credit card--and something else happens, and all of a sudden they 
are racked up with these high interest rates.
  The other thing credit card companies are doing is they are charging 
these high interest rates in order to be able to give credit cards to 
just about anyone. People get credit cards sent to them without any 
kind of credit checks, whether they are really creditworthy. They get 
all these kinds of credit cards out there. People who are like my 
constituent, who are responsible and who pay their bills on time and 
who have credit cards which they do pay on time and never get behind, 
are penalized because credit card companies are so lax and so loose 
with whom they give these credit cards to. So we all pay for it. Well, 
the credit card companies ought to be a little bit more circumspect 
about whom they give their credit cards to. Again, they should take a 
lesson from the credit unions.
  So, Madam President, as I said, I support the underlying bill. But we 
must seize this opportunity to address the single most widespread and 
destructive abuse in this industry; that is, grossly excessively high 
interest rates. That is why I support this amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for the Sanders-Harkin-Leahy-Whitehouse-Durbin-Levin 
amendment on this bill.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). Without objection, 
it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1084

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
No. 1084, the Gillibrand amendment, be made pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment is pending.


                Amendment No. 1104 to Amendment No. 1084

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I call up the second-degree amendment I 
have at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Isakson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1104 to amendment No. 1084.

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the Comptroller General to conduct a study on the 
  relationship between fluency in the English language and financial 
                               literacy)

       Beginning on page 1, line 2, strike all through page 2, 
     line 9, and insert the following:

     SEC. 503. GAO STUDY AND REPORT ON FLUENCY IN THE ENGLISH 
                   LANGUAGE AND FINANCIAL LITERACY.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study examining--
       (1) the relationship between fluency in the English 
     language and financial literacy; and
       (2) the extent, if any, to which individuals whose native 
     language is a language other than English are impeded in 
     their conduct of their financial affairs.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall

[[Page S5417]]

     submit a report to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial 
     Services of the House of Representatives that contains a 
     detailed summary of the findings and conclusions of the study 
     required under subsection (a).

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, briefly, I have high regard for Senator 
Gillibrand and the intent of the amendment. I also understand the 
practical application of what could happen. I know in my home State of 
Georgia, in one school system in Gwinnett County, there are 178 
different languages spoken. The application of this amendment would 
cause, for example, in Gwinnett County, 178 different credit reports in 
178 different languages to meet the intent of the law.
  I respect and understand the difficulty that fluency can make in 
someone's ability to read and do their financial affairs. However, 
before we were to require of all the credit reporting agencies that 
they publish all credit reports and make them available in every 
language that could be spoken in the United States, we should conduct a 
study through GAO to ensure that we understand the relationship between 
fluency and financial affairs on the part of an individual and we 
understand exactly what the consequences of this amendment would be. 
This gives us 1 year to study and make a final decision based on facts 
rather than forcing an automatic imposition of credit reports being 
published in a variety of different languages, which could be well in 
excess of 100.
  I, respectfully, appreciate the consideration of the Senate.
  I yield back the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Lincoln pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1030 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, as you may have observed in our time 
together in the Senate, I do not come to the floor of the Senate to 
speak very often. I try to reserve my comments for matters of 
particular importance and urgency, matters where I think we can make a 
real difference and where the debate will matter. We are debating one 
such issue today, when it comes to the important need, the critical 
need to rein in the abusive practices of credit card companies that are 
harming thousands of middle-class families across my State and millions 
of middle-class families across America.
  Just this last weekend I received more than 500 letters and e-mails 
from my constituents, middle-class people across Indiana who are 
outraged because they rightly believe they have been abused by the 
predatory practices of credit card companies. These are decent hard-
working people who ask nothing more than for a fair shake in life and, 
too often, they are not getting it because of the these abusive 
practices.
  I wish to take the opportunity to share with you a couple of these 
stories. Many of them are heartfelt. I will give an example. This one 
is from a single mother. She writes me:

       Dear Senator Bayh, I am a single mother of a teenage boy, 
     and I work 50 hours per week--

  She is not some deadbeat, she is a hard-working, middle American--

     at a job I've had for 14 years. My ex-husband quit his job 
     out of the blue a couple of years ago and did not pay any 
     child support for over a year.
       Unfortunately, I had to turn to using my credit cards for 
     things like groceries, gas and other bills just to keep up. 
     If you are even 1 or 2 days late in paying your bill, these 
     credit card companies increase your percentage rate to 
     astronomically high amounts. Because I was struggling and a 
     few days--not months, just a few days--late on some of my 
     credit card payments, the percentage rates on my credit cards 
     are now between 28 and 32 percent. I will never pay off these 
     bills with interest rates like this!
       So many people out there, including myself, are at the 
     mercy of these unscrupulous credit card companies that can do 
     whatever they please. There needs to be laws regulating how 
     much these companies can charge. Americans are mired in 
     credit cards debt that will never be paid off, no matter how 
     hard they work and no matter how hard they try if the current 
     practices do not change.
       My economic situation will be so much better if it were not 
     for my credit card bills. I owe probably $15,000 now on all 
     of my credit card bills combined, but it will take me a 
     lifetime to pay those off because of the practices to which I 
     have been subjected. Please fight for hard working people 
     everywhere who just want a chance to get out from under their 
     debt and better their financial circumstances.

  I also heard from a woman in Carmel, IN, just north of Indianapolis, 
a few weeks ago. She had an $8,000 balance on a closed--a closed credit 
card account. She was not buying anything. She had always paid her bill 
on time. And out of the blue one day--she had done nothing wrong--her 
credit card company doubled her minimum payment. She is a woman of 
modest means and she could not make the higher payment. She called the 
bank and they would not work with her, even though she had never missed 
a payment or been late, not once.
  Soon the credit company started adding late fees and compounding her 
interest. Over the course of 2 years, her balance tripled from $8,000 
to $24,000, without making a single purchase. She had bought nothing. 
She had done nothing wrong. And she is getting gouged like this. This 
is the kind of thing that has to stop.
  I heard from another constituent from Middlebury, IN, another basic 
middle-class middle American, who received an offer from her credit 
card company to consolidate her balance on all of her credit cards at 4 
percent.
  Well, that sounded like a pretty good rate, so she accepted the 
offer. She never missed a payment. She had paid off half her debt, when 
suddenly they raised the monthly minimum payment by 60 percent. So she 
is paying on time, she is paying down her debt, and her monthly minimum 
rate goes up by 60 percent without cause or any notice.
  She called customer service to complain. They said they would lower 
her monthly minimum payment if she would agree to have her interest 
rate doubled. This woman from Middlebury is a mother. She is trying to 
keep her head above water, and her credit card company is making life 
more difficult with practices like that.
  Those are the kinds of things we have to stop. And those are the 
kinds of things I hope we will stop yet this week here in the Senate.
  Here is what she wrote:

       I don't know that our government can do a thing about this, 
     but I just wanted to be heard.

  Well, here is the place where her voice can be heard. Here is the 
place where thousands of middle-class families like hers can come for 
some relief. Here is the place where over 500 people who wrote about 
the abuses to which they have been subjected can come for some relief.
  This recession has caused millions of middle-class families to resort 
to using their credit cards a little bit more, not because they wanted 
to but because they had to try to make ends meet. They are working 
hard, trying to get out from under this situation, and it does not make 
life any easier when they are running uphill because of these abusive 
practices.
  You know, bills are sent out so late. They arrive in our mailbox and 
you have got 24 or 48 hours to pay the thing off or you are subjected 
to a late fee. That is not right. Then they start charging interest on 
the late fee. Interest rates can literally, because of the fine print 
in these bills--you know, back in the day, you applied for a credit 
card, it was about a one-page thing. Now it is 20 or 30 pages of fine 
print. And buried in there in the fine print are the provisions where 
companies can raise your interest rates any amount, anytime, for any 
reason, or for no reason whatsoever. Those are the kinds of things that 
need to be stopped.
  Then, finally, when you are making your payments, they take the 
payment

[[Page S5418]]

you make, and rather than applying it to the most expensive part of 
your debt with the highest interest rate, they apply it to the lowest 
interest rate. Why? Because it is more profitable for them, even though 
it would be better to do it the other way around for you. Those are the 
kinds of things we have to correct.
  You know me pretty well, Mr. President. I am a free enterprise 
person. I believe in the right of companies to make a profit, and 
credit card companies are no exception. But they ought to make it the 
legitimate, old-fashioned way, not on the backs of consumers through 
abusive practices. That is what we are talking about here.
  This also goes to something else I am concerned about, and that is 
the deepening skepticism and cynicism about government in general, and 
about Washington, DC, in particular. They think we are all under the 
thumb of a bunch of special interests. Everybody sold out and nobody 
cares about the average person or the middle-class family anymore. This 
gives us an opportunity to show, to demonstrate that that is not true, 
to stand up for millions of ordinary people, to do what is right, to 
say that the free market should be allowed to operate, but you should 
not scam people, you should not bury fees in fine print, you should not 
do a bait and switch.
  That is not the way you make a decent profit. That is something that 
ought to be against the rules. That is what this legislation would 
provide for. For the sake of middle-class families across States such 
as Indiana and New Mexico and elsewhere across America, for the sake of 
folks who are working hard trying to get out from under the 
consequences of this recession, for the sake of trying to restore some 
faith and trust in our system of self-government, it is important that 
we pass this credit card bill, to restrain these abusive practices, to 
stand up for middle-class families, to do right by our citizens, and to 
let people know that when their voices are heard, we will answer.
  That is why I have risen today on this bill. I urge my colleagues to 
join with us in acting. I hope we will have an opportunity to do that 
before the week is out.
  I thank you for your leadership, as well as my colleagues.
  Seeing none of our colleagues present, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley.) The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Guantanamo

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for the last several weeks there has been 
a hue and cry from the other side of the aisle, a steady procession of 
Republican Senators, concerning the President's intention to close the 
detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. I would like to remind colleagues 
this is a problem President Obama inherited from the previous 
administration, and it is worth a few moments to review the history.
  After the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, the 
Bush administration decided to set aside treaties that had served us in 
past conflicts. They sent detainees to the Guantanamo facility and 
claimed the right to seize anyone, including American citizens in the 
United States, and to hold them indefinitely without legal rights.
  GEN Colin Powell, then the Secretary of State to President George W. 
Bush, objected. He said the administration's policy:

       Will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice . . 
     . and undermine the protections of the law of war for our own 
     troops . . . It will undermine public support among critical 
     allies, making military cooperation more difficult to 
     sustain.

  GEN Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then 
Secretary of State to George W. Bush. Secretary Powell's words were 
prophetic. Guantanamo became an international embarrassment for the 
United States and, sadly, tragically, a recruiting tool for terrorists 
such as al-Qaida. The Supreme Court repeatedly held that the 
administration's detention policies were illegal. As Justice Sandra Day 
O'Connor famously wrote for the majority in the Hamdi difficult 
decision:

       A state of war is not a blank check for the President.

  Today, nearly 8 years after the 9/11 attacks, none of the terrorists 
who planned those attacks has been brought to justice.
  After he left the Bush administration, Colin Powell spoke out 
publicly again. He said:

       Guantanamo has become a major, major problem . . . in the 
     way the world perceives America. . . . We don't need it and 
     it is causing us far more damage than any good we get for it.

  That is not a quote from the ACLU. That came from GEN Colin Powell, 
former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of 
State. A lot of others agree. Four other former Secretaries of State, 
Republican and Democratic, have weighed in: Henry Kissinger, Madeleine 
Albright, James Baker, and Warren Christopher have all called for 
Guantanamo to be closed. As Secretary Baker explained:

       We all agreed one of the best things that could happen 
     would be to close Guantanamo, which is a very serious blot on 
     our reputation.

  Former Navy general counsel Alberto Mora testified in the Senate 
Armed Services Committee, saying:

       There are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that 
     the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat 
     deaths in Iraq--as judged by their effectiveness in 
     recruiting insurgent fighters into combat--are respectively 
     the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

  This was not some leftwing columnist. This is the former Navy general 
counsel, Alberto Mora.
  Retired Air Force MAJ Matthew Alexander led the interrogation team 
that tracked down Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in 
Iraq. He used legal and traditional interrogation tactics which he 
believes are more effective than torture. Here is what Major Alexander 
said:

       I listened time and time again to foreign fighters, and 
     Sunni Iraqis, state that the number one reason they decided 
     to pick up arms and join Al Qaeda was the abuses at Abu 
     Ghraib and the authorized torture and abuse at Guantanamo 
     Bay. . . . It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of 
     our losses and casualties in that country have come at the 
     hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our 
     program of detainee abuse.

  Let me remind those listening again, the source of this quote is not 
some liberal-leaning columnist, angry at policies of the United States. 
It is MAJ Matthew Alexander from the Air Force, a man who dedicated a 
large part of his life to serving our country and risking his life in 
its defense.
  I visited Guantanamo in 2006. I left with a feeling of pride and 
admiration for the soldiers and sailors serving there. They are great 
Americans doing a tough job in a very bleak climate. But they are being 
asked to carry a heavy burden created by the previous administration's 
policies, which have turned Guantanamo, sadly, into a recruiting poster 
for al-Qaida.
  By 2006, even former President George W. Bush said he wanted to close 
Guantanamo Bay. He acknowledged the problem. He didn't do anything to 
solve it.
  As an aside, it is interesting to note that there were no complaints 
from the Republican side of the aisle when President Bush said he 
wanted to close Guantanamo. The Republican leader of the Senate did not 
come down to the floor to object when his President made the 
suggestion. He started making a regular trip to the floor to object 
when the suggestion was made by President Obama.
  President Obama has shown courage in taking on this difficult 
challenge. Within 48 hours of his inauguration, President Obama issued 
executive orders prohibiting torture, stating that Guantanamo will be 
closed within 1 year and setting up a review process for all detainees 
who are currently held at Guantanamo.
  Here is what President Obama said:

       The United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle 
     against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so 
     vigilantly, we are going to do so effectively, and we are 
     going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values 
     and our ideals.

  At the signing of the Executive orders, the President was joined by 
16 retired admirals and generals. These distinguished Americans issued 
a statement saying:


[[Page S5419]]


       President Obama's actions today will restore the moral 
     authority and strengthen the national security of the United 
     States. . . . President Obama has rejected the false choice 
     between national security and our ideals. Our Nation will be 
     stronger and safer for it.

  In response to the Executive orders, Republican Senators John McCain 
and Lindsey Graham said:

       We support President Obama's decision to close the prison 
     at Guantanamo, reaffirm America's adherence to the Geneva 
     Conventions, and begin a process that will, we hope, lead to 
     the resolution of all cases of Guantanamo detainees.

  Keep in mind, I have just read a quote from Senator John McCain, a 
man who, of course, was President Obama's opponent in the last 
election, but a man who had a personal life experience of over 5 years 
of captivity during the Vietnam war, and a colleague of mine who has 
shown extraordinary courage and political courage and leadership in 
leading the effort to say, once and for all, that we were going to 
prohibit torture as part of America's policy.
  It was Senator McCain, along with his colleague Senator Graham, who 
said these supportive things after President Obama's announcement. It 
was a strong bipartisan statement, a strong day for our country.
  But now things have changed, and I do not know why. The Republicans 
are on the attack. They claim that the President does not have a plan 
to close Guantanamo, and yet at the same time they are arguing that the 
President does have a plan, which is to release terrorists into the 
United States. Imagine that. These claims are not only contradictory, 
they are preposterous.
  The truth is, the President is taking the time to carefully plan for 
the closure of Guantanamo, and he is going to do it in a way that is 
consistent with America's security.
  Here is how the Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair 
explained it:

       [Guantanamo] is a rallying cry for terrorist recruitment 
     and harmful to our national security, so closing it is 
     important for our national security. The guiding principles 
     for closing the center should be protecting our national 
     security, respecting the Geneva Conventions and the rule of 
     law, and respecting the existing institutions of justice in 
     this country. Closing this center and satisfying these 
     principles will take time, and is the work of many 
     departments and agencies.

  In recent weeks, Republicans have regularly come to the floor of the 
Senate and the House to make dozens of statements criticizing President 
Obama on Guantanamo. The distinguished minority leader, Senator 
McConnell of Kentucky, alone, has spoken on this issue on 9 separate 
occasions over the last 11 days the Senate has been in session. It is 
interesting that the Republicans are spending so much time focused on 
the fate of Guantanamo while President Obama and others in Congress are 
focused on getting our economy back on track after 8 years of failed 
economic policies.
  What is the explanation? According to a recent story in Politico:

       Congressional Republicans have stoked parochial fears of 
     releasing Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. mainland, and GOP 
     aides privately acknowledge that this issue is one of the few 
     on which they believe they have a real edge on the Obama 
     administration.

  Somehow arguing on the floor of the Senate that President Barack 
Obama cannot wait to close Guantanamo and turn terrorists loose in the 
United States--incredible.
  The Hill newspaper reported:

       As polls show most Americans approve of the job Obama is 
     doing on issues like the economy, the wars in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan and others, Republicans are desperate to find an 
     issue on which they can come out ahead.

  In other words, the Republicans are trying to turn Guantanamo into a 
political issue. Richard Clarke was President George W. Bush's first 
counterterrorism chief. Listen to what he said last week:

       Recent Republican attacks on Guantanamo are more desperate 
     attempts from a demoralized party to politicize national 
     security and the safety of the American people.

  Let's examine two of the specific claims from the other side of the 
aisle. They argue that transferring Guantanamo detainees to U.S. 
prisons will put Americans at risk.
  Well, earlier today my colleague Sheldon Whitehouse--I serve on the 
Judiciary Committee with him--had a very interesting hearing, which I 
am sure will be noted by many people when they follow the news, where 
he talked about the detention and interrogation policies and brought 
some critical witnesses to testify who had dissented from President 
Bush's policies during the course of his administration.
  During his hearing in the Judiciary Committee today, one of the 
witnesses was Phillip Zelikow. Phillip Zelikow was the Executive 
Director of the 9/11 Commission, which has received high marks from 
virtually everyone for the professional job they did under the 
leadership of Governor Kean of New Jersey and former Congressman 
Hamilton of Indiana. Mr. Zelikow also served as counselor to Secretary 
of State Condoleezza Rice. He comes to this issue with ample 
experience.
  Mr. Zelikow was intimately involved with these issues during the Bush 
administration, and he strongly supports closing Guantanamo. He told me 
in the hearing it will be safe to transfer Guantanamo detainees to U.S. 
prisons and facilities, and some of the most dangerous terrorists are 
already incarcerated in the United States.
  Here are a few examples: Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 
World Trade Center bombings--he is being safely and securely held in an 
American detention facility; 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui; 
Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber; and numerous al-Qaida 
terrorists responsible for bombing United States Embassies in Kenya and 
Tanzania.
  If we can safely hold these individuals, I believe we can safely hold 
any Guantanamo detainees who need to be held. I should note no prisoner 
has ever escaped from a Federal supermaximum security facility in the 
United States.
  Republicans also claim the administration wants to release terrorists 
into our communities. What an incredible charge, and patently false. 
President Obama has made clear that Guantanamo will be closed in a 
manner consistent with our national security.
  Even the Bush administration acknowledged that there are people being 
held at Guantanamo who were wrongly detained and who are not 
terrorists. Let me give you one example.
  There is an attorney in Chicago who is a friend of mine who 
volunteered to represent one of the detainees at Guantanamo. At his own 
expense, he flies down to Guantanamo and meets with this man 
periodically. He tells me that the man is now 26 years old. He is 
originally from Gaza. He has been held now for 7 years--7 years--
because at the time we were offering rewards to people in various parts 
of the world who would turn in suspects. So the money was offered. This 
man was turned in, eventually sent to Guantanamo.
  The attorney tells me he was sent to Guantanamo at the age of 19. He 
is now 26. Fifteen months ago, our Government sent a message to this 
attorney saying: We have reviewed this case in detail--after 6 years--
reviewed this case in detail. We have no charges against this man being 
held in detention.
  This man is being held in Guantanamo, which is a very bleak setting 
if you have been there, and he has now been held an additional 15 
months with no pending charges. Our Government did not believe he is a 
dangerous individual. What they were trying to do is to find a place 
where he can go and, for 15 months, he has been sitting in detention in 
Guantanamo.
  Is that consistent with justice in America? Is that the kind of image 
we want? Of course we want to be safe. But the rule of law suggests 
that if the man has done nothing wrong, he should not be punished for 
it and continue to be in this secure setting in Guantanamo, separated 
from his family now for 7 years, with no charges brought against him.
  Even the Bush administration, which started this Guantanamo 
detention, realized after some time that literally hundreds of people 
who were detained there were not in any way, shape, or form a threat to 
the United States and they were released--many of them back to their 
home countries.

  Back in 2002, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld described the 
detainees at Guantanamo as ``the hardest of the hard core'' and ``among 
the most dangerous, best trained, vicious killers on the face of the 
Earth.'' Those are the words of Secretary Rumsfeld. However, since that 
statement by Secretary

[[Page S5420]]

Rumsfeld, two out of three of the detainees in Guantanamo have been 
released. They have also cleared dozens of additional detainees for 
release but cannot return them to their home countries, much like the 
one I described, because of the risk they may be tortured if they 
return.
  We need our allies to accept some of these detainees, but they have 
made it clear they will not do so unless the United States admits a 
small number of detainees who do not present any threat to our country.
  As Senator Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary 
Committee, has pointed out, it is illegal under U.S. law to resettle 
terrorists in the United States--one of the charges being made on the 
Republican side of the aisle. Unlike the previous administration, 
President Obama does not believe that he can set aside any laws enacted 
by Congress. No one can be admitted to this country to live freely 
until they have been through a thorough background and security check 
and cleared of wrongdoing.
  President Obama inherited the Guantanamo mess from the previous 
administration. Solving this problem is not easy. There will be 
difficult choices, and it will take time. But the President has shown 
he is willing to step up and lead and make hard decisions that are in 
the best interests of the security of the United States.
  I applaud the President for engaging in a careful and deliberative 
process to close Guantanamo. As Colin Powell, James Baker, John McCain, 
and many military officials have said, closing Guantanamo will make us 
a safer nation.
  I urge my Republican colleagues to take another look at this issue 
and understand that this important national security issue is best 
solved in a bipartisan way, and that we should continue the work of 
closing Guantanamo, suggested by President George W. Bush, by doing it 
in a fashion that is consistent with America's values.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Isakson 
second-degree amendment No. 1104 be agreed to and the Gillibrand 
amendment No. 1084, as amended, be agreed to and the motion to 
reconsider be laid on the table; that the Senate then resume 
consideration of the Sanders amendment No. 1062 and there be 4 minutes 
of debate prior to a vote in relation to the amendment; that an 
allocation Budget Act point of order be considered made against the 
Sanders amendment and that Senator Sanders be recognized to waive the 
relevant point of order, with the Senate then voting to waive the point 
of order; that upon disposition of the Sanders amendment, the Senate 
resume the Gregg amendment and there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a 
vote in relation to the amendment; that upon disposition of the Gregg 
amendment, there be 2 minutes of debate prior to the vote in relation 
to the Vitter amendment No. 1066--I am wondering if there is any, if 
Senator Vitter requests any time to speak on this; we will make sure 
Senator Vitter has 5 minutes if he wants to speak on the amendment--
that no intervening amendments be in order during the pendency of this 
agreement; and that all time be equally divided and controlled in the 
usual form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendments Nos. 1104 and 1084

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 1104 
is agreed to.
  Amendment No. 1084, as amended, is agreed to.
  The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Supreme Court Nominee

  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, as I address this Chamber today, 
politicians and pundits across the country are bracing for the spirited 
tug-of-war which precedes the confirmation of any new Supreme Court 
Justice. A list of names has appeared, seemingly out of thin air, and 
the media is already beginning its speculative debate on who this 
person will be.
  Many seem eager to attack or defend potential nominees based on 
ideological grounds or even specific issues. I see little value in this 
overblown rhetoric and idle speculation. We must be careful in our 
approach to such an important task. I call upon the White House to give 
us a nominee who will provide diversity to the Court and ensure that 
each ruling is informed by real-life experience as well as sound legal 
reasoning. The greatest jurors in our history have been drawn from the 
Federal bench, private life, academia, and even elected office. It is 
these exceptional, independent leaders to whom our President must now 
turn.
  Some will warn that any Obama nominee will be prone to political bias 
and judicial activism. We must be wary as we evaluate such claims. 
Certainly, it is right to oppose any jurist who would attempt to 
legislate from the bench. The Supreme Court must be bound by law and 
the weight of precedent. Justices must respect our Constitution and 
remain unbiased on all matters.
  But too often, we mistake insensitivity for impartiality. We cannot 
afford to choose a clear record at the expense of clear judgment. 
Decisions such as Brown v. the Board of Education display compassion, 
not activism. Roe v. Wade stood on principle, not on ideology. Some 
call it activism; I call it courage. Our judicial history is full of 
these independent decisions, and we should demand such strength and 
integrity from every jurist we place on the bench. After all, without 
any kind of courage, the Supreme Court itself would hardly exist as we 
know it. Marbury v. Madison was a landmark ruling that forever altered 
the role of the Court. It established judicial review and laid the 
groundwork for almost every decision in the last two centuries.
  We must oppose jurists who would overreach, but we would be well 
served to find a candidate with the integrity to draw on his or her 
God-given sense of empathy and personal life experiences.
  Above all, we must ensure that he or she will bring diversity to the 
Supreme Court. I encourage the President to give serious consideration 
to naming a woman of color to the High Court. Diversity of race and 
gender, diversity of background, diversity of thought, and diversity of 
judicial philosophy--all of these qualities would bring new views and 
experience to the Supreme Court and would encourage healthy debate 
among its members, bringing new perspective to each ruling.
  Any experienced attorney--and there are many of us in this Chamber--
knows that finding legal truth is not easy. Few issues are black and 
white. Judges must sift through shades of gray to make informed 
decisions. Legal truth arises from this dialog, from the collision of 
different perspectives and opinions. In shaping the Supreme Court, we 
seek to build debate, not consensus.
  Justice David Souter, throughout his 18-year tenure on the Supreme 
Court, has consistently given a thoughtful voice to the principles of 
fairness, equality, and the importance of precedent. He has always been 
a consistent advocate for ``a philosophy of all philosophies'' which 
values fresh ideas, unique perspectives, and inclusive debate. As this 
brilliant jurist moves into retirement, we must embrace his independent 
legacy by confirming someone who will bring diversity, empathy, and a 
powerful intellect to the bench. In short, we must ensure that he or 
she is worthy to be placed among the highest legal minds in the United 
States of America.
  As a former attorney general of Illinois, I can speak to the awesome 
impact the Supreme Court has on ordinary citizens. It is a testament to 
the enduring strength of our democracy that nine individuals, appointed 
and confirmed by representatives of the people, stand squarely at the 
crossroads of justice. They are entrusted to navigate difficult legal 
ground in order to distinguish right from wrong and to guard the 
sanctity of the Constitution. When any five of these individuals

[[Page S5421]]

come together to hand out a ruling, it becomes the law of the land. 
There is no implicit threat of violence to back up these decisions--
merely the quiet force of a written opinion. That is the wonder of this 
thing called a democracy and the power of this Court.
  This is a rare and remarkable opportunity for this body to have a 
voice in shaping the highest court in the Nation--a court whose actions 
will continue to reverberate across the legal landscape for future 
generations of Americans. With the full weight of this serious task 
resting on our shoulders, I ask my fellow Senators to ignore the 
media's idle speculation. Now is the time to exercise our 
constitutional powers of advise and consent. The urgent needs of the 
American people demand that we think outside of the box. We must 
confirm an individual whose unique perspective can bring fresh 
diversity into the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. I urge my 
colleagues to join with me in communicating to President Obama that we 
will settle for nothing less.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and I note the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to propound a unanimous consent 
request. I will try to explain it in layman's terms.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Sanders amendment move from first 
place to second place and that the amendment offered by Senator Vitter, 
from Louisiana, be offered first, under the same conditions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1066

  There is now 2 minutes of debate prior to the vote in relation to the 
Vitter amendment. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, my amendment is very simple. It simply 
empowers the FDIC to come up with appropriate regulations to ensure 
that credit cards are only issued to folks who are in the country 
legally, to ensure that we don't empower and facilitate illegal aliens 
and terrorists and keep them from getting credit cards, which can then 
be used improperly. The 9/11 terrorists all did this successfully and 
all used credit cards in planning and plotting and hatching their 
scheme. It is also a boon to business for many banks that go after the 
illegal alien market with credit cards. That is unacceptable, and my 
amendment would stop that.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if my colleague wants to proceed a little 
longer, this is a very important amendment. If he wants to spend 
another minute or so talking about it, that is fine because I will need 
probably more than a minute to respond. Would he like additional time?
  Mr. VITTER. Not at this time.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
will explain why. The basic identity verification recordkeeping 
requirement in this amendment is already included in section 326 of the 
USA PATRIOT Act. It is redundant and not necessary on this amendment.
  This bill is designed specifically to deal with credit card reform. A 
matter such as this obviously belongs in a more appropriate place. 
Also, the amendment would require card issuers to verify an applicant's 
identity by obtaining a Social Security card, photo ID, driver's 
license, and a card issued by a State in compliance with the REAL ID 
Act.
  There are legitimate issues about terrorism and illegal immigrants in 
the country, but it seems to me when you already have provisions in the 
law that are specifically designed to protect the issues being raised 
by my friend--to add redundancy to a credit card bill, when we are 
trying to make sure people can have credit, and make sure it is 
provided in a way that is not abusive, with interest rate hikes, 
penalties, fees, and the like.
  I say, with respect, to my friend that, presently, applications for 
credit cards are currently taken by mail, by telephone, and on the 
Internet. This would force all applicants to physically go to the bank 
and present the required documents, which would cause a huge 
inconvenience to customers. I don't think that is in our best interest 
at this time. We are not trying to make it more difficult for people to 
have access to credit cards. We want adequate information so decisions 
can be made about their ability to repay, but we don't want to burden 
them with unfair fines, penalties, fees, and high interest rates. This 
idea runs contrary to what we are trying to achieve with this bill.
  I say, respectfully, that I oppose this amendment and ask my 
colleagues to do so as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. I have a few points, Mr. President. This amendment will 
absolutely not require every applicant for a credit card to physically 
go to the bank. That is absolutely, categorically not true.
  Secondly, present law doesn't solve this problem. It is universally 
recognized that illegal aliens, including terrorists, in this country, 
can get a credit card. Present law isn't solving that problem.
  I will submit for the Record this article from the Wall Street 
Journal which talks about this. I ask unanimous consent that it be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 13, 2007]

             Bank of America Casts Wider Net for Hispanics

                (By Miriam Jordan and Valerie Bauerlein)

       Los Angeles.--In the latest sign of the U.S. banking 
     industry's aggressive pursuit of the Hispanic market, Bank of 
     America Corp. has quietly begun offering credit cards to 
     customers without Social Security numbers--typically illegal 
     immigrants.
       In recent years, banks across the country have begun 
     offering checking accounts and, in some cases, mortgages to 
     the nation's fast-growing ranks of undocumented immigrants, 
     most of whom are Hispanic. But these immigrants generally 
     haven't been able to get major credit cards, making it hard 
     for them to develop a credit history and expand their 
     purchasing power.
       The new Bank of America program is open to people who lack 
     both a Social Security number and a credit history, as long 
     as they have held a checking account with the bank for three 
     months without an overdraft. Most adults in the U.S. who 
     don't have a Social Security number are undocumented 
     immigrants.
       The Charlotte, N.C., banking giant tested the program last 
     year at five branches in Los Angeles, and last week expanded 
     it to 51 branches in Los Angeles County, home to the largest 
     concentration of illegal immigrants in the U.S. The bank 
     hopes to roll out the program nationally later this year.
       ``We are willing to grant credit to someone with little or 
     no credit history,'' says Lance Weaver, Bank of America's 
     head of international card services, whose team designed the 
     program based in part on the bank's experience in markets 
     like Spain, which lack conventional credit bureaus to rate a 
     client's credit-worthiness.
       The credit cards involved aren't cheap. They come with a 
     high interest rate and an upfront fee. And the idea of 
     catering to illegal immigrants is controversial.
       Bank of America defends the program, saying it complies 
     with U.S. banking and antiterrorism laws. Company executives 
     say that the initiative isn't about politics, but rather 
     about meeting the needs of an untapped group of potential 
     customers.
       ``These people are coming here for quality of life, and 
     they deserve somebody to give them a chance to achieve that 
     quality of life,'' says Brian Tuite, the bank's director of 
     Latin America card operations and one of the architects of 
     the program.
       Critics say Bank of America is knowingly making a product 
     available to people who are violating U.S. immigration law. 
     'They are clearly crossing the line; they are actually aiding 
     and abetting people who broke the law,'' says Ira Mehlman, a 
     spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, 
     a group that advocates a crackdown on illegal immigration.
       Typical of the new card's customers is Antonio Sanchez, a 
     Mexican immigrant whose only major asset is a white 1996 Ford 
     Thunderbird, which he drives to the two restaurants where he 
     works each day on opposite sides of Los Angeles. Mr. Sanchez, 
     who says he sneaked across the border a decade ago, has been 
     a customer of Bank of America's East Hollywood branch for 
     nine years. He has no borrowing history and no Social 
     Security number.


                            Paying Balances

       To obtain a Bank of America Visa card with a $500 line of 
     credit, Mr. Sanchez had to put down $99. If he stays within 
     his $500 limit and pays his balances in a timely fashion, he

[[Page S5422]]

     will receive his $99 security payment back in three to six 
     months, and his credit limit might be increased.
       * * *
       David Robertson, publisher of the report, says a rate of 
     21.24% is ``unquestionably high.'' ``If that's the rate 
     you're offered, its a pretty safe bet you're in a high-risk 
     group,'' he said.
       To assess an applicant, the bank employs ``judgmental 
     lending,'' a concept pioneered by MBNA Corp., the credit-card 
     company that Bank of America acquired in January 2006. In 
     essence, the bank bases its evaluation of a potential 
     client's credit-worthiness on a subjective review by its 
     employees, rather than on standardized financial data 
     crunched by a computer.
       Unorthodox initiatives like the new credit-card program may 
     be crucial to Bank of America's long-term success. In the 
     past the bank, which operates in 31 states and the District 
     of Columbia, grew mostly by buying up other banks. Now, 
     however, it is bumping up against a regulatory cap that bars 
     any U.S. bank from an acquisition that would give it more 
     than 10% of the nation's total bank deposits. That means Bank 
     of America's only way to grow domestically is to sell more 
     products to existing customers and to attract new ones.


                            Opening Accounts

       Bank of America, the second-largest U.S. bank after 
     Citigroup Inc. in terms of market capitalization, estimates 
     that there are 28 million Hispanics in its operating area and 
     that most of them, regardless of their immigration status, 
     don't have a bank. It hopes the allure of a credit card will 
     persuade hundreds of thousands more Latinos to open accounts.
       ``If we don't disproportionately grow in the Hispanic 
     [market] . . . we aren't going to grow'' as a bank, says Liam 
     McGee, Bank of America's consumer and small-business banking 
     chief.
       Illegal immigrants have typically relied on loan sharks and 
     neighborhood finance shops for credit. But that has begun to 
     change. A few years ago, a handful of community banks in the 
     U.S. began offering mortgages to illegal immigrants, as long 
     as they could prove they had stable employment and paid U.S. 
     taxes with an individual tax identification number, or ITIN.
       In December 2005, Wells Fargo & Co. began extending 
     mortgages to consumers with an ITIN. The bank is currently 
     evaluating a pilot program in Los Angeles and Orange counties 
     before deciding whether to expand it.
       Department of Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said 
     banking products aimed at illegal immigrants ``reinforce the 
     need for a temporary worker program'' that the Bush 
     administration has been promoting. That program would screen, 
     tax and otherwise regulate immigrant workers and, the 
     administration contends, would squeeze out illegal workers 
     who now use forged or stolen documents to get jobs, driver's 
     licenses and occasionally credit.
       Anti-money-laundering regulations passed in the wake of the 
     Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks put more pressure on banks to 
     verify customers' identity and watch for suspicious 
     transactions, but they don't require banks to ascertain 
     whether account holders are in the U.S. legally. Most banks 
     require a Social Security number or ITIN to open an account, 
     but regulations also allow them to accept other government-
     issued forms of identification in some instances, including 
     passport numbers, alien identification numbers or any 
     government-issued document with photo showing nationality or 
     place of residence.
       A handful of retailers, such as Los Angeles's closely held 
     La Curacao department store chain, have boosted their 
     business by cultivating illegal immigrants with store credit 
     cards. ``Once you capture them, they become very loyal,'' 
     says Ron Azarkman, chief executive of La Curacao, which has 
     developed its own in-house credit-ratings system. ``This is a 
     promising market, as long as it is carefully managed,'' he 
     says, adding that the average APR charged by his company is 
     22.9%.


                             Word of Mouth

       Bank of America hasn't launched an ad campaign for the new 
     card. For the time being, it is counting on word of mouth 
     that starts with its employees at each banking center. Many 
     of the Spanish-speaking account holders who come to teller 
     Luz Quintanilla's window at Bank of America's East Hollywood 
     branch, already have a Social Security number and regular 
     credit card with the bank. But she suggests in Spanish that 
     ``maybe you have family or friends who don't have a Social 
     Security number, but wish to build their credit.''
       In selling the card, a major challenge is to persuade 
     immigrants who are sometimes wary of plastic that holding a 
     credit card is an important step on the way to obtaining 
     loans for big-ticket items, such as a car or even a home. 
     Pictures of a check book, credit card, car and house in 
     ascending order illustrate this concept one pamphlet in 
     Spanish and English titled ``How to Build Your Credit, Step 
     by Step.''

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, if this bill is about ending the problems 
the credit card companies create, or take advantage of, certainly their 
going after illegal aliens as a niche market and a profit center is an 
offensive problem we need to address, particularly in a post-9/11 
world.
  Fourth, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this 
letter from the Eagle Forum declaring that this will be a scored vote.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     May 12, 2009.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the thousands of Eagle Forum 
     members nationwide, I urge your strong support of Senator 
     David Vitter's amendment to H.R. 627, the Credit Cardholder's 
     Bill of Rights.
       Sen. Vitter's amendment would grant rule-making authority 
     to the Federal Reserve to set forth a minimum standard for 
     credit card issuers to establish a consumer's identity in 
     order to prevent and deter illegal immigrants and terrorists 
     from obtaining credit cards.
       The regulations would simply require financial institutions 
     to do the following:
       Verify the identity of any person seeking a credit card 
     account through one of four acceptable forms of 
     identification, including a social security card, a driver's 
     license issued by a state in compliance with the Real ID Act, 
     a passport, or a photo ID card issued by the Dept. of 
     Homeland Security.
       Maintain records of the information used to verify the 
     customer's identity.
       Consult lists of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist 
     organizations provided by the appropriate government agency.
       Current loopholes in federal law are often abused by 
     financial institutions. In February 2007, the Wall Street 
     Journal reported that Bank of America Corp, in an effort to 
     expand their Hispanic consumer base, had quietly begun 
     offering credit cards to customers without Social Security 
     numbers, typically, illegal aliens. In order to get around 
     the verification requirements, Bank of America rewarded the 
     unidentifiable consumer with a credit card as long as they 
     had held a checking account with any bank for three months 
     without an overdraft violation. This program quickly spread 
     as common practice to 51 Bank of America branches throughout 
     the Los Angeles, CA area.
       Not only will this amendment help to close dangerous 
     loopholes, but by requiring the use of the four most secure 
     types of personal identification, all Americans will be 
     protected, as these types of ID are harder to forge or 
     duplicate. This simple requirement will ensure that all 
     future credit card accounts are opened solely by legal 
     residents in the United States, and it will help curb the 
     tide of taxpayer-draining illegal immigration by removing the 
     magnet of easily obtainable credit.
       Congressional leaders simply cannot allow banks to continue 
     the very practices that so greatly contributed to the U.S. 
     credit markets' current state. With the shrinking 
     availability of credit today, the very least congressional 
     leaders can do is ensure that American citizens are being 
     placed before illegals, criminals, and terrorists.
       I ask that you join us in supporting Sen. Vitter's 
     amendment by voting yes when it is brought to a vote, and by 
     opposing any efforts to kill it. Eagle Forum will score this 
     vote, which will be included on our scorecard for the 1st 
     session of the 111th Congress.
           Faithfully,
                                                 Phyllis Schlafly,
                                              President & Founder.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 15 more seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is not my opinion that this would require 
people to show up physically. This is the opinion of the Treasury 
Department. We asked them to comment on this, and they told us that. 
The elderly, the handicapped, and those in rural areas are going to be 
adversely affected if this were to be adopted. It is duplicative, 
redundant, and unnecessary. It adds tremendous burdens on certain 
segments of this country. Credit cards are valuable instruments during 
difficult economic times.
  Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DODD. I am happy to.
  Mr. VITTER. The amendment is only 2\1/2\ pages long. What language 
requires an applicant to physically show up before a bank or a credit 
card issuer?
  Mr. DODD. It is not the length of the amendment. Sometimes one or two 
words can have huge implications. We asked Treasury how they would 
interpret this, and they claim this would require the physical presence 
of an applicant. That is one of their concerns.
  As long as that is a concern and it raises that possibility, adopting 
this, which could result in that, it seems to me would be an 
irresponsible action for this body to take.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment is 2\1/2\ pages long, and 
there is no language in it that requires their physical presence. I 
know this administration is opposed to the amendment, but this is 
simply a smokescreen. I invite Members to actually read the amendment.
  I yield back my time.

[[Page S5423]]

  Mr. DODD. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Vitter 
amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from 
Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 28, nays 65, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 190 Leg.]

                                YEAS--28

     Barrasso
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     McCain
     McConnell
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--65

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Hutchison
     Kennedy
     Leahy
     Mikulski
     Rockefeller
     Whitehouse
  The amendment (No. 1066) was rejected.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider that vote and move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1062

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, a 302(f) point of 
order is considered made against Sanders amendment No. 1062.
  There are 4 minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation 
thereto.
  The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify 
amendment No. 1062 and send to the desk the modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SHELBY. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SANDERS. This amendment is being cosponsored by Senators Harkin, 
Durbin, Levin, Leahy, and Senator Whitehouse. It is not being supported 
by the American Bankers Association and the other financial 
institutions that have spent $5 billion in the last 10 years to push 
their interests against the needs of the American people.
  This amendment is, in fact, very simple. It says now is the time to 
end usury in the United States of America. Now is the time to protect 
the American people against 25, 30 percent or more interest rates on 
their credit cards.
  It says now, when the American taxpayer is spending hundreds of 
billions of dollars bailing out Wall Street, they should not be lending 
the American people their own money at usurious rates.
  When banks are charging 30 percent interest rates, they are not 
making credit available; they are engaged in loansharking. That is what 
they are engaged in, and we should be very clear about that. Now is the 
time to eliminate that behavior.
  We picked a number, a maximum of 15 percent plus 3 percent, under 
extraordinary circumstances, not because it came out of the top of my 
head but because credit unions in this country have been operating 
under that law for 30 years. And you know what. It has worked well.
  It was not the credit unions coming in here for billions of dollars 
in bailouts; they are doing very well. This law has worked for credit 
unions; it should work for large financial institutions. Let's stand up 
for the American people. Let's put a cap on interest rates, 15 percent 
plus 3.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, once again supported 
by Senators Harkin, Durbin, Levin, Leahy, and Whitehouse.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I raise a point of order it violates the 
Budget Act.
  Mr. SANDERS. I move to waive that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order has been considered made.
  There are 2 minutes under control of the opposition.
  Mr. SHELBY. I yield back the remaining time.
  Mr. SANDERS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested on the 
motion to waive. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient 
second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from 
Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 33, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 191 Leg.]

                                YEAS--33

     Begich
     Bennet
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cardin
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Webb
     Wyden

                                NAYS--60

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Kennedy
     Leahy
     Mikulski
     Rockefeller
     Voinovich
     Whitehouse
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 33, the nays are 
60. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?


                           Amendment No. 1085

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided prior to a 
vote in relation to the Gregg amendment No. 1085.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment is appropriate to this bill 
because, after all, we are talking about credit in this bill, and the 
credit of the United States is obviously a severe issue for all of us, 
and we need to address it.
  This amendment simply gives the American people a better opportunity 
to learn what is happening to their Government and how much debt is 
being run up on them and their children. It is an issue of transparency 
and

[[Page S5424]]

openness in our Government. The debt is the threat, and it is one of 
those occasional, brilliant ideas that come along every so often, so 
everybody should vote for it.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there are very few Members for whom I have 
more affection or respect than Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. But I think 
this amendment, first of all, has no place on this bill. It is 
unnecessary and raises some very serious, legitimate issues. Let me 
point them out.
  First of all, it is going to be costly to do this: every agency to 
report what the national debt is. The number is absolutely worthless by 
the time you publish it because the national debt rises, of course, 
every nanosecond. So to have that idea what it is also gives you a 
false illusion of actually where we are.
  The level of public cynicism about this issue is getting almost 
insurmountable. It seems to me we need to be far more realistic. There 
are other costs, as well, in addition to the debt that people care 
about. Why not have a tuition cost clock? Why not have a health care 
cost clock? These matters go up all the time as well. It seems to me 
that by adding something such as this, we are just adding to that 
illusion, adding to that cynicism at a time when there are plenty of 
places where you can get this information--certainly the Congressional 
Budget Office as well.
  So while this amendment has been adopted in the past because it seems 
relatively harmless, the fact is, I think it is an idea that can 
actually raise costs and create false illusions. Certainly consumers 
ought to have some idea about some of these other costs, which I would 
object to. If you had a health care cost clock, a tuition cost clock, 
an energy cost clock, it could contribute to those problems. So I urge 
that the amendment be defeated.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending 
amendment violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to waive section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from 
Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 59, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 192 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cardin
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--35

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bingaman
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Casey
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Kennedy
     Leahy
     Mikulski
     Rockefeller
     Whitehouse
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 59, the nays are 
35. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me make a couple of comments, if I can, 
regarding previous debates.
  Our colleague from Vermont offered an amendment to deal with caps on 
interest rates and that failed on a point of order. I know there are 
others who have various ideas about this issue. It is a legitimate 
issue, and I want my colleagues to know this. It is a complicated 
issue, because dealing with credit cards, dealing with payday lenders, 
dealing with all sorts of different entities, the matter of what is an 
excessive interest rate is one that many Americans care deeply about 
and one where they wish to see some restraint.
  It is legitimate to point out that there are interest rates being 
imposed today that you would have gone to jail for imposing not many 
years ago. In fact, it would make a loan shark blush, some of these 
interest rates that are being charged. So what I intend to do at some 
point, because I realize when you look at the votes, there were only 
about 30 votes dealing with the point of order dealing with the motion 
of the Senator from Vermont. But I think a lot of my colleagues do not 
feel his desire was illegitimate; they were concerned about whether the 
rate was too low or how it would apply.
  So I am going to propose--I hope along with my friend and colleague 
from Alabama--to ask either the Federal Reserve, or whatever else is 
the appropriate place, to come back and give us a comprehensive review 
of what national rates there ought to be.
  This idea that you can end up charging in effect 200, 300, or 400 
percent interest rates, which is what has happened in some cases, is 
offensive, to put it mildly. It ought to be wrong and illegal, and 
people ought not to be able to get away with it.
  I think it is difficult for my colleagues to determine what is that 
level and what institutions, and under what financial circumstances, do 
you apply it to. I realize a payday lender lends money for a week or 
two, not annually. So the interest rate will be different than on a 
credit card, on a home mortgage, or what it is apt to be with a credit 
union. With various institutions, under various circumstances, rates 
can differ.
  It is confusing, except that most constituents and millions of 
Americans would like to see some restraint. I don't know how you can 
possibly explain why some institutions can get away with rates that are 
literally triple digits in some cases. I don't think we are going to 
resolve that matter on this bill. But we ought to have some clear idea 
of how to put some restraints on national usury laws. I am not a Bible 
scholar, but for those who are, I am sure they can recite chapter and 
verse in the Old and New Testaments when it comes to the usurious rates 
that were being charged by money changers and the like.
  At the appropriate time, I will propose an amendment that will allow 
us to get back to people in a short period with some analysis of how to 
impose some meaningful restraints on what is charged to consumers for 
the privilege of borrowing money when they need it, as so many do, to 
pay tuition, pay mortgages, keep the business operating and deal with 
the health care crisis, or just to survive week to week. People have 
been taken advantage of under circumstances that are deplorable, in my 
view, when the rates are particularly beyond excessive.
  I think one should not read the outcome of the Sanders vote as a 
rejection of the idea that applying some standards of fairness is 
unacceptable to this body. I believe a lot of Members voted against 
waiving the budget point of order not because they disagreed with what 
he is trying to do. I would not want that vote to reflect that. I 
support Senator Sanders, as I did on the budget debate, not because I 
necessarily agreed with the number he had in mind, but because it is an 
important debate and he should have had the right to be able to proceed 
with his amendment. I wanted to make that point overall. I think it 
would be a false impression to walk away and say

[[Page S5425]]

the Senate rejected any idea of considering some sort of a national 
usury rate because they rejected the waiver of the point of order that 
Senator Sanders offered.
  I see my colleague from Louisiana, who I think wants to speak.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1079

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few moments about 
an amendment that I ask be called up, amendment No. 1079.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu], for herself, Ms. 
     Snowe, Mr. Cardin, and Mrs. Shaheen, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1079 to amendment No. 1058.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To end abuse, promote disclosure, and provide protections to 
              small businesses that rely on credit cards)

       At the end of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 503. EXTENDING TILA CREDIT CARD PROTECTIONS TO SMALL 
                   BUSINESSES.

       (a) Definition of Consumer.--Section 103(h) of the Truth in 
     Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602(h)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(h)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) For purposes of any provision of this title relating 
     to a credit card account under an open end credit plan, the 
     term `consumer' includes any business concern having 50 or 
     fewer employees, whether or not the credit account is in the 
     name of the business entity or an individual, or whether or 
     not a subject credit transaction is for business or personal 
     purposes.''.
       (b) Amendment to Exemptions.--
       (1) In general.--Section 104 of the Truth in Lending Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 1603) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``agricultural 
     purposes'' the following: ``(other than a credit transaction 
     under an open end credit plan in which the consumer is a 
     small business having 50 or fewer employees)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``$25,000'' and inserting 
     ``$50,000''.
       (2) Business credit card provision.--Section 135 of the 
     Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1645) is amended by inserting 
     after ``does not apply'' the following: ``with respect to any 
     provision of this title relating to a credit card account 
     under an open end credit plan in which the consumer is a 
     small business having 50 or fewer employees or''.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I call this amendment up for discussion 
purposes. I am open to some modification. I want to explain, basically, 
this amendment. I have spoken with the chairman of the committee that 
has proposed the underlying bill. He sees merit in this proposal, and I 
am grateful for that. I want to talk about what the issue is, 
generally, and then as we proceed to a final vote, I may be open to 
some modification of this amendment.
  As chair of the Small Business Committee, I offer this amendment on 
behalf of myself and my ranking member, Senator Snowe from Maine, who 
served for many years as chair of this important committee. We have 
committed to try to be the very best advocates we can for small 
businesses in America. There are close to 30 million small businesses 
that are actually feeling the brunt of this recession--in some ways 
more than anybody, as the Chair knows. In Illinois, I am sure the 
occupant of the chair hears on a regular basis from small mom-and-pop 
operators who have been in business for decades, to the more 
established but relatively small businesses, restaurants, shoe repair 
shops, hardware stores--people who have said to me--and I am sure he 
hears this--``Senator, we have never experienced this kind of 
difficulty getting access to credit.'' They are angry, and they should 
be. They are frustrated, because while they understand shared 
sacrifice, like many hard-working Americans do, they are having trouble 
understanding how we continue to send billions and billions of dollars 
to the big banks, the Wall Street companies, to the international 
companies, and they are having trouble seeing any of that actually hit 
Main Street, where they are, where they have been, and where they want 
to stay.
  The small businesses are right around the corner and, in some 
instances, on the same block as the constituents whom we represent--of 
course, we represent them as well. It came to the attention of this 
Chair and our ranking member that this bill, which has a lot of merit--
this amendment to consumer protection language is very important, but 
it has a limit that we are not comfortable with. That limit is that 
this credit card protection extends only to a natural person, what is 
defined in the law as a natural person. So it is a personal credit card 
that you would get that would get this benefit. I think, as chair of 
the Small Business Committee, representing a broad coalition, that this 
same benefit should extend at least to small businesses as well, to 
businesses that are literally trying to keep their access to capital--
not just to keep themselves in business, to keep their communities 
strong, but to lead our Nation's recovery. The President himself has 
said he expects that in our recovery--and he is correct--job creation 
is not going to come from the big businesses, the multinational 
companies; they are going to be contracting for some time, I suspect. 
What big business has to do to survive--I have some general 
understanding of that, but the big risks are going to be taken by the 
small entrepreneurs who, despite the gloom and doom, have decided their 
ideas are worth pursuing, and they are going to build this recovery one 
job at a time.
  I don't know why we would even be considering only limiting this help 
and support to private individuals and leaving small business out. I 
don't think that is the intention of the chairman of the Banking 
Committee, as he has indicated to me. So that is basically what our 
amendment would do. It would simply include small businesses that have 
$25,000 on their credit card, where they are trying to stay in 
business, keep their lights on, keep that capital flowing, as other 
sources dry up, as we have heard, and extend the same protections to 
them.
  I am open to some slight modifications because I understand there may 
be some objections. I am not clear about where those objections would 
come from. So right now, let me say again that I offered this in a 
bipartisan amendment from Senator Snowe and myself. I am happy also 
that we are joined by Senators Shaheen, Cardin, and others, who have 
indicated they may want to cosponsor this amendment.
  I have a long list of organizations that have endorsed this concept. 
I will read them into the Record. The Consumer Action Group; Consumer 
Federation of America; Food Marketing Institute; National Association 
of College Stores; National Association of the Self Employed; National 
Association of Theater Owners; American Beverage Licensees; American 
Society of Travel Agents; National Small Business Association, which 
brought this issue to my attention; Petroleum Marketers Association; 
Service Employees International; U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; 
U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce; National Consumer Law Center on 
Behalf of Low-Income Clients; National Community Reinvestment 
Coalition. I understand that also the National Federation of 
Independent Businesses, the largest organization of independent 
businesses in the country, is poised to endorse this as well.
  So we have a very credible group of organizations that think these 
protections for credit cardholders should not go to persons but to 
businesses that arguably need as much, if not more, protection as they 
attempt to create jobs and keep their businesses open, which is a help 
to all. So that is the nature of this amendment.
  I understand that it is important to bring this debate to a close 
and, hopefully, we can get there. I do know there are probably 30 other 
amendments pending and this, of course, is one. I am sure we can find a 
time that is appropriate for this vote.
  I wanted to bring to the attention of the Senate that one of the 
reasons this issue is becoming so important to small businesses is, if 
you think about it, only 15 years ago, most people who started their 
own business would either take out a home equity loan or they might 
borrow money from a rich uncle or aunt or they would dip into their 
savings, and this was sort of the traditional way. If they had some 
status or credit in the community, they could go to their local bank 
and they might get a loan for their business.
  Those times have changed dramatically. I don't have the charts here, 
but if I could show one, it would show that on the latest survey our 
committee took, 59 percent of all businesses in

[[Page S5426]]

America are using credit cards to finance their business or for their 
primary cash flow tool. Credit cards for businesses are different. We 
just had American Express testify this morning. Of course, if you have 
an American Express business card, their model is different. The good 
news is that you have unlimited amounts of money that you can borrow. 
The bad news is that you have to pay it off at the end of the month. So 
it is more of a cash management tool than it is long-term 
credit. However, they are useful. But there are Visas and Master Charge 
and Discover cards and others that people are now putting $50,000 on 
the card or $75,000 on the card or $100,000 on the card to finance 
their restaurants and their printing shops and their hardware stores.

  This was not true even 25 years ago. This was quite unheard of. So we 
have to recognize that small businesses today are relying on the good 
will of these credit card companies. Some of them are more reliable, in 
my view, than others. But regardless of whether they are doing 
excellent work or shoddy work--and some of them are doing shoddy work--
this Government has an obligation to say let's make sure the basic 
consumer protections are there. You cannot raise rates without giving 
notice. You cannot retroactively raise rates. What we are doing for 
consumers is good. We need to extend it to small business.
  That is the essence of this amendment. I am proud to be joined by 
Members from both sides of the aisle. I am going to be talking with the 
chair of the committee. There perhaps could be some modifications where 
we could agree to this amendment and not have to have a vote, but I 
don't know. Right now I am intending to have a vote on this amendment.
  I appreciate the thousands of business owners who are supporting this 
amendment through these very reputable organizations that are 
supporting the extension of these benefits to the small businesses of 
America that absolutely need our action on this, this week.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Dodd-Shelby 
     substitute amendment No. 1058 to H.R. 627, the Credit 
     Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009.
         Harry Reid, Christopher J. Dodd, Bill Nelson, Richard 
           Durbin, Debbie Stabenow, Patrick J. Leahy, Patty 
           Murray, Amy Klobuchar, Russell D. Feingold, Mark R. 
           Warner, Jon Tester, Mark Begich, Mark L. Pryor, Robert 
           P. Casey, Jr., Benjamin L. Cardin, Jack Reed, Sherrod 
           Brown.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 627, the 
     Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009.
         Harry Reid, Christopher J. Dodd, Richard Durbin, Bill 
           Nelson, Debbie Stabenow, Patrick J. Leahy, Patty 
           Murray, Amy Klobuchar, Russell D. Feingold, Mark R. 
           Warner, Jon Tester, Mark Begich, Mark L. Pryor, Robert 
           P. Casey, Jr., Benjamin L. Cardin, Jack Reed, Sherrod 
           Brown.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken to the Republican leader. He 
knew we were going to file these. It is no surprise to anyone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1107 to Amendment No. 1058

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1107.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself and Mr. 
     Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 1107 to amendment 
     No. 1058.

  Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To address criminal and fraudulent monetary transfers using 
            stored value cards and other electronic devices)

       At the end of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 503. STORED VALUE CARDS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 5312(a) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(K), by inserting ``stored value 
     devices,'' after ``money orders,'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ``; and'' at the end 
     and inserting ``, and stored value devices and any other 
     similar money transmitting devices;'';
       (3) in paragraph (3)(C), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and'';
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) as the Secretary of the Treasury shall provide by 
     regulation for purposes of sections 5316 and 5331 of this 
     title, stored value devices, or other similar money 
     transmitting devices (as defined by regulation of the 
     Secretary for such purposes), unless the Secretary, in 
     coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
     determines that a particular device, based on other 
     applicable laws, is subject to additional security measures 
     that obviate the need for such regulations as it relates to 
     that device.''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) `Stored value' means funds or monetary value 
     represented in digital electronics format (whether or not 
     specially encrypted) and stored or capable of storage on 
     electronic media in such a way as to be retrievable and 
     transferable electronically.''.
       (b) Criminal Penalties.--Title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 1956(c)(5)(i), by striking ``and money 
     orders, or'' and inserting ``money orders, stored value 
     devices, and any other similar money transmitting devices, 
     or''; and
       (2) in section 1960(b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(C), by inserting ``, including funds 
     on fraudulently issued stored value devices and funds on 
     stored value devices issued anonymously for the purpose of 
     evading monetary reporting requirements,'' after ``funds''; 
     and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or courier'' and 
     inserting ``courier, or issuance, redemption, or sale of 
     stored value devices or other similar instruments''.
       (c) Money Transmitting Businesses.--Section 5330(d)(1)(A) 
     of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     ``stored value devices,'' after ``travelers checks,''.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from 
Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, stored value cards have been used and are 
being used by Mexican drug cartels to smuggle their drug revenues back 
to Mexico. The Department of Justice estimates that up to $24 billion 
in cash is smuggled into Mexico each year from the United States and 
these stored value cards are one of the means by which the cash is 
smuggled back into Mexico. Stored value cards can be loaded anonymously 
by individuals who are involved in criminal enterprises, such as drug 
trafficking. The cards are then physically smuggled across the border 
and can be used to withdraw large quantities of cash from ATMs.
  Under current law, cash and other monetary instruments that exceed 
$10,000 must be declared at the border. For those of us who have 
traveled to different countries, we are very familiar with the white 
form you have to fill out in which you have to indicate if you have 
cash that exceeds $10,000.
  However, there is a loophole in the current law. Stored value cards, 
either individually or collectively in excess of $10,000, do not have 
to be reported because they are not considered to be monetary 
instruments under the law. The amendment Senator Lieberman and I are 
offering would require such reporting and make it a crime to launder 
money using these stored value cards.
  The Deputy Attorney General of the United States has pointed out that 
large quantities of cash are put together and smuggled across the 
border to the south. He has pointed out that there are various ways 
this can be accomplished but that stored value cards are one of the 
means for smuggling this cash.
  Mr. President, as you know as a loyal and diligent member of the 
Homeland

[[Page S5427]]

Security Committee, our committee has been investigating the problem of 
drug trafficking from these Mexican cartels. What we found is the drugs 
are coming north and cash and weapons are going south. By closing the 
loophole on reporting for large quantities of cash that are being 
smuggled back and forth using these stored value cards, we can help 
give law enforcement another tool to crack down on the smuggling of 
cash that is often the proceeds of criminal activity, including drug 
smuggling.
  This is not just theoretical. It is not only the Deputy Attorney 
General who has pointed out that these cards can be a means of 
smuggling large quantities of cash but also law enforcement agents 
throughout the United States have been investigating criminal 
enterprises that are using these cards. Let me give a couple of 
examples.
  Law enforcement agents in Dallas have been investigating a Colombian 
narcotrafficking organization that wanted to launder narcotic proceeds 
via stored value cards. The organization wanted to obtain 50 stored 
value cards that would be used to launder $100,000 in proceeds. These 
transactions would be structured in different increments per card for 
the total of $100,000. The cards would then be exported out of the 
United States to Colombia. The cards would be cashed out in Colombia 
and the dollar value would be converted to Colombian pesos at the 
official exchange rate.
  In another example, law enforcement undercover operations have 
revealed at least nine transnational criminal groups engaged in moving 
criminal proceeds via stored value cards. These operations have 
revealed the cross-border movement of stored value cards loaded with 
millions of dollars of illicit proceeds. Numerous collateral 
investigations and enforcement actions have been conducted as a result 
of these undercover activities.
  This is a loophole in our laws we need to plug and the Collins-
Lieberman amendment would do that. It would treat these cards as the 
equivalent of cash because that is what they are. That is what they 
are. It would require that, just as if you crossed the border with 
$10,000 in cash or other monetary instruments you have to declare it, 
so would you have to declare it if you have these stored value cards. 
In addition, it would make a failure to report the amount of money on 
these cards, if it is $10,000 or more, as a crime, and it would also 
make it a crime to launder money using these cards.
  This is a very concrete, needed action that we could take to help 
crack down on the smuggling of money that fuels the drug trafficking 
across the Mexican border. It is a very practical step we can take 
right now to close a loophole in the law and to provide law enforcement 
with a much-needed tool.
  I know the managers of the bill are not on the floor at present so I 
will withhold asking for a vote on this amendment. I do believe we are 
in the process of clearing it on both sides, but I am uncertain whether 
that has been completed. It may be that the acting manager of the bill 
can inform me.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I appreciate that from the Senator from 
Maine. The manager of the bill, the Senator from Connecticut, will be 
returning shortly.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Illinois, the Presiding Officer, be added as a cosponsor of the 
amendment, and I thank him very much for his support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, l rise today to congratulate Chairman Dodd 
and Senator Shelby for developing the legislation we have before us. 
Pass this bill, and we will be able to go home and tell our 
constituents with confidence that the Credit CARD Act of 2009 is a 
groundbreaking consumer protection achievement. I am pleased that, as a 
member of the Banking Committee, I was able to vote for the bill in 
committee and help pave the way for floor consideration this week.
  In my travels around Colorado, I have been struck by stories of 
unfair, undeserved credit card practices, hitting consumers at exactly 
the hardest time. Melissa Mosley of Durango, CO, told me about how 
tough economic times forced her to use several credit cards for 
purchasing supplies and day-to-day expenses for her small business. 
After a stretch of making minimum payments, Melissa's interest rates 
suddenly rose, one even reaching 32 percent. The company is refusing to 
negotiate, making it even more difficult for Melissa and her husband to 
make ends meet.
  And in Cedaredge, Joy Beason is a small business owner who runs a 
small herbal products business. Last fall, Joy's interest rates tripled 
from 7.9 percent to 23 percent without notification of any kind. The 
high interest rates prevent her from paying down more of the principal 
on the card, leaving her in an endless cycle of debt.
  And there's Garrett Mumma of Pueblo whose interest rate on his credit 
card doubled from 7.9 percent to 13.65 percent despite his solid 
history of payment. In a letter to me, Garrett wrote, ``I only want 
what's fair. I want the credit card companies to honor their original 
agreements and not to gouge the American people when they are already 
suffering so much from the present economic crisis.''
  These struggles paint an unacceptable picture. We need to rein in 
abusive practices and create a new set of rules that works for Colorado 
consumers.
  According to a Pew Safe Credit Cards Project study, 87 percent of 
cards allowed the issuer to impose automatic penalty interest rate 
increases on all balances, even if the account is not 30 days or more 
past due. And 93 percent of cards allowed the issuer to raise any 
interest rate at any time by changing the account agreement.
  I am voting for this bill because it protects consumers from 
excessive fees, ever-changing interest rates where you do not even get 
notice, and complex contracts intended to confuse you until you give up 
even trying to understand.
  It protects consumers by establishing fair and sensible rules for how 
and when credit card companies can raise interest rates. Card companies 
must give 45 days' notice before increasing rates, and can no longer do 
so on existing balances.
  It cracks down on abusive fees. Consumers no longer will have to pay 
a fee just to pay a bill. And credit card companies must mail 
statements 21 days before the bill is due, instead of the current 14 
days, so cardholders can avoid hefty late fees. It also stops credit 
card companies from raising rates on a consumer's existing balance 
because of a payment issue with a separate credit card. These reforms 
will save some families thousands of dollars a year. And all Americans 
will be able to access better information to make important financial 
decisions.
  I also want to take one moment in particular to highlight the 
importance of a new provision in the bill that connects the dots for 
some of our younger borrowers. The bill provides for consumer literacy 
education classes, so that when a young person does not have a parental 
cosigner, and cannot show ability to repay, they can at the very least 
approach the credit card system with some understanding of the 
potential dangers they are facing. I am all for consumer choice, but we 
need our young people making informed choices before they find 
themselves in a world of debt.
  I believe more educated young consumers will stay solvent, stay debt 
free, learn the value of saving, and make better decisions for their 
future.
  At the same time, this legislation is not doing anything that the 
industry has not known was coming. It builds on rules that the Bush 
administration scheduled to go into effect in mid-2010.

[[Page S5428]]

The industry will adjust. In a few instances, it may not be seamless. 
But this is one moment when we all need to band together and remember 
that Main Street matters.
  People in Colorado are struggling, they cannot afford a sudden hike 
in their interest rates that they were not informed of and could not do 
anything to avoid. No longer. I stand proudly with Senator Udall, who 
has worked to protect consumers from credit card company excesses for 
years, in urging the full Senate to stand together, break through the 
partisan divide and come together and pass the Dodd-Shelby legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before our colleague from Colorado departs 
the floor, I want to thank him. I mentioned Senator Bennet earlier 
today in my comments about some new additional Members: Senator Merkley 
and Senator Warner.
  I say to the people of Colorado, as I did earlier about our colleague 
from Oregon, we are so fortunate to have the Senator in the Chamber at 
this time. I feel particularly fortunate to have the Senator as a 
member of the Banking Committee. I served on the committee for some 
years. I have never been chairman before 2007, the last Congress. I 
have served under a lot of people on that committee over the years.
  I hope not just the people of Colorado but the people of the country 
understand how fortunate we are indeed to have someone of Michael 
Bennet's talents and background to be a member of this committee. He is 
a junior member of the committee, but his ideas, his thoughts, his 
questions, and his participation qualify him as a senior member of that 
committee because of the contribution he has already made in little 
more than 100 days of being on the committee.
  So I thank him for his involvement on this bill. He is thoughtful. We 
have some major issues to grapple with in the coming weeks. The 
modernization of our financial regulatory structure and the 
architecture of that is going to be one of the largest and most 
important debates this committee and maybe this Congress will have 
engaged in in years, considering how important financial services are 
to our economy and the world's financial stability.
  Michael Bennet brings to that chair he sits in as a junior member of 
the committee years of valuable experience in helping us decide what 
steps we should take, the configuration that architecture should be, so 
that we can move ahead with thoughtfulness and with a certain amount of 
care and caution as we try to set up a system that will avoid the 
pitfalls that created the problems we are in today.
  So I am particularly grateful to him for his involvement on this 
bill. But I would be remiss if I did not say to my colleague, Michael 
Bennet, he has been a significant contributor to the work of this 
committee since the moment he arrived. I thank him for that and 
appreciate his continuing involvement. I am grateful to the Senator for 
his support of this bill. I look forward to working with him for a long 
time to come on these and other matters before the committee. I thank 
the Senator.
  I want to also kind of review the bidding a bit as to where we are 
this evening. I will begin by thanking the majority leader, Senator 
Harry Reid of Nevada, who has created the possibility for us to bring 
up this important piece of legislation.
  While my name and that of Senator Shelby are at the top of the page 
as the authors of the substitute, that is an unfair characterization 
because so many people have been involved on our committee, and others 
in this Chamber, who care about these issues and have for a long time.
  I am very grateful to Senator Shelby, with whom I work very closely 
on the Banking Committee, and his staff and how well they work with 
mine in helping to shape a bill like this, a substitute like this.
  We are dealing with some very egregious violations of consumer 
protection. They did not happen overnight; they have been growing over 
the years; and they reached a point where I cannot think of anyone who 
has not been either affected directly themselves or had family members 
or children or their parents or neighbors and friends adversely 
affected by these practices by the issuing community generally.
  There are some who do a very good job. I probably should say this 
more frequently. We talk about the credit card issuers, the credit card 
companies. The behavior is not only unacceptable, it is not only 
irresponsible, it is offensive. There are other ones that do a good 
job.
  Like all matters before us, when we talk about an industry, there are 
those who perform admirably and well and care about the people they 
serve, and there are others who could care less what happens as long as 
they get money out of the pockets of those to whom they have lent some 
money.
  But we write laws to protect those people against those who would do 
them harm. So we are trying to shut down a practice that goes on too 
often: when there are 70 million accounts whose rates have gone up in 
an 11-month period; when there are fees and penalties that have brought 
in billions of dollars, exorbitant fees and penalties, way beyond any 
proportionality to the offense committed--of being a day late, an hour 
late, in some cases, for the first time ever.
  Samantha and Don Moore from Guilford, CT, were here today to talk 
about their experience. I have listened to them in the past. It showed 
courage for them to step up. For 40 years--40 years--Don Moore has been 
doing business with his credit card company, 40 years. Without any 
violation, any late fees whatever, one time 3 days late, around the 
Christmas season, the Moores found that their interest rate went from 
12 percent to 27 percent; their credit limit from $32,000 to $4,000.
  The Moores run a small business in my State. They use their credit 
card as a way to function in their small business. They pay their 
employees; they buy inventory. Without any real violation other than to 
be a few days late for the first time in 40 years, the Moores watched 
their rate double, more than double, from 12 percent to 27 percent and 
watched their credit limit drop from $32,000 to $4,000.
  That is the kind of behavior that is not the rare exception. 
Virtually every one of my colleagues can tell similar stories about 
people in their States.
  I know the Presiding Officer could as well from the State of 
Illinois. May 13, as we gather a day or so away from adopting 
legislation that will prohibit those practices, that you cannot change 
these rates arbitrarily. You get notice of 45 days. These introductory 
rates have to be in place for at least 6 months before you can change 
them. You must notify a person of late penalties or fees 21 days in 
advance, giving people opportunity to respond; no charging higher 
interest rates on existing balances the way they do today; no raising 
rates because you may be late on a utility bill or a car payment having 
nothing to do with your credit card; no continuing to charge rates when 
you have paid off a substantial part of your balance and a small amount 
remains and yet the card applies that interest payment on the entire 
amount you owed earlier.
  For example, you owe $1,000, you pay off $900, the credit card 
companies were actually charging interest rates not based on the $100 
that remains but on the full $1,000 until all of it is paid off. Those 
are not isolated examples of abuses by credit card companies. They are 
widespread. There are other such examples that go on that have been 
very harmful to consumers.
  In this legislation, we give the consumer the power to decide what 
the circumstances are as to whether they want a credit limit or whether 
they want that limit to be exceeded. I remember the days not long ago 
when if you exceeded your credit limit, the clerk in that store or that 
waiter in the restaurant might politely suggest the credit limit has 
been exceeded and you might want to return the product. It is more 
difficult in a restaurant since the bill usually arrives at the end of 
the meal, but, nonetheless, I am sure many who may be listening can 
recall similar instances. That is no longer the case because the 
issuing companies have discovered they make a lot more money by 
charging exorbitant fees and penalties because you might be $10 or $20 
or $50 over your limit.
  The point there is a legitimacy in their mind to absolutely load you 
up with penalties and fees. In fact, they welcome the opportunity that 
you may be a little bit over your credit limit,

[[Page S5429]]

rather than being responsible and giving you the opportunity to decide 
whether you want to actually acquire that particular good or purchase. 
Today we have changed that. We let the consumer decide. We begin by 
saying there will be credit limits. If you want to opt out of that, you 
can. But it gives you the opportunity to be notified when you are going 
to exceed that limit so you don't find yourself behind the 8 ball and 
paying penalties you would rather not pay and would like to be notified 
when that is the case.
  Imagine this: Here we are a decade into the 21st century. My 7-year-
old runs a computer at home. My 4-year-old is trying to figure it out. 
Credit card companies want to charge fees if you pay your bills 
electronically. You can file your income taxes, you can engage in all 
sorts of economic behavior through the Internet today. But credit card 
companies want to penalize you if you pay your bills electronically or 
by phone or by some other means other than mail. Again, it is a further 
egregious example of an industry that is more interested in trying to 
trip you up, trying to make it more costly for you to use their cards 
than they are trying to assist you economically.
  I could go on for the entire rest of the evening citing story after 
story in my State, as I am sure every other Member could, examples of 
abusive, outrageous behavior.
  We have spent a long time over these last number of weeks and months 
talking about what needs to be done to get banks and other financial 
institutions in shape. I don't regret that. That was the right thing to 
do. But it is long overdue that we also try to do something on behalf 
of the people who utilize these services, whether it is trying to 
mitigate foreclosure of their homes or trying to see to it they don't 
get ripped off by a credit card company. In the next 48 hours, we are 
going to do that for the first time in the history of this body.
  Twenty years ago, I started on this issue. I never got much more than 
30 votes. When the bankruptcy reform bill was up, I tried to deal with 
credit cards. It got 32 votes. I tried to do some of the things for 
which I believe we will have an overwhelming vote in the next day or 
so. I believe our constituents will welcome the fact that the Senate of 
the United States, along with the other body which has acted on this 
issue already, is responding to their concerns. They are talking about 
it every day. They are wondering whether their interests will be part 
of this debate. This bill may not do everything everyone would like, 
but I believe it is a major step in the right direction. It addresses 
many of the major concerns raised over these many weeks and months and 
years that these matters have been growing in terms of their impact on 
people and their ability to survive on a daily basis economically.
  Again, I thank my colleagues from the Banking Committee, Democrats 
and Republicans, Senator Shelby, former chairman of the committee. We 
got it out of committee by one vote. The Presiding Officer is a member 
of the committee. By a vote of 11 to 12 we happen to be here. We would 
have lost this issue had we lost one other vote. But our colleagues in 
the committee stood with us and, by the thinnest of margins, we were 
given the right to be here tonight to talk about this.
  The vote of this body will be far greater than a one-vote margin when 
it comes to passing this legislation. We have an American President who 
has been utilizing the Office of the Presidency to talk about this 
issue. He has had press conferences, met with consumers. He talked 
about it on his radio broadcast on Saturday. He is creating the kind of 
environment where this legislation will become the law of the land.
  I may not get many more opportunities, with the amendments to be 
considered tomorrow, to address the overall consideration of this bill.
  Let me say that to the card companies as well, I appreciate the fact 
that they have been at the table as we have worked through this. I have 
not isolated them. I allowed them to make their cases where we were 
doing things that may have gone further in terms of serving the needs 
of our consumers and constituents. This is a bipartisan bill. That is 
something I try to achieve on every matter I am involved in directly. I 
don't think you can do much in this Chamber without having to reach out 
to each other and listen. We have done that.
  To Senator Shelby's great credit, he has joined in this effort so we 
have the bipartisanship our colleagues seek. I believe we will pass 
this legislation and provide some relief for the people of our country 
at a time when they need it desperately. There has never been a moment 
in recent past history when constituents and the citizens of this 
country needed more help from their Government, whether it is home 
foreclosures, a loss of jobs, tuition, health care problems--all of 
those issues are affecting millions of people. While this bill will not 
solve all the problems, for the first time ever it will provide some 
relief in a very important area--the availability of credit and the use 
of credit cards and the need that people have on a daily basis to have 
access to that credit to provide for themselves and their families.
  I see my good friend and colleague from Nebraska.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I thank my colleague from Connecticut and 
extend to him appreciation for an outstanding job with this credit card 
bill. He has done outstanding work bringing the parties together, 
putting together a bipartisan effort. I congratulate him on that and 
look forward to having him move forward.

                          ____________________