Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to speak about the untimely passing of a giant--a giant in the hearts of the Sudanese people but also a literal giant. At 7 foot 7 inches, Manute Bol was a hero in his native home of Sudan, not for the fact alone that he was a pro basketball player in the United States or that he killed a lion with a spear while working as a cow

herder--no, Manute was a hero because of his advocacy for his fellow countrymen, a true humanitarian.

Manute began his NBA career in Washington in 1985, when he was drafted in the second round by the Washington Bullets. That year, Manute set the NBA rookie record with a total of 397 blocks. He continued to break shot-blocking records throughout his career and is the only player in NBA history to block more shots than points scored.

Manute coined the idiom or the phrase ``my bad,'' which quickly became the standard for those players owning up to their own errors on the court. ``My bad.'' To own up to one's own mistakes is a true measure of one's character, and it is no surprise that Manute leaves this legacy to the NBA.

Manute had a gentle nature and unmistakable humor. He was also a Christian, and his faith guided his advocacy for his fellow Sudanese brothers and sisters.

Manute was the son of a Dinka tribal chief and was given the name ``Manute,'' which means ``special blessing.'' He was, indeed, special, and what made him special was not his height but his heart. Manute often returned to Sudan to visit refugee camps, and he subsequently created the Ring True Foundation to assist those less fortunate than himself.

Manute moved to Olathe, KS, in 2007 to be closer to his family and continue his advocacy for Sudan as a spokesman for a Kansas-based nonprofit, Sudan Sunrise, which raises money to build schools and churches in Sudan. In 2006, Manute participated in the Sudan Freedom Work, a 3-week march from the U.N. building in New York to the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. He was admitted to the United States as a religious refugee, and in his final years in Kansas, Manute was working on a project to have Christians and Muslims work together to build a school in his hometown of Turlie, Sudan.

The world needs more Manute Bols--individuals who dedicate their lives to others. Our thoughts and prayers go out to Manute's family, friends, and the people of Sudan.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for this discussion we are having. I was here when the Congressional Review Act was put into place for the very purpose it is being used for, which is when we have a Federal agency that overreaches and seeks to put in place a regulation that will cost tens of billions of dollars, without any legislative action taking place, the Congress should step in. That is what the Congress is seeking to do with this--step in on something that has enormous economic consequences, enormous costs across society, and yet has not been voted on by this legislative body.

Clearly, if we are going to do something of this nature, it should pass the Senate. It should come up in front of this body.

Toward that end, I tell my colleagues we have a bipartisan energy bill that passed through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009, which Chairman Bingaman worked through his committee over a month's period of time, that has a number of issues regarding renewable energy, regarding nuclear technology, to reduce CO2 emissions. Lots of things are in it. It passed in a bipartisan way through committee.

That is what we ought to bring up on the Senate floor. We should pass the Murkowski disapproval resolution so that EPA doesn't act prematurely before the Congress acts. We should bring up the bipartisan American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009, consider it, and use that as the route forward for us as a legislative body to act on a major issue facing our country, without having it done by fiat by an unelected bureaucracy, which is going to make people mad, and it will have a lot of costs.

In my State, Kansas City has a board of public utilities. If we put these costs on their electric generation, which is mostly out of coal, they are going to see their utility rates go up from the mid-20 percent to 50-some percent in less than a decade's period of time. Is that going to happen without any vote of this legislative body? We are going to see people's utilities rates go up possibly 50 percent with no vote taking place?

I think people would say we need to have a clear deliberation of this body. Also on this point, the way we have solved problems of this nature and magnitude in the past is through investment and innovation, not through taxes and regulation. It is us saying let's figure different ways forward to deal with this rather than let's tax people and regulate people more and drive up their costs.

A year and a half ago, we had the first hydrogen fuel cell locomotive roll down the tracks in Topeka, KS, done by BNSF, the Army, and several other groups. It is replacing a diesel. It is a test unit. But that investment and innovation by BNSF, which uses 5 percent of the diesel fuel in the country, that is the way you move forward rather than raise utility rates for people in Kansas City by 50 percent.

It is also a way that we as the American people have been most successful--investment and innovation--when people look at a better way for us to move forward, which is cost effective, and the American people embrace it if it works well. If it is, people will embrace it. They are delighted to do that. If we go the other route and say we are not going to do that through investment and innovation, we are going to do it through taxes and regulation and raise utility rates 50 percent, people are going to be flaming mad about that, and it is being done by an unelected bureaucracy to pursue that.

It would not work and it would not be accepted by the American public. It is not the way we have moved forward as a society. It would not be us leading in the world. It will be us following on, yet again-- when somebody says you have to go by taxes and regulation, we say, OK, we will do it. That is not the American way. It is through investment and innovation. We have done it in the past. We can do it now, and we can have Congress's role in this on supporting a renewable energy standard, which is one way, where we get more energy from wind, nuclear, and a bipartisan bill that has already been produced. That is an acceptable way, the way the American public can embrace--not this route which raises taxes and regulation and will not be accepted by the American public.

I urge my colleagues to support the Murkowski resolution of disapproval and reject the EPA's endangerment finding and take up the bipartisan Energy bill that is cleared through the Bingaman committee for us to consider on renewable energy.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, under the previous agreement, I call up a motion to instruct conferees that I have at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I wanted the clerk to read the full motion to instruct conferees so my colleagues could understand the simplicity and directness of this motion. It is a very simple motion to instruct conferees to recede to the House position in regard to auto dealers in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The House considered this in committee, and two-thirds of the committee members-- half the Democrats, all the Republicans--voted to exclude the retail auto dealers from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That is the way they voted. It came up

on the House floor, and it was defeated as far as to put the auto dealers in the regulatory process, so it was excluded in the House-- full consideration at the committee; at the full House level, excluded.

What we are asking, now that this bill has passed, is in the motion to instruct our conferees, the Senate conferees, in going with the financial regulatory reform bill, to recede to the House position regarding the auto dealers.

I think this is a good motion to instruct conferees. I think it is something we ought to do. I think it is something that will be very helpful. I make this simple point to my colleagues: Under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 100 percent of all auto loans will still be covered. If you vote for the Brownback instruction, if we recede to the House position, 100 percent of the auto loans will still be covered. We are saying in this, and the House position says: If you actually loan the money--if you are GMAC, if you are some other financiers up the street, you are under the CFPB. If you are simply the retail storefront, which is what the auto dealers are, you are not covered under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. You are not covered if you are just the storefront arm of this, but 100 percent of the loans are covered.

If you are an auto dealer and you make the actual loan yourself and it is your money you are lending, you are covered under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. If you are simply the storefront operation out here doing this, you are not covered.

The auto dealers are asking for this. They do not want the additional cost and burden of this regulation on them. They are the quintessential Main Street business throughout the country. There is not a single auto dealer on Wall Street--none of them, not one. You can go up there today and try to buy a car and you cannot get one.

These are Main Street businesses, and they took it on the chin last year. We lost, last year alone, 1,700 dealerships across America resulting in the loss of approximately 88,000 jobs. Why would we want to put a duplicative set of regulations on top of them that are already covered upstream and they have already had these sorts of losses and difficulties in a Main Street business?

We need people to create 88,000 jobs, not to eliminate or lose 88,000 jobs. Franchised auto dealers are the retail outlets. They are the storefronts that process the paperwork for various well-known brands with large financial arms. Under the House provision that my motion instructs us to recede to, these financial arms would still be regulated, but the dealers who process the paperwork would not.

Additionally, even if my motion is agreed to, auto dealers would still be regulated by the FTC and various State laws, so consumers would still have protections to ensure the truth in lending still applies.

In fact, I have a couple of pages here of regs--excuse me, of regulatory entities that auto dealers still apply to. I ask unanimous consent this list be printed at the conclusion of my comments.

I want to also point out what typically happens. This is a letter I am going to read from the Dale Willey auto dealership in Kansas. Dale Willey, the auto dealership in Kansas, said this about the financing that happens. I am reading from this:

Each month we have 3 to 5 buyers who tell our financial

service members--

There are three to five people coming in, telling our financial service managers:

if our dealership can match or beat their bank's or credit

union's interest rate, they will then finance through our

dealership. To match the buyer's offer of rate terms simply

provides a convenience to our buyers. To offer a better term

and/or at a better rate enhances the buyer's savings by doing

business with our dealership.

In other words, this is a competitive situation that typically people go into.

I will read again from the letter:

We have buyers also who are unable to secure a loan through

their normal bank, credit union or lender, and yet we are

able to submit the buyer's application to several of our

lenders with which we have agreements, discovering that one

or more are willing to make these loans to this buyer. Not

only does this provide a convenience to the buyer, but it

truly allows the buyer to secure a better level and lower

operating cost vehicle than provided by their older current

vehicle.

This is a competitive situation. It also positions people so that sometimes they are able to get loans they could not get on their own.

I want to address as well another situation that has come up in this debate that people have raised: that this protection is needed for military personnel in particular. A couple of weeks ago the Senate adopted an amendment offered by Senator Reed of Rhode Island and Brown of Massachusetts that creates the Office of Service Member Affairs at the CFPB.

My motion that we are voting on today, instructs the current regulatory authorities to work with this office when they detect abuses by auto dealers. So we are saying, if you detect an abuse by auto dealers, then this should be worked on particularly by the CFPB and this office of servicemember affairs.

I recently received a letter from the Under Secretary of the Army for Personnel and Readiness, Clifford Stanley. In it he writes this:

DOD would welcome and encourage CFPA protection for

servicemembers and their families with regard to unscrupulous

automobile sales and financing practices, provided such

protections would not limit access to legitimate products.

That is exactly what motion does. Military personnel would have strong protections by the CFPB but without the adverse effect of limiting their access to credit. If you want to protect the military and maintain all their options for buying a car, you should vote in favor of this motion.

I point out these matters because there has been a lot of discussion and debate going on about the auto dealers amendment throughout the proceedings of this entire bill, which has gone on for some period of time. This makes sense to do this the way the House did it. It makes sense for us to move forward with this motion to recede to the House position.

The House has established this position. They have thought it through, and 100 percent of auto loans will still be covered. It is just the auto dealership will not be the one that is covered, the upstream financer will, unless the auto dealership is loaning their own money, and then they will be covered.

If you are concerned about military personnel, there is a particular direction in here regarding military personnel. Again, any loans are covered. It is the upstream position that is covered, and it is where it should be. That is the actual person or group that is making the loan. That is the one that should be covered.

Instead of putting an additional burden on dealerships that have already lost lots of jobs, we are saying: No, let us recede to the House position.

I reserve the remainder of my time. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Brownback motion to recede to the House position.

Exhibit 1

Legal & Regulatory Group, National Automobile Dealers

Association, McLean, VA.

Federal Consumer Protection Regulations Applicable to Automobile

Dealers' Financial Operations

1. Anti-Discrimination

a. Equal Credit Opportunity Act--Federal Reserve Board

(FRB) Reg B

Prohibits creditors from engaging in discriminatory

practices against credit applicants; establishes guidelines

for gathering, evaluating, and retaining credit information;

and requires written notification when credit is denied.

b. Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)--Medical Information

Rule (FRB Reg FF)

Generally prohibits creditors from obtaining and using

medical information when determining an applicant's

eligibility for credit; also restricts sharing medical

information with affiliates.

2. Unfair & Deceptive Acts or Practices

a. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act--FTC Credit Practices

Rule

Requires creditors to provide written disclosures to

cosigners before they sign a retail installment sales

contract; also prohibits unfair credit practices, deceptive

cosigner practices, and pyramiding late charges.

b. FTC Act--Unfair & Deceptive Acts & Practices

Generally prohibits businesses from engaging in unfair or

deceptive acts or practices.

3. Credit Disclosures

a. Truth In Lending Act (FRB Reg Z)

Imposes disclosure, advertising, and other requirements on

consumer credit sales.

b. Federal Consumer Leasing Act (FRB Reg M)

Imposes disclosure, advertising, and other requirements on

consumer leasing.

4. Financial Privacy

a. FCRA--Obtaining Credit Reports

Requires that businesses have and certify a permissible

purpose to obtain a consumer's credit report and imposes

restrictions on a creditor's ability to purchase prescreened

lists of customers from consumer reporting agencies for

credit solicitation purposes.

b. FCRA--FTC Prescreen Opt-Out Disclosure Rule

Requires that creditors provide prescreened customers to

whom they send credit solicitations with a long and short

form notice with instructions on how to opt-out of future

prescreened solicitations from creditors.

c. FCRA--Affiliate Information Sharing

Restricts the disclosure of credit report information.

d. FCRA--FTC Affiliate Marketing Rule

Restricts using credit report information to market to the

customers of an affiliate.

e. Gramm Leach Bliley Act (GLB)--FTC Privacy Rule

Requires financial institutions to provide finance and

lease customers with a notice that accurately describes the

institution's privacy policy and restricts the disclosure of

customers' personal information.

5. Accuracy of Credit Reports

a. FCRA--FTC Address Discrepancy Rule

Requires users of credit reports to develop procedures to

ensure that credit reports ordered from consumer reporting

agencies that contain a ``Notice of Address Discrepancy''

pertain to the correct customer.

b. FCRA--Adverse Action Notices

Requires users of credit reports to notify customers in

writing when adverse action is taken against them based in

whole or in part on information contained in a credit report.

c. FCRA--Risk-based Pricing Notices

Requires users or credit reports to notify customers in

writing when they obtain credit on unfavorable credit terms

(relative to the user's other credit customers).

6. Identity Theft

a. GLB Act--FTC Safeguards Rule

Requires financial institutions to develop a comprehensive

written program to protect their customer information.

b. FCRA--FTC Disposal Rule

Requires users of credit reports to develop procedures to

properly dispose of credit report information.

c. FCRA--FTC Red Flags Rule

Requires creditors and financial institutions to develop a

written program that contains procedures to identify, detect,

and respond to ``red flags'' indicating the possibility of

identity theft.

d. FCRA--Fraud & Active Duty Alerts

Requires users of credit reports who receive a fraud or

active duty alert on a credit report to develop procedures to

verify the customer's identity before extending credit to the

customer.

e. FCRA--Credit & Debit Card Truncation

Requires persons to truncate the expiration date and all

but the last 5 numbers on electronically printed credit and

debit card receipts given to cardholders at the point of

sale.

Mr. President, well, if this motion to instruct did what Senator Dodd had suggested, I would probably vote against it as well. It does not.

I appreciate my colleague from Connecticut, who is obviously a great persuader, does a great job, and whom I share a great friendship with and great admiration for and who has served this body very well.

The problem is, if we have three places sitting here--we have a community banker, we have a credit union, and we have an auto dealer-- all three are still covered. They are all three still covered if they make the loan. If they originate, if they make the loan, they put the money out there, all three are covered.

What we are saying in this motion is, if it is your money that you are loaning, you are covered. But if you are simply writing paper or trying to help someone upstream and options for the person who is coming in and you are saying: We have option A, B or C, from this credit union, from that bank or from GMAC, whichever it may be, they are not covered.

The authors of the bill want to put belts and suspenders on auto financing. Why would we double regulate in this particular area when we are already going to have the cost and the burden of doing it? And on top of all that, we already have a set of regulations in this field.

My colleague talked about yo-yo and bait-and-switch financing. They are illegal at the State level now. State attorneys general are going after these people now, and they should, particularly if it targets military personnel. That person who walks into a dealership in my State or some other State

will be covered by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It is going to be at an upstream location, but it is covered. One hundred percent of them are covered. Why would we put this extra cost and expense on the retail operation that is not loaning the money? They are not doing this.

If my colleagues are concerned about this area, do this. If they are concerned about having overregulation and overreach by Washington, support my motion. The loan is still covered, and we are not having this double coverage of belts and suspenders on auto loans that is going to hurt the ability of people to get loans, and it is going to drive up the cost of auto financing. It is going to hurt Main Street businesses that we lost 1,700 of last year and that lost us 88,000 jobs. I thought this bill was targeted at Wall Street, not at Main Street where we didn't have this problem going on. We haven't had this problem within auto loans as far as causing the financial meltdown. The regulation is already there. The regulation will be there. This extra regulation is not needed.

I ask my colleagues to support Main Street on this one. Support the local auto dealers out there, those who are working with the community, trying to help the community thrive and survive, instead of putting a double dose of regulation on top of them that is going to hurt the business, hurt auto sales, hurt financing opportunities.

I urge support for the Brownback motion.

Madam 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, under the previous agreement, I call up a motion to instruct conferees that I have at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I wanted the clerk to read the full motion to instruct conferees so my colleagues could understand the simplicity and directness of this motion. It is a very simple motion to instruct conferees to recede to the House position in regard to auto dealers in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The House considered this in committee, and two-thirds of the committee members-- half the Democrats, all the Republicans--voted to exclude the retail auto dealers from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That is the way they voted. It came up

on the House floor, and it was defeated as far as to put the auto dealers in the regulatory process, so it was excluded in the House-- full consideration at the committee; at the full House level, excluded.

What we are asking, now that this bill has passed, is in the motion to instruct our conferees, the Senate conferees, in going with the financial regulatory reform bill, to recede to the House position regarding the auto dealers.

I think this is a good motion to instruct conferees. I think it is something we ought to do. I think it is something that will be very helpful. I make this simple point to my colleagues: Under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 100 percent of all auto loans will still be covered. If you vote for the Brownback instruction, if we recede to the House position, 100 percent of the auto loans will still be covered. We are saying in this, and the House position says: If you actually loan the money--if you are GMAC, if you are some other financiers up the street, you are under the CFPB. If you are simply the retail storefront, which is what the auto dealers are, you are not covered under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. You are not covered if you are just the storefront arm of this, but 100 percent of the loans are covered.

If you are an auto dealer and you make the actual loan yourself and it is your money you are lending, you are covered under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. If you are simply the storefront operation out here doing this, you are not covered.

The auto dealers are asking for this. They do not want the additional cost and burden of this regulation on them. They are the quintessential Main Street business throughout the country. There is not a single auto dealer on Wall Street--none of them, not one. You can go up there today and try to buy a car and you cannot get one.

These are Main Street businesses, and they took it on the chin last year. We lost, last year alone, 1,700 dealerships across America resulting in the loss of approximately 88,000 jobs. Why would we want to put a duplicative set of regulations on top of them that are already covered upstream and they have already had these sorts of losses and difficulties in a Main Street business?

We need people to create 88,000 jobs, not to eliminate or lose 88,000 jobs. Franchised auto dealers are the retail outlets. They are the storefronts that process the paperwork for various well-known brands with large financial arms. Under the House provision that my motion instructs us to recede to, these financial arms would still be regulated, but the dealers who process the paperwork would not.

Additionally, even if my motion is agreed to, auto dealers would still be regulated by the FTC and various State laws, so consumers would still have protections to ensure the truth in lending still applies.

In fact, I have a couple of pages here of regs--excuse me, of regulatory entities that auto dealers still apply to. I ask unanimous consent this list be printed at the conclusion of my comments.

I want to also point out what typically happens. This is a letter I am going to read from the Dale Willey auto dealership in Kansas. Dale Willey, the auto dealership in Kansas, said this about the financing that happens. I am reading from this:

Each month we have 3 to 5 buyers who tell our financial

service members--

There are three to five people coming in, telling our financial service managers:

if our dealership can match or beat their bank's or credit

union's interest rate, they will then finance through our

dealership. To match the buyer's offer of rate terms simply

provides a convenience to our buyers. To offer a better term

and/or at a better rate enhances the buyer's savings by doing

business with our dealership.

In other words, this is a competitive situation that typically people go into.

I will read again from the letter:

We have buyers also who are unable to secure a loan through

their normal bank, credit union or lender, and yet we are

able to submit the buyer's application to several of our

lenders with which we have agreements, discovering that one

or more are willing to make these loans to this buyer. Not

only does this provide a convenience to the buyer, but it

truly allows the buyer to secure a better level and lower

operating cost vehicle than provided by their older current

vehicle.

This is a competitive situation. It also positions people so that sometimes they are able to get loans they could not get on their own.

I want to address as well another situation that has come up in this debate that people have raised: that this protection is needed for military personnel in particular. A couple of weeks ago the Senate adopted an amendment offered by Senator Reed of Rhode Island and Brown of Massachusetts that creates the Office of Service Member Affairs at the CFPB.

My motion that we are voting on today, instructs the current regulatory authorities to work with this office when they detect abuses by auto dealers. So we are saying, if you detect an abuse by auto dealers, then this should be worked on particularly by the CFPB and this office of servicemember affairs.

I recently received a letter from the Under Secretary of the Army for Personnel and Readiness, Clifford Stanley. In it he writes this:

DOD would welcome and encourage CFPA protection for

servicemembers and their families with regard to unscrupulous

automobile sales and financing practices, provided such

protections would not limit access to legitimate products.

That is exactly what motion does. Military personnel would have strong protections by the CFPB but without the adverse effect of limiting their access to credit. If you want to protect the military and maintain all their options for buying a car, you should vote in favor of this motion.

I point out these matters because there has been a lot of discussion and debate going on about the auto dealers amendment throughout the proceedings of this entire bill, which has gone on for some period of time. This makes sense to do this the way the House did it. It makes sense for us to move forward with this motion to recede to the House position.

The House has established this position. They have thought it through, and 100 percent of auto loans will still be covered. It is just the auto dealership will not be the one that is covered, the upstream financer will, unless the auto dealership is loaning their own money, and then they will be covered.

If you are concerned about military personnel, there is a particular direction in here regarding military personnel. Again, any loans are covered. It is the upstream position that is covered, and it is where it should be. That is the actual person or group that is making the loan. That is the one that should be covered.

Instead of putting an additional burden on dealerships that have already lost lots of jobs, we are saying: No, let us recede to the House position.

I reserve the remainder of my time. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Brownback motion to recede to the House position.

Exhibit 1

Legal & Regulatory Group, National Automobile Dealers

Association, McLean, VA.

Federal Consumer Protection Regulations Applicable to Automobile

Dealers' Financial Operations

1. Anti-Discrimination

a. Equal Credit Opportunity Act--Federal Reserve Board

(FRB) Reg B

Prohibits creditors from engaging in discriminatory

practices against credit applicants; establishes guidelines

for gathering, evaluating, and retaining credit information;

and requires written notification when credit is denied.

b. Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)--Medical Information

Rule (FRB Reg FF)

Generally prohibits creditors from obtaining and using

medical information when determining an applicant's

eligibility for credit; also restricts sharing medical

information with affiliates.

2. Unfair & Deceptive Acts or Practices

a. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act--FTC Credit Practices

Rule

Requires creditors to provide written disclosures to

cosigners before they sign a retail installment sales

contract; also prohibits unfair credit practices, deceptive

cosigner practices, and pyramiding late charges.

b. FTC Act--Unfair & Deceptive Acts & Practices

Generally prohibits businesses from engaging in unfair or

deceptive acts or practices.

3. Credit Disclosures

a. Truth In Lending Act (FRB Reg Z)

Imposes disclosure, advertising, and other requirements on

consumer credit sales.

b. Federal Consumer Leasing Act (FRB Reg M)

Imposes disclosure, advertising, and other requirements on

consumer leasing.

4. Financial Privacy

a. FCRA--Obtaining Credit Reports

Requires that businesses have and certify a permissible

purpose to obtain a consumer's credit report and imposes

restrictions on a creditor's ability to purchase prescreened

lists of customers from consumer reporting agencies for

credit solicitation purposes.

b. FCRA--FTC Prescreen Opt-Out Disclosure Rule

Requires that creditors provide prescreened customers to

whom they send credit solicitations with a long and short

form notice with instructions on how to opt-out of future

prescreened solicitations from creditors.

c. FCRA--Affiliate Information Sharing

Restricts the disclosure of credit report information.

d. FCRA--FTC Affiliate Marketing Rule

Restricts using credit report information to market to the

customers of an affiliate.

e. Gramm Leach Bliley Act (GLB)--FTC Privacy Rule

Requires financial institutions to provide finance and

lease customers with a notice that accurately describes the

institution's privacy policy and restricts the disclosure of

customers' personal information.

5. Accuracy of Credit Reports

a. FCRA--FTC Address Discrepancy Rule

Requires users of credit reports to develop procedures to

ensure that credit reports ordered from consumer reporting

agencies that contain a ``Notice of Address Discrepancy''

pertain to the correct customer.

b. FCRA--Adverse Action Notices

Requires users of credit reports to notify customers in

writing when adverse action is taken against them based in

whole or in part on information contained in a credit report.

c. FCRA--Risk-based Pricing Notices

Requires users or credit reports to notify customers in

writing when they obtain credit on unfavorable credit terms

(relative to the user's other credit customers).

6. Identity Theft

a. GLB Act--FTC Safeguards Rule

Requires financial institutions to develop a comprehensive

written program to protect their customer information.

b. FCRA--FTC Disposal Rule

Requires users of credit reports to develop procedures to

properly dispose of credit report information.

c. FCRA--FTC Red Flags Rule

Requires creditors and financial institutions to develop a

written program that contains procedures to identify, detect,

and respond to ``red flags'' indicating the possibility of

identity theft.

d. FCRA--Fraud & Active Duty Alerts

Requires users of credit reports who receive a fraud or

active duty alert on a credit report to develop procedures to

verify the customer's identity before extending credit to the

customer.

e. FCRA--Credit & Debit Card Truncation

Requires persons to truncate the expiration date and all

but the last 5 numbers on electronically printed credit and

debit card receipts given to cardholders at the point of

sale.

Mr. President, well, if this motion to instruct did what Senator Dodd had suggested, I would probably vote against it as well. It does not.

I appreciate my colleague from Connecticut, who is obviously a great persuader, does a great job, and whom I share a great friendship with and great admiration for and who has served this body very well.

The problem is, if we have three places sitting here--we have a community banker, we have a credit union, and we have an auto dealer-- all three are still covered. They are all three still covered if they make the loan. If they originate, if they make the loan, they put the money out there, all three are covered.

What we are saying in this motion is, if it is your money that you are loaning, you are covered. But if you are simply writing paper or trying to help someone upstream and options for the person who is coming in and you are saying: We have option A, B or C, from this credit union, from that bank or from GMAC, whichever it may be, they are not covered.

The authors of the bill want to put belts and suspenders on auto financing. Why would we double regulate in this particular area when we are already going to have the cost and the burden of doing it? And on top of all that, we already have a set of regulations in this field.

My colleague talked about yo-yo and bait-and-switch financing. They are illegal at the State level now. State attorneys general are going after these people now, and they should, particularly if it targets military personnel. That person who walks into a dealership in my State or some other State

will be covered by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It is going to be at an upstream location, but it is covered. One hundred percent of them are covered. Why would we put this extra cost and expense on the retail operation that is not loaning the money? They are not doing this.

If my colleagues are concerned about this area, do this. If they are concerned about having overregulation and overreach by Washington, support my motion. The loan is still covered, and we are not having this double coverage of belts and suspenders on auto loans that is going to hurt the ability of people to get loans, and it is going to drive up the cost of auto financing. It is going to hurt Main Street businesses that we lost 1,700 of last year and that lost us 88,000 jobs. I thought this bill was targeted at Wall Street, not at Main Street where we didn't have this problem going on. We haven't had this problem within auto loans as far as causing the financial meltdown. The regulation is already there. The regulation will be there. This extra regulation is not needed.

I ask my colleagues to support Main Street on this one. Support the local auto dealers out there, those who are working with the community, trying to help the community thrive and survive, instead of putting a double dose of regulation on top of them that is going to hurt the business, hurt auto sales, hurt financing opportunities.

I urge support for the Brownback motion.

Madam 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 ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside and my amendment No. 3997 be called up.

The Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Illinois are the cosponsors on this one.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

This is an issue that has been around for several years. It is on Congo conflict commodities. It is a narrow SEC reporting requirement. As I understand, both sides have cleared it. I would ask, if possible, if we can get it up for a voice vote. I certainly want to go with the timeframes of the manager and be cognizant of the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the Bond amendment.

Mr. President, I call up in the regular order my amendment No. 3789 and send a modification to the desk.

Mr. President, I am not going to talk on this amendment now. This is the amendment about the auto dealers and that they only be regulated at one time and at one place. That is what we are trying to get to.

I hope we can get to a majority vote on this amendment. I think that would be appropriate. It is a major issue, and I look forward to, at some point in time, when we are considering this bill, having a vote on it with a majority, not a supermajority, requirement.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, as I understand, we had an agreement I was going to call up an amendment and then it could be set aside, just to get it pending.

With that, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside and that amendment No. 3789 be called up as the pending business.

Mr. President, I send a modification to my amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside and that amendment No. 3883, on behalf of Senator Snowe, be called up as the pending business.

I want to thank my colleagues for getting these amendments pending. I would note that the amendment I called up is the one to exempt auto dealers from the consumer financial products commission created in this bill.

These are auto loans already covered under the bill by whoever is doing the financing. If the auto dealers themselves are doing the financing, then they would be covered under the consumer financial products commission.

What this amendment attempts to do is say, let's regulate auto loans, but let's regulate them by who is doing the loan, not just who is processing the paper.

It would be my hope that we would get the broad bipartisan support of my colleagues. We do have bipartisan support for this amendment. I will look forward to a full debate on it tomorrow. But in the interest of time this evening I will not be talking further on it.

I am happy to enter into a time agreement with the managers on this tomorrow to debate and get this amendment for a vote tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to thank my colleagues, Senators Sanders and DeMint, for putting forward, bringing this amendment to the floor. I am a cosponsor of this amendment, along with several of my other colleagues.

I would say as well to my colleague from Vermont, my colleague from South Carolina, and others who are sponsors, this is an issue I hear a lot about when I am traveling around my State, which is often. When I am traveling around and listening to people, this is something people are concerned about. They are concerned about the monetary policy. They are concerned about the money system. They are concerned.

I would note to people, and to my colleagues in particular, that the Congress created the Fed, the Fed didn't create the Congress. So the Congress does have control over this issue, and I think we need to look at it and say: Let's look at what is appropriate and what is proper. And this is clearly one piece of it.

I think the Fed has done a number of things quite well and quite right. Yet I don't see any problem whatsoever with having a simple audit; that that is going to somehow reveal the genie in the bottle and let out all of these secrets that are going to be harmful to the development of monetary policy. There seems to me to be a fair amount of overstatement on the other side of the terrible damage this audit would do. That does not seem right to me. It does not seem right to my constituents. My constituents look at this and say: Well, I do not want to harm the development of monetary policy. I want it to be wise and good and sound. But I do not see how it is harmed by an audit of an entity that is created by the government, that is created by the Congress. So why shouldn't we do something like this?

That is why I think this is a prudent amendment. It is a good commonsense amendment, and I think it will be well received by the constituents of this great country who I think are pretty wise on these and other decisions; that as we go around, if we will listen to what people are saying, I think there is a lot of wisdom in that. They are saying we ought to know more about what is taking place in the Fed.

I know we would all like to move forward on financial regulatory reform legislation. I have some serious problems in this bill. I think the consumer financial product piece shouldn't penalize auto dealers and orthodontists and others who did not cause any of these problems.

So I have an amendment. I have other amendments I am a part of as well, along with this one, that I think we need to consider before we move on forward, even though I have some problem with the basis of the bill. I think it hits more Main Street than it does Wall Street. The difficulty is that we just have different ideas and beliefs about the best way to move forward, and that is normal.

This amendment is not just about the choices, though, that we have on reforming the financial sector. I believe it gets to the heart of a more fundamental issue: what the American people have a right to expect and know from their governmental institutions.

The fact that this amendment is brought forward by the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, and the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint, two Members who could not be further apart on the ideological spectrum, should be a sufficient warning and measure to make everyone sit up and take notice of what it is that is here that is so troubling.

This amendment isn't about whether the legislation will put an end to taxpayer-backed bailouts. It isn't about whether the legislation will end too big to fail. It isn't even about how to best protect the American people and taxpayer dollars. It is about something I believe is even more fundamental: the accountability of governmental institutions to the people of the United States and to the Congress.

I think it is important, as I stated, to remember--I want to state this again--one single fundamental reality in this debate: Congress created the Federal Reserve, not the other way around. We created the Federal Reserve System to serve the interests of the citizens of this Nation, not to serve the interests of large financial institutions.

In establishing the Federal Reserve, Congress recognized the importance of a central bank that could operate with independence to ensure the orderly functioning of the banking systems and to maintain price stability. That is the core function of the Fed. More recently, the Federal Reserve mandate was expanded to charge them with maintaining price stability and maximum employment. That was an expansion piece that was added.

The Government Accountability Office is also a creation of Congress. GAO is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. What is GAO's mission? GAO's mission is to support the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the Federal Government for the benefit of the American people.

In my view, the real issue here is whether you believe the Congress has the right to ask GAO--in many respects, our auditor--to review actions and activities of an institution that we, the Congress, created.

I certainly understand the importance of the Federal Reserve's independence in the execution of monetary policy. I understand and I support that. I understand the importance of not interfering with the operation of the FOMC. That is not what this amendment is attempting to do. That is not my intention. I am confident, as well, it is not the intention of the main sponsors of this amendment. But I do believe it is relevant to know whether the Federal Reserve is operating in a manner that is consistent with its statutory authority. It is relevant to know whether the Federal Reserve is following its own established rules and procedures or whether it is just making it up as it goes along. I do think it is relevant for Congress to know who was involved in decisions to take extraordinary measures by exercising emergency powers, as well as who was and was not consulted before those actions were taken. Those are prudent and proper things for us to know.

I think it is equally important to know whether the policy statements and subsequent minutes of FOMC meetings accurately reflect what went on in those meetings.

Recent news reports surrounding the release of transcripts from 2004 meetings of the Fed contained some serious, distressing information. Those reports revealed that as far as back as 2004, there were significant concerns raised by regional Reserve Bank presidents about an emerging housing bubble that, indeed, did emerge and burst. Did we see any indication of that in the meeting minutes or the policy statements? We did not. And what that tells me is the minutes did not accurately--I will even say they did not directly portray what went on in the meetings. I do not believe that is right.

Disturbingly, the transcripts reveal that the Federal Reserve Bank president from Atlanta warned that:

A number of folks were expressing growing concern about

potential overbuilding and worrisome speculation in the real

estate markets, especially in Florida. Entire condo projects

and upscale residential lots are being pre-sold before any

construction, with buyers freely admitting that they have no

intention of occupying the units or building on the land but

rather are counting on ``flipping'' the properties--selling

them quickly at higher prices.

That is a direct quote.

Disconcertingly, at the same meeting, the former Chairman of the Board of Governors, Alan Greenspan, made the following statement:

We run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a

particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the

debate, and in this regard it is possible to lose control of

a process that only we fully understand.

Let me repeat that quote. This is from former Chairman Greenspan:

We run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a

particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the

debate, and in this regard it is possible to lose control of

a process that only we [the Federal Reserve Board] fully

understand.

Now, I serve as the ranking member of the Joint Economic Committee. Senator DeMint is also a member of our committee. We believe in free markets and a free enterprise system. We recognize the importance of a strong financial system. Yet a fundamental requirement for the orderly operation of free markets is transparency and accurate reporting-- information. I think the suggestion that only the Federal Reserve was capable of fully understanding is evidence enough that this amendment is necessary.

Congress needs to demand change and greater accountability so people can have more information. What if the people had known about this debate going on at the Federal Reserve as the housing bubble was developing? How would people have acted? My guess is, they would have acted quite prudently, saying: The Federal Reserve is concerned about this. This is legitimate information. Maybe we should pull back on housing investments. Maybe we should be watching this as well.

I think people can get it; they need the information, though.

While this amendment does not address the issue of the time delay in releasing transcripts, I do believe the current 5 years, which amounts to almost 6 in many cases, is indefensible, between the actual minutes and them being released--5 years between the actual minutes and their being released to the public. In my judgment, that time limit should be reduced to no more than 2 years. Members of this body should have had access to these and other transcripts before we were asked to reconfirm the current Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. I would suggest it would have been helpful to have had access to this information before the housing market collapsed and before it turned into a financial crisis.

The American people are mad at Washington. They are mad at the governmental institutions that they view as increasingly unresponsive and unaccountable. Let's take this step in the direction of transparency, accountability, and disclosure of information. The American people have a right to know whether their interests were protected or simply placed on the back shelf. They have a right to know the information.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I urge the Federal Reserve to work with us to address real concerns about this amendment, rather than trying to defeat it or amend it with the purpose of making it a symbolic and meaningless gesture. Let's remind the Federal Reserve Board of Governors that they are not the only people capable of fully understanding issues on which all of our economic future depends.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, may I inquire how much time remains on our side on the debate?

I thank the Chair, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank my colleague from Connecticut, whom I think the world of. He is a wonderful family man, whom I saw out walking this morning. He is a great human being, a great Senator, and of great lineage. I am sorry to see Senator Dodd leaving.

I have one particular area of this bill about which I wish to raise a point. Auto dealers are in town today. We have a series of auto dealers from across the country who are here and they are deeply concerned about the consumer financial products piece of this particular legislation. They are concerned because it is going to hit them. I would point out to my colleagues about this that I have purchased a car--I presume everyone in this body has purchased a car--and probably a number of us on credit, although maybe not everybody. But nearly everyone has gone into a dealership and bought a new or used car and asked for financing on that new or used car and have gotten it from the local dealership. Ninety-four percent of those cars that are financed that way, that paper is actually from some relationship the dealership has upstream. It is from a bank, a major consumer auto lending entity or from somebody else who does the financing. The local dealership just has the paper there, and they are the ones that originate it. They sell the car and arrange for somebody else to do the financing. They don't do it--or 94 percent don't do that. Six percent of car dealerships do their own local financing.

I have an amendment that I will put forward, if we get a chance--or I would prefer this actually be built into the base bill--where the local auto dealership that doesn't loan their own money isn't required to comply with the consumer financial products requirement of this bill. It will add another level of regulation onto auto dealers that are already struggling to try to get cars to market so people can purchase and they can provide financing for individuals.

If we add another level of regulation, it will just mean more cost, and they are already regulated. This product would be regulated upstream already. The financial institutions that are writing the note and the paper are already regulated under this bill. Why would we do the double regulation in the bill on top of the local regulation they already have?

That is why the auto dealers are here in town today, saying they didn't cause the financial crisis, they are not banks, and they do not think they ought to be a part of this. They are quintessential Main Street auto dealers. They are part of the Main Street fabric. We have lost a lot of auto dealers across the country during this financial downturn. We spent $3 billion trying to support the auto industry and now we have this heavy-handed regulation that will cost auto sales. It doesn't seem to make sense that we would penalize Main Street for Wall Street's problems. They are small businesses, the auto dealers are, in cities and towns throughout the country. We should be talking about how we can support them and extend credit in the marketplace rather than regulate and tamping down on their business.

My amendment is simple. It keeps these new banking regulations from touching auto dealers that do not loan their own money. That is all it does. If they loan their own money, they are subject to it. If they do not loan their own money, if some other major bank, financial house or institution does it, that financial house or bank or institution is subject to the regulation. But the auto dealer that is simply there trying to get a car sold and providing this instrument that comes from somebody else, they are not regulated, so they do not have the extra cost. So it is not double regulation from the same bill.

If an auto dealer does lend that money, as I mentioned, they will be regulated. This amendment applies only to auto dealers that facilitate loans from larger financial companies. Why should we have to amend this? If I am hearing anything across my State--and I am traveling a lot across Kansas--people are fed up with heavy-handed, big government. They have had it up to their necks and beyond with heavy-handed, big government. Why would we do this on top of everything else?

These auto dealers are the retail outlets. They are the storefronts that process the paperwork for various well-known brands with large finance arms. Under my amendment, these finance arms would still be regulated, but the dealers that process the paperwork wouldn't. But it is still regulated upstream. The auto dealerships themselves have been crippled from sales

this last year, crippled from the financial crisis we hit. We have been trying to help and support them. This is a break in the cardinal rule that if you want less of something, tax and regulate it. That is what this bill will do. We will have less auto dealerships if you are going to tax and regulate them. It doesn't make any sense.

Under my amendment, auto dealers would still be regulated by the FTC and various State laws, so consumers would still have protection to ensure that truth in lending still applies. So if you are concerned about auto dealers and what they are doing, the writing and the paper retailwise, they remain regulated by the FTC and various State laws and consumer protection laws that are currently in place. I think those are things that should remain in place, and they do remain in place. We don't need another level on top of that. Why do we need to create a duplicative regulation for auto dealers, where we regulate each dollar of each auto loan twice? This is what frustrates people so much.

I have people raise the concern about what happens outside military bases and auto loans outside military bases. We have several major military bases in the State of Kansas. We are very proud of our military bases and our military. They are saying: OK. We want to get at auto loans and dealers there. Well, they are regulated. They are currently regulated. They are currently regulated under the FTC and various State laws.

If somebody is concerned about a small auto dealer that sits right outside a military base and tries to get financing for military members and they do not like what the financing is, that is currently regulated. It is already in many States, where a State's attorney general can go at these right now. They know where they are located. It is not as if they are hiding and moving around. They are located right outside military bases. If you want to hit them and regulate them, go to the State attorney general, go to the State consumer products agency, go to the State consumer finance agencies and have them address it. Why on Earth, with the big financial problem we have had that was created by Wall Street and international traders, would you want to hammer the local auto dealers?

As I put this amendment forward, it was interesting to me that we had a number of groups say people who sell recreational vehicles are also interested in being brought into this amendment and being excluded or motorcycle financers or any number of groups because they are seeing the same problem. They are small businesspeople. They are going to be regulated by this enormous Federal entity that was targeted at Wall Street and, instead, as small businesses in their local communities, they are going to get hit. They are going to take the hammer, and they are not set up to handle it. They do not have huge staffs in these areas. They have small staffs to take care of this, and now we are going to put a big regulatory entity on top of them when it is already regulated upstream.

This makes no sense, and it will do no good. It will cost a lot more, it will make financing less available to individuals, and it will hurt these businesses. It will hurt car sales, it will hurt motorcycle sales, and it will hurt the economy for no good reason. I ask my colleagues to focus in on what is happening in this area of the consumer products and their financing. Do we want to hit auto dealers? I don't think so. I don't think that was the target of this bill. It certainly wasn't the cause of the financial crisis we had.

Why would we have to hit them? We don't. Listen to your local auto dealers. They are here in town today. Hear their story about what is taking place. Let's help the auto dealers, as we have been trying to do, and let's not hurt them with a heavyhanded regulation.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish today to join with the American Red Cross and elebrate March as American Red Cross Month. Throughout the history of this organization, the American Red Cross has demonstrated not only their fierce and patriotic loyalty to this country and our needs but to those abroad as well.

This year, many of our brothers and sisters worldwide have experienced extreme devastation. The earthquakes in Haiti and Chile showed us not only how fragile life can be but the importance of humanitarian response to those in need.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a Russian novelist, historian, and Nobel Laureate for literature knew the power of our interconnectedness as it relates to our own humanity. He said, ``The salvation of mankind lies only in making everything the concern of all.''

No other organization embodies this philosophy more than the American Red Cross and of the vision articulated by Clara Barton, founder of this wonderful organization that has helped countless individuals--both domestic and abroad--in times of crisis.

Whether comforting a wounded soldier during battle, assisting those who are recovering from a natural disaster, or administering life- saving blood to a sick patient, the American Red Cross is there, never wavering but standing steadfast in the service to humanity.

This year especially, they have been ever vigilant in remaining true to the humanitarian nature of their organization. In Haiti, the Red Cross distributions of food and relief supplies continue throughout urban settlements and are reaching approximately 12,500 people each day. To date, nearly 27,000 people have been vaccinated in the coordinated immunization campaign, in which the Red Cross health care units and the Haitian National Red Cross Society are participating. The American Red Cross has provided approximately $375,000 in operational funding for this campaign.

In Chile, the American Red Cross has increased the funds committed from its International Response Fund to $250,000 in support of Red Cross response operations. It will be contributing these funds toward the International Federation's emergency appeal. Additionally, the International Federation has announced a disaster plan of action and funding in the amount of $6.4 million to support Chilean Red Cross relief operations to assist 75,000 people for 6 months in the areas of shelter, water and sanitation, health and telecommunications. This is in addition to $280,000 released from its Disaster Response Emergency Fund.

Like the national headquarters of the American Red Cross, I am extremely proud of our Kansas chapters of the American Red Cross organizations and volunteers. From respnding to our own State's natural disasters, to providing programs to our troops such as the Holiday Mail for Heroes Program to providing much needed health and wellness courses--these individuals are

the bedrock upon our local Kansas communities.

Since 1943, every President of the United States has proclaimed March as American Red Cross Month and in turn, the organization uses this month to promote the services provided to the public each and every day. Communities depend on the Red Cross in times of need, the Red Cross depends on the support of the public to achieve its mission.

I am pleased to join with the Red Cross and highlight the courageous work that this organization has accomplished for more than 128 years and continues to accomplish this day. I would also like to take this opportunity to salute all of the tireless volunteers of this organization known as ``Red Crossers'' who for many, have been involved in their communities for 10, 20, even 80 years.

It is very fitting that we celebrate March as American Red Cross Month and continue to advance the principles of this very essential organization.

Madam President, I call up, on behalf of myself and Senator Murkowski, amendment No. 3697 and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, this is a very simple but very important amendment in the sense that the new surtaxes on Medicare, on wages, and on unearned income are not indexed for inflation. All of my colleagues are familiar with the problem we have had with the alternative minimum tax being not indexed for inflation, and with that being a problem, it is now built into this bill. This new surtax is not indexed for inflation.

If I can show my colleagues for a moment, on this chart, we can see how quickly, with a 4-percent rate of inflation, the people who are getting the subsidy today will be taxed as high income in a few years. This is a problem we are very familiar with. We fight with it regularly. It is part of the funding base of this bill. It needs to be taken out. The bill should not be paid for with inflation, and we are all too likely to have significant inflation.

So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I appreciate my colleagues allowing me to join in this colloquy because it is incredibly important and I believe the American public believes it is incredibly important because, if for no other reason, they are looking at it and saying: We don't want this bill. We don't think this bill is the right way to go. We don't think this procedure is the right way. So they oppose it on process and they oppose it on product. And you don't have to believe me. Listen to these poll numbers: 68 percent say the President and the congressional Democrats should keep trying to work with Republicans to craft legislation.

By the way, that big, all-day-long meeting at Blair House to talk about this, where we put forward a series of ideas, virtually all of them were rejected--a bipartisan incremental compromise, which is much more the way the American public wants to go.

A Rasmussen poll says that 57 percent of the voters say the health care reform plans we are discussing in Congress will hurt the U.S. economy. Only 25 percent think it will actually help. And 66 percent believe the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats is likely to increase the Federal deficit. Do you know the reason they think that? Because it will. This is going to increase the Federal deficit.

On top of all that, there is a big intangible here. If this bill passes, the rest of the world is watching to see if the United States passes this big increase--an entitlement program--when we are running $1.5 trillion in deficit and have a $12 trillion debt that is 90 percent of the size of our total economy. They are watching and they are saying: If the United States does this now, they are not serious about getting their budget under control. They are going to start pulling dollars out of the U.S. economy and putting them in other places. It will make it harder for us to raise capital, it will increase interest rates, and it is going to hurt the U.S. economy. And that is a near-term thing that is going to happen because people are watching this.

I might note the ``Saturday Night Live'' routine where China's President, Hu Jintao, is lecturing President Obama about how he is going to get the budget under control by passing a big new entitlement program. I don't usually cite ``Saturday Night Live,'' but in this case it lands a little too close to home. And people are saying: Yes, this doesn't make any sense to me either. This is going to hurt.

The front page of the Wall Street Journal has an article about what Ireland is having to do to get its budget under control, Greece is a mess, and our deficit and debt is skyrocketing.

If we pass this, this is going to hurt us in the near term as far as the cost of raising the capital we need in this economy. It will hurt States that are really struggling as well. It is a bad idea at a bad time.

I am glad my colleagues let me join them, and I note that the doctor is in--the Senator from Wyoming--to help us dissect this bill as well.

We were on the floor in December, the longest continuous session in the history of the Senate, 25 continuous days, and we were talking about this and my colleague from Nebraska and I were joined by our colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, who has been around a long time and part of a lot of health care reform legislation. His point is, if you follow the normal order and work it through a committee and bipartisan process, almost every health care bill he has been a part of--and there have been a number of substantial ones--gets 75 votes in this body. People want to support health care reform on a good bill. They will support it. It will be bipartisan. We are all for health care. But now you have a bill that is going to be completely partisan, on one side, not supported by the American public, and then you are having to jimmy rig a process to try to figure out how we set this up to do it.

Even Kent Conrad, the chairman of the Budget Committee, who is a Democrat, says:

Reconciliation cannot be used to pass comprehensive health

care reform. It won't work. It won't work because it was

never designed for that kind of significant legislation.

My experience is, if you try to do something that is not designed to do this, you are going to get a flawed product and flawed process that people are going to be mad about. It will hurt this body. I think it will be very harmful to this country to do this and it should not be done.

After all the time we spent in December, 25 continuous days in session, I think the American people spoke when they had a Massachusetts election and elected Scott Brown. It was clearly about health care reform.

I know my colleague from Wyoming has been all over speaking about this on television, getting a lot of feedback from people. He probably is getting the same sort of feedback that I have, about don't do this. It wasn't designed to be done, this sort of health care reform, in a reconciliation process.

I join my colleague from Mississippi. I would note that is the case, and why is it the Speaker is saying we have to pass the bill to see what is in it? They are going to hold it back until they break enough arms to get a majority vote and then pop it out and then there will be an hour's debate on one-sixth of the economy being changed. We saw that same procedure when Majority Leader Reid was crafting this bill behind closed doors and nobody knew what was in the bill and then popped it out when you have the deal, when you made enough deals, broken enough arms, then we can pass this. That is no way to have a process like this. That is no way to effect this big a piece of the economy that touches every American's life in the process.

I urge the Speaker not to do something like this. Listen to the American public and follow normal order. They could send this back to committee, to the Finance and the HELP Committees, work a bipartisan agreement on this, say we have to hit this number or that, let's do an incremental approach and come out with a bill that would have 75 votes. That is doable.

We put forward a whole bunch of ideas at the Blair House. Here are different things we would support. Put out a long day of discussion. That is the normal order that produces good legislation that will stand the test of time. This will not stand the test of time, and it is going to bankrupt the country.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the FAA reauthorization bill that has been put forward by Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison. Both have worked hard on this legislation. I have worked on this legislation for a number of years as well.

My general aviation industry is centered in Wichita KS. It has had a lot of difficulty lately with markets and the recession and problems overall, and it needs a bit of good news. This would be a bit of good news, having FAA reauthorization. This is an industry that is roughly $150 billion in size. It is located

primarily in the United States. It has created over 1.3 million jobs. It is key. It goes across a broad array of disciplines. It is a high- tech manufacturing business that we are very good at. This is something we need to have.

Implementation of the NextGen technology for navigation and travel across the United States is in the bill. Also in the bill is maintaining inspection procedures that are important for the safety of aircraft, increased funding for essential air service for a State such as mine that has a need for essential air service in places where it is tough to get in and out of and the population pool is not large. It needs that to move forward. It expands passenger rights and provides increased Federal support for small airports.

I think it also important that this legislation does not include language imposing disproportionate and onerous user fees on the general aviation industry. This is something Senator Roberts and I have been concerned about for some period of time, that the general aviation industry would get stuck with a disproportionate share of the funding for the overall FAA infrastructure. That is not in the bill. If it comes back to this body from the House with that in the bill, it is going to be something I am going to fight strongly against.

The bill is a good bipartisan bill. It has been worked out. It certainly is not perfect. No bill is. It is something that has been worked out over a period of time, over a series of years, over a lot of interests. It is the way we ought to legislate and move forward.

I say as a cautionary tale again to my colleagues that if the bill comes back with provisions from the House that are problems for this body, it is going to stop the bill and it then is not going to happen.

My urgings to my colleagues here and in the House would be, let's keep with the primary design of what this bill has and not try to load it with other things that might be special projects for individuals who are going to kill the bill. I have concerns on any side, whether it is on my side or the other side, of provisions being added that would kill this bill that has been a hard fought, long legislative process for us to move forward. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation. It will create jobs. It will spur further development in our Nation's aviation sector, a sector that needs some help and support now. This bill does that.

I can see a lot of ways this bill could get damaged and hurt along the way. I am not opposed to putting amendments in that make sense and that can continue to move the bill on through the legislative process. I am opposed to those amendments that would kill it and that would substantially harm it when this is something that has been worked on a long time through several committees to get it moving forward.

For those reasons, I support it. I support it as it is. I think we ought to move forward with it and move forward with it with some speed to help this critical industry in our country, to support safety in flying in this country, to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.