Floor Statements

Mr. President, how much time remains for my friend from Kansas?

Mr. President, let me begin by saying that Sam Brownback and I are good friends. We have a different point of view in this matter. But that in no way at all should be reflected in our relationship with each other, as we have served together for many years. I fundamentally disagree with him about this.

Instructing conferees is an interesting motion in many ways. As we will be going to conference with the other body, I will be delighted to listen to these various ideas. But this is a matter which does deserve to be protected.

First of all, let me say that when it comes to automobile dealers, they are no different than community banks or other financial institutions; the overwhelming majority are good people and do a good job. But we do not pass laws in this country because a majority of the people commit crimes. We pass laws for the minority who can abuse their relationship with customers or with people. That is no different in this particular case at all.

So this is not about whether you like automobile dealers or do not like them. The simple question is: The second largest purchase that most Americans make is the purchase of an automobile. We do not buy stocks. We do not buy fancy institutions and so forth. We buy a home and we buy an automobile, and they are expensive undertakings.

So the question is very simply: We have established in our legislation, for the first time in the history of our country, a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that will watch out for the average American citizen when it comes to financial practices. We have a Consumer Product Safety Commission. We have the Food and Drug Administration which protects you against products that you ingest, so you have some ability to respond if they do you harm.

If you buy a lawn mower or you buy any other consumer product, we have a place you can go to get a recall when that product does injury or could do injury to you. Yet we have no place in this country, where you can be ruined by a financial product, to get you any redress.

So this legislation, for the first time in our Nation's history, establishes a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to watch out for bad mortgages, car loans, watch out for other financial activities in which the average individual may engage.

As I said, one of the most principal activities that people engage in as consumers is the purchase of an automobile. So we are trying to protect people. If we are going to say to community banks and to credit unions and other financial institutions: You must comply with these rules, they will be

enforced at the local level. But you have a community bank on one corner, a credit union on the other corner and a car dealer on the third corner and all three would like to compete for that business. To the credit union and the community bank we say: You have to comply with rules that protect consumers. But you, Mr. Auto Dealer over here, you do not have to do that. You can go off and do exactly as you want.

That is a mistake and why we have insisted that these provisions include automobile dealers. So I rise in opposition to this proposal.

A lot is said in this body about our men and women who serve in uniform. We all believe that, just as those heroes stand for us every single day, in bodies such as this we ought to stand for them. I wish to focus my remarks on what happens to men and women in uniform today because it is that constituency alone that ought to be reason to defeat this motion.

As we considered financial reform, then, we strove to heed the words of groups such as the Military Coalition, a consortium of over 30 nationally prominent military and veterans organizations, representing more than 5.5 million current and former servicemembers and their families, including such groups as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the National Guard Association, the Military Officers Association, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and many others.

All these groups have written a letter in which they say, in part: The most significant financial obligation for the majority of servicemembers is auto financing.

It is also the place where servicemembers are most likely to be taken advantage of. Recently, the New York Times reported on one case, that of Matthew Garcia, a 25-year-old Army specialist who was recently subjected to a trick called yo-yo financing by an unscrupulous car dealer, just as he was preparing to deploy for Afghanistan.

According to the story in the press, Specialist Garcia, stationed at Fort Hood, TX, bought an automobile at a used car lot, signed up for a loan at a 19.9 percent interest rate. That would be bad enough, but that is not the worst of it, the high rate of interest. The problem came when Specialist Garcia drove the car home.

The dealer called Specialist Garcia several days later to say the financing contract had actually fallen through and demanded an additional $2,500 in cash from Specialist Garcia. To make sure he paid up, the dealer blocked the soldier's car so no one could leave.

That is the way some--a few but some--auto dealers are treating our men and women in uniform. It is not enough that I tell you this story or one story in the press account. Under Secretary of Defense Stanley-- in fact, my good friend, Senator Brownback, quoted from the letter from Clifford Stanley. But listen to the operative sentence in the letter from Under Secretary Stanley:

The Department's position as stated in my letter to

Assistant Secretary Barr remains unchanged. The Department of

Defense would welcome and encourage the CFPA protections for

Servicemembers and their families with regard to unscrupulous

automobile sales and financing practices provided such

protections would not limit access to legitimate products.

Which they do not at all. So we are hearing from Under Secretary of Defense Stanley, in which he says: ``Bait and switch'' financing, falsification of loan applications, failure to pay off liens on trade- in vehicles, ``packing'' loans with items whose price bears little, if any, relationship to their real cost, and discriminatory lending are the kinds of problems members of our Armed Forces and their families face when dealing with financing their cars with car dealers.

In fact, Secretary Stanley reports that 72 percent of military counselors and attorneys surveyed had cited problems with auto dealer abuses in just the past 6 months alone, 72 percent cited it as a major problem. The Department of Defense is telling us that our men and women in uniform are at risk of being ripped off, as they are every single day.

That is why, of course, we adopted, 98 to 1, by the way, the amendment offered by Scott Brown, our colleague from Massachusetts, and Jack Reed, our colleague from Rhode Island. That amendment said we must have an office of servicemember affairs in the consumer bureau. Why did we establish that office there? What is the principal obligation that these service men and women get into that causes so much difficulty? It is automobiles sales. That is why we put it in.

What an irony it would be that we vote 98 to 1 to say we ought to establish that office within the consumer financial bureau and then turn around and adopt the Brownback amendment or insist upon it in a conference report, which basically exempts every one of these auto dealers from having to comply with the consumer protection laws. That would be an irony beyond ironies in a way, to on one hand say: We want to help you and protect you and then, on the other hand, take away the major organizations out there that do the most damage to them.

The Brownback motion would steal away this protection from our Armed Forces by creating a loophole for the exact sector of the financial services industry in which servicemembers are most vulnerable, and that is in auto sales. Let me be clear. All of us have relationships with auto dealers. I have a wonderful relationship with the people in my State of Connecticut whom I have worked closely with over the years.

All of us support those businesses. As I said at the outset of these remarks, the overwhelming majority of them do a good job and do not engage in unscrupulous behavior. But the laws are not written for the many, they are written for the few out there who do take advantage of these young men and women.

As we know from the evidence supplied by our military organizations and others who have written, rarely do they ever get involved in a matter such as a Banking Committee matter, to have the Under Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of the Army, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Order of the Purple Heart, and the Officers Association, all of them, 30 organizations saying: Do not do this.

Yet we are about to turn around and undo the efforts we have made to see to it that these young men and women, whom we all talk about in Memorial Day speeches, and so forth--what a great job they do for our country, and then turn around, in the one area they get taken to the cleaners on day after day, which is in this one particular area, and to exempt them entirely from the consideration of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The community bankers oppose this. The credit unions oppose this as well. They want a level playing field. They would like to compete for that business. They have to comply with the rules. How can you turn around and say to that community bank or that credit union: You have to live with these rules, but the guy on the other corner does not have to do so. How is that fair when it comes to financing, as I said have said, the second largest purchase that anyone would make, that most people make in their lives?

So it is unfair, it seems to me, to have two sets of rules for the same product. That is what we would be doing if this amendment were adopted, and, of course, the conferees were required to insist upon supporting language in the House bill. Military leaders such as Michael Donley, the Secretary of the Air Force, support this approach because, in his words:

Protection from unprincipled automobile lending enables our

Airmen to concentrate on their primary mission--to fly, fight

and win in air, space, and cyberspace.

Advocates such as Holly Petraeus, wife of GEN David Petraeus, the director of the Better Business program for military families, at a press conference, strongly supports the protections we have in this bill. They know the hardships military families face and believe it should not be compounded by shady lenders.

By the way, it is not just our servicemembers who suffer from lending abuse in this sector as well. There is a long and sad history of racial discrimination in auto lending. For example, African-American borrowers who are charged more than 2.5 times the amount in subjective rate----

I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute and provide 1 additional minute for my friend from Kansas as well.

Let me, if I can, because my friend from Kansas cited this, about separating out the financing from the lenders. There was a court case. Listen to what one of these witnesses, involved in that distinction, had to say. Some argue that auto dealer financing operations are not the lenders, they are merely processing the paperwork.

According to court testimony of a former finance and insurance manager from a Tennessee auto dealer:

The standard industry practice is to prepare the financing

documents so that the customer is not alerted in any manner

that the person with whom he is dealing has the ability to

control the customer's price of credit. This allows the

finance arranger to present himself as the ally of the

customer, which further relaxes and disarms the customer. The

nature of the transaction creates the perfect opportunity for

a dealer to obtain a large kickback from an unsuspecting

customer by subjectively inflating their interest rates.

This is not a time to do so much damage, in my view, to these young men and women in uniform.

I ask unanimous consent that several letters we have from the various military organizations in opposition to the Brownback amendment be printed in the Record.

All time has expired on Brownback?

Mr. President, I commend both of my colleagues, Senator Hutchison and Senator Hagan, my good friends from Texas and North Carolina. They have done a great job and deserve our thanks for the work they have put into this proposal. I am supportive of the motion to instruct. As a conferee, I will have something to say about this, I presume, in the conference. I thank them for their efforts. They have laid this out pretty well. I don't need to take a lot of time. I have some further remarks that lay out why I think this is a good proposal. I appreciate very much their efforts in this regard.

I am prepared to yield back time on this matter and urge colleagues to support the Hutchison-Hagan motion to the financial reform package. It is a good proposal, one that deserves all of our support.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered on both motions?

I don't see my colleague from Kansas but I know he wants the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the Brownback motion.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the Hutchison-Hagan motion.

Brownback would come first and then the Hutchison-Hagan motion.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I wish to take a few minutes to express my views on the bill overall and also to express my appreciation to an awful lot of people who worked very hard on this legislation over the last year and a half, not just over the last 4 weeks this bill has been the subject of Senate debate.

Last week, the Senate voted to pass this historic and comprehensive Wall Street reform legislation. Over the weekend, the New York Times wrote:

With the Senate's passage of financial regulation, Congress

and the White House have completed 16 months of activity that

rival any other since the New Deal in scope or ambition.

I argue that it is not the scope of our mission that we will remember when we look back on this period in our Nation's history. Instead, I believe we will remember the scope of the challenge with which we have been confronted, the weight of the burden we have been asked to lift off the backs of the American people, and the difficult work we had to do to get the job done.

Our Nation was founded on principles of religious freedom and representative government, but our history reveals that one of the most truly American principles is that of self-determination. In America, if you work hard and play by the rules, there is no limit to what you can achieve. That idea is so central to our national character that it is tempting to take it for granted. We rarely think about the foundation upon which that promise rests, but that foundation is there. It is real. It is made up of laws and rules and regulations and institutions. It is the charge of human beings, and thus it can fail.

We all know what was lost when that foundation did fail 2 years ago-- millions of jobs, millions of homes, trillions in household wealth and retirement savings. But what we very nearly lost was that principle of self-determination. Small business owners who turned a good idea into a real business that employs real people suddenly found that despite having done nothing wrong, they could no longer find the credit they needed to survive. Homeowners who had put their backs into earning enough to own a piece of this country suddenly found that, despite having done nothing wrong, they had been ripped off by an unscrupulous lender. And people across America who got up early every day to go do a job that barely put enough food on the table found that they were being let go, not because they had done something wrong but because of the mistakes of a banker they never met, a corporate hotshot who had never had any trouble feeding his family.

Over the many months, we looked at the foundation closely, and the closer we looked, the more cracks we saw. And the American people, never quick to lose faith, began to doubt whether the promise of our free markets and

abundant wealth would still hold for them and their children.

Our task in this institution, in writing and passing this bill, was not just to restore stability to our financial system or save our economy from further turmoil. Our task was to restore power to the uniquely American principle of self-determination. I believe that, in the view of history, we will be judged to have succeeded. And that effort means more to me and I presume more to this body than any political consideration ever could.

Of course, our work is not quite finished. We must now work with our colleagues in the other body in conference. In that conference, I will fight to make sure the strengths of the bill that came out of this institution are reflected in the legislation we will send to the President's desk.

At the heart of what makes our bill effective is its focus on the small business owners, investors, and consumers who are, in turn, at the heart of our prosperity. There is no interest more special than the public interest, and that is reflected in our legislation.

Our Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rejects the notion that individual lobbies should enjoy special protections. We took special precautions to ensure that small businesses are not unnecessarily pulled into the regulatory regime. And we listened carefully to concerns about creating an unfettered bureaucracy, ensuring that the powers it has are matched by strong oversight. But we rejected carve- outs and loopholes because the only special interests whose voice should be heard at this bureau is that of the American consumer. We took steps to ensure that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding will be independent and reliable so that its mission cannot be compromised by political maneuvering.

In conference, I will do what I can to defend these important principles. I will also fight for our bill's approach to ending too- big-to-fail bailouts, an approach that is the result of hard work and good, bipartisan compromise on the part of many Senators.

Further, our bill includes lasting and durable protections against more taxpayer bailouts and the possibility of yet another widespread economic crisis.

We have said all along that there needs to be a way for big firms to fail without incurring taxpayer expense or threatening the foundation of our economy. We have found that way, and we have ensured it will last for a long time. We have also included the Volcker rule to help ensure that the biggest firms are as stable as possible.

We also have found a way to bring into the sunlight an entire market sector that for too long has grown in the shadows. Our bill has very strong protections for the derivatives market, and, like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, we have rejected carve-outs for special interests because those carve-outs would weaken protections against economic instability.

Our bill also takes on the issue of Federal Reserve governance, mandating a General Accounting Office audit of the Fed's response to the financial crisis, changing the president of the New York Fed to a Presidential appointment, and making other improvements--increasing transparency at the Fed without threatening its independence or its ability to do important work of conducting monetary policy.

Our bill strengthens the Securities and Exchange Commission, improving whistleblower protections and empowering shareholders and investors.

Our bill, finally, reforms the credit rating agencies, allowing greater access to information, including an agency's track record, methodology, and the limitations of its ratings.

This is a very strong bill. If you want to call it ambitious, that is fine, but I think that is missing the point. Everything in this bill is a response to the pain we have seen in our Nation and to the worry Americans have that it could all happen again.

If the bill is comprehensive--and I believe it is--that is because the challenge was also comprehensive. We can no more let the principle of economic self-determination crumble than we can the principles of religious freedom or representative government on which our Nation has been founded and built. That is why I have fought as hard as I have, along with my colleagues on the Banking Committee and so many others in this Chamber--Democrats and Republicans--over the last month the legislation was on the floor of this body. That is why we will continue to fight for this strong legislation until it is signed into law by the President of the United States.

As I said at the outset of these remarks, obviously those who get to speak at these lecterns, to debate in this Hall, receive the notoriety for good or real as a piece of legislation such as this moves through the legislative process. There are literally dozens of people who work every day, over the weekends, long into the evening to make sure legislation is comprehensive, well thought out, balanced, and fair.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the people on our committee staff, legislative counsels, the floor staff, and the Republican floor staff, and thank them for their tremendous work over this last month. They do a tremendous job on behalf of the American public every single day, seeing to it that which we conduct here is done in a fair, open process that reflects well on this institution. Along with Ed Silverman, Amy Friend, Jonathan Miller, Dean Shahinian, and Julie Chon--I hesitate to go down the whole list. I thank all of them for their tremendous work, and I want the record to reflect their names. It is the least we can do. I can literally cite paragraphs about every one of them, the work they conducted to bring us to this point in the legislative process. I am grateful to them and the floor staff, Republicans and Democrats, who make this place work all day. The American public owes them a great debt of gratitude for what they do.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I wish to take a few minutes to express my views on the bill overall and also to express my appreciation to an awful lot of people who worked very hard on this legislation over the last year and a half, not just over the last 4 weeks this bill has been the subject of Senate debate.

Last week, the Senate voted to pass this historic and comprehensive Wall Street reform legislation. Over the weekend, the New York Times wrote:

With the Senate's passage of financial regulation, Congress

and the White House have completed 16 months of activity that

rival any other since the New Deal in scope or ambition.

I argue that it is not the scope of our mission that we will remember when we look back on this period in our Nation's history. Instead, I believe we will remember the scope of the challenge with which we have been confronted, the weight of the burden we have been asked to lift off the backs of the American people, and the difficult work we had to do to get the job done.

Our Nation was founded on principles of religious freedom and representative government, but our history reveals that one of the most truly American principles is that of self-determination. In America, if you work hard and play by the rules, there is no limit to what you can achieve. That idea is so central to our national character that it is tempting to take it for granted. We rarely think about the foundation upon which that promise rests, but that foundation is there. It is real. It is made up of laws and rules and regulations and institutions. It is the charge of human beings, and thus it can fail.

We all know what was lost when that foundation did fail 2 years ago-- millions of jobs, millions of homes, trillions in household wealth and retirement savings. But what we very nearly lost was that principle of self-determination. Small business owners who turned a good idea into a real business that employs real people suddenly found that despite having done nothing wrong, they could no longer find the credit they needed to survive. Homeowners who had put their backs into earning enough to own a piece of this country suddenly found that, despite having done nothing wrong, they had been ripped off by an unscrupulous lender. And people across America who got up early every day to go do a job that barely put enough food on the table found that they were being let go, not because they had done something wrong but because of the mistakes of a banker they never met, a corporate hotshot who had never had any trouble feeding his family.

Over the many months, we looked at the foundation closely, and the closer we looked, the more cracks we saw. And the American people, never quick to lose faith, began to doubt whether the promise of our free markets and

abundant wealth would still hold for them and their children.

Our task in this institution, in writing and passing this bill, was not just to restore stability to our financial system or save our economy from further turmoil. Our task was to restore power to the uniquely American principle of self-determination. I believe that, in the view of history, we will be judged to have succeeded. And that effort means more to me and I presume more to this body than any political consideration ever could.

Of course, our work is not quite finished. We must now work with our colleagues in the other body in conference. In that conference, I will fight to make sure the strengths of the bill that came out of this institution are reflected in the legislation we will send to the President's desk.

At the heart of what makes our bill effective is its focus on the small business owners, investors, and consumers who are, in turn, at the heart of our prosperity. There is no interest more special than the public interest, and that is reflected in our legislation.

Our Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rejects the notion that individual lobbies should enjoy special protections. We took special precautions to ensure that small businesses are not unnecessarily pulled into the regulatory regime. And we listened carefully to concerns about creating an unfettered bureaucracy, ensuring that the powers it has are matched by strong oversight. But we rejected carve- outs and loopholes because the only special interests whose voice should be heard at this bureau is that of the American consumer. We took steps to ensure that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding will be independent and reliable so that its mission cannot be compromised by political maneuvering.

In conference, I will do what I can to defend these important principles. I will also fight for our bill's approach to ending too- big-to-fail bailouts, an approach that is the result of hard work and good, bipartisan compromise on the part of many Senators.

Further, our bill includes lasting and durable protections against more taxpayer bailouts and the possibility of yet another widespread economic crisis.

We have said all along that there needs to be a way for big firms to fail without incurring taxpayer expense or threatening the foundation of our economy. We have found that way, and we have ensured it will last for a long time. We have also included the Volcker rule to help ensure that the biggest firms are as stable as possible.

We also have found a way to bring into the sunlight an entire market sector that for too long has grown in the shadows. Our bill has very strong protections for the derivatives market, and, like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, we have rejected carve-outs for special interests because those carve-outs would weaken protections against economic instability.

Our bill also takes on the issue of Federal Reserve governance, mandating a General Accounting Office audit of the Fed's response to the financial crisis, changing the president of the New York Fed to a Presidential appointment, and making other improvements--increasing transparency at the Fed without threatening its independence or its ability to do important work of conducting monetary policy.

Our bill strengthens the Securities and Exchange Commission, improving whistleblower protections and empowering shareholders and investors.

Our bill, finally, reforms the credit rating agencies, allowing greater access to information, including an agency's track record, methodology, and the limitations of its ratings.

This is a very strong bill. If you want to call it ambitious, that is fine, but I think that is missing the point. Everything in this bill is a response to the pain we have seen in our Nation and to the worry Americans have that it could all happen again.

If the bill is comprehensive--and I believe it is--that is because the challenge was also comprehensive. We can no more let the principle of economic self-determination crumble than we can the principles of religious freedom or representative government on which our Nation has been founded and built. That is why I have fought as hard as I have, along with my colleagues on the Banking Committee and so many others in this Chamber--Democrats and Republicans--over the last month the legislation was on the floor of this body. That is why we will continue to fight for this strong legislation until it is signed into law by the President of the United States.

As I said at the outset of these remarks, obviously those who get to speak at these lecterns, to debate in this Hall, receive the notoriety for good or real as a piece of legislation such as this moves through the legislative process. There are literally dozens of people who work every day, over the weekends, long into the evening to make sure legislation is comprehensive, well thought out, balanced, and fair.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the people on our committee staff, legislative counsels, the floor staff, and the Republican floor staff, and thank them for their tremendous work over this last month. They do a tremendous job on behalf of the American public every single day, seeing to it that which we conduct here is done in a fair, open process that reflects well on this institution. Along with Ed Silverman, Amy Friend, Jonathan Miller, Dean Shahinian, and Julie Chon--I hesitate to go down the whole list. I thank all of them for their tremendous work, and I want the record to reflect their names. It is the least we can do. I can literally cite paragraphs about every one of them, the work they conducted to bring us to this point in the legislative process. I am grateful to them and the floor staff, Republicans and Democrats, who make this place work all day. The American public owes them a great debt of gratitude for what they do.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, will my colleague and friend yield for 1 minute so I may make a couple of unanimous-consent requests?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the adoption of the Vitter-Pryor amendment No. 4003, as modified, it be further modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the President of the Senate be authorized to appoint a committee on the part of the Senate to join with a like committee on the part of the House of Representatives to escort His Excellency Felipe Calderon Hinojosa, the President of Mexico, into the House Chamber for a joint meeting.

Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent--I am looking at my friend from Arizona--that after the remarks of the Senator from Hawaii, the Senator from Arizona be recognized.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be rescinded.

Madam President, in response to my colleague, I thank him. He was been very active in the debate on this bill. I am grateful for his thoughts and ideas. This is a very important proposal--one that we have not adopted. It is in the House bill. I told my friend I would be anxious to pursue the idea he has incorporated because, obviously, this is subject matter that has probably evoked more public interest almost more than any other aspect of the crisis over the last 2 years. Obviously, people have lost homes and jobs and retirement income and the economic damage done to the country; but people seemed to understand this issue from the very beginning more than almost anything else, particularly in light of the fact that taxpayers were writing the check of $700 billion to stabilize, we are told, and preserve many of these institutions.

What was degrading to many people is, in the midst of all that, we watched some executives take excessive bonuses who could only receive them because the American taxpayer stabilized and preserved those companies as a result of that legislation.

What also bothered me beyond that, I might have thought at some particular point the executives might have expressed their appreciation to the American taxpayers for stabilizing and saving some of these institutions. They not only didn't do that, in most instances they went out and took significant bonuses that were only available because the companies had been saved by the American taxpayer. So this issue is one that I think had more to do with inflaming public passions about what happened almost more than anything else I can think of.

Our colleague from Rhode Island has crafted a proposal that would go to deal with this issue. I applaud him for that. I hope we can work something out that will meet his concerns.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that one of the reasons for providing the Federal Reserve Board, and, eventually, the bureau, with authority to provide exemptions under paragraph (7) of this new section 129(l) of the Truth in Lending Act, is to allow the regulator to make adjustments to the points and fees cap with respect to smaller loans. I further understand that it is not the intent of the new section 129(l) to cover a streamline refinancing as provided by government programs such as FHA, and that the Board/bureau will establish appropriate guidelines for exemption. Is this view correct?

I thank the Senator very much. I agree with the Senator.

I would be happy to yield for a question.

The Senator from Alaska is correct. The SEC certainly has existing authority to add State and local governments to the definitions of ``accredited investor'' and ``qualified institutional buyer'' under its Securities Act rules.

I would be happy to yield for a question.

I believe it would be appropriate for the SEC to take the opportunity presented by the rulemakings under this legislation, to consider whether to include State and local government bodies within those definitions.

credit sales

I believe point of the Senator from Maine is well taken. Wholesalers and manufacturers do not provide any products to consumers for their personal, family, or household use, let alone consumer financial products or services. Thus, wholesalers' and manufacturers' sales of nonfinancial goods to other businesses would be outside the bureau's jurisdiction.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object, I want to be heard on the matter.

First of all, the Budget Committee, like all authorizing committees, has the option, at the outset, when the budget resolution is considered, to set aside a reserve fund in anticipation of some piece of legislation coming along that may cost more. We did not do that. We did not know what that would be. That is what we are talking about.

If we had spent $1, since we had zero in terms of a budget allocation for our committee, $1 over it would have provoked a potential budget point of order. So the fact that the committee has spent money in this bill on a major restructuring of our financial structures of the Nation should not come as any great surprise. But, secondly, it is somewhat ironic the only reason we find ourselves at the point of $19.7 billion over is because--at the request, I might point out, of my good friends on the minority side--we eliminated the upfront prepayment cost of the $50 billion we had in the bill.

Many believed the optics of that just did not look good so we took that money out, as you recall, in the Shelby-Dodd amendment, one of the first amendments we considered.

Had that money stayed in, of course we would not be talking about any deficit at all in this bill. The fact is, of course, that post payments coming out of creditors, coming out of the industry itself, and the fact the bankrupt company does not have the assets, then it will be paid for.

I say to my colleagues respectfully here, it is a very technical amendment dealing primarily with 302. It has to do with the allocations given to committees. Had we been $1 over, we would have been subjected to this point of order. But we have not. But on that basis, theoretically we ought to be waiving.

Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Was a point of order made?

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a committee intern, Robert Courtney, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. today, the Senate consider the Snowe amendment No. 3883 and a Landrieu side-by-side, No. 4075, and that they be debated concurrently for a total of 30 minutes, with the time equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Landrieu amendment No. 4075, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Snowe amendment No. 3883; that no amendment be in order to either amendment prior to a vote; that upon disposition of these amendments, the Senate then resume the Whitehouse amendment No. 3746, as modified, and there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled with respect to the amendment; that upon the use of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment, with the amendment subject to an affirmative 60-vote threshold, and that if the amendment achieves the threshold, it be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that if it does not achieve that threshold, then it be withdrawn; that no amendment be in order to the Whitehouse amendment; that upon disposition of the Whitehouse amendment, Senator Vitter be recognized to call up his amendment No. 4003, which is in order to be called up per a previous order; that once the amendment is pending, it be modified with the language of the Pryor amendment No. 4087, and that as modified the amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that once this agreement is entered, Senator Barrasso be recognized to speak in morning business, with no amendments or motions in order during this period; that the cloture vote be delayed until disposition of the above-mentioned amendments; and that upon the conclusion of Senator Barrasso's remarks, the Senate stand in recess until 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the Snowe amendment No. 3883. It is already pending.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of quorum.

Mr. President, I don't mean to jump into these things, but I wanted to make a couple comments. First, no one knows real estate like Johnny Isakson. I have had the privilege of working with the Senator from Georgia over the last year or so on a couple of proposals, one of which I think made a big difference. That was the $8,000 tax credit for home buyers to go out and encourage home purchases and sales. It has proven to be pretty worthwhile. I haven't seen the latest data. My friend is far more familiar than I. But, clearly, for most Americans, home ownership is the single largest and most important acquisition they ever have. It is the greatest wealth creator for most Americans.

As the Senator from Illinois points out, that additional trajectory is where we increased this, and people used that equity to help with retirement and student loans, a variety of things they need as a family.

As my friend from New Hampshire pointed out the other day, there is a history here. I acknowledge that we in Congress have failed in this responsibility, actually going back to around 2003. The Senator from Alabama can correct me. There were various attempts. A good friend of ours, the former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Mike Oxley, a Republican, offered one as chairman. They actually got one done.

It was a bipartisan bill in the House on Fannie and Freddie in 2005. It then came to the Senate, and things got bogged down over here. There were attempts, including the former chairman from Alabama, who offered a proposal. Senator Sarbanes did. It went back and forth. We didn't get the job done.

It is important to remember during times such as this, when we are not hesitant to point an accusing finger at other institutions for having helped create this problem, we in Congress collectively did not get the job done with Fannie and Freddie. I join with my colleague from Illinois, it is important we acknowledge that if we are going to be accusing other institutions for malfeasance or misfeasance. In this case, we should have done a better job.

Here is the problem. As the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out--I am quoting him--this issue was ``too complex'' for this bill. The reason is, we don't know what to replace it with at this point. There are a number of ideas floating around because all of us recognize we need to have a housing financing system in place. In the absence of having any in place, around 97 percent of all home mortgages are backed by the Federal Government today. If we pull that rug out at this particular juncture, I don't know what the implications would be. I think they would be pretty profound.

We are caught in this quandary, acknowledging the need to reform and replace Fannie and Freddie, the present structure, but doing so without replacing it with something could pose serious problems in the very area the Senator from Georgia is so knowledgeable in; that is, how do we continue to promote home ownership.

What we did--and I would be the first to admit it, being the author of the provision--is fairly anemic in light of what we need to be doing. We have said we are mandating that there be a study completed with options presented within 6 months. The President of the United States I have heard say on one occasion, maybe more, this is a top priority come next January for him and this Congress to grapple with.

Again, there is nothing there that absolutely requires it, but it will be essential that we come up with options.

I recall the previous Secretary of the Treasury advocating for a public utility concept to replace Fannie and Freddie. I would be the last one to tell others whether that is a good idea or a bad one. But it is one option. Clearly, we have conflicting goals--one of home ownership, which is the very one we all support, combined with the goal of satisfying shareholder interests. What happened is, shareholder interests trumped in a sense the kind of manageable, sensible policy that would promote home ownership at the expense of returning investments for shareholders. That is also a laudable goal. But to have the same entity have the two missions, one for home ownership, one for a return on investment, they collided with each other. We have ended up in the situation we are in without a great answer--yet--as to how to replace it.

The point I guess I am making is, I totally agree with the Senator's premise. The question is, as chairman of this committee, how do we fix this thing at this point? And I have never suggested with this bill we were dealing with every financial problem in the country. It would be an impossible task for us to take that on.

So all I can say to the Senator, as someone who will not be here next January, is, I hope whoever sits at this desk--or at this desk, across from my good friend from Alabama chairing the committee--that this will be a priority of our Banking Committee. I cannot dictate that. I cannot even bind the next Congress constitutionally with anything we require here. But my fervent hope would be--I cannot think of a more important priority for the Banking Committee of the Senate than to have the reform of Fannie and Freddie because I think we are going to be in deeper and deeper trouble both financially and in terms of home ownership if we do not. So whatever else happens here in the next few days with regard to this bill, I want to thank my friend from Georgia for his continuing commitment to the issue and to say that I associate myself with his concerns. I would also plead that failure to deal with that issue in this bill ought not to be justification for walking away from all the other good things we are trying to accomplish in this legislation.

I thank the Senator for hanging around and listening to this filibuster.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

I did not hear it. I apologize.

I thank my friend from Georgia.

With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume consideration of the Whitehouse amendment No. 3746 and that the amendment be further modified with the changes at the desk; that it also be in order for the Ensign amendment to be considered; that they be debated for a total of 10 minutes, with time equally divided and controlled between Senators Whitehouse and Ensign or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Whitehouse amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Ensign amendment; that each of these amendments be subject to an affirmative 60-vote threshold; that if they achieve that threshold, then they be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that if they do not achieve that threshold, then they be withdrawn; further, that prior to the second vote, there be 4 minutes of debate, divided as specified above, and the second vote be limited to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that there be no further amendments to those amendments.

Further, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the Cantwell amendment No. 4086 to be called up for consideration.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Rhode Island for his passionate and persistent advocacy for his amendment. He has been extremely eloquent.

However, I have to oppose the Senator's amendment. I do it with some reluctance.

Nobody has been more concerned about credit card abuses in this body than I have.

We passed strong, new legislation to address many of these abuses just last year, and the Federal Reserve has written regulations to implement these protections.

In addition, the Wall Street Reform Act includes a strong new consumer financial protection bureau that will, for the first time, create an independent entity devoted to empowering consumers with clear, transparent, easy-to-understand disclosures so that they can make smart financial decisions for themselves.

This bureau will help achieve the goals that Senator Whitehouse hopes to accomplish with his amendment, though it will not be done in exactly the way he seeks to do it.

By creating better disclosures, by eliminating confusing fine print, the consumer bureau will help consumers become better shoppers. This will help drive down credit card interest rates.

In addition, as Senator Whitehouse knows, the Wall Street Reform Act will use States as partners in enforcing new rules under the consumer title. This will put additional cops on the beat to make sure American families are not lured into buying unfair, deceptive, or abusive financial products.

In sum, the underlying legislation would be a giant leap forward for consumer protection.

But as I have said earlier, I reluctantly oppose Senator Whitehouse's amendment. One of the reasons is that this amendment does not actually address the problems that it is supposed to solve. It would only stop national banks from exporting interest rates. Out-of-state savings associations and state-chartered banks can still charge a higher interest rate. So it does not restore the states ability to enforce interest rate caps against all out-of-state lenders. And it does not level the playing field for local lenders as intended.

I believe that the Wall Street Reform Act represents an important step forward for consumer protection. If, indeed, the Whitehouse amendment is even the right thing to do, we should not make the perfect the enemy of the very good.

Finally, let me say that the abuses of which Senator Whitehouse speaks are very real. The interest rates so many of these banks charge are outrageous. However, it is a complex issue that will not be solved in this debate.

I urge my colleagues, let's pass the Wall Street reform bill into law, so the consumer bureau can start doing its work and start helping the American people make smart financial choices.

Mr. President, I have great respect for our colleague. He has worked hard on this amendment. He has been trying to get attention over the past 2 weeks, probably as much as anyone in this Chamber, and he is anxious to be heard. So I am grateful to my colleagues for giving him the opportunity to have this debate on a legitimate issue; that is, interest rates. All of us, of course, hear from our constituents about the rising and higher cost of interest rates.

This amendment takes an approach that would, in effect, repeal the so-called Marquette decision reached a number of years ago that allowed for interest rates to basically be determined by the home State of a corporation. That the corporation actually does business in other States is not terribly relevant to whatever the rates would be, but whatever the rate is in the State where their corporate headquarters is domiciled is what would determine that. I may not be stating that quite as eloquently as the author of the amendment will, but it is words to that effect. I am getting tired after days of describing these.

While I respect the effort here, there are some problems associated with this, in my view, so I will vote against the Whitehouse amendment. But, again, I respect my colleague's proposal. I respect the efforts he has made and believe there is legitimacy to the issue. I am not sure, however, the approach is the correct one to pursue.

With that, I see my colleague and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the pending business is the Ensign amendment; is that correct?

I would suggest that we call up the Ensign amendment. I understand the Senator from Nevada has a modification.

With the modification.

I understand there is no need for a recorded vote, we can have a voice vote?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now consider the Vitter amendment No. 4003, and that the amendment then be modified with the Pryor amendment No. 4087; that the amendment, as modified, then be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 p.m. Thursday, May 20, the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be agreed to, and the Senate then proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Dodd-Lincoln substitute, amendment No. 3739.

Mr. President, I have two cloture motions at the desk.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the gentleman is correct; the purpose of the Bureau of Consumer Protection is to protect consumers and not to address disputes between businesses over the terms of their business relationships.

Mr. President, I rise to further discuss the reasons for my votes against two amendments relating to credit rating agencies, amendment No. 3991 creating a new credit rating agency board and amendment No. 3774 which eliminates references to requiring credit ratings from certain financial laws.

First, I want to emphasize that I agree with my colleagues that erroneous credit ratings on asset backed securities played a central role in the financial crisis and that we need to improve the regulation of credit ratings.

Credit rating agency reform is an extremely important area of the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 passed by the Banking Committee. It has 40 pages of carefully constructed credit rating reforms to improve regulation, transparency and accountability. Let me highlight some of these strong provisions, as they would improve the SEC, reform rating agencies and empower investors.

The SEC will have a new Office of Credit Ratings to regulate and promote accuracy in ratings, staffed with experts in structured, corporate and municipal debt finance. The office's own examination staff will conduct annual inspections and the essential findings will be available to the public. The SEC will have expanded authority to suspend the registration of agencies that consistently produce ratings without integrity. The SEC will also have more authority to sanction ratings agencies that violate the law, including managers who fail to supervise employees.

Credit rating agencies will have to comply with tough new requirements. Rating agency boards will be subject to new rules for independence. Rating analysts must work separately from those who sell the firm's services. Agencies must publicly disclose when they materially change their procedures or methodologies or make significant errors, and update their credit ratings accordingly. Agencies must establish strong internal controls for following procedures and methodologies and have these attested to by their CEO. The agencies must establish hotlines for whistleblowers and retain complaints about the firm's work for regulators to examine. Agency compliance officers must report annually to the SEC. Agencies must consider credible information they receive from sources other than the issuers in making the ratings, rather than relying only on the issuer's representations.

Investors will be empowered. Agencies must disclose their track record of ratings in a way that is comparable so that users can compare ratings for accuracy across different agencies. The agencies must disclose more about their ratings assumptions, limitations, risks, historic accuracy and factors that might lead to changes in ratings. Investors will also have access to due diligence reports prepared at the request of underwriters on asset backed securities, as well as have the benefit of having a new pleading standard when they need to file suit.

The recommendations and ideas underlying these provisions have been considered by the Banking Committee over the course of more than 3 years. The committee held hearings and received analyses from countless experts, regulators, ratings agencies, investors and other users. The provisions in this bill have been extensively vetted, improved and refined.

Regarding conflicts of interest, when I served as ranking member of the Securities Subcommittee, I worked with then-Banking Committee Chairman Shelby and others to enact legislation to control or eliminate credit rating agency conflicts of interest. Through the Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006, we added section 15E to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 so that they are controlled or eliminated if they cannot be effectively managed. It gave to the SEC the power:

to prohibit, or require the management and disclosure of, any

conflicts of interest relating to the issuance of credit

ratings by a nationally recognized statistical rating

organization, including, without limitation, conflicts of

interest relating to--

(A) the manner in which a nationally recognized statistical

rating organization is compensated by the obligor, or any

affiliate of the obligor, for issuing credit ratings or

providing related services;

(B) the provision of consulting, advisory, or other

services by a nationally recognized statistical rating

organization, or any person associated with such nationally

recognized statistical rating organization, to the obligor,

or any affiliate of the obligor;

(C) business relationships, ownership interests, or any

other financial or personal interests between a nationally

recognized statistical rating organization, or any person

associated with such nationally recognized statistical rating

organization, and the obligor, or any affiliate of the

obligor;

(D) any affiliation of a nationally recognized statistical

rating organization, or any person associated with such

nationally recognized statistical rating organization, with

any person that underwrites the securities or money market

instruments that are the subject of a credit rating; and

(E) any other potential conflict of interest, as the

Commission deems necessary or appropriate in the public

interest or for the protection of investors.

The SEC has adopted several rules under the act to address NRSRO conflicts of interest, amending those rules twice since they took effect in 2007. The first set of amendments took effect in 2009, and the second set of amendments will go live in a few weeks. Among other things, in addition to prohibiting certain conflicts of interest outright, these rules require each NRSRO--issuer-pay and subscriber- pay--to publicly disclose certain additional conflicts, as well as the policies and procedures it has adopted to address those conflicts. Pursuant to these rules, NRSROs must separate their business activities from their rating activities, so that the analysts, who operate in teams, to reduce the influence of any one person, do not negotiate, arrange or discuss fees. Commission rules designed to address the issuer-pay conflict include prohibitions on issuing credit ratings in certain circumstances, such as when: the NRSRO has received 10 percent or more of its revenue from an issuer or underwriter; the NRSRO makes recommendations on how to structure an instrument; the analyst has participated in fee negotiations with the issuer; or the analyst has received gifts from the issuer. There also is a new requirement that information provided to a hired NRSRO to rate a structured finance product be made available to any other NRSRO to allow the other NRSRO to determine an unsolicited--i.e., non-issuer-paid--credit rating.

Since these rules have been in effect for only a short time, we have yet to see their full benefits. And if more regulation is needed, the SEC has authority to go farther under the 2006 law.

During the consideration of S. 3217, amendment No. 3808 was introduced and passed to direct the SEC to set up a new credit rating agency board, which prohibits the private selection by issuers of rating agencies for initial asset-backed securities ratings and creates a system in which the board makes semi-random ratings assignments to nationally recognized statistical ratings organizations that it deems to be qualified. The intention is to eliminate negative effects of conflicts of interest in the issuer pay business model.

I applaud my colleague's goal of developing a solution to this problem of poor credit ratings. And I appreciate his devoting a tremendous amount of effort in a short period of time to craft his solution.

However, this novel approach raises many questions which have yet to be answered. While I support Senator Franken's goal, I could not vote for this amendment while many questions and uncertainties remained about the impact of this new type of ``self-regulatory organization.''

Credit ratings have a tremendous impact on the credit markets nationally and internationally. Any significant change in their preparation should be the subject of full examination before enactment. Unresolved questions raise the potential for unintended or unforeseen consequences. In addition to my own concerns, I have received communications from many interested parties, such as a letter from the Investment Company Institute that I will ask to be printed in the Record.

Let me identify some of the questions that, it seems to me, exist with respect to the board and its operations:

Will the board's semi-random assignment of ratings work cause the rating agencies to lose their incentive to do a superior job, which otherwise might get them more initial ratings business?

Will the ``reasonable'' fees that the legislation directs the SEC to set for QNRSROs to charge issuers generate sufficient revenues for rating agencies of different types of securities to perform the quality of ratings they would like? In this connection, a technical question, what standards should the SEC use to determine the fees--a ``reasonable'' return on capital? prices comparable to other ratings agencies? sufficient to hire staff at compensation levels comparable to other businesses or to Federal regulatory agencies?

How many of the 10 nationally recognized statistical rating agencies are expected to register as ``qualified nationally recognized statistical ratings organizations''? Will the registrants be sufficient to make the board meaningful? Will some ratings agencies choose not to register with the board, to avoid board assessments, costs, regulatory burden or for other reasons, and would this affect the quality of ratings? Will some smaller rating agencies not register because they are unable to meet the board's qualification standards? I understand that after the passage of the amendment, one of the NRSROs has deregistered from providing ratings on asset-backed securities.

The amendment uses an issuer-pay business model. How would the amendment affect the rating agencies that use a different business model, such as a subscriber pay model, and want to provide ratings on asset backed securities?

What will be the costs of operating the new board? The legislation authorizes the board to assess QNRSROs, and how much is the board expected to assess the QNRSROs to cover its budget? How much would it add to the current cost of ratings? What is the expected budget of a board that must hire financial experts who evaluate rating agencies' qualities, institutional and technical capacity and performance and implement systems that can make ratings assignments to QNRSROs on potentially hundreds of thousands of securities in a timely fashion?

How many different categories of securities are expected to be rated and how many rating agencies are expected to be qualified to rate each type? If only two agencies have the capacity or experience to rate some complex types of securities, and an issuer wants two ratings, what will be the purpose of the SRO randomly choosing a rating agency?

How will the board attract, afford and retain top experts who would be needed to perform its statutory mandates to assess the effectiveness of ratings methodologies and assess the accuracy of ratings?

The board would be given substantial powers such as rulemaking authority over NRSROs, allocating business to NRSROs or rejecting an NRSRO's ability to obtain business. Is it certain that the board's establishment and exercise of authority are consistent with the Constitution?

The legislation states that the board will be a ``self-regulatory organization.'' What will be the impact on the new board on the numerous statutory and regulatory restrictions and obligations in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 affecting ``self-regulatory organizations''?

What will be the interaction of the legislation's mandate that the board assess the accuracy of the credit ratings provided by QNRSROs and the ``effectiveness of the methodologies used by'' QNRSROs and the existing Federal law that states the SEC may not ``regulate the substance of credit ratings or the procedures and methodologies by

which any nationally recognized statistical rating organization determines credit ratings''?

In this legislation, the Federal Government will obligate one private party to deal with another private party of the government's choosing in a private business transaction. Does this raise any potential legal questions?

It is my understanding that beginning in June, all NRSROs will also have to publish a history of their rating actions since the NRSRO regulatory regime was instituted in June of 2007. When enough data becomes available, issuers can see which NRSRO's ratings were more reliable. Would the board be expected to be better able to identify better QNRSROs than issuers who examine this data on their own?

These are some of the questions that existed at the time of the vote. While I am sure these questions will be fully addressed in the months and years ahead, and hope that the board is successful, these questions are significant and created uncertainty, with the potential for significant unintended consequences. Accordingly, I felt it inappropriate as chairman of the Banking Committee to support the amendment.

Amendment No. 3774, which the Senate passed, removes provisions in banking and securities statutes that use credit ratings of NRSROs to distinguish the creditworthiness of obligors or debt instruments and would replace these provisions with standards promulgated by banking agencies--in the case of the banking statutes--and the SEC--in the case of securities statutes.

I agree with the intent of the provision to reduce investor reliance on NRSRO ratings in making investment decisions. However, I feel that it is unwise to eliminate all of these statutory requirements without a prior study of the consequences. Therefore, I voted against this provision.

I think it more prudent to carefully study this matter and remove ratings that are found to be unnecessary. This is why I included in S. 3217 passed by the Banking Committee a required 2-year GAO study to examine the scope of provisions in Federal and State law as to the necessity and purposes of NRSRO ratings requirement; which requirements could be removed with minimal disruption to the financial markets; the potential impacts on the financial markets and on investors if the rating requirements were rescinded; and whether the financial markets and investors could benefit from the removal of such requirements. This would be followed by reviews by the Federal financial regulators of all regulations requiring the use of an assessment of a security, requirements related to credit ratings and alternative standards of creditworthiness that are based on market-generated indicators. The bill required each agency to modify references to credit ratings in their regulations and, when removed, to use an appropriate standard of creditworthiness not related to credit ratings, if possible and consistent with the statute or the public interest. This seems to me the more appropriate way to improve the ratings situation while taking appropriate steps to avoid unforeseen and unintended consequences.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from the Investment Company Institute to which I referred.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on May 19, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2010, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``After the Earthquake: Empowering Haiti to Rebuild Better.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The History and Lessons of START.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room SD-266 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Renewing America's Commitment to the Refugee Convention: The Refugee Protection Act of 2010.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2010, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the Filibuster: The Filibuster Today and Its Consequences.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2010, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Confirmation Hearing of Marie Annettee Collins Johns to be the Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2010, at 11 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The SBA Disaster Assistance Program and the Impact of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on Small Businesses.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2010. The Committee will meet in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing on on May 19, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 364, S. 920.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment be considered; that a Carper-Collins amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the committee substitute, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 534, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.