[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12460-12487]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             CREDIT CARDHOLDERS' BILL OF RIGHTS ACT OF 2009

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 627, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 627) to amend the Truth in Lending Act to 
     establish fair and transparent practices relating to the 
     extension of credit under an open end consumer credit plan, 
     and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Dodd/Shelby amendment No. 1058, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Landrieu amendment No. 1079 (to amendment No. 1058), to end 
     abuse, promote disclosure, and provide protections to small 
     businesses that rely on credit cards.
       Collins/Lieberman amendment No. 1107 (to amendment No. 
     1058), to address criminal and fraudulent monetary transfers 
     using stored value cards and other electronic devices.

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, 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. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I have been on the floor often talking 
about the subprime loan scandal that led to the financial crisis we are 
involved in, in this country. I have held up charts on the floor that 
describe the solicitations from the mortgage companies and others that 
say: Come to us. If you have bad credit, if you have been bankrupt, 
come to us. We want to give you a home loan.
  I have shown all of those--from Zoom Credit, from Millennium 
Mortgage, from the largest mortgage company in the country, 
Countrywide--all of them saying to people: You know what, if you have 
bad credit come to us. We want to loan you some money.
  That subprime loan scandal was a tipping point for a significant 
difficult time for this country's economy and that time includes right 
now. I have talked about that at great length. But today we are talking 
about credit cards. The same influence exists with respect to credit 
cards. We have companies that just wallpaper this country with credit 
cards. Go to a college campus and try to find out how many credit cards 
they stick on those college campuses preapproved, saying to these kids: 
Get our credit card, please. Walk through the concourse of an airport 
and see how often you are accosted by someone who wants you to take 
their credit card. It is all over.
  Last year the economy tipped over, and we went right into a financial 
crisis. But in that year, 2008, 4.2 billion credit card solicitations 
were mailed to consumers. Let me say that again. In the middle of an 
economic crisis, at a time when there was so much unbelievable leverage 
and debt out there, companies in this country sent 4.2 billion credit 
card solicitations to people.
  Yes, some of them went to kids. The fact is, I spoke on the floor 
years ago about my 10-year-old son getting a Diners Club card saying it 
is preapproved, we want you to consider going to Paris, France. My son 
wasn't going to France. As a matter of fact, he was 10 years old, for 
God's sake. He had no money. He wasn't going to get a credit card. Was 
it a mistake that they sent him a credit card solicitation? Probably. 
But I went to the floor one day with a whole pile of them, saying you 
are preapproved, please take this piece of plastic, spend it where you 
want, as much as you want. Madam President, 4.2 billion new credit card 
solicitations went out last year alone. They don't seem to care who 
gets them, as I said with home mortgages, which are much larger than 
most of the limits on credit cards. For home mortgages they solicited 
people with bad credit. You have been bankrupt? Come to us. You do not 
pay your bills? Come to us. That is a business model I never learned 
about, by the way, but it is what happened. They created the house of 
cards and the whole thing collapsed.
  With credit cards, the big companies out there--and by the way it is 
heavily concentrated--wallpaper this country with preapproved credit 
card solicitations: Come to us, load up; come on, spend what you don't 
have on things you don't need; come on, you can load up on my card.
  Then when they got everybody with all these cards and substantial 
balances on the cards, here is what happened. This is a person from 
Minot.

       My wife and I both have credit scores greater than 800 and 
     have never been late on any of our payments so it is odd that 
     Capital One just sent us a notice that our interest rate on 
     our credit card will almost triple.

  There they are, using a plastic credit card, paying their bills on 
time, and they are told we are going to triple your interest rate. At 
least they know it. That is not an excuse, but a whole lot of folks 
don't even know it.
  Here is another constituent who wrote to me.

       I just wanted to let you know how upset I am with my credit 
     card company--Citibank. They have decided to raise my 
     interest rate to 27 percent. I have always paid my bill on 
     time and have a good credit rating--820. Why would a company 
     who was bailed out by taxpayers because of bad practices then 
     decide to stick it to us by raising the interest rate so high 
     that it is competitive with the local Mafia rate?

  There is no Mafia rate in Fairmont, I might say, but I get the point.
  Williston, in my State:

       Enough is enough. We shored up these banks with our hard 
     earned tax dollars just to have them raise the interest rates 
     on their credit cards to 28 percent and 26.3 percent--that's 
     Bank of America and Capital One--for absolutely no reason. 
     Something must be done.

  One more:

       I received a letter from my credit card company--

  This person from North Dakota writes--

     the Bank of America, that they are upping my interest rate 
     from 7.99 to 18.4 on my credit card and we have not been late 
     with a payment. We have been with them for 15 years.

[[Page 12461]]

     I want you to know I am really angry over this. Billions have 
     been going to these banks and this is what we get for it.

  Here is a solicitation for a bank debit card, Visa. You might look at 
that and say what are they trying to solicit? Some 70-year-old codgers 
who are retired, sitting around worrying about their teeth? No, they 
are trying to solicit kids. That is the purpose of the bow. It is a 
little like Joe Camel and cigarettes, except this is much more obvious, 
a credit card for kids. It is pink with a beautiful little bow.
  Here is a statement from Bruce Giuliano, a senior vice president with 
a company that owned the Hello Kitty brand.

       We think our target age group will be from 10 to 14 
     although it could certainly be younger.

  How much younger than 10 years old can you get people to start using 
credit cards? That is unbelievable.

       We think our target age group will be 10 to 14.

  Here, by the way, is the Hello Kitty brand I was describing. Does it 
seem to you like they are targeting that 10-year-old to 14-year-old? It 
is a nice little pink thing with a kitty, new Platinum Plus Visa credit 
card with world point rewards. If they could couple this with an 
airline and get 10-year-old kids flying to France, they would have what 
my son experienced, plus a pink credit card. It is unbelievable to me. 
We wonder why people are upset. You have a bunch of companies out there 
going after your kids to see if they can put plastic in their pockets, 
kids who never had a job and will never get a job--at least not when 
they are 10 years old--saying: Load up on debt.
  Here, First Premium Card says:

       Get our platinum credit card. We have a platinum card. Even 
     if your credit is less than perfect.

  Once again, a solicitation to say if you don't do so well paying your 
bills, we have a credit card for you.
  Has anybody thought through that maybe this is what steered the 
country into the ditch? Has anybody thought about that? By the way, 
some of these financial companies are the ones that have gotten very 
large bailouts from the Federal Government.
  This is interesting. This is a credit card, presumably, for somebody 
who does not pay their bills so well. So it is hard for them to get a 
credit card. Here is what they are going to do. It looks pretty good. 
It is actually a gold card with a $250 total credit limit. The problem 
is the annual fee is $48, the setup fee is $29, the program fee is $95, 
and the monthly servicing fee is $7. So if you pay all these fees to 
that bank, you get to have a piece of plastic in your purse or your 
wallet that allows you to charge up to $250. What an unbelievable 
opportunity for people who are not thinking or do not know or at least 
have been cheated by a company that suggests these terms.
  This chart simply describes a college credit card. Everybody makes 
money on credit cards. That is why they accost you when you are going 
through the concourses at an airport--the airline is actually pushing 
credit cards. They are all making money on credit cards--including some 
colleges, by the way.
  They wallpaper all of those college hallways with credit cards 
because if you can get someone at that age to start using credit cards 
with your company, then you have got them for a long period of time.
  Now, 84 percent of undergraduates in college had at least one credit 
card, up from 76 percent in 2004. Midwestern students continue to carry 
the highest average number of credit cards, with more than half of the 
students--think of this--more than half of these college students have 
four or more credit cards. Again, a cultural lesson about debt? I don't 
think that is a lesson we want college students to understand. I am not 
suggesting college students should not have a credit card. I understand 
the value of that. But they ought to have a limit.
  By the way, here is the other thing that happens with credit cards 
and college students. You cosign a credit card as a parent for the 
college student who does not have a job, and it is not very long before 
the credit card company ups the limit to the college student without 
telling the cosigner. I know that is an interesting business practice, 
to be pushing additional credit toward those who do not have income, 
but it is part of the culture of this country, I guess.
  Undergraduates are carrying record-high credit card balances. The 
average balance grew to $3,100--the highest in the years the study has 
been conducted--and 21 percent of undergraduates had balances between 
$3,000 and $7,000.
  My point is simple: This is some of the same culture and some of the 
same difficulty that has tipped this country's economy over, beginning 
with the subprime loan scandal in housing but very quickly going into 
credit cards.
  Someone said to me a while back: You know something, nobody spends 
money like the Federal Government. I am talking about debt. The Federal 
Government has run up all of this debt. Shame on the Federal 
Government.
  I said: I agree with you. This Government has to decide it can only 
deliver Government to the American people that the American people are 
willing to pay for. We cannot continue with these deficits.
  But, I said, understand this: It is not just the Government. This 
culture has had a dramatic runup in household debt, a dramatic runup in 
corporate debt, you name it, all across the board, including trade 
debt.
  But we are here today because Senator Dodd has brought a bill to the 
floor with his colleague, Senator Shelby, and they deserve great 
credit. They deserve a lot of credit from the American people for doing 
this. It is a piece of legislation that begins to put the brakes on, 
puts a bridle on those who are engaged in practices I have just 
described: aiming credit card solicitations at 10-, 12-, 14-year-old 
kids, wallpapering college campuses so that kids came up with four or 
more credit cards. The fact is many of these companies got involved in 
all of these unbelievable instruments--credit default swaps, CDOs, and 
shame on them. Shame on WaMu, shame on Wachovia, shame on the companies 
that did it. They are supposed to be banks. Banking is supposed to be 
reasonably conservative. Instead, they loaded up with unbelievable 
debt.
  Now some of the same companies, by the way, that are putting credit 
cards out all over this country are saying to credit card customers: 
You know, I understand you have never been late, never missed a 
payment, been a customer for 20 years, but you know what, your 7.9 
interest rate has now gone to 26 percent, and you are lucky we told you 
because some people are not going to know it. By the way, we are going 
to add some additional fees, and we do not care what you think about 
this.
  This legislation says: No more. You cannot do that. It says: If you 
are going to go in this direction--way overboard, in many cases 
cheating customers--then we are going to put the brakes on.
  Some people say: Well, of what business is it of the Government?
  Well, you know what, we have a responsibility, it seems to me, to 
stand up for consumers. In this case, you have some very large 
companies that have engaged in this business and now, in recent years, 
have decided to impose very substantial fees and very high interest 
rates, in a way that I believe takes advantage of the people. These 
people are good citizens, pay their bills on time, are conscientious 
about it, and now discover that the company they have had a 
relationship with for a very long time has imposed all kinds of 
dramatic penalties and fees that customer does not deserve.
  So this legislation is legislation that I believe will pass the 
Senate with a very wide margin. Why? Because I think those companies 
that have done this have invited this today. They asked for it. This 
Congress has a responsibility to stand up for the interests of the 
American people.
  I come from a State in which Teddy Roosevelt lived for a while, and 
he always said: Had it not been for my time in North Dakota, I never 
would have been President. He was a rugged guy, and he went out there 
and ranched in North Dakota.
  By the way, he was in the depths of despair because both his mother 
and

[[Page 12462]]

his wife died in his home on the same day in New York. Think of it, 
losing your mother and your wife the same day on different floors of 
the same home. He went out to try to renew his spirit in the Badlands 
of North Dakota. He became a rancher and later became President of the 
United States.
  One of the things I remember him for and the country remembers him 
for is as a ``trust buster,'' willing to take on the big interests, 
willing to stand up to the big interests when they rip into the 
interests of the American consumer, the American people. Thank God for 
what Teddy Roosevelt did in so many areas in trust busting.
  In many ways, this is a smaller piece of that larger issue, taking on 
the bigger interests when they are taking on the American citizens in a 
way we believe is unfair and untoward.
  So I came today simply to say to my colleagues, Senator Dodd and 
Senator Shelby, that I appreciate the work they have done. I am a 
strong supporter of this legislation, and I know we have some 
amendments back and forth. At some point, I am going to be proud to 
cast a ``yes'' vote.
  I am not suggesting credit cards are bad--far from it. Credit cards 
are very helpful to the American people. I am suggesting there are some 
practices that have occurred that go way beyond that which is 
reasonable, and we are going to try to rein that in with this 
legislation.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I rise to speak for several minutes on 
the legislation that is before us today dealing with credit cards, 
something that most of us have a personal experience with--we use them; 
we have had good experiences and bad experiences. In some respects, 
those experiences guide our views with respect to how we should 
legislate. That is understandable. It is true with me too.
  Earlier today, I had a chance to participate in a number of call-in 
radio shows, some specific to Delaware, one to the Delmarva Peninsula, 
and one a national call-in show. People raised a variety of different 
issues about the legislation we are debating. What I did with some of 
the listeners, I took them back to the beginning and said: The reason 
why this legislation is before us actually grew out of the work of the 
Federal Reserve, which was begun over 2 years ago. The Federal Reserve 
sought to use their authority under the--I think it was the Federal 
Trade Commission law that says they have a responsibility to protect 
consumers. That includes protecting consumers as they use credit cards.
  For roughly 2 years the Federal Reserve held hearings, received input 
from consumer groups, from individuals, from the industry, from other 
regulators, as to how we might better protect consumers.
  In the end, the Federal Reserve sought to strike a balance. They 
sought to strike a balance that was fair to consumers and better 
protected their interests, which need to be better protected, and at 
the same time not to further disadvantage our financial institutions in 
this country, many of which are struggling literally to survive. That 
was the balance the Federal Reserve sought to strike. The Federal 
Reserve promulgated regulations last December after literally receiving 
tens of thousands of pages of comments on the draft regulations they 
promulgated earlier, last year.
  What we are doing now is, rather than simply waiting on the Federal 
Reserve regulations to be implemented between now and July 1 of 2010, 
Congress is seeking to codify, to literally turn into law those 
regulations and in some cases to move the effective date of those 
regulations up earlier and in some cases to add some provisions that 
were not covered by the regulations.
  One of the changes that is affected in this regulation was not raised 
in the regulation. It deals with credit cards and kids. It is really 
credit cards and people under the age of 21. My boys are 19 and 20. 
They are in college. They have been receiving preapproved credit card 
applications for a number of years, including when they were in high 
school. I think Senator Dodd has talked about one of his girls, who I 
think is 7 or 8 years old, having received a preapproved credit card 
application at the tender age of 7 or 8.
  The question is, do we need to do something differently? It is 
interesting that the Federal Reserve, in their regulations, did not 
think so. The legislation which comes out of the committee and comes to 
us for consideration says, no; we should do something. What the 
legislation calls for, for us to do differently in this country, is if 
a young person, under the age of 21, wants to sign up for a credit 
card, either, No. 1, their parent or guardian has to cosign for them, 
with them, for that credit card, or, No. 2, the young person has to 
demonstrate the ability to pay their debts.
  For the most part it means have a job, have a source of income to pay 
their debts. That is something that is in addition to the Federal 
Reserve. I agree with that. I think it is a good change, and I think 
most of my colleagues do, too.
  In terms of being guided by your own personal experiences, I don't 
know about the rest of you, but one person who called in today on a 
call-in show said: Why don't we just let the marketplace make the 
decisions for us? We are smart. We get these credit card solicitations 
in the mail. There are a lot of choices. Let the marketplace work, and 
let people choose what card they want.
  As it turns out, we have a lot of smart people in the Senate, maybe 
staff who are even smarter. There are a lot of people in this country 
who, frankly, have not had the opportunity for an education that some 
of us have had, and they lack, as do some of us, the financial literacy 
that will enable them to make the right decision on a multitude of 
options, choices; to understand them, read the fine print and 
understand how it will impact them.
  As a result, we are not going to just let the marketplace work as it 
worked in the past because it didn't work perfectly. What we are trying 
to do is correct some of the bad behavior, clean up some of the 
behavior on the part of the credit card issuers, and that will get to a 
point where the marketplace can work, and the market will actually work 
on behalf of consumers. That is really what we want to see happen.
  I will use a couple of examples from my own personal life. I have 
three credit cards that I use. One of the credit cards I use is for my 
personal use. Another credit card I use is for government-related 
expenses, official business. A third is for campaign-related expenses. 
The Presiding Officer may have a similar kind of arrangement. It helps 
keep everything straight for me. That is a benefit, a real advantage, 
and I believe it is an example of how our credit cards can be used for 
our advantage.
  I had a credit card several years ago for campaign-related expenses. 
I lived in Wilmington, DE. The credit card bill had to be paid in New 
Jersey. I was getting the bill about 10 days before it was due, and in 
one instance I remember sending a check for that bill and it took 5 
days for my check to actually get to the credit card company and be 
credited as a payment--5 days, Wilmington, DE, to New Jersey. I could 
have driven it in less than 5 hours, but it took 5 days to credit.
  The other thing I noticed about the credit card company, the due 
dates for my bill were always Saturdays or Sundays. They didn't process 
on Saturdays or Sundays. I finally realized what was happening, and I 
said we will not use that credit card again. I tore it up, paid it off, 
and got another credit card that did not have that problem. That is an 
example of letting market forces work.
  Hopefully, a lot of us are smart enough to be able to do that sort of 
thing, but honest to God, not everybody is as sophisticated as they 
need to be to be able to lay that out for themselves.
  Another issue that has come before us is the issue of caps, our 
credit card limits. If Senator Grassley over here has a credit card 
limit, and I am his credit card issuer, he has a limit on the credit 
card he has from us, from our company, say, a $1,000 limit. Currently, 
if he exceeds the $1,000 limit, we let him. My credit card company lets 
him exceed it and he starts paying fees. If he continuously goes over 
the limit, he pays more and more fees.
  I don't think that is the way the system should work. The Presiding 
Officer

[[Page 12463]]

doesn't think that is the way the system should work. The legislation 
before us says that is not the way this system should work.
  Going forward, when a person signs up for a credit card, if there is 
a limit--we will say there is a $1,000 limit--unless the cardholder 
objects, that will be a limit. It will be a hard cap. If the 
cardholders want to exceed that limit, they may do that, but they fully 
acknowledge that they will accept fees in doing so. I think that is a 
reasonable way to approach this.
  There is another major issue that has been before us, the issue of 
whether the credit card companies should be able to assess risk and 
charge for that risk, the perceived higher risk on the part of the 
cardholder. We worked with Senator Shelby, who is here today, to try to 
strike a reasonable balance that says, again, I am a credit card 
company, he is the credit card holder, and we send him his statement. 
He doesn't pay within 30 days. What the Federal Reserve said is after 
30 days, credit card companies should have to charge a higher interest 
rate. We changed that a little bit, and we say we will give the 
cardholder 60 days. If the cardholder has not paid a minimum payment 
within that 60 days of it being due, the credit card company can raise 
the interest rate; however, we give the holder of the card 6 months on-
time payments, minimum payments for 6 months, to earn back the lower 
interest rate. To me, that seems like a fair balance, looking out for 
the consumer, looking out for the company in addition.
  I want to mention, yesterday we had the opportunity to debate the 
question of a usury ceiling. The question was 15 percent--shouldn't we 
have a 15-percent uniform usury ceiling on credit card rates. Maybe 33, 
35 people voted for it. I did not. I said to my colleagues wondering 
how they should vote, there are actually two or three problems with the 
amendment before us, or any usury ceiling rate.
  If it is a 15-percent ceiling rate, the idea was we should limit 
banks to charging 15 percent because credit unions are limited to 15 
percent. As it turns out, credit unions do not operate under the same 
rules of the road as banks. The banks complained the credit unions get 
a break and the banks do not enjoy that in a number of ways. To simply 
say because the credit unions are capping at 15 percent we ought to cap 
the banks at 15 percent, frankly, it is not a logical argument in my 
mind.
  One thing I know is, if there were a limit of 15 percent, everybody 
here, all the Senators, would be able to get credit. Most of our staff 
would be able to get credit. The folks who would not be able to get 
credit are lower income people. They wouldn't be able to get a credit 
card because they may have a high risk, and if they do have a high risk 
and it is proven by their payments scheduled over time, those people 
are going to be cut off. That is not an intended consequence, it is an 
unintended consequence, but by virtue of not adopting yesterday's 
amendment we allow credit card companies to charge eventually for risk, 
but at the same time to offer the credit card holder the opportunity to 
earn back a lower rate of interest.
  I compliment Senator Dodd. I commend Senator Shelby and their staffs. 
They have worked very hard to get us to a point where all of us, 
whether we happen to come from States where we have a lot of credit 
card companies or we happen to come from States where we have a lot of 
credit card holders, to try to get a right balance. I think you came 
really close to doing that. I understand we may have one amendment 
offered later today dealing with fees that are paid by, in some cases, 
the merchants--the interchange fees. I understand there is language in 
the underlying bill that says--this is not something on which we have 
had hearings, I understand, in the Banking Committee. I understand 
maybe other committees have had hearings on it years ago. We have not 
had hearings on this in the Banking Committee. It is a lot more complex 
than people would lead us to believe.
  Why don't we give the appropriate agency, and I think in this case 
the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, a year to come back to 
us, study this, vet it, and tell us: This is what we think you should 
do. To me, this makes a lot more sense on the Senate floor, without 
having had the benefit of hearings, informed hearings from the Banking 
Committee, to tell us what we should do. Let's take our time and let's 
do this right.
  I commend my colleagues. I thank them for giving my staff and me, 
other Members who have had an interest, whether on the committee or 
not, the opportunity to weigh in, express our concerns, and have the 
opportunity to shape in a small way the outcome of this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.


                    Amendment No. 1107, as Modified

  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent the Collins 
amendment, No. 1107, be modified with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 511. STORED VALUE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall 
     issue regulations in final form implementing the Bank Secrecy 
     Act, regarding the sale, issuance, redemption, or 
     international transport of stored value, including stored 
     value cards.
       (b) Consideration of International Transport.--Regulations 
     under this section regarding international transport of 
     stored value may include reporting requirements pursuant to 
     section 5316 of title 31, United States Code.
       (c) Emerging Methods for Transmittal and Storage in 
     Electronic Form.--Regulations under this section shall take 
     into consideration current and future needs and methodologies 
     for transmitting and storing value in electronic form.


                    Amendment No. 1079, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent that the Landrieu-Snowe 
amendment No. 1079 be modified as it is presently at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       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).''
       (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. Madam President, I would like to speak for 3 or 4 
minutes. I see my colleague from Iowa is here to speak, so I will not 
take any more time.
  I spoke briefly about this amendment when I introduced it on behalf 
of Senator Snowe and others who joined us, from both sides of the 
aisle. I have spoken at some length with the chairman and ranking 
member as well. I am hoping we could have a positive outcome on this 
amendment because it is so important to our small businesses in 
America.
  We have been trying with some degree of success to actually help 
small businesses on Main Street in our communities. I say ``with some 
success,''

[[Page 12464]]

because we all go home on the weekends and we continue to hear very 
serious complaints from our grocery stores and our hardware stores and 
our shoe repair shops and our cleaners and our business owners saying: 
Senator when is any help coming our way? You are giving all of these 
billions of dollars to Wall Street and to these big banks. Yet we are 
here really struggling. Is anyone listening to us in Washington?
  Olympia Snowe and I, as chair and ranking member of the Small 
Business Committee, are doing what we can, saying: Yes, we are 
listening, and we want to be of some help. Every bill that comes to the 
floor, we try to put a lens on it: How is this helping small business?
  This bill is a good step to help consumers, individuals, persons, who 
have a credit card. Unfortunately, the way the bill is currently 
drafted, it leaves out small businesses.
  My amendment with Senator Snowe will simply put them in this bill so 
when this bill passes, we can have a real celebration about helping, 
not just individual cardholders but small businesses that are 
struggling to keep their doors open.
  Madam President, you serve on the Small Business Committee. You have 
heard the testimony, immediate past testimony, of, really, businesses 
that have 500 employees that are struggling, to businesses that have 2 
employees; from a conservative perspective, from a liberal perspective, 
that have come before our committee. That is how this amendment came to 
be.
  As I reviewed the underlying bill and thought there were some 
terrific things in this bill that will help credit card users, let me 
just quickly say, it bans at any time, for any reason, increases in 
rates. No more can credit card companies just raise your rate any time 
for any reason. That is eliminated in this bill.
  No longer can credit card companies charge you for a balance that you 
paid. If you owe $1,000, you send them a check for $900, they can 
still, under current law, charge you interest on the entire $1,000.
  That is not fair. It is not fair to individuals. It is not fair to 
small businesses. That will be corrected in this bill.
  It simplifies disclosures. Yes, I believe in the free market, but I 
believe in order to have a free market you need to be able to read the 
print. Sometimes not only is the print small, but it is almost 
difficult to understand. So it is more simple disclosures.
  I think small business owners need that opportunity as well. It 
prohibits credit card companies from charging interest on transaction 
fees that they add to monthly bills. So small business will get that 
benefit.
  This is, in conclusion, not going to solve every challenge that small 
businesses have, but at least they will know there are Members of the 
Congress, Senators and House Members, who hear them, who are trying to 
do what we can to respond, and this amendment will actually cover 26 
million small businesses in America, in addition to the millions of 
other credit cardholders, perhaps over 50 million, maybe more. This 
will include small businesses with less than 50 employees.
  I would like to help every business in America. I will continue to 
work on that. But for this bill, because it was directed to 
individuals, we thought by keeping it to relatively small businesses, 
it would fit in the overall scope and framework of this bill.
  Senator Snowe and I are going to continue to work to expand credit 
opportunities for businesses with your help. This bill also is 
supported by Senator Shaheen, as an original cosponsor, and Senator 
Cardin. I wish to thank them very much for their support and help.
  I see my colleague from Iowa and will reserve the remainder of my 
remarks for Tuesday, when I hope we can vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.


                       Government-Run Health Care

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, for the benefit of my colleagues, I 
will only be speaking about 11 minutes or so. I will proceed.
  Yesterday--no, it was not yesterday, 2 days ago--the Medicare 
trustees announced that Medicare's Part A hospital trust fund will be 
insolvent in 2017. That is 2 years sooner than last year's estimate. 
This announcement shines a spotlight on an issue Congress cannot 
ignore. Our largest Federal health program is on an unsustainable 
course.
  Medicare, according to the trustees, is going broke. We have all 
heard the reasons over and over: People are living longer, health care 
costs are increasing, and most seniors are developing chronic and very 
costly conditions.
  All this leaves the Federal Government with a $35 trillion unfunded 
liability over the next 75 years because the trustees always look ahead 
75 years. That is updated annually.
  Some in Congress recognize the financial black hole that is looming 
before us. I hope my colleagues know I am working with Senator Baucus 
and other members of the Finance Committee to reform the way the 
Government pays for health care.
  Our options for delivery reform will bring the Medicare Program into 
the 21st century by improving quality and reducing costs. We 
desperately need to retake control of the costs of the Medicare 
Program, obviously, so it can be around for future generations. Yet in 
the face of that reality, some people think the best way to accomplish 
health care reform is to create another entitlement program.
  In the face of Medicare's pending insolvency, some people want to 
create a new public program, a government-run health insurance program. 
I am one of the most vocal supporters of health care reform. We need to 
improve quality, access, and affordability. But we need to understand 
by adding another unsustainable government-run health insurance plan 
into our health care system, it cannot be the answer.
  We cannot afford what we already have, so let's add more. Put that 
against the commonsense test. It does not make much sense. As the 
saying goes: History is a vast early warning system. Today, debate over 
health care reform is eerily similar to the debate in 1965, before 
Medicare was created.
  Let's look at that history. Before the bill became law, doctors, 
hospitals, and other health care providers were concerned about this 
new government-run health care program that was passed back then. We 
call it Medicare.
  Much like today, way back then, they were worried the Government 
would use this program to ration care and cut payments. To deal with 
these concerns, Congress and the President actually promised back then 
to doctors and others that they would continue to be paid, as the law 
says, the usual and customary rates.
  That is why, to this very date, the Medicare legislation still states 
this:

       Nothing in this title shall authorize any Federal officer 
     or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the 
     practice of medicine or compensation of any person providing 
     health care services.

  That was written in 1965. It is still in the law. But--and a big 
``but''--we all know that the cost and the political pressure has 
increased.
  As a result, this section that I quoted, written in 1965, has become 
meaningless. Time and time again, Congress has intervened in medical 
decisions and cut reimbursement rates. Legislation in the late 1980s 
placed limits on what doctors could charge and put in place a 
government-mandated fee schedule.
  One American Medical Association trustee recounted the AMA's original 
concern about Medicare by stating it this way: ``Many of the things we 
feared have come to pass.'' Surprise. Surprise. Despite the promise to 
pay ``reasonable rates'' when Medicare was created, today the 
Government pays between 60 and 70 percent of what private insurers pay.
  By setting payment rates well below costs, it is becoming more and 
more difficult for seniors to find a doctor who accepts Medicare. 
Access issues for Medicaid, as we all know, are even worse. But some 
say we can avoid these problems by putting the government-run plan on a 
level playing field with private insurers.

[[Page 12465]]

  They say Congress could set up a system so the government-run health 
insurance plan has to follow the same rules as private insurers. They 
say it would have to pay the same rates, form networks, be 
independently solvent, all sounding good. My question is this: When 
this new government-run health insurance plan starts to cost too much, 
then following the pattern since 1965 with Medicare, is Congress going 
to start breaking its promises? Will it change the rules?
  A recent Wall Street Journal article tried to answer this question 
this way:

       Any policy guardrails built this year can be dismantled 
     once the basic public option architecture is in place . . . 
     That is what has always--

  And ``always'' is emphasized--

       That is what has always happened with Government health 
     programs.

  Maybe at first Congress somehow repeals the requirement that the 
government-run plan has to form a network. Next, Congress might allow 
the Government plan to start paying lower rates than private insurers, 
just like we have done with Medicare and Medicaid. At that point, 
Congress might let the government-run plan dip into the Treasury from 
time to time to keep the Government plan solvent.
  This, of course, would increase costs for everyone. As the Government 
takes more and more control over the plan, providers would get paid 
less and taxpayers would end up paying more. Rates for government-run 
health insurance plans would be lower than private insurers because 
Government can impose lower rates by law, also known--can you believe 
it--as price fixing.
  This is a common talking point for supporters of the government-run 
plan. They say the Government can use its numbers to lower costs. But 
as the Government cuts payments to providers, costs will go up for 
everyone who is left in the private market. Slowly but surely the 
Government plan takes over the market. Eventually, all the promises 
about creating a level playing field have been broken, and we would be 
left with a single-payer, government-run health insurance plan, such as 
Canada.
  Canada brags about having a single plan. But Canada does not have 
just a single plan. There is a second plan, and it is called the United 
States of America. So if you do not want to wait around 3 months for an 
MRI in Canada, you can come to the United States, if you have the money 
to do it and the time to do it, and get it right away.
  But what happens if you have such a plan in America? Where do 
Americans go for what the plan does not provide for our people when you 
have delay? Well, we will not go to Mexico, surely. Eventually, all the 
promises about creating a level playing field will have been broken, 
and we would be left with a single-payer, government-run health 
insurance plan.
  The simple truth is, supporters of a government plan absolutely 
intend for this to be the outcome. Independent analysis by the Lewin 
Group agrees. According to Lewin's work, 119 million people would lose 
their private insurance. In other words, they would be crowded out. 
They would end up where? On the Government plan.
  It also breaks one of the most important promises that President 
Obama made during his campaign, and I agree with this promise. What is 
it? If you like what you have now in the way of health insurance, you 
can keep it.
  Independent analysis has shown that a government-run insurance plan 
will drive up prices in the private market and force employees and 
employers to drop that coverage. So the President does not get his plan 
or his promise during the campaign kept.
  This, of course, will make our emergency rooms more crowded than they 
are today. It will limit access to high-quality care through rationing 
and price fixing. It will increase waiting time for lab results and 
lifesaving and life-enhancing procedures. It will add hundreds of 
billions of dollars of new Government spending.
  This is not the kind of change the American people are looking for. 
Instead of creating a government-run plan and making a bunch of 
promises Congress cannot keep, let's create stronger rules and 
regulations for the private insurance market.
  For instance, we should prohibit health plans from denying coverage 
to people with preexisting conditions and provide tax credits to people 
who cannot afford coverage.
  Instead of introducing a government-run health insurance plan that 
would cost too much, limit choices, and lower quality, let's clean up 
the private market. Instead of introducing a government plan, let's 
help President Obama keep his promise that if you like what you have in 
the way of health insurance, you can keep it.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico.) The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Guantanamo Bay

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to make a few 
observations on President Obama's request in the emergency war 
supplemental for $80 million in funding to close the detention facility 
at Guantanamo Bay. Shortly after taking office in January, President 
Obama announced, with much fanfare, the closure of the Guantanamo Bay 
detention facility. At the same time, he also said he would work with 
Congress on any legislation that might be appropriate.
  But instead of consulting Congress, President Obama is asking for $80 
million to close Guantanamo, with no justification or indication of a 
plan. The House Appropriations Committee has already refused to provide 
the funding because, in the words of the chairman of the committee, the 
President has no plan in place on what to do about the detainees housed 
there. We are now hearing reports that the Senate Appropriations 
Committee will be providing funding for Guantanamo and its version in 
the emergency war supplemental, but that it will be ``fenced off'' 
until the President provides a plan on disposition of the detainees 
held at Guantanamo Bay. I believe any plan to close Guantanamo that 
includes bringing these terrorists into the United States is a mistake. 
We don't want the killers who are held there to be brought into this 
country.
  The administration is actively seeking to circumvent a Senate 
resolution which passed by a vote of 94 to 3 in July of 2007. That 
resolution stated the detainees housed at Guantanamo Bay should not be 
released into American society and not transferred stateside into 
facilities in American communities and neighborhoods.
  In fact, not only does the Obama administration wish to hold open the 
possibility that some of these detainees may be transferred to 
facilities in American communities, it is even considering freeing some 
of them into American society. These are the 17 Chinese Uighurs whose 
combat status review tribunal records were deemed insufficient to 
support the conclusion that they are enemy combatants but cannot be 
returned to China because of fear that the Chinese Government will 
torture or kill them. At a press conference on March 26, ADM Dennis 
Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, went so far as to say:

       If we are to release them [the Uighurs] in the United 
     States, we need some sort of assistance for them to start a 
     new life.

  However, the Uighur detainees are not simply unfortunate souls who 
happened to be scooped up on the battlefields of Afghanistan because 
they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They took firearms 
training at camps run by the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, which 
has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States. 
They were at Tora Bora when we were heavily bombing that area and 
seeking to capture Osama bin Laden. The leader and chief instructor

[[Page 12466]]

at these camps was Abdul Haq. In a Treasury Department advisory issued 
only a few weeks ago, the Obama administration labeled this man a 
``brutal terrorist'' with ties to al-Qaida.
  It is hard to believe that this administration is seriously 
considering freeing these men inside the United States, and, most 
outrageous of all, paying them to live freely within American 
communities and neighborhoods. The American people don't want these men 
walking the streets of America's neighborhoods.
  Aside from the issue of turning loose into the United States people 
who have trained in terrorist camps, the American people don't want the 
Guantanamo detainees to be transferred to the United States and held in 
their backyards, either, whether at a military base or in a Federal 
prison. That is easy to understand when one looks at the details of the 
killers who are held at Guantanamo.
  Guantanamo is home to some of the world's most dangerous terrorists. 
There are 27 members of al-Qaida's leadership held there, along with 95 
lower level al-Qaida operatives, 9 members of the Taliban's leadership, 
92 foreign fighters, and 12 Taliban fighters. Americans don't want 
these killers brought into the United States, but President Obama's 
January 22 of 2009 Executive order reads, in relevant part, that a 
review of all Guantanamo detentions:

       Shall identify and consider legal, logistical, and security 
     issues relating to the potential transfer of individuals 
     currently detained at Guantanamo to facilities within the 
     United States.

  In my view, President Obama is willfully ignoring the views of the 
Senate and its resolution passed, as I said earlier, by a bipartisan 
94-to-3 votes. The detainees housed at Guantanamo should not be 
released into American society, nor should they be transferred to 
facilities in American communities and neighborhoods.
  Since President Obama seems set on a course to bring these terrorists 
into the United States, I have worked with my colleague in the Senate, 
Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma, to introduce a bill that would prevent 
any taxpayer dollars from being used to transfer detainees held at 
Guantanamo to any facility in the United States or construct, improve, 
modify, or otherwise enhance any facility in the United States for the 
purpose of housing any Guantanamo detainees.
  Transferring these terrorists held at Guantanamo to facilities in or 
near American communities could make those communities terrorist 
targets. I had the opportunity to question ADM Dennis Blair, the 
Director of National Intelligence, on the potential security threat of 
relocating the Guantanamo detainees to facilities in the United States 
during an Armed Services Committee hearing on current and future 
worldwide threats to the national security of the United States. 
Admiral Blair acknowledged that moving those detainees to the United 
States ``does somewhat raise the threat level'' and ``does raise the 
concern somewhat.'' That does not give me comfort. If we must close 
Guantanamo Bay, it should not result in Americans being less safe.
  Transferring these detainees would also stress the civilian 
governments in the communities where these detainees would be placed. 
These communities would be faced with overwhelming demand from 
roadblocks to identification checks, along with having increased 
security personnel necessary to deal with what is an obvious threat. 
The value of homes and businesses would decline. South Dakotans 
definitely don't want these detainees, and my support of the Guantanamo 
Detention Facility Safe Closure Act will help to ensure that these 
detainees will not be transferred to my home State of South Dakota or 
other States in the United States.
  In conclusion, my view is that no Guantanamo detainee should be 
brought into the United States to be incarcerated, and certainly should 
not be brought into the United States and freed. Americans don't want 
these killers brought into their communities and neighborhoods, period. 
The Senate has clearly spoken on that front by a 94-to-3 vote on a 
resolution that we adopted in July of 2007 that detainees housed at 
Guantanamo Bay should not be released into American society and not 
transferred stateside to facilities in American communities and 
neighborhoods.
  These detainees are hardened, trained terrorists who are very smart 
and extremely dangerous, who understand the strategic vulnerabilities 
of this country, and who are capable of exploiting any situation and 
any vulnerability to inflict death and destruction on the United 
States. These are not common criminals locked up in State or Federal 
prisons.
  Guantanamo is secure. The facility is a $200 million, state-of-the-
art prison. No one has ever escaped, and its location makes it 
extremely difficult to attack. Best of all, it is located hundreds of 
miles away from American communities. If President Obama wishes to 
close Guantanamo, he must do so in a way that keeps America safe.
  In my view, America will be less safe if the Guantanamo detainees are 
brought into the United States. I will do everything I can to make 
certain that does not happen.
  I yield the floor and 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. BROWN. 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. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arkansas, Senator 
Lincoln, for her leadership on the credit card legislation and for her 
work on this bill. I also thank Chairman Dodd for his work on the 
Credit Card Act. We have worked so many months on this vital 
legislation, and we are finally debating it on the floor. It is long 
overdue. For too long, credit card companies simply were not content in 
reporting record profit after record profit. They were not content 
making reasonable money at reasonable rates. They wanted more, and they 
wanted interest that was far above their cost for funds. They wanted 
fees and more fees and more fees. Up against your credit card limit? No 
problem. Instead of really being a limit, that ceiling served as a 
license to charge additional fees. For too long, the credit card 
companies convinced Washington to look the other way. No more.
  While not all lenders that provide credit cards are engaging in the 
exorbitant and unethical practices, a great number are, and that is why 
this bill is crucial. It protects not only the consumer, but it 
protects the credit card companies from themselves. Nickel-and-diming 
doesn't begin to describe the billions of dollars out of which 
Americans have been cheated.
  The bill would protect consumers from random, at-will interest rate 
increases and account changes. It would banish unfair application of 
card payments, and it protects consumers who pay on time and follow the 
rules. It would curtail fees and penalties and ensure that cardholders 
are informed of the terms of their accounts. This bill would help 
protect young people from credit card predators. We all know, if we 
have ever had teenagers in the last 15 years or so, that a huge number 
of solicitations keep coming at them. This legislation puts the well-
being of millions of hard-working middle-class families first.
  I have heard some outrageous complaints from big, multinational banks 
that claim this bill is unfair because to make the changes it requires 
would take years to implement.
  It is a pretty weak argument for the big, sophisticated, multibillion 
dollar credit card companies, with armies of information technology 
employees and lawyers. It certainly doesn't take them a year to 
increase a fee or to figure out how to implement a universal default 
policy or to work the mathematical magic needed to implement 
retroactive pricing.
  For too long, the big credit card companies didn't step up and do the 
right thing, so there should be no surprise that they must do so now. 
Millions of Americans--their customers--were left in the dark at the 
mercy of whatever sleight of hand or shell game credit

[[Page 12467]]

card companies could contemplate. If there were a charge or policy 
imposed that consumers didn't agree with or understand, they were 
forced to dial a 1-800 number on the bill. If they were lucky, they 
could talk to an actual person who worked from a crib sheet on 
different ways to say no. If they took it further, they could run into 
an army of lawyers.
  No more. Consumers in my State of Ohio, and across this country, are 
no longer alone. The Government is going to work for them. It is time 
our laws were on the side of hard-working men and women. That is why we 
are working on this comprehensive legislation protecting consumers from 
multibillion dollar predators.
  Young people, who often are a prime target of these predators, will 
have heightened protections with this bill. I have spoken many times 
about the questionable practices of credit card companies which 
inundate our college campuses with their enticements and their 
advertisements. With the escalating price of a college education, and 
our Nation's financial problems, why would credit card companies dole 
out credit to unemployed or underemployed students? Because they can, 
and because no one has been willing to stand up to them, and no one--as 
this bill does--has been willing to stand up for those students. Now 
the Government is stepping in and will fairly regulate what was too 
often the wild west of consumer lending.
  College students should have access to credit cards. They should have 
the ability to take out consumer loans. This is an important way to 
develop good credit practices and good credit for those students. But 
universities such as Ohio State--the Nation's largest university--tell 
their students to avoid taking on large amounts of credit card debt. 
Even so, many credit card companies flood campuses with deceptive 
advertising and hidden fees and penalties and unscrupulous practices. 
No more.
  This bill shouldn't even be necessary. Credit card companies should 
be responsible corporate citizens. Sadly, many have not been willing to 
play fairly. Last November signaled a shift from large corporate 
shareholders running this country to middle-class families taking back 
the reins of government. This bill is one of the results of that 
change, with a new President and a different Congress actually putting 
the Government on the side of the middle class.
  I am a cosponsor of the CARD Act, and because of that, I look forward 
to its passage.
  I yield the floor, and I thank the Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. 
Lincoln.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the Collins amendment.


                Amendment No. 1126 to Amendment No. 1107

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I call up a second-degree amendment to 
the pending Collins amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1126 to amendment No. 1107.

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

 (Purpose: To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act with respect to 
                 the extension of certain limitations)

       At the end of the amendment, add the following:

     SEC. 504. EXTENSION OF LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 44(f)(1) of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831u(f)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and'';
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively;
       (3) by striking ``equal to not more than the greater of--'' 
     and inserting the following: ``equal to--
       ``(A) not more than the greater of--''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) the State's maximum lawful annual percentage rate or 
     17 percent, to facilitate the uniform implementation of 
     federally mandated or federally established programs and 
     financings related thereto, including--
       ``(i) uniform accessibility of student loans, including the 
     issuance of qualified student loan bonds as set forth in 
     section 144(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
       ``(ii) the uniform accessibility of mortgage loans, 
     including the issuance of qualified mortgage bonds and 
     qualified veterans' mortgage bonds as set forth in section 
     143 of such Code;
       ``(iii) the uniform accessibility of safe and affordable 
     housing programs administered or subject to review by the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development, including--

       ``(I) the issuance of exempt facility bonds for qualified 
     residential rental property as set forth in section 142(d) of 
     such Code;
       ``(II) the issuance of low income housing tax credits as 
     set forth in section 42 of such Code, to facilitate the 
     uniform accessibility of provisions of the American Recovery 
     and Reinvestment Act of 2009; and
       ``(III) the issuance of bonds and obligations issued under 
     that Act, to facilitate economic development, higher 
     education, and improvements to infrastructure, and the 
     issuance of bonds and obligations issued under any provision 
     of law to further the same; and

       ``(iv) to facilitate interstate commerce generally, 
     including consumer loans, in the case of any person or 
     governmental entity (other than a depository institution 
     subject to subparagraph (A) and paragraph (2)).''.
       (b) Effective Period.--The amendments made by subsection 
     (a) shall apply with respect to contracts consummated during 
     the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and 
     ending on December 31, 2010.

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I begin by commending Chairman Dodd and 
the ranking member, Senator Shelby, for putting together such an 
important package of reforms to protect our consumers all across this 
great Nation. Without a doubt, rampant credit card debt is a problem 
facing a great and growing number of Americans. In my own home, my twin 
12-year-old boys get preapproved credit card requests weekly--at the 
age of 12.
  Looking at how we can do a better job of both financial literacy and 
helping people during this time of credit crisis to be able to do a 
better job in terms of responsibility, the Federal Reserve's most 
recent data estimates that the average American household now has about 
$2,200 in credit card debt compared to an average of about $1,000 in 
1992, and overall household debt has risen drastically, more than 
doubling in this last decade.
  Confusing terms, constantly changing interest rates, and high penalty 
fees have all contributed to this trend, as many people struggle to 
effectively manage their credit and their credit card use and the debt 
they have.
  While it is the responsibility, obviously, of consumers and borrowers 
to manage their own financial affairs, it is also absolutely essential 
that we ensure they have all the information they need, in an easily 
understandable form, so that they are able to make fully informed 
decisions about their credit and the amount of debt they might be 
incurring and what it means to their families; what the long-term 
implications might be. It is also important that credit card companies 
provide stable, easy to predict interest rates, and reasonable penalty 
fees that do not overly punish innocent mistakes that might be made.
  This bill, on which Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby have 
worked so tirelessly, has come together in a bipartisan way to improve 
consumer protections regarding excessive fees, ever changing interest 
rates, and complex contracts seemingly designed to do one thing above 
all, and that is to keep people in debt. This bill will clean up the 
fine print so consumers don't get blemished by their credit card 
companies.
  I am very pleased to be supporting the underlying bill, because 
ultimately I believe it will help restore fairness and common sense in 
our Nation's credit card practices.
  On that note, talking about fairness and common sense, I wish to 
discuss the second-degree amendment to Senator Collins' amendment I 
have called up. This is an amendment I am offering on behalf of the 
entire Arkansas delegation--the entire delegation as well as our State 
officials, and others. This is a critical legislative proposal that 
will provide temporary emergency relief for an Arkansas-specific 
interest rate problem that is having a severe impact on Arkansas 
students, our consumers,

[[Page 12468]]

our businesses, as well as our municipalities and our State government. 
We are all, in Arkansas, affected by this situation.
  Arkansas is the only State in the Nation with an artificially low 
interest rate limit that is tied to the Federal discount rate. Under 
current law, the interest rate on special revenue bonds and nonbank 
consumer loans may not exceed 5 percent above the Federal discount 
rate, which is currently set at one-half percent. So we are completely 
uncompetitive. Other bonds are capped even lower, at 2 percent above 
the Federal discount rate. As a result of this, Arkansas State and 
local governments, our public universities and utilities--in search of 
financing for construction and improvement projects--are severely 
hampered by the current limit, as are our Arkansas consumers, who are 
facing a lack of credit availability, as is everyone in this great 
country during this economic crisis.
  Practically speaking, the current interest rate limit--the top rate 
that is legally allowable in Arkansas on all nonbank lending--is no 
higher than 5\1/2\ percent. Not surprisingly, this low rate of interest 
has contributed to bond investors looking to other States across the 
country where their yields will be much higher, as well as credit 
rationing by nonbank lenders that have been forced to restrict funds to 
consumers--particularly now, when capital is so hard to come by 
anywhere else.
  The biggest frustration of all for people in my State is that the 
Federal Government has continued to make this problem worse and worse 
by lowering the Federal rate. This was done in an effort to improve the 
economy, and we certainly understand that in Arkansas. The Fed took 
those measures in order to try to improve the economy overall. But 
since we are the only State that has that unusually low rate that is 
tied to the Fed, we are actually suffering tremendously from what is 
occurring. As I said, we do appreciate the Federal Reserve's actions in 
these recent months to continue lowering the Federal discount rate 
where necessary to combat the economic crisis and stave off a further 
decline in our financial markets, but the lowering of that rate has 
only exacerbated the economic challenges faced in our State, and in our 
State alone, for that reason.
  Additionally, many of the tools put into place in the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act--the stimulus package that we offered 
earlier this year to jump-start our economy, such as the Recovery Zone 
bonds and the Build America bonds--are not available in our State 
because of our lack of competitiveness in the bond market, due to those 
abnormally low interest rates that are tied to the Fed. As stated in 
the recent Arkansas Democrat-Gazette article on this issue:

       The bond market has responded to the Build America program. 
     Since its introduction, investors have purchased $8 billion 
     in offerings, providing the bulk of activity in the taxable-
     bond sector. Arkansas is not in a position to take part.

  This is an issue that impacts our State of Arkansas alone. We 
understand that, and Arkansas does intend to fix that problem. However, 
we can't do so immediately because this archaic clause in the Arkansas 
law must be rectified through a statewide ballot initiative. Therefore, 
a proposal to permanently modify this outdated law will be voted on by 
the people of Arkansas, but not until the next statewide ballot in 
2010. Unfortunately, the economic challenges our Nation now faces are 
magnified in our State and immediate emergency intervention is 
essential; otherwise, our State's recovery will lag behind due to a 
lack of capital in our State.
  There is precedent for Federal action on this issue, as the Congress 
enacted an Arkansas-specific provision to exclude Arkansas bank lenders 
from this exact interest rate limit in 1999. The second-degree 
amendment we are offering today is even more limited in scope, allowing 
for a temporary relaxation of the current interest rate limit to a more 
reasonable level of no more than 17 percent until the State ballot 
initiative is considered.
  This is temporary, it is an emergency for Arkansas, and it is only in 
regard to the State of Arkansas. This is merely a temporary bridge to 
get us through this immediate crisis. We are all part of this economic 
crisis in this great country, and we are working hard together to pull 
ourselves out of this ditch and to get the economy back on track. I 
would hate to think that my State, and my State alone, was the only one 
that could not access the stimulus dollars to help our universities, 
our airport authorities, our municipalities, and others to access some 
of those dollars, to help create jobs in our State, and to put people 
who may have lost jobs back to work. We want to be sure we have the 
resources as well in order to be a healthy part of reviving the economy 
in this great country.
  This is a matter of great urgency for our State. This is a matter 
with broad consensus in our State. We have worked as an entire 
delegation and in a bipartisan way. We have the State government, our 
Governor, and others who have been working with us--just for Arkansas, 
because it is Arkansas specific--to figure out a way to provide that 
temporary bridge, that temporary assistance we need. Because if we wait 
until that ballot initiative, the stimulus package will be over and we 
will have missed that opportunity. So this is a matter we have been 
working on, as I said, in a bipartisan way to try to solve.
  We hope we can count on the support of our colleagues when this 
amendment comes up later on today or whenever we vote on it. But I do 
plead with my colleagues, this is an Arkansas-specific issue. It is one 
that is detrimental to our State. We have an opportunity to help the 
people of Arkansas, the communities of Arkansas, the student loan 
authority, which can no longer issue new student loans because of that 
bonding authority and the cap that exists there. The problems that 
exist for us are monumental, and we want to ensure that over the next 
18 months we too can be a part of reviving the economy of this great 
country.
  I thank the Chair, and I 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 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 have Senator 
Pryor added as a cosponsor to my second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, 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. INHOFE. 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, since there is some time, I ask unanimous 
consent that I be acknowledged as in morning business for whatever time 
I shall consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Guantanamo Bay

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there are several things toward the end of 
the week that I was wanting to elaborate a little bit on. They are kind 
of unrelated subjects, but we do not get this opportunity very often.
  The whole idea of Guantanamo Bay is something that I know a lot of 
people have talked about. I was very proud at the inauguration when our 
new President, President Obama, gave a lot of statements that were, I 
thought, logical, and, frankly, a speech that I could very well have 
made--not as eloquently as he but from a content perspective.
  He said, in relationship to the problem of Gitmo, or Guantanamo Bay, 
that, yes, we want to close that. However, we first must figure out 
what we are going to do with the detainees, recognizing that there are 
245 detainees, recognizing further that there will be more as there is 
an escalation in activity in Afghanistan and that there is no place 
else to put these people.

[[Page 12469]]

  I felt pretty satisfied at that time that this great American 
resource we have called Guantanamo Bay is something we need to keep. It 
is one of the few good deals the Government has. We have had it since 
1903. It is a resource unlike anything else, not only in our holdings 
but anyplace in the world. It is a place where we have actually built a 
courtroom that will handle tribunals, that will handle cases with rules 
of evidence that would fit tribunals as opposed to our court system. I 
felt pretty comfortable knowing there is nothing that can be done with 
the 245 detainees. Many are very dangerous terrorists.
  Since that time, he has changed his position. Now he is saying we 
will close it regardless. He has already closed the courtroom. This 
facility took 12 months to build. It cost $12 million. There is nothing 
else quite like it. If we are going to ever adjudicate these 
individuals, bring them to trial, we have to put them someplace. One of 
the alternatives would be our court system. Obviously, that is not a 
good idea. Most thinking people realize it is not a good idea because, 
the rules of evidence being different from what they are in a normal 
criminal case, most likely we would not get convictions. What happens 
when you don't get convictions? You turn people loose. If there is 
anything we don't want, it is terrorists being turned loose. The 
politics of that is such that people who want to close Guantanamo Bay 
are backing away from that issue, but they are still talking about 
closing it.
  I have had occasion to be down there several times. The last time I 
was there, I used a new technology that I didn't understand too well: 
YouTube. I did a program down there from Guantanamo. I commented at 
that time: Here we are with about six levels of security for six levels 
of detainees. There is no place else like it where we can do something 
like this.
  In terms of how they are treated, I have had them say, with a 
translator, that it is probably the best food they have ever had in 
their lives. There is one medical practitioner--in most cases, a 
doctor--for each two detainees. Where else will you find that? There 
are procedures that are offered to the detainees that they would never 
have offered anywhere else. For instance, when they offered a 
colonoscopy, which was described to the detainees in terms of what it 
entailed, they decided they didn't want it. Nonetheless, these were 
things that were offered in the way of health care.
  In the case of torture, there has never been a documented case of 
waterboarding or any severe torture taking place there. I can remember 
the week after 9/11, when we had immediately a few people in there. I 
went down and found that our own troops who were stationed down there 
were not treated as well as the detainees.
  Even if that were not true, there is no other place that we can put 
them. There has been a proposal that there are some 17 detention 
installations in the United States that would be suitable for these 
people. One of them happens to be Fort Sill, which happens to be in 
Oklahoma. I went to Fort Sill and talked to a young lady there who is a 
sergeant major. This is in Lawton, OK. I talked to her about this. She 
said: Senator, I have to ask you a question. Why is it that everyone is 
so concerned about closing Guantanamo Bay? This facility here is not 
nearly as suitable for detainees.
  Then she went on to explain why this separation of people and of 
classes of security problems. She said: Besides that, I spent 2 years--
this is Sergeant Major Carter, stationed at Fort Sill--at Guantanamo 
Bay. That facility is better than any Federal facility we have.
  Why is it we are so bent, just because of some ugly rumors that are 
not true about treatment of detainees, on closing a resource we have 
had and we are still paying $4,000 a year for, as we have been ever 
since 1903? You don't get many bargains like that in government. 
Anyway, they seem to be concerned about doing that.
  I believe public pressure is going to come around on our side and 
common sense will prevail and we will not close that resource. We will 
need it in the future. We need it today. We have needed it in the past. 
It has served us well.
  As this moves along, I hope the public knows there are several of us 
who are going to make sure we do not do anything that is going to allow 
some of these detainees to be floating around in the continental United 
States. If we are inclined to do this program where we put them in some 
17 installations, we will have 17 magnets for terrorism in the United 
States. That is not going to happen.


                       The First One Hundred Days

  I also wish to talk about the striking similarities between what is 
happening today and what happened back in 1993.
  The first 100 days of President Obama's administration will be 
remembered for its unprecedented level of new Federal spending--no 
question about that; no Democrat or Republican can deny that--and the 
return to big government. This, together with his advocacy of far-left, 
liberal causes--everything from abortion rights, to gun control, to 
universal health care--will put him on a track to repeat the 
performance of 1993, when a very attractive, young Bill Clinton entered 
the Oval Office under the banner of change. After Americans realized 
that his so-called change was simply an extremely leftwing position, 
the American people revolted and put Republicans back in charge of 
Congress. If President Obama continues down this path, I would not be 
surprised to see that happen again in 2010.
  Nothing is more indicative of the stark contrast between 
conservatives and liberals than the massive Government spending spree 
now underway in Washington. In his first year in office, Bill Clinton 
put forward what was then the largest budget to date in our history. It 
was $1.5 trillion. It included domestic spending of some $123 billion.
  Now in this 100th day of President Obama's administration, the Senate 
is poised to vote on what would become the largest budget to date. This 
budget, which highlights his priorities, is the most radical and 
partisan budget we have ever seen. It includes $4.4 trillion in 
additional deficits and $3.5 trillion in total spending. Let's compare 
that to 1993. I was down on the floor complaining about a $1.5 trillion 
budget. This is a $3.5 trillion budget.
  When I go back to Oklahoma, sometimes I come to the conclusion that 
there aren't any normal people in Washington, because they ask the 
question: Senator, how can we afford all this spending when we had a 
stimulus bill of $789 billion, increasing debt by $1.8 trillion in the 
first year, and a $3.5 trillion budget? Where is the money going to 
come from?
  Here I am, the senior Senator from Oklahoma, and I can't answer the 
question. We do have choices. We can borrow. We can print it. It will 
have to be a combination of the above. We know all of the very damaging 
effects: $1 trillion in taxes on individuals and businesses, a $634 
billion downpayment for government-run health insurance. There is 
another similarity. Remember, in 1993 it was called Hillary health 
care. The concept was the Government can run a health care system 
better than people can. I always invite people who believe that to go 
spend some time in some of the hospitals up north; the Mayo Clinic and 
some others come to mind. See the number of people who are there who 
came over from Canada because they couldn't get treatment. Maybe their 
age was right above the federal guideline for a particular type of 
procedure, and they could no longer do it. Again, the similarities are 
so similar, 1993 and what is happening today. Then, of course, we had 
the Wall Street bailout and all of that.
  I am very concerned about the direction this administration has 
proposed to take us. Anyone who works hard, plays by the rules, pays 
taxes, drives a car, turns on the lights, saves, invests, donates to 
charity, or plans to be successful should also be concerned.
  Defense cuts--I probably am more concerned about this than most 
Members. I am the second ranking member of the Armed Services 
Committee. I have watched what is going on. To me, it is deplorable.
  I happened to be in Afghanistan when Secretary Gates came out with 
Obama's defense cuts. They tried to claim they are not defense cuts. 
They

[[Page 12470]]

are. It is just that they are talking about the DOD appropriations bill 
versus all the other funding sources that have been used before.
  The best evidence that they are cuts is what has happened to our 
platforms. Right now, the F-22 is the only platform we have that is 
fifth-generation maturity. This is something he is stopping right now. 
We were originally supposed to have 750 F-22s. Now we will stop at 187. 
At the same time, you have China with its J-12, Russia with its SU 
series, a fifth-generation airplane. That is going to put us in a 
position where it will hurt and hurt bad.
  The same thing is true with the Future Combat Systems. We have been 
working on that for 8 years now since Shinseki helped to start it. It 
is the first transition in ground capability in at least 50 years. This 
is something we have been working on so that we don't send our kids 
into battle against countries that might have a better artillery piece 
and better equipment than we. He axed that program.
  How long has it been since we started working with the Parliament of 
Poland and the Czech Republic to get them to let us put a radar system 
in the Czech Republic and interceptor capability in Poland so that when 
Iran gets the capability of sending a nuclear missile over to western 
Europe or the eastern United States, we would have the ability to shoot 
it down? It didn't happen. The Parliaments that had to be politically 
pretty strong to agree to do that. Now they are sitting back and 
finding out that they are talking about axing that program too.
  The airborne laser is the closest thing we have to knocking down a 
missile in the boost phase. We were coming along with that program. 
They axed that program too.
  I am very concerned about what happens and what has happened in this 
budget to our capability of defending ourselves. Then I go back to 
1993. That is exactly what happened back then. If we look at the 8 
years of the Clinton administration, we cut military spending from what 
would be just a straight line by $412 billion in that period. Of 
course, we ended up cutting our military by about 40 percent over that 
period.
  The bottom line is, all these programs were cut. I happened to be in 
Afghanistan when that happened. We did a report from over there. We 
could see the Bradleys driving by and the helicopters taking off, the 
bad weather, soldiers coming back from patrols and turning on the tube 
and finding out President Obama is going to gut the military. It is 
totally unacceptable. But that is the same thing that happened in 1993. 
It is deja vu all over again.
  Gun control is the same. We see now that they are going to try to get 
us to sign on to a treaty that is called CIFTA, a treaty in the Western 
Hemisphere where we will all get together and we will allow Central 
America and Mexico and South America and Canada to determine what gun 
manufacturers can do. It is the first major step to gun control, in 
violation of second amendment rights. People care about that. It is 
exactly what happened with Bill Clinton in 1993.
  Energy taxes--back when Bill Clinton was doing it, it was called the 
Btu tax. That stands for British thermal unit. It was a massive tax 
increase on energy and very similar to what they are trying to do right 
now--which, incidentally, I have no doubt we will stop them from being 
able to do--the cap-and-trade tax. One thing about the cap-and-trade 
tax, that is something that is not just a one-shot deal like the 
stimulus bill. That is every year. It would be somewhere around $350 
billion a year in taxes on the American people, a regressive tax 
because it is a tax on energy. People with lower incomes spend a larger 
percentage of their expendable income on that kind of energy than rich 
people do.
  We are not going to let that happen. I tell all my friends, we have 
been fighting that battle now for 8 years, and it is over. We are not 
going to let that happen in America. But that is what Bill Clinton 
tried to do in 1993. It is the same thing all over again.
  We went through the same thing on abortion. I think personally there 
is no mission more important than standing up for the sanctity of human 
life. Here again, President Obama, like President Clinton, quickly 
moved to appease pro-abortion advocates.
  Just a few days ago, the Senate confirmed Kathleen Sebelius for 
Secretary of Health and Human Services. As Governor of Kansas since 
2002, she has a clear record of supporting abortion and policies that I 
believe impact the health and safety of women and parental rights. 
Again, it is abortion. Either you are for it or against it. But this is 
one of the strong pro-abortion positions in 1993 that now we are 
getting again out of this administration.
  So when you look at this, I cannot help but think that all the signs 
are there, that we are seeing the same thing now that we saw back in 
1993. I believe we are going to be positioned to keep a lot of these 
things from happening, No. 1, and No. 2, let's remember what happened 
in 1993. Young, attractive Bill Clinton went in as President of the 
United States, and he had the House and he had the Senate, and he had 
it all just as President Obama has it all. He has the House and the 
Senate. Therefore, it is not someone else's fault for all these 
programs. Consequently, we had a major turnover in the 1994 election. 
Republicans took over the House and the Senate. So I just warn my 
liberal friends from the other side of the aisle, be real careful. 
Watch what you are doing because it could very well happen again.


                       EPA'S Endangerment Finding

  Mr. President, I do have something that is a little heavier lifting 
subject. I am the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. When the Republicans were in the majority, I was chairman of 
it.
  Something is happening right now, and something happened Tuesday 
morning. I want to make sure everybody understands, as this week is 
coming to an end, that on April 17, the administration set in motion a 
ticking timebomb with its release of a proposed endangerment finding 
for carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases. This proposal 
finds--this, incidentally, is what all the scientists do not agree 
with--this proposal finds that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant 
that threatens the public health and welfare and therefore must be 
regulated under the Clean Air Act.
  This is interesting because they first tried to pass cap and trade. 
They know there are not the votes for it. There are in the House. 
Speaker Pelosi pretty much gets anything she wants through. It is a 
simple majority vote over there. Over here, it would take 60 votes to 
pass that massive tax increase, and we are not going to do it because 
they do not have more than 34, maybe 35 votes, and it takes 60 votes. 
But, nonetheless, since they cannot do it, they decided to do it under 
the Clean Air Act and do it through regulation so it could be done from 
the White House. This so-called endangerment finding sets the clock 
ticking on a vast array of regulations and taxes, with little or no 
political debate or congressional control.
  On May 12, we learned of a White House document. This is significant. 
We did not know it was there. I want to credit our committee, the 
Environment and Public Works Committee--the minority side--for finding 
this document. It is a White House document marked ``privileged and 
confidential.'' It was buried deep within the docket of the proposed 
rule. It outlines some of the very same concerns shared by me and many 
of my colleagues, including Senator Barrasso. I could not be here for 
that Tuesday morning meeting, and he was good enough to take this memo 
and expose it and did an excellent job of it.
  Keep in mind, we are talking about their proposal for new taxes, new 
regulations--all these things they want to go through with because they 
cannot legislatively pass a cap-and-trade--or cap-and-tax, as some call 
it--proposal.
  The document we found--allegedly a compilation of concerns from 
unnamed officials within the White House, or the administration, as 
part of an interagency review of the proposed regulation--raises some 
questions, very serious criticisms of the endangerment proposal. Chief 
among them are questions raised about the link between the

[[Page 12471]]

EPA's scientific argument for endangerment and its political summary.
  I am going to quote from it. I have three quotes. Keep in mind, this 
came from the administration. This report says:

       The finding rests heavily on the precautionary principle, 
     but the amount of acknowledged lack of understanding about 
     basic facts surrounding greenhouse gases seems to stretch the 
     precautionary principle to providing for regulation in the 
     face of unprecedented uncertainty.

  In other words, what they are saying there is that the science is not 
there; we do not know yet; we know there are a lot of problems with 
this, and we should not be rushing into it. This came from the White 
House. I am glad we found it.
  Here is a further quote. Additionally, it says:

       There is a concern that EPA is making a finding based on 
     ``harm'' from substances that have no demonstrated direct 
     health effects, such as respiratory or toxic effects, and 
     that available scientific data that purports to conclusively 
     establish the nature and the extent of the adverse public 
     health and welfare effects are almost exclusively from non-
     EPA sources.

  Again, this is not me talking, this is a quote from the White House 
in a buried document we fortunately--but surprisingly--did find.
  You can ask: What source is the EPA relying on if it is going to go 
through all this? That source is the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change. This is where it all started. It was the United Nations 
that started this whole issue of greenhouse gases, of CO2, 
anthropogenic gases, and methane causing global warming. When you look 
at their ``Fourth Assessment Report'', which, as I have documented 
before many times in speeches on this Senate floor, is a political and 
not a science-based body, it has no accountability here in the United 
States.
  You keep hearing people say: What about the NAS, the National Academy 
of Sciences? What about them? They are scientists.
  The reports they give are not from the NAS, they are from the 
political review or the summary for policymakers, which is a political 
document, not another document.
  In addition, this White House memo also warns of a cascade of 
unintended regulatory consequences if the endangerment finding is 
finalized. It states--and again, I am quoting from this report:

       Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the 
     Clean Air Act--

  That is what they want to do, regulate CO2 under the Clean 
Air Act--

     for the first time is likely to have serious economic 
     consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. 
     economy, including small business and small communities.

  This report talks about the small businesses, the small communities, 
churches, other groups that are going to be adversely affected by this. 
Again, this is a document that came out of the White House.
  Now, for one thing, I am glad to know we are not alone with our 
concerns and that several in the Obama administration share views 
similar to ours on the endangerment finding. I am hopeful more will 
come forward.
  So what was the administration's official response to the release of 
this memo? Well, it depended on whom you asked. One source in the Obama 
administration chose to again blame it on the Bush administration, 
stating it was written by a holdover appointed by George W. Bush. 
However, earlier in the day, Peter Orszag, who heads the White House 
budget office, where the memo apparently came from, stated that the 
quotations circulating in the press are from a document in which the 
OMB simply ``collated and collected disparate comments from various 
agencies during the interagency review process of the proposed finding. 
These collected comments were not necessarily internally consistent, 
since they came from multiple sources, and they do not necessarily 
represent the views of either OMB or the Administration.'' Well, it is 
fine to say this, but that is where it came from. It came from the 
administration. It is very fortunate we found it.
  It begs the question: Does this document reflect one rogue leftover 
Bush appointee, who, based on followup news reports, actually appears 
to be a Democrat or does it reflect a more systematic summary of 
comments from various agencies that have serious concerns with the 
proposed finding, as Orszag suggested? I am hoping someone from the 
administration will come forth with a consistent response.
  In either case, I welcome the comments as an open and honest 
discussion of the potential costs, benefits, and legal justifications 
for such a finding.
  Regardless of the Supreme Court decision, the EPA has the discretion 
to carefully weight the science and the causes and effects in its 
determination of endangerment, and, despite recent claims by 
administration officials, it is under no court order to find in the 
affirmative that such greenhouse gases endanger public health or 
welfare or cause or contribute to air pollution.
  If we are going to have a debate on this issue, let's have it here in 
Congress, where the American people deserve an open and honest 
discussion about the costs and alleged benefits, about the 
effectiveness of such policies and what it will mean to the consumers 
who ultimately pay the bill. As I said before, it is going to be the 
poorer Americans who pay the larger percentage of their incomes who are 
going to be punished.
  By the way, we had the debate here. In the House, they have never had 
the debate because it has never come up as an issue. Here we had the 
debate during the ratification debate on the Kyoto treaty. And we had 
the McCain-Lieberman bill, the Warner-Lieberman bill, the Boxer--there 
is another bill that came up just in the last year. So we have had the 
debate, a full and open debate, and we are going to have to debate this 
issue because there is an effort to try to do through regulation what 
they cannot do through open debate in the process on the floor.
  The administration, and this EPA in particular, has claimed they will 
usher in a new era of transparency. In April, Administrator Jackson 
issued a sweeping memo to all EPA employees committing the agency to an 
unprecedented level of transparency. I applaud her for it. She told me 
this in my office. We also found that she made this statement in a 
private memo to Members. So she is being very honest in what her effort 
is. I have a feeling a lot of this stuff is happening, and she is not 
even aware of it.
  She says--and this is a quote; this is beautiful:

       The success of our environmental efforts depends on earning 
     and maintaining the trust of the public we serve. The 
     American people will not trust us to protect their health or 
     their environment if they do not trust us to be transparent 
     and inclusive in our decision-making. To earn this trust, we 
     must conduct business with the public openly and fairly.

  Again, this is Lisa Jackson, the new Administrator of the EPA. I 
applaud her for saying this.

       This requires not only that EPA remain open and accessible 
     to those representing all points of view, but also that EPA 
     offices responsible for decisions take affirmative steps to 
     solicit the views of those who will be affected by these 
     decisions.

  She went on to say at her confirmation hearing--not only did she 
reaffirm this statement, but she said she would be responsive to us on 
the minority side, the same as she would be to the majority, and I 
believe that.
  Certainly, the allegations in this White House memo make one question 
whether the EPA is open and accessible to all points of view. For one 
thing, it was marked ``privileged and confidential,'' which tells me 
that perhaps they knew about it, but then they did not want to use it 
and they did not want people to find out about it. Nonetheless, the 
document speaks for itself.
  My colleagues may criticize the Bush administration for how it 
handled the endangerment finding, but at least they did not try to bury 
or hide these types of comments when it proposed its advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking last summer. I know a lot of this sounds a little 
confusing. This is a process you go through, an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking. In fact, the previous administration; that is, the 
Bush administration, went so far as to lay all of these comments out in

[[Page 12472]]

public view so all sides could be represented. If this latest action is 
any indication of how the EPA has begun to operate, then the American 
public should have serious reason to be concerned.
  On this CO2 endangerment issue--potentially the largest 
and most sweeping regulatory effort ever to be proposed--transparency 
should be a cornerstone of every agency action. Opinions from all 
sides, pro and con--and certainly from all other agencies--should be 
weighed equally and fairly and, just as important, openly, in full view 
of the American people. The American people deserve to know all sides, 
all costs, and all benefits. This thing is so costly, and with the 
questionable benefits, this is that much more important.
  Because of these issues, I am hopeful the Administrator will commit 
to a determination on endangerment that would be based on the record of 
the scientific data and empirical evidence rather than political or 
other nonscientific considerations. It is of the utmost importance that 
regulatory matters of this scope and magnitude be based on the most 
objective, balanced scientific and empirical data.
  While I am still hopeful that ultimately Congress or the agency will 
decide to take this option off the table, a full on-the-record 
examination during any endangerment rulemaking should be a minimum 
requirement of transparency.
  But the administration has essentially politicized the issue by 
presenting policymakers with a false choice. The choice is to use an 
outdated, ill-equipped, and economically disastrous option under the 
Clean Air Act or pick another bad option--cap and trade--that commits 
us to requirements for unaffordable technology and would certainly be 
the largest consistent annual tax increase in the history of America. 
This isn't going to happen.
  I would repeat we are fortunate in that we have had this debate, and 
each time we have the debate, there are more and more people who come 
down and say: Well, I didn't know it was going to cost that much money. 
Back in the original Kyoto days, it appeared that a majority of the 
people, in fact, in the Senate would support that type of an approach.
  By the way, I have to say this: The Kyoto treaty was one thing. That 
is a treaty that affects the whole world, a lot of developed nations 
and some undeveloped nations. It was something you signed onto and 
everyone signs onto and everyone agrees to. Since that didn't happen--
and even if you are one of those individuals who believes that 
anthropogenic gases, CO2, and methane are causing global 
warming--if you believe it, which isn't true, but if you did believe 
it--then does it make sense for us to pass something unilaterally in 
the Senate, making us less competitive than the rest of the world? What 
is going to happen to our manufacturing base? What is left of it is 
going to end up in places such as China, India, and Mexico, where they 
don't have these emission requirements. What is going to happen then? 
There will be a net increase in CO2.
  Back to the memo, and I will conclude with this. I have to repeat 
what the memo says. This was a memo that was advice to the process from 
the White House.

       The finding rests heavily on the precautionary principle, 
     but the amount of acknowledged lack of understanding about 
     basic facts surrounding greenhouse gases would seem to 
     stretch the precautionary principle to providing for 
     regulation in the face of unprecedented uncertainty.

  In other words, it is uncertain.
  Further, it states:

       There is a concern that EPA is making a finding based on 
     harm from substances that have no demonstrated direct health 
     effects such as respiratory or toxic effects, and that 
     available scientific data that purports to conclusively 
     establish the nature and extent of the adverse public health 
     and welfare effects are almost exclusively from non-EPA 
     sources.

  That is an admission.
  Finally:

       Making the decision--

  Which I hope we will not make the decision to do, but we will oppose 
that decision--

     to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act for the 
     first time is likely to have serious economic consequences 
     for regulated entities throughout the United States economy, 
     including small businesses and small communities.

  In other words, nobody wins. Nobody wins.
  So with that, I would say there is this effort that what they cannot 
do legislatively they want to do through regulations, and we are not 
going to allow that to happen.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for 
yielding. There are two issues I wish to address. The first will be 
this bill, in particular, the gift card title in the Credit Card Act. 
Secondly, I wish to speak a little bit about the NTSB hearings on 
flight 3407 which, as my colleagues know, crashed outside Buffalo and 
Clarence with a tragic result.
  First, before I get into the substance on gift cards, I wish to 
commend Senator Dodd, Senator Shelby, and all the members of the 
Banking Committee for doing an excellent job on this bill. The bottom 
line is we need good, strong, tough regulation on credit cards. The 
days when disclosure was enough are over. I happened to believe that 
once and worked hard for disclosure measures. There is something called 
the ``Schumer box'' that is on all credit card solicitations 
applications because it puts in large letters the interest rates. Back 
in the old days, that worked. Every credit card, even though interest 
rates were 6, 7, 8 percent, was at 19.8 percent, but you couldn't find 
that out. So when people signed up for a credit card, they had no idea 
what interest rate they were paying. Once the box got on the 
solicitations, on the applications, interest rates came down. Good old-
fashioned American competition began to work.
  But in recent years--maybe they just got smarter or maybe they got 
more desperate for profits--credit card companies have found a way 
around disclosure. A person believes they are signing up for one rate, 
but then in the fine print, basically, if you wake up out of bed, the 
rate goes higher--much higher. We have gotten letters and heard stories 
from people who were on a 7-percent fixed rate and it went up to 23 
percent overnight.
  If it is on a future balance, that is fine. You can get another 
credit card. But it isn't. These rates go up on existing balances. 
Let's say you have a $4,000 balance, which is the average for American 
families with credit cards. Calculate it. You go from 7 percent a month 
on $4,000 to 23 percent on $4,000, and that is a difference of hundreds 
of dollars a month. These days, with the economy the way it is, with 
families struggling to make ends meet, a couple hundred dollars a month 
is the difference between being able to survive and perhaps going 
bankrupt; being able to survive and not being able to provide some of 
the basic necessities.
  The legislation before us stops all those practices. The frustration, 
I must say, on both sides of the aisle, with the practices of the 
credit card industry is mounting. I would say to those in the credit 
card industry: Unless you get your act together, there may be other 
amendments and bills you will not find to your liking. It is about time 
to be responsible. I understand the banking industry is in tough times, 
and we all hope they will recover, but to recover by taking advantage 
of consumers is unfair, unwise, wrong, and we aim to stop it with this 
legislation.
  The provision I wish to address specifically is one that I worked on 
with the Presiding Officer. We are both sponsors. The Senator from 
Colorado has done great work on this legislation, and I wish to thank 
him for his assistance as we move it forward. I also wish to thank, on 
this particular issue, both Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby, who walked 
the extra mile. I think it shows that if you work hard at legislating, 
and you are willing to compromise, it pays off. The original bill the 
Presiding Officer and I put in was tougher than the proposal here, but 
the proposal here is good and strong. It makes a huge difference 
between what

[[Page 12473]]

exists now--which is virtually nothing--and what will become law, and 
it is something I think everyone can be proud of.
  I also wish to thank those in the consumer industry. As do I, as well 
as the Presiding Officer, they wanted a stronger bill, but they 
understood that when you legislate, you can't let the perfect be the 
enemy of the good. Getting something strong is better than getting 
nothing, even if you would have preferred something stronger.
  Well, we are all familiar with gift cards. In many ways, they are the 
perfect present. You get the opportunity to choose whatever you want 
the most. When you get a gift card, it is great. You can think of 15 
different things you want and decide which one you want to buy. You can 
go to the store, pick out what you want, and get it without spending a 
dime of your own money.
  We have all opened that gift from Aunt Edna and wished she had spent 
the money on a gift card instead of that sweater you are never going to 
wear. I, for one, am not very good at picking out gifts. So gift cards 
are a boon to me, not only as a recipient but as somebody who gives 
gifts because I can buy the gift card, and I can breathe a sigh of 
relief that my family member or friend will have something they want 
instead of something I have chosen that they might not want at all, 
which often happens when I choose gifts. I guess I am a little like 
Aunt Edna.
  Gift cards are a very good thing, and we don't want to snuff them out 
or limit their extent.
  But what most people do not realize is that these gift cards often 
come with hidden fees and short expiration dates. After a period of 
time that can be as short as 6 months, the issuer begins charging value 
off the cards, reducing their value and depriving recipients of their 
gifts. That means if your mom or aunt or friend did their holiday 
shopping early, by the time April or May rolled around, you could be 
slowly but surely giving your gift card back to the bank piece by piece 
by piece.
  Consumers usually pay a high fee when you buy the card, sometimes as 
much as 20 percent of the value. Well, on top of that, the recipient of 
the cards faces other charges such as monthly maintenance fees, 
dormancy fees or even a separate fee for each time the card is used. 
That is not fair. It is not fair when you get a gift card, say, at 
Christmastime and you say: I will save it until June to buy something I 
can use in the summer, and you go to the store and the gift card 
doesn't have the whole value on the card. That is not right. It is not 
fair. Frankly, it is not what the giver signed up for when he or she 
bought that card and gave it to you in a gesture of friendship or love.
  For years, issuers of these cards have used fees to make hefty 
profits, largely on the backs of consumers, but with this legislation 
we are going to ensure that recipients are protected and can use their 
cards free of these duplicitous fees for a reasonable period of time.
  First, the bill ensures that no fee can be charged unless there is no 
activity on the card for 12 consecutive months from the date on which 
the last charge is imposed. Let me explain. If you purchased the card 
the week before Christmas and give it to your child, parent, spouse on 
Christmas Day, for a whole year, until next Christmas, that card 
doesn't decline in value one penny. That is a very good thing and very 
much needed. During that year, if you use the card once but don't use 
the whole value--let's say it is a $50 card and you buy something for 
$22--the 12-month period starts again so you have plenty of time to use 
the card.
  Second, the bill will require the Federal Reserve to determine a fair 
amount for the fees and set a minimum balance above which fees can't be 
charged. So the issuers aren't charging people exorbitant rates to use 
their cards and aren't taking up the entire value of the cards with 
these fees. If, for instance, the gift card is for $50 and they charge 
you $5 a month, within 10 months, the gift card is useless. It is my 
view the fee will not be more than $1 or $1.50 when the regulator sets 
it, and it will give the gift card a much longer life. Of course, we 
are leaving it up to the Federal Reserve.
  We are also letting them set a minimum balance. My guess is it will 
be $15 or so, above which the fee doesn't bite in, so the gift card 
will last a lot longer.
  Fourth, the bill ensures that gift cards have expiration dates of at 
least 5 years from the time they are issued. It is simply unfair to 
cancel the gift totally after 6 months or even a year. So now the gift 
card stays in existence for 5 years.
  I believe this legislation makes gift cards fairer, better, and even 
happier gifts to give during the holiday season, for birthdays or an 
anniversary. I encourage people to use the gift card.
  One other point I think is very important. This legislation, for the 
first time, will make sure that so-called open loop cards--the kind 
which can be used anywhere and that you get as a holiday present--will 
be regulated at all. There has been no regulation before. Consumers 
Union, U.S. PIRG, the National Consumer Law Center, and the Consumer 
Federation of America all support the actions we are taking on this 
issue. We have heard from one of the biggest gift card issuers that 
they, too, are comfortable with this bill because we are making 
commonsense changes to this business to ensure that consumers can get a 
fair deal and that issuers can continue to offer these valuable 
products. The bottom line: You get a gift card, you know it is going to 
have its full value for at least a year, with no expiration date, no 
monthly fee that takes a chunk off the gift card. It means what you are 
giving the recipient is getting, nothing less.
  At the end of the day, the reason this bill has been so important to 
me and to the Senator from Colorado, who worked so hard on it with me 
and others, is we want to protect consumers who purchase these products 
as gifts for their friends and loved ones. Consumers who purchase or 
receive a $50 gift card should get $50 in value without having to pay 
excessive fees.


                   Continental Connection Flight 3407

  Mr. President, I want to speak a little bit about the conclusion of 
the NTSB hearings that occurred this week in reference to Continental 
Connection Flight 3407.
  We all know what happened on that flight. On February 12, 2009, the 
lives of family members, many of whom live in western New York, changed 
in a tragic and dramatic way when they lost their loved ones on a 
Buffalo-bound flight from Newark Airport.
  I met with some of these family members on Tuesday--nine family 
members who lost loved ones on that flight. First, I have to express my 
respect and admiration for these family members. It was a little less 
than 3 months ago that they lost a husband, a wife, a child, a parent, 
or a fiance, and there is a huge hole in their hearts. Yet they were 
down in Washington making sure that a thorough investigation was done 
to determine why flight 3407 crashed, and then to continue working to 
see that corrective measures were taken on all other flights, so that 
what befell their loved ones would not happen to others. It was an act 
of bravery, courage, strength, fortitude, generosity, and compassion. 
The people in that room--and we had some heartfelt moments together--
were saintly. They were trying to light a candle amidst the darkness 
that enveloped their lives. I felt for them when we met, as I feel for 
them today.
  The crash of flight 3407 in Clarence, NY, claimed 50 lives and serves 
as a tragic reminder that our Nation's aviation industry is not immune 
to tragic incidents.
  The 3-day-long hearings at NTSB have revealed some very disturbing 
suggestions into what may have caused the crash of the Bombardier Dash 
8 Q400 airplane.
  First, I am troubled by the reports that the Colgan pilots of the 
Dash 8 were not adequately trained in the operation of the ``stick-
pusher''--the instrument installed in aircraft like the Dash 8 that 
prevents an aircraft from stalling. The stick-pusher is not 
demonstrated in pilot flight training simulators, and experts believe 
that the pilots are missing out on important hands-on training.

[[Page 12474]]

  Suffice it to say that when the flight flew over Clarence, just 
before it crashed, the pilots may not have been adequately trained to 
deal with what was happening.
  Colgan maintains that the FAA does not require this kind of simulator 
training. Today, I have written to Secretary Ray LaHood and asked that 
he reevaluate FAA's approval of airline training curricula.
  We have also learned that the pilots of flight 3407 were not properly 
rested before their flights. It is obvious why. The young copilot of 
the flight lived in a suburb of Seattle, and her salary was $16,000 a 
year. She flew across country, tired, sleeping in an empty pilot seat, 
if she could--no stop, no rest, and then boarded the flight to Newark 
that she was copilot of on its way to Buffalo. It seems that it may 
be--I hope not, but it seems like it--that some commuter airlines both 
underpay and overwork their pilots to save costs. There is an 
unfortunate possibility that they could put safety second, with cost 
cutting first. That just cannot be. That has to change.
  The second thing I am doing is urging the FAA not only to look at the 
number of hours that a pilot can fly--they have regulations for that--
but the conditions which a pilot who begins a flight has endured 
previous to the flight, so that they are alert and rested as their 
tenure for that day or that few days begins.
  The airline industry is evolving. What we are seeing is more and more 
smaller commuter airlines, and the FAA is not keeping up. The FAA needs 
to crack down on issues of pilot rest, compensation, and training, 
especially with these young airlines that seem to be prioritizing 
issues of saving money. They should be making priority No. 1 the issue 
of safety.
  For the last 8 years, the FAA has had ineffective leadership with one 
goal: to cut costs. The head of the FAA--I met her and had arguments 
with her--seemed to take direction almost all the time from the OMB. 
All of us believe we should cut costs in this Government--I certainly 
do--but not when it comes to safety. I believe that the FAA, which 
requires the small commuter airlines to observe the same regulations as 
the larger airlines, hasn't kept up enforcing the rules with so many of 
the commuter airlines out there.
  The crash investigation also initially suggested that icing 
conditions may have affected the aircraft. A bright light was shed on 
the fact that the NTSB and the FAA have differing recommendations as to 
how a pilot should handle an icing situation, and that the NTSB first 
asked the FAA to adopt the NTSB's recommendations 12 years ago--to no 
avail.
  For this reason, I, along with my colleagues Senator Rockefeller and 
Senator Dorgan, called for an official GAO investigation into what 
specific roles the NTSB and the FAA should be playing in aircraft icing 
prevention, and why such a lag exists between the time the NTSB makes a 
recommendation and the FAA formally adopts it. It seems to me--these 
are just my observations--that the NTSB does put safety first, and I 
sometimes wonder if the FAA is always doing that.
  The GAO has informed us that they are in the process of forming an 
investigatory team for our request and will begin to pursue answers 
soon.
  In conclusion, I cannot say enough how humbled I am by the work of 
all of flight 3407's family members. It is a tribute to their loved 
ones' lives that they are in Washington to advocate for aviation 
safety. I assured them, as we talked and prayed together, that I would 
do everything I could to make sure we get to the bottom of what 
happened on flight 3407, and then take whatever corrective action needs 
to be taken to prevent future flights such as 3407 from crashing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.


                            Aung San Suu Kyi

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I briefly rise on the floor today to 
discuss the latest outrage in the long-suffering country of Burma. I 
speak of the imprisonment of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu 
Kyi.
  Aung San Suu Kyi is the leader of Burma's National League for 
Democracy, the party that won the country's 1990 elections decisively--
elections that were quickly nullified by the Burmese military. She has 
been imprisoned by the thuggish military junta that runs that country. 
Ms. Suu Kyi has spent the majority of the past two decades under house 
arrest. Now the Government has moved this remarkable woman to Insein 
Prison compound and charged her with violating the terms of her house 
arrest, which was illegal to start with. She faces a potential sentence 
of 5 years in jail. Two other NLD members face similar charges.
  While reports remain somewhat opaque, these charges appear to stem 
from the uninvited visit of a United States individual who entered Ms. 
Suu Kyi's home compound after swimming across a nearby lake. He then 
reportedly stayed on her compound for 2 days, despite requests to 
leave. Based on this occurrence, the regime appears now to allege that 
Ms. Suu Kyi has broken the law by not requesting permission in advance 
to have a visitor. As a penalty, then, for an uninvited person showing 
up on her doorstep--while she remained imprisoned inside--the Burmese 
regime proposes to sentence her for up to 5 years in jail.
  All of this represents, of course, the latest pretext dreamt up by 
the Burmese junta in order to prevent the legitimately elected leader 
of the country from interfering in its plans for dominance. The 
generals who run the country are planning ``elections'' to be held next 
year, and which they believe will legitimize their illegitimate rule. 
They seek ways to ensure that Ms. Suu Kyi and other NLD members are not 
free to participate in these elections, since it is the NLD--and not 
the military junta--that has the support of the Burmese people. As 
political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, fill Burmese jails, 
the international community should see this process for the sham it 
represents.
  I once had the great honor of meeting Aung San Suu Kyi. She is a 
woman of astonishing courage and incredible resolve. Her determination 
in the face of tyranny inspires me and every individual who holds 
democracy dear. Her resilience in the face of untold sufferings, her 
courage at the hands of a cruel junta, and her composure despite years 
of oppression inspire the world.
  Because she stands for freedom, this heroic woman has endured 
attacks, arrests, captivity, and untold sufferings at the hands of the 
regime. Burma's rulers fear Aung San Suu Kyi because of what she 
represents: peace, freedom, and justice for all Burmese people. The 
thugs who run Burma have tried to stifle her voice, but they will never 
extinguish her moral courage.
  The world must now respond to the junta's latest outrage in a way 
that demonstrates the inevitability of those values she so clearly 
demonstrates. The work of Aung San Suu Kyi and members of the National 
League for Democracy must be the world's work. We must continue to 
press the junta until it is willing to negotiate an irreversible 
transition to democratic rule. The Burmese people deserve no less. This 
means renewing the sanctions that will expire this year, and it means 
vigorous enforcement by our Treasury Department of the targeted 
financial sanctions in place against regime leaders. It means being 
perfectly clear that we stand on the side of freedom for the Burmese 
people and against those who abridge it.
  The message of solidarity with the Burmese people should come from 
all quarters, and that includes their closest neighbors, the ASEAN 
countries. The United States, European countries, and others have 
condemned her arrest and call for her immediate release.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this time a 
declaration of the Council of the European Union, and others by the 
Federation of International Rights, and the International Federation of 
Human Rights.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 12475]]



 Declaration of the Presidency on Behalf of the European Union on Daw 
                            Aung San Suu Kyi

       The European Union expresses its strong concern following 
     reports on the health of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the 
     National League of Democracy and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, 
     and on the recent detention of her physician, Dr Tin Myo Win.
       The EU calls on the authorities of Burma/Myanmar to 
     guarantee for Ms Suu Kyi immediate and proper medical care, 
     as well as access for her personal attorney. It furthermore 
     recalls that her house arrest, which has been imposed in 
     clear breach of international norms, will expire this month, 
     and therefore again urgently calls for her unconditional 
     release.
       On the sad occasion of the anniversary of Ms Suu Kyi's 
     detention, the EU urges the authorities to halt systematic 
     torture and denial of health care to prisoners and to release 
     all political prisoners.
       ``The regime's fear of the widespread popularity of Daw 
     Aung San Suu Kyi remains, and they hope to keep her silent 
     and hidden before the 2010 elections. There is widespread 
     anger in Burma over the sham constitution the election is 
     based on, and the only way to bring peace and stability to 
     our country is by genuinely involving Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in 
     the process of national reconciliation. Otherwise, the 
     results could be disastrous'', said Mahkaw Khun Sa, General 
     Secretary of Ethnic Nationalities Council.
       Daw Aung San Suu Kyi remains the world's only imprisoned 
     Nobel Peace Prize recipient.
                                  ____


International Community Must Ensure Release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and 
                               Her Doctor

       Seven leading alliances, representing all major ethnic and 
     political forces of Burma's democracy movement, today express 
     deep concern for the security and health of Daw Aung San Suu 
     Kyi and urgently call for her immediate and unconditional 
     release, as well as the release of her doctor Dr. Tin Myo 
     Win.
       There is serious concern for the health of Daw Aung San Suu 
     Kyi. She is found with low blood pressure and dehydration and 
     must immediately receive thorough medical attention. Her 
     doctor, Dr. Tin Myo Win, who has been the only person allowed 
     to visit her for monthly check-ups, was detained by 
     authorities on May 7, and his whereabouts is unknown and it 
     is uncertain when he will be released.
       Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been under house arrest for 13 of 
     the past 19 years, and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary 
     Detention recently declared her continual detention illegal. 
     Her detention legally expired on May 24, 2008. While the 
     people of Burma and the world eagerly await for her release 
     as her year-long extension is set to expire, it is of grave 
     concern that the military regime may continue to hold her 
     without any charges.
       Besides, they must not use false charges, such as the 
     incident of the intrusion of the foreigner into her home on 
     May 3rd, to try and further incarcerate her and Dr. Tin Myo 
     Win.
       ``From the beginning of her arrest, authorities declared 
     that they had to detain Daw Aung San Suu Kyi for the reason 
     of `protective custody' and thus the authorities are the ones 
     responsible for the intrusion,'' said Moe Zaw Oo, Foreign 
     Affairs Secretary, National League for Democracy--Liberated 
     Area.
       The seven alliances, representing a broad-based democracy 
     and ethnic forces, urgently call on the United Nations 
     Secretary General, as well as ASEAN and key regional 
     countries to take urgent and firm measures to ensure the 
     immediate and unconditional release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi 
     and Dr. Tin Myo Win.
       ``The continual detention and mistreatment of Daw Aung San 
     Suu Kyi and the other 2100 political prisoners in Burma 
     stands against international and regional laws and 
     principles, and there should be no hesitation by the 
     international community to guarantee their direct release,'' 
     said Thin Thin Aung, Presidium Board member of Women's League 
     of Burma.
                                  ____

                                          International Federation


                                             for Human Rights,

                                              Paris, May 14, 2009.
     His Excellency Ban Ki Moon,
     Secretary General of the United Nations, United Nations 
         Secretariat, New York, NY.
       Dear Secretary General: The International Federation for 
     Human Rights is addressing to you in order to request your 
     urgent intervention in Burma/Myanmar in favor of the Nobel 
     Prize for Peace and leader of the National League for 
     Democracy, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
       FIDH has already expressed its deep concern regarding the 
     health of Daw Suu Kyi, following information that her 
     situation had worsened in the past few days. Ms. Suu Kyi's 
     blood pressure was reportedly low, she was suffering from 
     dehydration and had stopped eating. In addition, her medical 
     doctor, the physician Tin Myo was arrested on May 7th, 
     following his visit to Ms. Suu Kyi and is still under 
     detention.
       Unfortunately and despite the fragile state of health of 
     the Nobel Peace Prize, FIDH was informed that Daw Aung San 
     Suu Kyi has been transferred to Insein prison in Yangoon, and 
     appeared today before a special court, in order to hear the 
     charges against her, her two live-in party members Daw Khin 
     Khin Win and her daughter Win Ma Ma and an American man, John 
     William Yettaw. They are all charged under section 22 of the 
     State Protection Act (Law Safeguarding the State from the 
     Dangers of Subversive Elements). The charges relate to the 
     violations of the rules and regulations surrounding her house 
     arrest. If she is convicted of this offence, she will be 
     subject up to three years of imprisonment under this article. 
     During her appearance before the court today, Ms. Suu Kyi was 
     not asked any questions. The judge ordered the defendants to 
     return to court again on May 18, 2009.
       According to the latest information, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, 
     Daw Khin Khin Win and Daw Win Ma Ma were not sent back to 
     their residence. They are currently detained in Insein 
     prison.
       The International Federation for Human Rights condemns in 
     the strongest possible terms this new campaign of 
     intimidation and harassment against the Nobel Peace Prize, 
     ahead of the 2010 elections and just some days before her 
     house arrest is due to expire at the end of May. This last 
     episode deprives the ``road-map to democracy'' and the 
     electoral process in Burma/Myanmar from any legitimacy.
       The United Nations and you personally have been long 
     engaged for the reconciliation process of all parties in 
     Burma and the dialogue with the Burmese authorities. The 
     United Nations have received in the past harsh criticism for 
     the absence of concrete measures to improve the human rights 
     situation in Burma/Myanmar, despite the strong engagement of 
     the various United Nations mechanisms.
       The intentions of the Burma/Myanmar authorities are 
     seriously questioned today worldwide, it is time for the 
     United Nations Security Council and you personally to take 
     urgent action for the immediate and unconditional release of 
     Ms. Suu Kyi. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has a crucial role to play 
     in the democratization process in Burma as a major political 
     interlocutor. The collective responsibility of the 
     international community and of the United Nations in 
     particular, to protect the Nobel Peace Prize is now even more 
     crucial than ever. FIDH is trustful that the United Nations 
     will step up to this duty and guarantee the safety, security 
     and freedom of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
       I'm urging you personally to act as soon as possible to 
     protect her integrity. The urgency of the situation requests 
     coordinated and strong action.
       Hoping that you will take the above considerations fully 
     into account, I remain,
                                                Souhayr Belhassen,
                                                   FIDH President.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the country's of Southeast Asia should be 
at the forefront of this call. ASEAN now has a human rights charter, in 
which member countries have committed to protect and promote human 
rights. Now is the time to live up to that commitment. ASEAN could 
start by dispatching envoys to Rangoon in order to demand the immediate 
and unconditional release of Aung San Suu Kyi. This courageous leader, 
and all those Burmese who have followed her lead in pressing for their 
own inalienable rights, should know all free people stand with you and 
support you. The world is watching not only your brave actions but also 
those of the military government whose cruelty and incompetence know no 
bounds. Burma's future will be one of peace and freedom, not violence 
and repression. We, as Americans, stand on the side of freedom, not 
fear of peace, not violence, and with the millions in Burma who aspire 
to a better life, not those who would keep them isolated and oppressed.
  The United States has a critical role to play in Burma and throughout 
the world as the chief voices for the rights and integrity of all 
persons. It is a role we suppress at the world's peril and our own. A 
strong public defense of the rights of oppressed people has been and 
must remain an enduring element in American foreign policy. Nothing can 
relieve us of the responsibility to stand for those whose human rights 
are in peril or the knowledge that we stand for something in this world 
greater than self-interest. Should we need inspiration to guide us, we 
need look no further to that astonishingly courageous leader, Aung San 
Suu Kyi.
  The junta's latest actions are once again a desperate attempt by a 
decaying regime to stall freedom's inevitable success in Burma and 
across Asia. They will fail, as surely as Aung San Suu Kyi's campaign 
for a free Burma will one day succeed.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.

[[Page 12476]]


  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Credit Card 
Accountability and Disclosure Act of 2009 and the ways in which I 
believe this measure is in the best interests of my constituents in 
North Carolina.
  Before I begin, I would like to thank my colleagues from Connecticut 
and Alabama, Senators Dodd and Shelby, for bringing together concerns 
and ideas from both sides of the aisle to craft a bipartisan 
compromise. This bill could not come at a more critical time for North 
Carolina's hardworking families.
  More often than not, through no fault of their own, North Carolina 
families are suffering tremendously during this time--the harshest 
economic climate since the Great Depression. Our unemployment rate is 
10.8 percent--the fourth highest in the Nation. Home values have 
declined dramatically. Many families have lost nearly all their 
savings. Nearly a half million jobs have been lost in North Carolina. 
From banking to manufacturing, North Carolina is home to some of the 
industries that have taken the biggest hit in this economic downturn. 
To say the least, the situation is dire for many families in North 
Carolina and around the country.
  The people of my State are hardworking and honest. While they are 
struggling to make this month's mortgage payment or put food on the 
table for their families, they are troubled by next week's and next 
month's bills. They are concerned about the unexpected expenses they 
may have to bear--for example, an illness or their car breaking down. 
With all the other issues these families are dealing with in this 
economic downturn, imagine realizing that you are still paying interest 
on a balance you thought you had already paid or watching that interest 
rate double because times are tight and you fell just a little behind.
  Unfair, yet all-too-common credit card practices, such as interest 
charges on debt paid on time--a practice known as double-cycle 
billing--arbitrary interest rate increases, and exorbitant and 
unnecessary fees are only making matters worse for families who are 
already struggling just to get by. Obviously, it costs money to borrow 
money. Nobody is suggesting that credit card issuers shouldn't be able 
to make a profit. But for consumers the rules should be fair, 
transparent, and exactly the same from the beginning to the end.
  I support the Dodd-Shelby amendment because it requires just that. 
The bottom line is that this bill restores fairness and sensibility to 
credit cards and a sense of security to families in North Carolina. 
This bill ensures that credit card companies honor their promises and 
specifies that the card companies can't change the rules in the middle 
of the game. While North Carolina's families are struggling, they 
shouldn't have to worry about hitting a moving target when it comes to 
paying their bills.
  The Dodd-Shelby amendment will also provide consumers with simple, 
clear information that allows them to make informed decisions that make 
the most sense for themselves and their families. One important step 
which will provide consumers with the information they need to make 
their choice is the payoff timing disclosure language included in this 
bill. The legislation we are considering would require credit card 
issuers to prominently display two important numbers on billing 
statements: the amount of time it would take to pay off the bill if the 
cardholder is paying only the minimum balance due each month, and the 
minimum monthly payment required to pay off the entire bill in 36 
months.
  For example, it would take a cardholder with a $4,000 balance and an 
18-percent interest rate, making the minimum payments, nearly 6 years 
to pay off their credit card. It costs next to nothing for issuers to 
provide borrowers with this information, but this information can be 
extremely helpful as cardholders try to become more efficient in their 
financial planning.
  Ultimately, by keeping the rules fair, clear, and consistent, we can 
save American families thousands of dollars each year. As we work to 
right this ship and get our economy moving again, I cannot imagine this 
relief coming at a better time for North Carolina's families.
  I am proud to stand on the floor of the Senate and voice my support 
for this measure. My constituents deserve progress, not lip service, on 
this and so many other important issues that they are grappling with in 
these hard economic times.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. AKAKA. 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. AKAKA. Mr. President, I support the Credit CARD Act of 2009. I 
want to commend the chairman of the Banking Committee for his 
outstanding efforts to craft this legislation. I also appreciate the 
work done by Senator Shelby in developing a bill that should be able to 
garner broad bipartisan support and become law.
  Too many in our country are burdened by significant credit card debt. 
Not enough has been done to protect consumers and ensure they are able 
to properly manage their credit burden. We must do more to educate, 
protect, and empower consumers. Although this comprehensive legislation 
has numerous provisions that benefit consumers, my remarks will focus 
on the portion of the legislation which is based on my legislation, the 
Credit Card Minimum Payment Warning Act. I originally introduced the 
act in the 108th Congress. I have greatly appreciated the efforts of 
Senators Durbin, Schumer, and Leahy, who helped develop and support the 
legislation. I also want to acknowledge Senator Feinstein for her 
contributions on this issue.
  We attempted to attach our legislation as an amendment to improve the 
flawed minimum payment warning in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Act. 
On March 2, 2005, an editorial in the Washington Post criticized the 
bankruptcy legislation then being considered. The editorial stated, 
``at the very least, as Senator Daniel K. Akaka has proposed, credit 
card issuers, who now send out five billion solicitations a year . . . 
ought to be required to disclose to borrowers the true cost of making 
only the minimum payments.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the text of the entire editorial be printed in the Record 
following my remarks. Unfortunately, our amendment was defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, although there have been some modifications 
and additions, the Credit CARD Act contains the primary provisions of 
my legislation. The legislation requires that consumers be told how 
long it will take to repay their entire balance if they make only 
minimum payments. The total cost if the consumer pays only the minimum 
payment, would also have to be disclosed. These provisions will make 
individuals much more aware of the true cost of credit card debt. 
Consumers would have to be provided with the amount they need to pay to 
eliminate their outstanding balance within 36 months, which is a 
typical length of a debt management plan.
  The personalized payment disclosures are important, but consumers 
must be given opportunities to find reputable credit counseling 
services. Section 201 also includes our requirement for creditors to 
establish and maintain a toll-free number so that consumers can access 
trustworthy credit counselors. The toll-free number will have to appear 
on credit card billing statements along with the minimum payment 
warning information. More working families are trying to survive 
financially and meet their financial obligations. Consumers often seek 
out help from credit counselors to better manage their debt burdens. It 
is extremely troubling that unscrupulous credit counselors exploit 
individuals who are trying to locate the assistance that they need. As 
financial pressures increase for working families, credit

[[Page 12477]]

counseling becomes even more important. The CARD Act will assist 
working families with finding credit counselors that will help, rather 
than exploit, them.
  Yesterday, I filed an amendment to the CARD Act to simplify the 
administration of the credit counseling referral provision. The 
amendment requires the Federal Reserve Board to issue the guidelines 
for the development and maintenance by creditors of a toll-free number 
to provide information about credit counseling and debt management 
services. Referrals for credit counseling services via the toll-free 
number could only go to nonprofit credit counseling agencies approved 
by U.S. bankruptcy trustees. This modification will utilize an existing 
approval process and list of reputable credit counselors rather than 
creating a new approval process for the purposes of section 201. I 
thank the chairman and ranking member for their willingness to accept 
this amendment.
  After many years, it appears that we may finally be enacting a bill 
that will educate, protect, and empower credit card consumers. Once 
again, I thank Chairman Dodd for all of his outstanding efforts to help 
working families. The administration also deserves credit for their 
efforts to help move this legislation closer to enactment. I look 
forward to continuing to work with my colleagues and the administration 
on this and other essential consumer protection legislation.

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the Washington Post, Mar. 2, 2005]

                      Fixing the Bankruptcy System

       Until this year, the seemingly perennial congressional 
     debate about overhauling the nation's bankruptcy laws was 
     something of an academic exercise: The measure wasn't going 
     to pass because Senate Democrats insisted on an abortion 
     amendment unacceptable to the House. Now, with a bolstered 
     Republican majority, it's not clear that Democrats can muster 
     enough votes for that amendment, which would prevent 
     antiabortion protesters from filing for bankruptcy to evade 
     damage awards. As a result, the underlying question about the 
     bankruptcy bill suddenly matters: Does it strike the right 
     balance between preserving the protections of bankruptcy and 
     preventing abuse by spendthrifts? The bill is neither as 
     draconian as its opponents protest nor as balanced as its 
     supporters proclaim. Its central tenet, that those who can 
     repay some of their debts ought to do so, is reasonable. But 
     the bill could be made fairer with a number of amendments set 
     to be considered.
       The number of Americans filing for bankruptcy exploded in 
     the past quarter-century. In 1980, there was one personal 
     bankruptcy filing for every 336 households in the United 
     States; in 1993, one for every 144 households; and in 2003, 
     one for every 73 households. But there is little agreement on 
     the cause of this growth. Those who support tightening 
     bankruptcy laws say the system is abused by people who could 
     repay their debts but are no longer deterred by the stigma 
     once associated with bankruptcy. Those who oppose the change 
     say credit card companies entice borrowers to run up their 
     bills; they also cite the toll of medical debt among those 
     who lack adequate health insurance.
       The Senate bill would tighten access to the most generous 
     and popular form of bankruptcy, Chapter 7. People filing for 
     Chapter 7 bankruptcy can wipe out their debts and get a 
     ``fresh start.'' The bill would impose a means test: Debtors 
     who earn less than the median income in their state--about 80 
     percent of those who file for bankruptcy--still would be 
     entitled to file under Chapter 7. But those who earn more 
     than that--and who have the ability to repay at least $6,000 
     over five years--would have to file under Chapter 13, which 
     requires a repayment plan. Experts estimate that means 
     testing would affect no more than 10 percent of consumer 
     bankruptcy filers.
       In theory a means test is reasonable, but the test in this 
     legislation is unnecessarily rigid. It considers the previous 
     six months of earnings, even if the bankruptcy filer is now 
     out of work. Moreover, once filers show that their income is 
     below the median, there's no reason to require them to 
     provide additional information. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-
     Mass.) has outlined amendments to address these issues, as 
     well as a sensible proposal that would provide a $150,000 
     homestead exemption to help the elderly and those driven to 
     bankruptcy by medical expenses keep their homes.
       If the Senate tightens rules for those filing for 
     bankruptcy, it also should crack down on the corporate 
     practices that contribute to the problem. At the very least, 
     as Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) has proposed, credit card 
     issuers, who now send out 5 billion solicitations a year and 
     whose profits have soared, ought to be required to disclose 
     to borrowers the true cost of making only the minimum payment 
     on their balances.

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             General Motors

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, it has come to my attention that General 
Motors, one of America's largest corporations--that General Motors, 
which is seeking Federal assistance to save their business--now has 
plans to take that money and create jobs. That should be good news. 
That is, after all, what Congress intended; that General Motors take 
money the Government loans them and taxpayers send to them, that it 
awarded a U.S. company--this company--more than $15 billion in Federal 
loans earlier this year, that they would, in fact, create jobs.
  But that is why I was in a state of disbelief last night when I 
learned General Motors is not going to create those jobs in the United 
States, not in my State of Ohio, not in Michigan, not in Indiana, not 
in big auto States, not in Missouri, they are going to create jobs not 
in the United States, those States which continue to hemorrhage auto 
jobs.
  In fact, what GM wants to do is take our tax dollars and create jobs 
in China by building a new car, a car they will then export back into 
the United States for Americans to purchase. Let me say that again. GM 
is taking U.S. tax dollars, going to close American auto plants, open 
new auto plants in China, then sell those cars it produces back into 
the United States to Americans.
  The audacity of such a plan cannot be emphasized enough. In short, it 
is outrageous. It appears that what is good for GM is no longer good 
for America. This is a slap in the face to American autoworkers, to 
American taxpayers, to American communities. It is a slap in the face 
to every autoworker in Ohio, in neighboring Michigan, in every State 
where men and women work hard and play by the rules and pay their 
taxes, not just States that produce autos, but the States--all 50 of 
our States--that produce auto parts, components and tires and glass and 
door locks and all the other kinds of things that go into cars.
  These funds, those auto funds that came from taxpayers, were meant to 
rebuild our Nation's middle class, not dismantle it, not dismantle the 
middle class, not shut these plants and then send jobs overseas.
  If GM officials think U.S. taxpayers will finance cars made in China 
while American plants are closing, GM is either tone deaf or tunnel 
visioned. I would urge GM not to betray the working men and women of 
our Nation. We have the most talented labor force and qualified 
autoworkers anywhere, bar none.
  I would invite GM officials to travel with me across Ohio; to Lorain, 
to Twinsburg, to Lordstown, all auto plants, all auto cities. That is 
just in northeast Ohio alone. All across our State we have the 
greatest, most talented labor force to build these cars. We have the 
facilities to produce these cars.
  The question is whether GM has any commitment to our Nation, a nation 
whose taxpayers are working to rescue them. There is no excuse for GM 
using taxpayer funds for Chinese imports, not when there are American 
workers ready to build these cars, when there are shut down or idled 
U.S. auto plants prepared to produce them.
  Smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles represent the future of the 
auto industry, and American workers can produce and must produce those 
vehicles in the United States. Ohio workers will not stand idly by 
while GM sends these

[[Page 12478]]

jobs and our tax dollars overseas to a nation with little or no labor 
standards and woefully weak safety standards.
  Interestingly, when you think about the safety of these cars that 
may, in fact, be built by GM in China and sent back to the United 
States, think about some of the practices in other consumer products. 
Think about what happened with contaminated products, contaminated 
ingredients that went into Heparin, a blood-thinning drug that came 
back and killed some 100 Americans because of contaminated ingredients, 
or think about Hasbro toys, which were outsourced to China, where those 
Chinese subcontractors put lead-based paint on these toys. They came 
back to the United States and had toxic parts-per-million amounts of 
lead in the paint and on those toys.
  If GM wants to receive more funds from U.S. taxpayers, it must commit 
to using those tax dollars to maintain jobs and production at home. 
Today, I wrote Secretary Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, 
urging the Obama administration, as part of the terms of further 
Government assistance, to require GM to invest in U.S. production.
  The President's Auto Task Force has a difficult job. Its mission is 
to guide GM toward long-term viability and toward success. Given the 
number of auto manufacturing layoffs in my State, given the sacrifices 
autoworkers and their families continue to make to facilitate the 
restructuring of GM, I do not see how the administration can, in good 
conscience, provide taxpayer funds to support General Motors' 
offshoring of auto production.
  I yield the floor and 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. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Derivatives Regulation

  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise to discuss what I hope will be 
a turning point on our road to economic recovery. The Obama 
administration yesterday asked Congress to swiftly pass sweeping and 
historic regulatory reforms on derivatives, credit default swaps, 
commodities trading, and other sectors of the financial marketplace 
that collapsed last year under the weight of unrestrained speculation. 
The road to this point has not been easy. For months I have been urging 
the administration to move quickly to propose strong regulatory 
controls on these markets, require transparency in derivatives trading, 
and restrict market manipulation. With the announcement yesterday by 
Treasury Secretary Geithner in a letter he sent to Senate and House 
leaders, the administration has come down decisively on the side of 
imposing order on a marketplace whose collapse made this current 
recession so much deeper and more painful for the average American than 
it needed to be.
  The administration clearly supported in writing bringing the 
unregulated ``dark'' over-the-counter derivative markets under full 
regulation for the very first time. The administration has correctly 
identified the top three key goals of regulatory reform in the 
unregulated over-the-counter derivatives market. First, transparency on 
all dark markets. All derivative transaction dealers will be brought 
under prudential regulation and supervision which means capital 
adequacy requirements, antifraud and antimanipulation authority, and 
very clear transparency and reporting requirements.
  Second, all standardized trading of physical commodities and other 
derivatives will finally be required to be traded on fully regulated 
exchanges.
  Third, imposing position limits on regulated markets to prevent any 
market player from amassing large positions that can harm the market. I 
have received in e-mail additional assurances from the administration 
that they believe these position limits should be applied in the 
aggregate across all contract markets to prevent fraud and 
manipulation.
  Mr. Geithner's announcement yesterday was truly historic. Americans 
have suffered through an era of deregulation that is primarily the 
cause of this economic crisis. How did we get here and why is this 
historic?
  A decade ago Congress passed, in the dark of night at the end of the 
Congress in 2000, a law known as the Commodities Futures Modernization 
Act that provided ironclad protections from regulation for financial 
tools. One courageous regulator, then Commodities Futures Trading 
Commission Chairwoman Brooksley Born, warned Congress and the financial 
community that unregulated derivatives could cause potential serious 
dangers to the economy. But some in Washington blocked her efforts, 
including Wall Street and senior administration officials.
  One high-ranking Treasury official charged with pushing this 
deregulation bill through Congress was Gary Gensler, a former high-
ranking executive at Goldman Sachs. As Under Secretary of the Treasury, 
Mr. Gensler testified before Congress that he ``unambiguously opposed'' 
regulating the derivatives market. Mr. Gensler was wrong. For Brooksley 
Born's courage in standing up to powerful financial interests in 
proposing tougher rules, she is being awarded the Profiles in Courage 
award by the John F. Kennedy Foundation this year.
  With yesterday's announcement, this administration embraces the 
reforms that Brooksley Born argued we needed a decade ago. This was an 
uphill battle. There were too many people with a financial stake in the 
old, unrestrained trading system. But it was because of my concern that 
the President's commitments to government reform and increased 
transparency would be overshadowed by those willing to take a go-slow 
approach to regulatory reform that I placed a hold on the President's 
nomination of Gary Gensler to be Chairman of the Commodities Futures 
Trading Commission. In my view, Mr. Gensler helped perpetuate the lax 
regulation that contributed to our current economic crisis while he was 
Under Secretary of Treasury during the latter years of the Clinton 
administration.
  While Mr. Gensler has recently stated he supports stronger regulatory 
rules for financial markets, in 2000, he supported legislation that 
provided ironclad protections against regulation of financial products 
such as credit default swaps and derivatives. I hardly need to remind 
my colleagues of the disastrous results of that course of action.
  The world of derivatives and credit default swaps is foreign to most 
Americans. The vulnerability of these markets to rampant speculation 
and the complex set of regulatory structures needed to address the 
problems are not easy to grasp, even for insiders of the financial 
industry. But my constituents in Washington State know all too well the 
consequences of inaction and lax oversight. To us, the financial 
meltdown is not just an object lesson in greed and avarice playing out 
on the other coast; it is an issue that has affected our daily lives. 
We remember when the lights went out over the energy crisis brought on 
by Enron's predatory speculation that threw the western power grid into 
disarray. This perfect storm--a combination of drought, botched 
regulation, and Enron's market manipulation--cost west coast consumers 
more than $40 billion, and it took years to unravel the mess.
  The rules of the financial game may be esoteric, but the consequences 
of a financial meltdown are well understood by my constituents. It is 
because of my involvement in bringing Enron's speculative schemes to 
light and seeing the type of business abuse in the financial markets 
that I am determined to take steps to ensure that such abuse does not 
happen again. I am glad President Obama has listened to those on 
Capitol Hill and those within his own administration who believed 
strongly that bold and timely action was critical to ensure stability 
of our financial markets. I continue to have concerns about Mr. 
Gensler's appointment to head the agency responsible for regulating 
swaps and other derivatives whose collapse amid unrestricted 
speculation

[[Page 12479]]

caused so much damage to the economy. But in light of the 
administration's significant and potentially historic stand on new 
controls over derivative markets, I am prepared to lift my hold on his 
confirmation and, instead, focus on ensuring that the legislation we 
pass includes the recommendations the administration has made.
  I say that I hope the administration's new policy will become a 
turning point, because we have more work to do to make sure these 
concepts become law. The Treasury Department announcement was not a 
piece of legislation but, rather, a policy outline, a statement of the 
kind of bill the White House would support. It is now up to us in 
Congress to turn this into law. I am committed to working with Senate 
leadership to ensure that the resulting legislation closes loopholes 
and that we get about making sure that the previously poorly designed 
controls are eliminated.
  Where necessary, we must be willing to go even further than the 
administration in crafting a bill that puts an end to destructive and 
predatory forms of speculation. But I applaud the bold position 
outlined in the Treasury Secretary's letter to House and Senate 
leadership yesterday.
  The idea here is not to impose regulation for regulation's sake. The 
idea is to protect the American people from the consequences of 
unrestrained speculation. Our constituents are justifiably angry, 
because they have seen millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in 
savings evaporate while speculators who aggravated the crisis floated 
away on golden parachutes.
  Undoubtedly, in the weeks to come, Wall Street interests will have a 
lot to say about regulatory reforms. They should say it to the average 
American who has been taking a crash course in the financial crisis 
over the past year. Our obligation is not to these speculators. It is 
to the people who work hard, whose ingenuity and extraordinary 
productivity have provided the lift that has made our economy the envy 
of the world. It is now our time to do our job to put in the robust 
reforms that will make their hard work pay off in the days ahead.
  I ask unanimous consent that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's 
letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   Department of the Treasury,

                                     Washington, DC, May 13, 2009.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid: In late March I laid out in 
     congressional testimony a broad framework for regulatory 
     reform. As I indicated then, one essential element of reform 
     is the establishment of a comprehensive regulatory framework 
     for over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives, which under current 
     law are largely excluded or exempted from regulation. Since 
     then, the Treasury Department has been consulting with the 
     Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Securities 
     and Exchange Commission (SEC), and other federal regulators 
     regarding the design of such a framework. Today I am writing 
     to follow up with further details on the amendments to the 
     Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), the securities laws, and other 
     relevant laws that I believe are needed to enable the 
     government to regulate the OTC derivatives markets 
     effectively for the first time.
       Government regulation of the OTC derivatives markets should 
     be designed to achieve four broad objectives: (1) preventing 
     activities in those markets from posing risk to the financial 
     system; (2) promoting the efficiency and transparency of 
     those markets; (3) preventing market manipulation, fraud, and 
     other market abuses; and (4) ensuring that OTC derivatives 
     are not marketed inappropriately to unsophisticated parties. 
     To achieve these goals, it is critical that similar products 
     and activities be subject to similar regulations and 
     oversight.
       To contain systemic risks, the CEA and the securities laws 
     should be amended to require clearing of all standardized OTC 
     derivatives through regulated central counterparties (CCPs). 
     To ensure that this measure is effective, regulators will 
     need to take steps to ensure that CCPs impose robust margin 
     requirements and other necessary risk controls and to ensure 
     that customized OTC derivatives are not used solely as a 
     means to avoid using a CCP. For example, if an OTC derivative 
     is accepted for clearing by one or more fully regulated CCPs, 
     it should create a presumption that it is a standardized 
     contract and thus required to be cleared.
       All OTC derivatives dealers and all other firms whose 
     activities in those markets create large exposures to 
     counterparties should be subject to a robust and appropriate 
     regime of prudential supervision and regulation. Key elements 
     of that robust regulatory regime must include conservative 
     capital requirements, business conduct standards, reporting 
     requirements, and conservative requirements relating to 
     initial margins on counterparty credit exposures. 
     Counterparty risks associated with customized bilateral OTC 
     derivatives transactions that would not be accepted by a CCP 
     would be addressed by this robust regime covering derivative 
     dealers.
       The OTC derivatives markets should be made more transparent 
     by amending the CEA and the securities laws to authorize the 
     CFTC and the SEC, consistent with their respective missions, 
     to impose recordkeeping and reporting requirements (including 
     an audit trail) on all OTC derivatives. Certain of those 
     requirements could be deemed to be satisfied by either 
     clearing standardized transactions through a CCP or by 
     reporting customized transactions to a regulated trade 
     repository. CCPs and trade repositories should be required 
     to, among other things, make aggregate data on open positions 
     and trading volumes available to the public and to make data 
     on any individual counterparty's trades and positions 
     available on a confidential basis to the CFTC, SEC, and the 
     institution's primary regulators.
       Market efficiency and price transparency should be improved 
     in derivatives markets by requiring the clearing of 
     standardized contracts through regulated CCPs as discussed 
     earlier and by moving the standardized part of these markets 
     onto regulated exchanges and regulated transparent electronic 
     trade execution systems for OTC derivatives and by requiring 
     development of a system for timely reporting of trades and 
     prompt dissemination of prices and other trade information. 
     Furthermore, regulated financial institutions should be 
     encouraged to make greater use of regulated exchange-traded 
     derivatives. Competition between appropriately regulated OTC 
     derivatives markets and regulated exchanges will make both 
     sets of markets more efficient and thereby better serve end-
     users of derivatives.
       Market integrity concerns should be addressed by making 
     whatever amendments to the CEA and the securities laws which 
     are necessary to ensure that the CFTC and the SEC, consistent 
     with their respective missions, have clear, unimpeded 
     authority to police fraud, market manipulation, and other 
     market abuses involving all OTC derivatives. The CFTC also 
     should have authority to set position limits on OTC 
     derivatives that perform or affect a significant price 
     discovery function with respect to regulated markets. 
     Requiring CCPs, trade repositories, and other market 
     participants to provide the CFTC, SEC, and institutions' 
     primary regulators with a complete picture of activity in the 
     OTC derivatives markets will assist those regulators in 
     detecting and deterring all such market abuses.
       Current law seeks to protect unsophisticated parties from 
     entering into inappropriate derivatives transactions by 
     limiting the types of counterparties that could participate 
     in those markets. But the limits are not sufficiently 
     stringent. The CFTC and SEC are reviewing the participation 
     limits in current law to recommend how the CEA and the 
     securities laws should be amended to tighten the limits or to 
     impose additional disclosure requirements or standards of 
     care with respect to the marketing of derivatives to less 
     sophisticated counterparties such as small municipalities.
       I am confident that these amendments to the CEA and the 
     securities laws and related regulatory measures will allow 
     market participants to continue to realize the benefits of 
     using both standardized and customized derivatives while 
     achieving the key public policy objectives expressed in this 
     letter. I look forward to working with Congress to shape U.S. 
     legislation implementing these measures. We will need to take 
     care that in doing so we do not call into question the 
     enforceability of OTC derivatives contracts. We also will 
     need to work with authorities abroad to promote 
     implementation of complementary measures in other 
     jurisdictions, so that achievement of our objectives is not 
     undermined by the movement of derivatives activity to 
     jurisdictions without adequate regulatory safeguards.
           Sincerely,
                                              Timothy F. Geithner.

  Ms. CANTWELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, it was my intention to call up two first-
degree amendments at this time: Amendment No. 1094, which is an 
amendment that is cosponsored by Senator McCaskill and Senator Collins; 
and then it

[[Page 12480]]

was my intent to call up amendment No. 1095. Both of these amendments 
are germane amendments. I understand that if I attempted to call them 
up now and set them aside, there would be an objection. So I will not 
do that at this time, but it is my intent to call up these, either 
before cloture or postcloture, because they are germane amendments. I 
just wish to alert our colleagues it is our intent to call up these two 
amendments.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I rise to speak on an amendment that 
I intend to offer, cosponsored by Senators Durbin and Sanders, which 
would complement the Credit Card Act by restoring to each of the 50 
States the power to enforce maximum interest rates against out-of-State 
lenders. I urge my Republican colleagues to attend to this as well 
because I know they have taken a particular interest over the years in 
the sovereign power of the State, what a constitutional scholar would 
call the Doctrine of Federalism, and this is certainly an important 
step in that direction.
  The bill we are debating this week will make enormous advances in 
banning some of the most egregious credit card tricks and traps that 
consumers face out there. I commend the distinguished chairman for his 
heroic, patient, determined work in bringing us to this point. I 
believe we also need to give State governments the ability to go after 
the most dangerous trap of all: outrageous and unjustifiable interest 
rates.
  I have heard so many stories from countless Rhode Islanders: A missed 
payment or a late payment turned a reasonable interest rate into a 25-
percent or 35-percent penalty rate, and a family suddenly finds itself 
in a hole it can't climb back out of.
  Professor Ronald Mann of Columbia University has called this credit 
card business tactic the ``sweat box.'' Credit card companies have 
found it profitable to hit their most distressed customers with penalty 
rates and fees that are designed to sweat out of those customers the 
maximum monthly payments before the inevitable bankruptcy filing.
  Prior to 1978, all the way back to the founding of the Republic, 
States had the ability to prohibit excessive interest rates and to 
protect their citizens. It is part of our national history. That 
changed following a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1978: Marquette 
National Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp.
  Marquette did not seem like a big case at the time--not a case that 
would, in practice, end one of the sovereign State's most basic and 
ancient authorities--to protect their citizens. In Marquette, the 
Supreme Court interpreted the word ``located''--one word--in the Civil 
War-era National Bank Act as giving regulatory authority over a loan to 
the States that was the primary place of business of the bank, as 
opposed to the State that was the location of domicile of the consumer. 
It seemed like a technical case, but the meaning of this one-century-
old word defined that way has had the effect of crippling the ability 
of States to effectively police usurious lending practices by out-of-
State banks.
  Following Marquette, credit card lenders realized they could avoid 
State law consumer protections by reorganizing as national banks and 
operating their businesses out of a handful of States that either 
lacked meaningful interest rate restrictions or were willing to toss 
out their consumer protection laws in order to attract this new 
business. Thus began the proverbial race to the bottom. Today, it is 
unusual to find a credit card lender not based in one of the two or 
three States that have turned weak consumer protection into a 
profitable industry.
  My amendment and the bill on which it is based, S. 255, would amend 
the Truth in Lending Act to legislatively reverse the Marquette 
decision, restore the historic power of the States, and to make clear 
that each State has the right to protect its citizens with interest 
rate restrictions on consumer lending no matter where the lender 
chooses to locate their physical office.
  If enacted, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and other States could, once 
again, as they did for decades--for centuries before Marquette--say 
``enough'' to faraway credit card lenders gouging their citizens. As a 
former State attorney general who was closely involved in consumer 
protection issues, I feel strongly that States have an important role 
to play in protecting their citizens from abusive and heavy-handed 
business practices. This amendment would acknowledge and strengthen 
that role.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, would the Senator yield for an 
observation?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I gladly yield to the distinguished chairman of the 
Banking Committee.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator for raising this issue, and I 
appreciate the time he has put into this and the effort he has expended 
for what he is trying to accomplish. I know his constituents and mine 
suffer, as all of us do, from abusive interest rates and fees and 
believe that broader interest rate reform is something we in the Senate 
should carefully consider. In fact, a good part of this legislation is 
designed to do exactly that.
  The Senator's amendment goes beyond the credit card reform, however, 
and would affect many varieties of consumer lending beyond just credit 
cards. I, therefore, would inquire of the Senator from Rhode Island if 
he would be willing to withhold his amendment and defer consideration 
of the issue as we are preparing to take up broader financial 
regulatory reform later this year; in fact, within the next few months.
  In the interim, I wish to assure the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. 
Whitehouse, that he has my personal commitment that the Banking 
Committee, which I chair, will take a careful look at his proposal. We 
have held a major series of hearings on regulatory modernization, we 
are planning a number of others, and this subject will be an 
appropriate one for consideration in these hearings during the 
committee's consideration of related legislation. Perhaps the Senator 
from Rhode Island can recommend a witness or witnesses--I certainly 
know of several--who would like to testify, including himself or other 
Members who are cosponsors of his amendment, or like many of us who 
share his concern about the Marquette decision and what it has done in 
terms of usury laws.
  I often point out that both in the Old Testament and the New 
Testament, while I don't claim to be a Biblical scholar, there was 
nothing that more outraged Jesus Christ than the money changers in the 
New Testament. Certainly, there are plenty of examples in the Old 
Testament of usurious lending practices. It is as old as Biblical 
times, the admonition regarding charging outrageous interest rates. We 
have rates today, as I have said before, that would make organized 
crime blush if they were to see them.
  Anyway, the Senator has proposed a reform of our system of banking 
regulation with wide-reaching consequences, and the proposal deserves 
the full vetting of the Banking Committee. I assure him we will have a 
full vetting.
  I ask my colleague and friend from Rhode Island whether he would be 
willing to entertain this proposal and defer this matter until we deal 
with a larger set of issues and to also confirm for him my similar 
concern that he has raised and would have raised with this amendment.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I thank the chairman of the Banking 
Committee for his offer. With this understanding, I will agree to 
withhold on my amendment on this particular piece of legislation.
  I believe we need to look at broader interest rate reform, and I 
appreciate the commitment of the distinguished Banking Committee 
chairman to look at the Marquette issue in that context. I also wish to 
applaud the chairman for developing the legislation we are debating. 
This is one of those areas where wisdom accrued over years of 
legislative experience allows us to expand the

[[Page 12481]]

realm of the possible, and of course legislation is the art of the 
possible. Through his wisdom, through his experience, he has been able 
to get to the very outermost bounds of the possible on this legislation 
and perhaps even move those outermost bounds out a little bit. So I 
applaud the chairman for this extraordinary accomplishment. The Credit 
Card Act will go a long way in cleaning up the practices of 
unscrupulous credit card lenders, and the Senators from Connecticut and 
Alabama deserve high praise for their hard work in bringing us to this 
point.
  I thank both my colleagues and I yield the floor.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I congratulate the chairman of the 
Banking Committee for daring to go where no one was willing to go for a 
long time; that is, regulating the credit card industry. I have learned 
about some of the tricks of the credit card industry the hard way. My 
father had a significant and serious and protracted illness, and mom 
was trying to get through it without burdening any of us. Without any 
of us realizing it, she got in a hole with credit card companies. Once 
I figured out that she had gotten into the hole, I set about the 
business of trying to help.
  I have a law degree. I am not a shy person. I am someone who is 
willing to say what I think. I helped write law at the State level, and 
I think I understand contract law. As I began to get through all the 
fine print and deal with the credit card companies that she was 
indebted to, I became more and more frustrated. I began to realize what 
has happened with unsecured debt in America through credit card 
companies. There is a lot of bait and switch that goes on. There is a 
desire to get hold of the credit card customer who never pays the 
principal. My mom was a dream customer. She paid like clockwork, in 
terms of the minimum payment, but never quite had enough to get around 
to the principal. The saddest part of the story is how hard it was for 
me to pay off the cards. They didn't want me to pay them off. I 
remember being on a phone call for 3 hours, and I had been to several 
countries by the time the call was concluded. I was told that it was 
impossible for me to send a payment to pay off the card the same month. 
It had to be sent in a separate payment. We were trying to pay off the 
card. They didn't want it. One of my favorites is that she made a 
payment on a card, and I paid off the balance. Then a bill came, and it 
was a negative balance. They owed us money. But you are not going to 
believe it, but, again, they owed us money, and guess what they had 
done. They charged us interest. I called this person on the phone and 
said, ``I am trying to figure this out. You owe us money and there is a 
charge for interest on the bill.'' That is when I began to learn the 
reality of ``trailing'' interest. It was mind boggling to me, the 
tricks and the traps that were embedded in these credit card 
agreements.
  We got an e-mail from a constituent. Actually, we have gotten 
thousands of them, especially in the last 6 months. This letter says 
the following:

       The reason I am contacting you is because of a problem with 
     Bank Corp. I received several emails from Bank Corp [asking 
     me] to apply for a credit card. I eventually did. The credit 
     card interest rate was to be a fixed 7.99 percent. . . . 
     After the card was approved, the interest rate was 7.99 
     percent for several months. Then the rate was raised to 23 
     percent and, as of the July, 2008 statement, the interest 
     rate was raised to 35.49 percent. I called Bank Corp and 
     spoke with Erin, the representative that answered the phone. 
     After being put on hold for [a long period of time], I was 
     told that my account was in good standing. The payments had 
     been made on time. She said Bank Corp had changed their 
     lending practices and that was the reason for the interest 
     hike. I was told there was no lower rates available, even 
     though my account was in good standing. I was also told there 
     was nothing I could do to change this and there was no way to 
     protest the interest hike.

  This man asked me, ``Is this legal?'' Sadly, we had to tell him that 
it was every bit legal.
  I understand the risk of unsecured debt. I understand that these 
banks are trying to get credit to people. But one of my favorite parts 
of the hearing we had on this subject was in Senator Levin's Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations, when I asked one of the credit card 
executives about the fact that they want to give these cards to college 
students. I am not lying about this; this was actual testimony given in 
this hearing. I asked him about the fact that they were sending cards 
to college students. I was trying to get to the bottom of the practice 
where they were doing kickbacks to colleges in return for their lists 
so that they could solicit the students, give them credit cards. My 
favorite response was when I asked, with as much sincerity as I could 
muster, ``I guess you find these college students a good risk for all 
these insecure debt.'' He said, ``Yes, they are very good risks.'' I 
was thinking: what planet is he on? I have college students. They are 
no more a good risk than someone who has a horrible credit rating. They 
send these cards to kids because they know their parents, if they are 
in college, don't want them to get into trouble and they will bail them 
out if they get in too deep. They want to hook them into the pattern, 
charging big, paying interest only, and being on line to them for the 
principal for the rest of their lives.
  We have work to do on this bill. I hope my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle join us quickly in getting to a point where we can 
bring it to a final vote. It will stop many of these abusive 
behaviors--the ability to raise the interest rate because maybe you 
missed a utility bill by accident 1 month, or the practice of the 
trailing interest, where you find the credit card company owes you 
money and they still charge you interest. There are 3 amendments that I 
worked on with Senators Levin and Collins. One is no over-the-limit 
fee. If they let you go over the limit, they should not charge you a 
fee. And no interest on fees. And a very important amendment that we 
can do on credit card data collection so we have more information about 
what the interest rates are we are paying in America.
  The irony of these spikes in interest rates for good credit customers 
is that this has occurred at a time when interest rates in our country 
are at a historic low. Ben Bernanke used about all the leverage he 
could to help our economy by lowering the interest rate, and lower the 
interest rate, and lowering the interest rate, and these companies can 
borrow money at very low rates. Yet, to the consumer right now, those 
interest rates are getting hiked and hiked and hiked--even when the 
person with the credit card has no indication that they present any 
kind of financial risk to that credit card company.
  We wring our hands here about what we can do to help the people we 
work for. We know people are hurting now. I am not sure there is any 
piece of legislation that is more important to the people at home than 
this credit card bill, bringing to heel these companies who are taking 
advantage of an unlevel playing field, which is strewn with all kinds 
of information that is too difficult to even understand. Let's keep it 
simple and straightforward and make sure the rules are available for 
all people to understand, and let's make sure they are not engaged in 
the kind of practices that caused my mother so many sleepless nights.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1079

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak about one 
of the pending amendments, No. 1079. In a few minutes, I am going to 
make a motion on that amendment.
  I did not get to hear all of what the wonderful Senator and colleague 
from Missouri said, but I take it that she, like I, supports the 
underlying bill. I can appreciate the need for this consumer 
protection. As chairman of the Small Business Committee, I have been 
hearing literally for months, as has the occupant of the chair, who has 
sat through hearings with me--we have heard the tragic stories of small 
businesses that have done everything right--businesses that had 
excellent business models, people who have been in business for four 
decades or longer, businesses that have never missed a credit card 
payment. You have heard their pleas to us to give them some relief.

[[Page 12482]]

  The consumers generally have said the same. The wonderful thing is 
that this underlying bill gives some relief to consumers, to personal 
credit cardholders. I commend Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby for 
bringing this bill to the floor. It only got out of this Banking 
Committee, which is tough to get any pro-consumer legislation out of, 
unfortunately, by only one vote, I understand. But they got it to the 
floor. It is a very important bill. People cannot have their interest 
rates raised without notice. They cannot have their balances double 
charged. In other words, right now, today, if you owed $5,000 on your 
credit card and you cashed in your savings bonds and everything else 
and paid $4,500 on that balance to get it down, under the current law, 
credit card companies can still charge you the full interest on $5,000. 
That is wrong. These same companies are receiving billions and billions 
of taxpayer dollars so they can turn around and fleece the people who 
are sending them the tax dollars to bail them out. It is 
unconscionable, truly. So the committee acted. They did the right 
thing. They extended these protections to consumers.
  But there were some potential jurisdictional questions, or perhaps an 
oversight, that the bill does not protect holders of business credit 
cards. Twenty-five years ago, this wouldn't have been an issue, because 
most people who were building a business, or financing one, had other 
avenues of capital.
  You can see on this chart the trend in credit card use. In 1993, 16 
years ago, 16 percent of business owners said they used credit cards to 
finance their operations. In that 16 years, it has gone to 60 percent--
from 16 percent to 60 percent. It has become a source of capital and 
cashflow, a tool, for small business.
  Here again is another chart. We have learned this in our hearings we 
have had. Sources of small business financing in 2009: Credit cards, 59 
percent, just about 60 percent; bank loans, 45 percent; vendor credit, 
30 percent; used no financing--cash or savings--19 percent; private 
loans through a friend or family, 19 percent; and SBA loans, 5 percent. 
That is an important part, although it is small, which helps to 
finance. It is long term, I might say; our loans are 20, 25, 30 years. 
Some of these others are only 30- or 60-day loans. It is small, but it 
is important. We hope with your leadership, Madam President, and that 
of the Senator from Maine, we can get this number up.
  The point of this discussion is this number--60 percent: Small 
businesses in Louisiana, from New Orleans, to Alexandria, to 
Shreveport--small business people I see when I am shopping at Costco or 
at Sam's Club, standing in line, and I know it is not a family because 
they have four dozen oranges. No family eats that many oranges in a 
week, so you know they are buying for their small business or 
restaurant or for their corner store. So we know that these small 
businesses are relying more and more on credit cards.
  In this bill we are voting on, there is no protection for them--zero. 
This bill only protects personal credit cards, not business credit 
cards. So the Landrieu-Snowe amendment, cosponsored by the occupant of 
the chair--and I will get the list of others in a moment--it was 
cosponsored by several Members of the Senate, and they are Senators 
Cardin, Shaheen, Brown, Cantwell, Inouye, Klobuchar, Snowe, Collins, 
and I think others will be joining in support of this amendment. We 
have decided to offer an amendment that simply says the underlying 
safeguards for holders of personal credit cards should simply extend to 
businesses of 50 employees or less, up to $25,000 on their business 
card, because there are many people who carry a personal card for 
personal business. Of course, they may carry a business card for 
business-related business.
  I know we have to give consumers relief, but I am here to say, as the 
chairman of the Small Business Committee, if we don't give our small 
businesses some relief, we are not going to have an economy to depend 
on because if we are looking for people to create jobs--which I think 
is what the President is calling on us to do--those jobs are going to 
be created by the small businesses of America. That is why in this 
debate the National Federation of Independent Businesses--not a bastion 
of liberalism by any means--is supporting this bill, and the American 
Society of Travel Agents, the American Beverage Licensees, the Consumer 
Federation of America, the Food Marketing Institute, the National 
Association for the Self-Employed, representing tens of millions of 
self-employed individuals--and they find it ironic that we say we are 
trying to get help to the little guy and we say we are trying to get 
help from Wall Street to Main Street. Yet every time there are 
amendments on the floor to actually do that, they never seem to be able 
to pass.
  I know there are arguments that say: Well, we don't know what the 
effect of this amendment will be. I can tell you what the effect will 
be. The small businesses in America, the 20 million that will be 
affected by this, will say: Thank you for not allowing my rates to go 
up without notice. Thank you for not allowing them to double-charge me 
if I am paying down $20,000 on my $25,000 balance. Thank you, because I 
didn't get a penny from the TARP money, but at least I am getting some 
help through this consumer relief bill.
  As I said, the National Federation of Independent Business, the 
National Small Business Association, the Petroleum Marketers 
Association of America, the Service Employees International Union, the 
Small Business Majority, and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the 
Women's Chamber of Commerce, and the Black Chamber of Commerce have all 
endorsed this bill. We haven't heard yet from the U.S. Chamber, but I 
am hoping they will step forward--at least the small business section 
of the U.S. Chamber. I understand they represent large banks, credit 
card-issuing companies, so it is tough for them. But somebody has to 
speak up for small business, and I hope that right now my colleagues 
will consider this amendment.
  Again, I am going to have to call it up for action now and actually 
move to table it, and when I do that, we will not be able to have any 
discussion on this because that motion is not debatable. That is why I 
am speaking about it now. But at least we will get on the record how 
people feel about this, and I am hoping we can get a substantial vote.
  I have decided that even if it is just my vote, and the cosponsors 
and Senator Snowe, at least the small business people in America will 
know there are some people here who understand they deserve the minimal 
protections this bill provides, particularly at this time, and that in 
the next year or two, or three, four, or five--until we get on safe 
ground--we need to be doing everything we can to help small businesses 
because without them, there will be no recovery. It is not the large 
businesses that are going to create these jobs. They are going to 
contract. They are going to redesign themselves. They are going to 
contract until things are safe. They are going to poke their head out 
of that shell when the way is clear. The people who are going to run 
out in the line of fire are the small businesses these people 
represent. They are the ones who are going to say: No, I am not going 
down. I am going to hire. I am going to keep moving forward because I 
know my idea is good or because I know when we come out of this 
recession, I will be able to make it. These are the people on whom we 
will build this recovery, and these are the people who need help today. 
We don't need to study it for 10 years or look at it for 5 years. These 
organizations represent the millions of businesses that need help 
today. So on behalf of this coalition, I think the facts are on our 
side.
  This is not an anti-credit card company amendment, this is a pro-
small business amendment. I know people have to make money. Everybody 
has to make money. And everybody is trying to do what they can. But 
there is no excuse right now, when small businesses have to rely--as I 
said, 60 percent of our small businesses--and this is an average. In 
some States, it probably could be up to 70 percent of small businesses. 
In some States, maybe it is below 50 or 45. But it is still a 
significant number of businesses using credit

[[Page 12483]]

cards to help finance their business. Let's give them a little help 
today.
  So I move to call up and I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 
1079. I further move to table the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I withdraw the request, and I ask for 
regular order on amendment No. 1079.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, in order for me to get a vote on this 
amendment, I am going to have to ask for the amendment to be tabled. I 
would like to ask for the amendment to be tabled. Of course, I will be 
voting not to table it and will be asking for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the motion to 
table?
  At the moment, there is not.
  The motion to table is not debatable. Those in favor, say aye.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam 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. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, at this time I would like to remove my 
motion to table amendment No. 1079, but I would like it to remain 
pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table is withdrawn.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I understand the amendment will still be pending. But 
when cloture is invoked, unfortunately, this amendment is going to fall 
because it is not germane to the bill so we will not be able to have a 
vote on this amendment, which was my hope. But because of time 
constraints and because of the difficulty of getting Members to the 
floor for the procedures that we would have to go through to have a 
vote, I am happy to report that the chairman of the committee has 
agreed to allow our committee, Small Business, to have jurisdiction 
over this matter.
  We will, in the next few weeks, be putting together a bill on the 
Small Business Administration Reauthorization, which we have to do by 
matter of course and responsibility. I appreciate Senator Dodd agreeing 
to acquiesce to allow our committee to have jurisdiction over this 
narrow matter. I intend, with the help of my ranking member, Senator 
Snowe, and the help of, I hope, the vast majority of the members of our 
committee, both Democrats and Republicans--I hope we will stand 
together to present at that time legislation that can provide real 
relief to small businesses that need all the help they can get.
  We are not asking for artificially low rates to be set. We are not 
asking to tie credit card companies' hands in the event that small 
businesses renege on their payment plans or are late paying. We are 
just saying, if you are a business operating out there and you have 
paid your bills on time, you are paying your credit cards, you are 
meeting your obligations, that your rates cannot arbitrarily be raised.
  We understand transactions and contracts between business people. 
This is not the Government stepping in to try to negotiate. This is 
simply a level playing field between consumers and small businesses.
  Again, because 69 percent of businesses in America today depend on 
credit cards to finance their operations, I am here to say, and our 
committee will be back saying to the Members of the Senate, we must get 
our eyes on small business, on their access to credit, on their ability 
to survive so this recovery can take root, and we can create the kinds 
of jobs that will be necessary.
  I am sorry because of the time constraints and the unwillingness of 
some here to be cooperative. But I thank the chair of the committee, 
Senator Dodd, for allowing our committee to have jurisdiction. I can 
promise, as the chair of that committee, this amendment will be on the 
bill when our bill comes to the floor for consideration and we will get 
a vote. If people want to vote against our amendment--something may not 
be exact--fine. Let them vote against it. But I want the record to be 
clear that there are a number of Members of the Senate, hopefully a 
majority, who believe the same protections extended to consumers for 
their credit cards would be extended to businesses in America, small 
businesses--those with 50 employees or less--with at least a $25,000 
limit on their credit card. It is not going to be every business in 
America that will get covered, but it is the small businesses that are 
having the most difficult time.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to join my good friend 
Senator Landrieu, the chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business 
and Entrepreneurship, on an amendment addressing a key deficiency in 
the Dodd-Shelby substitute, or Credit Card Accountability 
Responsibility and Disclosure--CARD--Act, currently pending before the 
body.
  I congratulate Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee 
Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby for their stalwart efforts to 
bring this critical bill to the floor to protect consumers from credit 
card abuses. However, as drafted, the measure would leave small 
businesses out in the proverbial cold. Accordingly, the amendment we 
are filing today would extend the protections in both the Truth in 
Lending Act as well as the bill we are considering today to any credit 
card used by the 26.6 million small businesses with 50 or fewer 
employees. I would like to thank Senators Brown, Cantwell, Collins, 
Cardin, Inouye, Klobuchar and Shaheen for cosponsoring our amendment.
  Although we will undoubtedly debate how broadly they should be 
written, the provisions the CARD Act contemplates would provide vital 
safeguards to consumer credit cards. No longer could credit card 
companies arbitrarily raise interest rates on outstanding balances at 
any time for any reason or increase them on future purchases without 
sufficient notice. Unbelievably, the Pew Charitable Trusts in its 
report, Safe Credit Card Standards, found that ``93 percent of cards 
allowed the issuer to raise any interest rate at any time by changing 
the account agreement.'' Should they choose to carry a balance, once 
this bill is enacted into law, people will have certainty with respect 
to how much interest they will pay on their purchases and will not go 
to bed one night thinking they have a 10-percent rate only to wake up 
facing a 32-percent rate.
  Additionally, this bill will prevent credit card companies from 
engaging in other abusive practices, such as ``two-cycle'' billing 
whereby a company assesses interest not only on the balance for the 
current billing cycle, but also on the balance for days in the 
preceding billing cycle. Moreover, the bill before the Senate will put 
an end to schemes that allow credit card companies to apply the 
entirety of a payment to balances with the lowest interest rates and, 
thereby, help families, which today have an average credit card balance 
of nearly $10,700 and are struggling to stay afloat, emerge from a 
vicious cycle of debt. Finally, we will ensure that customers have 21 
days to pay a bill once it is sent so that they have sufficient time to 
make a payment.
  While this legislation would take great strides to shield consumers 
from abusive practices, it does not extend these safeguards to our 
Nation's small business owners who use credit cards to purchase goods 
and services, make payroll, and ultimately create 75 percent of this 
Nation's net new jobs. The fact is according to the National Federation 
of independent Business'--NFIB's--Access to Credit poll published in 
2008, 85 percent of small business owners have one or more credit cards 
that they use for business purposes. NFIB data also revealed that 74 
percent of small business owners use at least one business credit card, 
while 39 percent use at least one personal card.
  Yet the bill before the Senate amends the Truth in Lending Act, which 
applies only to ``consumer'' transactions

[[Page 12484]]

 that are defined as ``one in which the party to whom credit is offered 
or extended is a natural person, and the money, property, or services 
which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, 
family, or household purposes.'' The measure does not protect our 
Nation's small business owners--many of whom, as I just mentioned--
utilize credit cards to finance routine transactions.
  First and foremost, the protections in the bill would not extend to 
entrepreneurs who make purchases for their enterprises using a small 
business credit card. Even more troubling is that, in many cases, the 
small business credit cards are, like consumer cards, issued based on 
the personal credit history of the card holder. Thus, although the two 
types of cards are in many instances indistinguishable, two different 
sets of rules and protections can apply.
  Second, and although there is some debate among experts on this 
point, there is concern that the safeguards in the CARD Act may not 
apply if an individual made a significant amount of business purchases 
on a consumer credit card. The reason is that the Truth in Lending Act 
only protects purchases made on consumer cards primarily for personal, 
family, or household purposes, and it is unclear at what point 
businesses purchases would cease to qualify for protections if made on 
consumer credit cards. To protect small businesses with 50 or fewer 
employees, the Senate should clarify that purchases made on behalf of 
an enterprise using a consumer card will receive the protections in 
this bill.
  Omitting 26.6 million of this Nation's job-creating small businesses 
from credit card protections could have extremely serious consequences, 
particularly at a time in which we are counting on our small employers 
to lead us out of the most devastating economic recession since the 
Great Depression. Indeed, as Todd McCracken, the president of the 
National Small Business Administration, NSBA, testified on March 19 
before the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, on 
which I serve as ranking member, the credit card companies are abusing 
small firms. In fact, Mr. McCracken wrote in his testimony, ``Imagine 
trying to run a business when one's carefully-constructed business plan 
is upended by a retroactive interest rate hike. How can a small-
business owner be expected to maintain--let alone grow--her business 
when the capital she has already used is no longer subject to the 12 
percent interest rate she agreed to but an egregiously punitive 32 
percent?''
  These abuses are not just isolated incidents; they really do occur. 
To quantify what small businesses are facing, the NFIB's Credit Card 
survey found that excluding cases involving an introductory offer, 20 
percent of small business owners saw the interest rate on their 
outstanding balances increased at least once. Furthermore, 25 percent 
of small businesses were given less than three weeks notice to make a 
credit card payment on at least one occasion, providing compelling 
evidence that action must be taken.
  I would also like to mention that other survey results bolster the 
NFIB's conclusions. For example, the NSBA's 2009 Small Business Credit 
Card Survey found that 57 percent of small business owners reported 
receiving their bill too close to the due date to mail it and have it 
be received on time. Incredibly, 33 percent of respondents reported 
receiving their credit card statement after its due date! That practice 
is simply outrageous, and it must be stopped!
  To ensure that small businesses are not shortchanged and are 
adequately protected, the amendment Senator Landrieu and I are offering 
today would amend the definition of ``consumer'' in the Truth in 
Lending Act to include any small business having 50 or fewer employees. 
Accordingly, our amendment would have two beneficial effects:
  First, it would extend all of the safeguards in the bill before us to 
small businesses with 50 or fewer employees regardless of whether they 
use a consumer of business credit card to make purchases. Small 
businesses would, therefore, be free from worries about any time 
interest rate increases and other abuses from which Americans have 
suffered from for far too long.
  Second, the bill would extend protections already included in the 
Truth in Lending Act to small businesses. As a result, irrespective of 
whether they use a consumer or business card, our small firms would now 
be entitled to receive meaningful disclosures that will enable them to 
understand the terms of credit being offered and to compare one credit 
product to another. Such required disclosures include the finance 
charge, annual percentage rate, any charges that may be imposed, and a 
statement of billing rights. Our entrepreneurs should be focused on 
creating jobs instead of having to try to navigate very complicated 
credit card terms that are buried in fine print.
  America's small businesses--the engine that drives our Nation's 
economy--deserve to be protected from potential credit card abuses that 
could cripple their operations. Their business plans should no longer 
be subject to the whims and arbitrary rate increases of the credit card 
companies.
  In closing, I am pleased to report that the following organizations 
have endorsed the Landrieu-Snowe amendment: the National Federation of 
independent Business, National Small Business Association, American 
Beverage Licensees, American Society of Travel Agents, Center for 
Responsible Lending, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, 
Demos: A Network for Ideas & Action, Food Marketing institute, National 
Association of College Stores, National Association for the Self-
Employed, National Association of Theatre Owners, National Community 
Reinvestment Coalition, National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its 
low income clients, Petroleum Marketers Association of America, Service 
Employees International Union, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, U.S. 
PIRG, and the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce.
  I ask my colleagues to join us and the groups I have just mentioned 
to support this targeted and commonsense amendment that would allow 
entrepreneurs to focus on what they do best; namely, creating new jobs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I thank Chairman Dodd for 
his hard work on this legislation. He deserves a great deal of applause 
and congratulations for putting the issue on Congress' agenda and for 
producing a very strong bill.
  Nobody in this body or in this country needs to be told about the 
effect of subprime mortgages on America's families. We have seen the 
impact that unsustainable mortgage debt has had on our economy, and we 
know the pain it has caused. But while mortgage debt grew by 200 
percent over a quarter century, credit card debt grew by more than 350 
percent. Studies suggest that credit card debt plays an even larger 
role than mortgages in causing personal bankruptcies.
  Even the explosion in mortgage debt has a lot to do with credit 
cards. Many Americans took predatory mortgages because they needed a 
way out of the massive credit card debt. A mortgage might have done 
them in, but their story started with a credit card.
  Credit card debt is more than an economic issue, it is a families 
issue and a children issue. The explosion in credit card debt has taken 
a toll on all Americans, but children have been hit the hardest. In 
2004, families with minor children were more than three times as likely 
to file for bankruptcy as their childless friends, and more children 
lived through their parents' bankruptcy than their parents' divorce.
  We know bankruptcy has a devastating impact on families. Children in 
bankrupt families lose the comfort of a stable home. They can lose 
their ability to go to college. They might even lose more. Credit 
counselors report that families struggling with excessive debt are more 
likely to experience domestic abuse.
  The explosion in credit card debt in this country was not the result 
of reckless spending by American families. Family spending on luxuries 
is roughly what it was 30 years ago. The face of debt in this country 
is not an irresponsible teenager but is a mother in over

[[Page 12485]]

her head. Nor is our debt problem simply a matter of supply and demand. 
American consumers have not suddenly decided they liked high fees, 
harsh penalties, and skyrocketing interest rates. These expensive 
provisions are hidden in the fine print of card applications mailed to 
vulnerable communities.
  Card companies call this outreach. I call it deception.
  The reforms we are considering will not disrupt the system. They 
cannot stop credit card companies from providing credit. Any company 
that wants to help consumers live within their means has nothing to 
fear from this legislation. Any company that wants to offer a service 
to American consumers has nothing to fear. But if you are planning to 
mislead consumers, this bill will stop you. If you are planning to 
offer low rates and charge high ones, we will stop you. If you are 
planning to trick customers into paying fees and penalties, we will 
stop you. If you are planning to profit from the misery of American 
families, we will stop you. Frankly, it is about time.
  Before I close I wish to quickly address an amendment offered by the 
senior Senator from Colorado. The amendment requires that Americans 
requesting their credit report also receive their credit score. For 6 
years, credit agencies have violated the intent of Congress by failing 
to provide this information. Legislation passed 6 years ago required 
them to provide one credit report each year for free, but these credit 
reports do not have to include the one piece of information that is 
crucial and easiest to understand--the customer's credit score. The 
Mark Udall amendment will help Americans manage their credit without 
burdening credit agencies or anybody else. It is a good idea. I support 
it. I encourage all my colleagues to support it.
  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. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1124

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise to offer my support for the 
amendment on usury from my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln. As 
some of you know--not all but some of you--Arkansas has a very strict 
usury limit in its State constitution, and it is been there for a long 
time. In fact, it used to be even more restrictive. Back in the 1980s, 
the people went to the ballot box, and they changed the constitution 
and made it much less restrictive than it was originally, but it is 
still very restrictive by national standards. But what has happened 
nationally has changed things in Arkansas and put Arkansas at a 
disadvantage.
  I know there have been bills here like the Gramm-Leach-Bliley 
Financial Modernization Act in 1999. I know it was well intentioned. I 
know there were good reasons, good national reasons and good financial 
reasons and a lot of good reasons to do that. However, what that act 
did is it preempted the Arkansas State Constitution by permitting in-
state banks to charge the same rate of interest as the home State of 
any out-of-State bank that has a branch in that State. It was not 
specifically designed for or against Arkansas, but it was in the bill, 
it was in the law, and it has been the law since 1999. What that did is 
it, in effect, nationalized the usury rate for banks. Arkansas banks 
can now charge a higher interest rate than they could before Gramm-
Leach-Bliley.
  The injustice occurs when you look at the lending institutions that 
are not banks--maybe the State Student Loan Authority, maybe captive 
finance companies, maybe other types of lenders that are not banks. 
What has happened is it has worked a hardship, and some of those 
lenders cannot do business in Arkansas; they cannot afford to. So many 
small businesses, family-owned businesses such as car dealers and 
furniture retailers, cannot finance their goods to Arkansas consumers. 
The Arkansas consumer, if they can do it, maybe goes to a bank or a 
credit union or some other lending institution, in many cases paying a 
pretty high interest rate in order to get the money to do business. 
This hurts the Arkansas business community. It hurts the Arkansas 
economy.
  Right now, what has happened is, given the stimulus bill--there are 
many financing tools in the stimulus bill for constructing roads and 
schools, for building renewable energy projects, the Build America 
Bonds, et cetera. But Build America Bonds are not available in our 
State because of the lack of competitiveness in the bond market. Again, 
it is our interest rate.
  Given the financial times we are in, we find we are put at a 
disadvantage. No one intended this. Congress never did, the White House 
never did, the Congress back in 1999 did not want this to happen. But 
it is where we find ourselves today.
  The people of Arkansas have once again decided to put this issue on 
the ballot, and they are going to do it. It has been referred out to 
the people. The legislature made that decision. It is on the ballot. 
The problem is, it is not until November 2010. So we have a year and a 
half to try to struggle through this economy with this very difficult, 
very adverse usury limit in our State.
  What we are asking, what Senator Lincoln and I are asking, given this 
amendment, is that we get temporary relief only through November 2010. 
This is just about an 18-month fix, to give us some relief during this 
time, get the credit flowing in our State the way it has been able to 
flow in other States, and let us take advantage of the stimulus bill, 
the stimulus package, the America Recovery Act we have already passed, 
that we all benefit in certain ways, to let us in the State of Arkansas 
have the full benefit. The Governor supports this, and members of the 
legislature support this. They have asked us to do this for the people 
of the State of Arkansas.
  People need to understand what this amendment will do. It will permit 
the current interest rate not to exceed--once this is passed, the 
interest rate cannot exceed 17 percent. We are not talking about taking 
the usury rate completely out of our State law; we are talking about 
giving us some temporary relief, up to 17 percent. Again, when it comes 
to some of the financing vehicles, such as student loans and bonds of 
various types, this is crucial to letting investment happen in our 
State.
  There is precedent for this. Congress enacted, several years ago, 
laws that preempted Arkansas' usury provision for, as I mentioned 
before, the banking industry and for some other businesses. So we have 
done this before. Again, I am not sure those laws just affected 
Arkansas; they probably affected a lot of States. But basically, right 
now Arkansas is the only State left that needs some relief under the 
current situation in which we find ourselves.
  The way it works right now, to let you all know, in our State, the 
limit for usury--an interest rate in our State is 5.5 percent. And 5.5 
percent is a very low rate. It is a historically low rate. But it is 
because the Fed rate and some of the other things have gone so low. Our 
rate is tied to those Fed rates, those national rates. Again, in a good 
economy, in most years that makes sense, but right now it does not.
  So what Senator Lincoln and I are respectfully asking our colleagues 
to do is support her amendment, allow it to become law, allow Arkansas 
this temporary relief, not just to benefit from the stimulus bill we 
have already passed but also to benefit from--or at least find some 
relief in this very tight economy, to ease some credit in our State, to 
help the recovery in our State as we are hoping to find in every other 
State in the Union.
  With that, I ask that when we do vote on the Lincoln amendment, we 
would all support it and that we would help relief come to all 50 
States, not just 49 States. Again, this is temporary. It caps the 
interest rate at 17

[[Page 12486]]

percent, which by most standards is a very reasonable cap. It is 
something that will allow the credit to flow in our State and will 
allow student loans, the Build America Bond Program to have the full 
effect they need to have here in Arkansas.
  With that, I thank my colleagues for their attention.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and 
Senators Corker, Casey, Grassley, Kerry, Levin, Menendez, and Kohl, to 
speak about our amendment to strengthen the underlying bill's 
protections for young consumers, and help address the growing problem 
of college student indebtedness.
  During this severe economic crisis and credit crunch, many 
Americans--especially college students with limited incomes--find 
themselves relying on credit cards more than ever before.
  Our amendment will place commonsense restrictions on credit card 
marketing to college students; provide for increased transparency in 
university marketing deals with credit card issuers; and, protect 
students from some common credit traps.
  This amendment achieves four essential objectives. It will: (1) 
prohibit credit card companies from offering gifts to students in 
exchange for completing credit card applications; (2) require 
universities to publicly disclose marketing agreements made with credit 
card issuers; (3) require credit card companies to report how much 
money they are giving to schools and alumni associations through these 
agreements, and what they receive from the universities in exchange; 
and, (4) call upon the Government Accountability Office to study the 
extent of these deals and their impact on student credit card debt.
  The growing reliance of college students on credit cards, and the 
staggering credit card debt that many students accumulate by the time 
they graduate, underscores the need for this amendment.
  According to a report released earlier this year by Sallie Mae: 84 
percent of all undergraduates have at least one credit card; the 
average student has more than four credit cards; 9 out of 10 college 
students use credit cards for direct educational expenses, and 30 
percent charge some tuition to their cards; the average balance for 
these students is $3,173--and 82 percent of college students carry a 
balance each month which requires them to pay finance charges. Nearly 
one in five college seniors hold $7,000 or more in credit card debt.
  A study by U.S. Public Interest Research Group found that college 
students' credit card balances have soared 134 percent in the past 10 
years.
  The study also found that 76 percent of college students reported 
stopping at a table on or near campus advertising credit cards, and 
that nearly a third of students were offered a free gift in exchange 
for signing up.
  Credit card companies lure cash-strapped students with all kinds of 
offers. Free food. T-shirts--the most-common inducement. Frisbees. 
Candy. Even iPods. All for filling out a credit card application.
  More than a dozen States currently restrict credit card marketing on 
college campuses.
  In California, credit-card marketers can't lure students with free 
gifts; in Oklahoma, colleges can no longer sell student information for 
credit-card marketing purposes; and, in Texas, on-campus credit-card 
marketing may only occur on limited days in certain locations.
  With credit card companies aiming their marketing more and more at 
students, we are seeing colleges and universities increasingly entering 
partnership agreements with these companies.
  These agreements produce millions in revenue for colleges and 
universities, while banks get exclusive marketing access and student 
contact information.
  As State funding shrinks for public universities, such deals grow.
  We don't know much about the agreements between credit card companies 
and universities. But we do know that schools often receive large cash 
payments in exchange for providing students' personal information, 
including permanent addresses, e-mail addresses and phone numbers.
  This enables companies to target students with precision.
  Some contracts even pay universities if students have a balance on 
the card after 12 months, which suggests some universities stand to 
profit from the debt carried by their students.
  The sheer scale of these contracts is astounding: Michigan State has 
an $8.4 million contract with Bank of America; and, the University of 
Tennessee has a $10 million contract with Chase.
  Bank of America has agreements with nearly 700 colleges and alumni 
associations.
  Virtually every major university boasts a multimillion-dollar 
affinity relationship with a credit-card company.
  It is vital that schools make these agreements public.
  Colleges should not encourage their students to sign up for products 
with high interest rates and fees that could get them bogged down in 
debt.
  These arrangements can get students, who are just starting out, into 
deep trouble that can stay with them for decades.
  This is shameful.
  The underlying bill provides much-needed safeguards for young 
consumers, who too often do not have the financial knowledge and 
experience to manage their credit wisely.
  I commend Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby for their 
leadership in crafting this well-balanced legislation.
  Under this bill, issuers are required to obtain a cosigner or income 
verification for anyone under age 21 that applies for a credit card.
  And, prescreened offers of credit to young consumers under age 21 
will be limited.
  Issuers also will not be allowed to increase the credit limit on 
accounts where a cosigner--such as a parent or guardian--is liable 
unless the cosigner authorizes the increase.
  These provisions will play an important role in protecting college 
students, and all young consumers, from deceptive practices.
  Our amendment will enhance these protections.
  Developing good credit is essential, and it is difficult to develop 
good credit without holding credit cards.
  When used responsibly, credit cards are convenient, and provide 
purchasing power that otherwise may not be available.
  But many students begin using credit cards with highly unfavorable 
terms, and end up ruining their credit.
  Shining a light on the agreements between universities and credit 
card issuers not only makes good sense. It may also act as a deterrent 
to deals with highly unfavorable terms for students.
  Parents, students and the public should be aware of what kind of 
deals are in place and why they exist.
  Also, this amendment will address the incentive of the free gift for 
signing up for a credit card. Too often, students sign up for credit 
cards to receive a free gift, and then have difficulty canceling the 
card, or may face hidden fees and charges.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in putting in place these commonsense 
restrictions to protect college students across this Nation.
  Mr. President, I would like to say a word about the minimum payment 
disclosure provisions in this bill.
  When we considered the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer 
Protection Act in 2005, we said that our goal was to balance fairness, 
and responsibility. I agreed with this goal, but in the end, I voted 
against the bill because I did not believe it achieved that balance.
  Since that time, I have continued to say that we need to do more to 
protect Americans from abusive credit practices and to ensure that 
consumers have the information they need to make good, informed 
financial decisions.
  In every Congress since 2005, I have introduced a bill to require 
credit card companies to disclose what the real financial effects are 
when a consumer makes only the minimum monthly

[[Page 12487]]

payment on her credit card balance each month.
  I am very pleased that Senators Dodd and Shelby have included similar 
provisions in the credit card bill that we are considering today.
  The bill requires that all credit card statements include a general 
warning about the effects of making minimum payments, personalized 
information showing a cardholder exactly how much it will cost and how 
long it will take to pay off their balance if they make only the 
minimum payment each month, and a phone number that consumers can call 
to get a reliable credit counseling referral.
  I am confident that these warnings will make a significant difference 
for consumers.
  I think we are all familiar with minimum monthly payments--this is 
the amount listed at the top of your credit card statement that you 
have to pay each month to avoid a fee.
  What people are less familiar with though, is the effect of these 
minimum payments.
  Let me give you an example. In November 2008, according to USA Today, 
the average American had $10,678 in credit card debt.
  Now let's take a family holding that amount of debt at this week's 
average interest rate of 10.78 percent. If that family consumer made 
only a 2 percent minimum payment on their bill each month, it would 
take them over 28 years and a total of $19,144 to pay that card off. 
And that is assuming they didn't ever charge another penny to the 
card--no cash advances, no gas purchases, no trips to the mall.
  In the end, the consumer would have paid $8,466 in interest on 
slightly over $10,000 in debt.
  And 10.78 percent is a relatively low rate for many Americans. 
Interest rates around 20 percent are not uncommon, and penalty interest 
rates can reach as high as 32 percent.
  Consumers need to know how these amounts add up.
  Let me tell you one more troubling thing about minimum payments. In 
December, the Economist reported on a study done on these requirements.
  In the study, a psychologist at a British university gave 413 people 
fake credit card bills. All of the bills said the person owed about 
$650 total, but half of them listed a minimum payment of around $8. The 
other half made no mention at all of a minimum payment.
  What the study found was that when the minimum amount was listed, 
people were inclined to pay less of their total bill. In fact, among 
people who chose not to pay their full balance, people paid 43 percent 
less when they saw a minimum payment amount on their bill.
  Behavioral economists describe this as a ``nudge'': By showing the 
minimum amount, the statement ``nudged'' the consumer to pay less than 
he or she would have otherwise.
  Now obviously, this is good for the credit card company--the consumer 
ends up paying less each month but more in interest over time, and 
that's how the credit card companies make their profits.
  But this is terrible for consumers, who can end up underwater, with 
huge balances owed, and not understand how they got there.
  People need to know the effects of making minimum monthly payments, 
and this bill will finally require credit card companies to show them.
  I believe the disclosure requirements in the bill will go a long way 
toward helping consumers make good financial decisions and helping them 
to avoid ending up in bankruptcy. So I want to commend my colleagues, 
Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby, for their hard work on the bill before 
us today. These warnings have been a long time in coming, and I will be 
very pleased to see them enacted into law.
  I yield the floor, and 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. 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 no further 
amendments be in order, except a managers' amendment, which has been 
cleared by the managers and leaders, and that at 10 a.m. Tuesday, May 
19, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 627, and proceed to vote on 
the motion to invoke cloture on the Dodd-Shelby substitute amendment 
No. 1058; that if cloture is invoked on the substitute amendment, then 
the Senate proceed to consider any pending germane amendments; that 
upon disposition of those amendments, all postcloture time be yielded 
back; the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as 
amended, be read a third time, and the Senate then proceed to vote on 
passage of the bill; that the cloture motion with respect to H.R. 627 
be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________