and ask that the schumer and bennet amendments be nelson for schumer and bennet. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from florida, mr. nelson, for mr. schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 3483 to amendment numbered 3464. at the end of subtitle a of subtitle 3, add the following -- mr. nls: -- mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, in just five minutes, we'll have our first series of votes on amendments on this bill. this is a good start to the f.a.a. bill. it is improving the underlying

bill that has a lot of attention to security already in it, but these are clearly amendments that will improve the bill. i spoke about it earlier today. i certainly commend these amendments to the senate. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. thune: madam president, i ask the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment numbered 3512, offered by the senator from south dakota, as modified. mr. thune: madam president, i yield back whatever time remains on the -- the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

a senator: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, on this vote, the ayes are 85, the nays are 10. the amendment, as modified, is agreed to. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment number 3482, offered by the senator from new mexico. the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. will the senators please take their conversations out of the well. the senate will be in order.

a senator: madam president? airports, bus depots -- the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. heinrich: airplanes, bus depots and train stations are things we all rely on every day. to have the freedom of movement we enjoy in this country. in the wake of the recent terror attacks in the brussels airport and metro, americans are worried about their security and want to feel safe when traveling with their loved ones. while we relentlessly target terrorists overseas, we must also do all we can to intelligently protect americans here at home. my amendment would increase the number of t.s.a. viper teams who provide a visible deterrent to terrorist threats at high-priority locations. these teams are recognizable as they often have bomb-sniffing canines. my amendment would also provide active shooter training for law enforcement and strengthen security in nonsecure, so-called soft target areas, like check-in and baggage claim. by employing these additional commonsense safeguards, we will

intelligently respond to these threats and, most importantly, by preserving our freedom to go about our daily lives, we'll ensure that the terrorists have failed to change how we live and who we are. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. who yields time? mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i would encourage our colleagues to support the heinrich amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. the clerk will call the roll. the question is on the amendme amendment. a senator: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not the ayes are 91 and the nays are 5. the amendment as modified is agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. a senator: when the obama administration officials sold the nuclear deal last summer to the american people, they were clearly sensitive to charges that they gave too much away.

to the to the they knew giving iran $100 billion we could never get back next change for a deal that expired in ten years would be viewed with deep skepticism. mr. cotton: they knew the inspection system that gives a head us up before an inspection would not pass the laugh test. they knew granting the ayatoll ayatollah's massive sanctions relief while still allowing them to develop an enrichment program would invite accusations that the president was to put it frankly windsled. so -- windsled. in their sales pitch these administration officials sought to blunt the expected criticisms. they repeatedly stated the united states would maintain certain tough sanctions, even after the deal became effective. they said the united states would hold the line on measures that punish and suppress iran's nonnuclear malign activities and they emphatically stated that in no way would the u.s. economy be allowed to bolster an iranian economy that is significantly

controlled by the iranian regime, tainted by illicit financing of terrorism and used by the ayatollahs to fund domestic oppression and international aggression, including blowing up hundreds of american soldiers in iraq with roadside bombs. in particular these administration officials were emphatic that the united states would never ever ever grant iran access to the u.s. financial system and to u.s. dollars to facilitate iran's trade in oil and other goods. for instance, when testifying before the senate foreign relations committee in july, treasury secretary jack lew stated iranian banks would not be able to clear u.s. dollars through new york, hold correspondent account relationships with u.s. financial institutions or enter into financing arrangements with u.s. banks. iran in other words will continue to be denied access to the world's largest financial and commercial market.

likewise adam szubin, the acting under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence echoed that sentiment and was even more presis. in september he stated iran will not be able to open bank accounts with u.s. banks more will iran be able to access the u.s. banking sector even for that momentary transaction to what we call dollarized of foreign payment. that is not in the cards. that is not part of the relief offered under the jcpoa. so the u.s. sanctioned iran which of course had their origins long before iran had a nuclear program will remain in place. it's difficult to overstate the important of these statements uttered just a few months ago. the u.s. dollar is the standard currency in which international trade is conducted. because the ayatollahs can't deal in dollars they haven't fully opened their economy to the world thankfully. in addition, the u.s. financial system hasn't yet been tainted by iran's terror financing, its

international aggression and its crackdown on domestic democratic dissent. but now a mere seven month intos a 15-year agreement, the obama administration is shedding the resolve its officials tried so hard to display before congress. according to numerous reports, the administration intends to backtrack on the statements of secretary lew and adam szubin and is looking for somehow, some way to give iran access to u.s. dollars to boost iranian trade and investment. i want to be very clear. if the president moves to grant iran access to the u.s. dollar, whether directly or indirectly, there will be consequences. if there is any statement, guidance, regulation or executive action that opens the u.s. banking sector to iran, even a crack, the senate will hold hearings with each official who assured the american people last summer that the ayatollahs would never access the dollar. we will explore whether they

lied back then or intend to resign in protest now. if this policy change moves forward, i will dedicate myself to working with my colleagues to pass legislation blocking the change. and the obama administration proceeds with this massive concession to the ayatollahs, every member of the senate who voted to accept the iranian deal will have to go home and explain why the u.s. economy is now complicit in iran's financing of terrorist acts against americans and american allies. that the obama administration would even consider allow -- allowing iran access to the u.s. banking sector is extremely disconcerting but is not surprising. it follows a steady pattern that has become increasingly clear since the conclusion of the nuclear deal. time and again iran provokes the united states, commits brazen acts to destabilize its neighbors and threatens to undo the nuclear deal. and in response, the united states rushes to grafnts the ayatollahs -- grant the ayatollahs more concessions in

order to placate them. iran has tested ballistic missiles, captured u.s. sailors and fueled conflicts with fresh arms and troops all while employing death to america as a rallying cry. in the face of iran's continued aggression, the president has displayed only weakness instead of stealing himself for a fight with the ayatollahs, he has laid down and rolled over for them. he has repeatedly refused to designate iran's test of ballistic missiles, the violations of u.n. security council resolutions they so clearly are. the president also agreed to send and additional $1.7 billion to the ayatollahs, ostensibly to settle outstanding claims. for good measure, that $1.7 billion includes $1.3 billion in gratuitous interest payments. he granted clem incidence si to seven iranian convicted criminals and dismissed arrest warrants for 14 iranian fugitives who faced charges for sanctions violations. and now the president may be on the verge of granting the

largest concession yet. dollarizeing iran's international trade and declaring iran truly open for us about. we should call this for what it is, concession creed. in the same manner that no member of the senate should trust iran to abide by its commitments made in the iranian nuclear deal, we can no longer trust the administration to hold fast to the specific concessions contained in the four corners of that deal. the ink is hardly dry on the deal and the president has already shown himself all too susceptible to the temptations of appeasement. the ayatollahs have claimed it is to hard without access to american dollars. the answer to that should be too bad. should not be easy for the world's worst sponsor of terrorism to do business t should not be easy for industries dominated by the iranian guard corps to trade in international markets,

international business leaders, directors, c.e.o.'s and general counsels should not rush into iran for fear of the grave reputational, financial, political, and legal consequences of doing business with this outlaw regime. the iranians know that the obama administration is desperate to preserve the nuclear deal. they hold the possibility of walking away from the agreement as a sort of damocles over the president's head in order to extract concession after concession. they lord it over him in order to forestall any u.s. action that would meaningfully stop the regional aggression and campaign of of terror. so intense is president obama's fear that the ayatollahs will rip up the nuclear agreement, that he has completely upended u.s. strategy in the middle east to the point where our adversaries are allies and allies are becoming adversaries. this parade of concessions must stop, and it must stop now. the administration must fully implement all new sanctions

passed by congress to punish iran's development of ballistic missiles and sponsorship of terrorism and its human rights abuses. it the must work with our traditional allies in the middle east to neutralize iran's attempt to foment instability throughout the region, and the president should issue a very clear order that iran will not be granted any direct or indirect access to the u.s. banking system and the dollar. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that my untern, jessica hagens, is granted privileges of the floor for the balance of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, an american historian, james adams, wrote a book in 1931 entitled "the american epic." andness this book that he coined the term "the american dream." he went on to say this:

"ever since we've become an independent nation, each generation has seen an uprising of ordinary americans to save that dream from the forces that appear to be overwhelming it." well, one of those forces that has been overwhelming the effort of middle-class, hardworking morons to be successful is predatory lending. and today i'm specifically rising to discuss the introduction of the safe lending act. "save" stands for stopping abuse and fraud in electronic lending." the topic is short-term high-interest loans often referred to as payday loans. this loans often have interest rates of 300%, 4%, 500%. the debt that a family has with one of these loans just grows and grows and grows. consider this: that if you take out $1,000 today, a year from now at 500% interest, you owe $5,000.

in two years, you owe $25,000. an impossible sum for a family of modest means. so these payday loans pull families into a vortex of debt from which they cannot escape. this vortex destroys them financially. huge consequences for the parents certainly, but huge consequences for the children. it does a tremendous amount of damage to american families. this is why many major religions in the world have come out over time over thousands of years and said high-interest lending destroys and shouldn't be done. but here we have it right here in america. now, many states, including my state of oregon, have worked to end this vortex of debt. they put a cap on the interest rate. they have stopped the

every-two-week rollovers. and so they have returned, if you will, small-dollar lending that isn't a instrument that destroys families. these tough state laws are under assault by new tactics of the payday loan industry and we need to are address those new tactics. specifically, the industry is starting to use an instrument called remotely created checks. now, how does this work? so you have your bank account and you take out a payday loan. the dollars are put into your bank account, and you think they're going to stay there, but now this online payday loan company -- and who knows where in the world these people really are; they may be overseas in any remote location, extremely difficult to find, extremely difficult to enforce laws -- they have your bank account number, and that's all they need

to write a check to themselves to withdraw the money from your account and put it in their account. -- and account that's likely to be so remotely located that no one can enforce the state laws. in other words, let me say this again. the payday lender, once they have your checking account number, can reach into your account without your permission and take your money out. thereby, they have the ability to bypass the state laws. an oregon law may say that if you have interest rates over those established by oregon law, your loan is uncollectible, it's illegal in your state. well, these online predatory payday lend,they don't care that it is illegal in oregon. they have your account number, and they're going to reach in and take your money illegally. so, that's not the only predatory practice that's evolving. these payday loan companies have also established a practice in which maybe instead of putting

money in your banking account, they give you a prepaid card. now, this prepaid card looks very convenient. you use it like a credit card, debt card. we're familiar with that in america. but here's the ringer: they put fees on these cards that add to the 300%, 400%, or 500% interest that's already destroying families, particularly over balance fees. now, you may not know whether your card has $20 or $30 or $50 on it, in some industries they charge you for all kinds of things. they charge you to call up and ask what your balance s they charge you if you call up and ask how the card is, just for asking what the fees are, they charge yo you a fee. some might charge you an additional monthly fee. but these -- particularly these prepaid payday loan cards are

notorious for their over-balance fees. you have perhaps $50 left in your account and you pay something for $52 and maybe immediately you get a $35 fee, which they can reach in your account and take. but then that's an overdraft fee on the bank. so the bank -- your bank is now charge you a fee and then because you don't know it is an overdraft because they didn't turn down the transaction, you buy a pack of gun. $50 cents. another $5 -- 50 cents. another $50 fee. you can see how these fees line up on top of the 300%, 4%, or 500% interest. state after state has said these are destroying families and we are going to afnlg act. right here in the u.s. senate years ago, we acted to protect miliry families from these

predatory loans. the admirals and generals came here to capitol hill to testify and they said, at our military bases, these predatory payday loans are destroying our military families, and i.t. not just their finances. when their finances are destroyed, relationships are frayed, children's opportunities are damaged. we cannot have this type of terrible impact on our military families. so we established a national cap of interest on these short-term loans. and it's ghood we d -- and it's good that we d it's ghood we protected our military families from these abusive, destructive practices. but if these practices are so damaging to families in the military, aren't they equally damaging to families that are not in the military? shouldn't we apply the same protection to every american family that we apply to a

military family? don't we value the success of every american family more than we value protection for legalized loan sharking? so certainly we should here in this chamber extend to all members in america the same protection we gave to military families. but until we do that, we should at least make sure that the federal framework requires honoring the tough laws passed by state after state after state to stop these practices. i think the total is about 19 states at this point, so that is why i introduced the safe lending act today. the safe lending act, stopping abuse and fraud in electronic lending. this act does a couple of key things. first of all, it says it is remotely -- it sets these remotely created checks in which a company reaches in without

your permission, those are banned. you regain control of your checking account. second of all, it bans these overdraft fees on these prepaid payday loan cards and other predatory fees established through the commission. third, it says that all small-dollar lenders have to register in order to be monitored by their states, so that they're not in on unregulated world out there with people even knowing that they exist. and, furthermore, it says that every lender of every type has to abide by the state laws. it doesn't matter who they are regulatoried by. and -- who they are a he regulated by. and finally, it bans lead generators, a fake web site that prepretends it is a payday loan company. once they have your bank account

number, they can reach in and take funds out of your account. it's incredible, but this is true, that you don't have to sign the check. they basically just use your number and say, take the money away from john consumer or jane consumer and give it to us, and the bank complies and does it. as amazing as that sounds, that's the way the banking system works. that's these remotely created checks. regardless of what your financial regulator is you have to abide by the state rules and we ban these lead generators that are phishing for these bank account numbers and once they have them, they sell them to the lending industry, to the payday loan industry, and who knows what other hands these numbers end up in. i was surprised a couple of years ago when i noticed a charge on my bank account that wasn't something that either my wife mary or i had purchased, a

store we don't go to, and i looked at it carefully and discovered that the number of the check was out of order of my checkbook, and then so i poppled then so i pulled up a copy of the check on the computer, and i could see that the number matched my account. the name on the check didn't match nigh account. the address didn't match my account. the signature didn't match my signature. none of it matched. the only thing on this check was the number of the bank account matched my bank k that's all that's required for someone to reach in and take money out of your account. now, that type of fraud is surprising as well, but it real enforced the -- but it reinforces the point that once an online electronic payday loan company has your number, they can reach in. that's all they need -- and take

the money out of your account. we are going to ba ban these led generators. i great li a appreciative my -- i greatly appreciate my cosponsors on this act. and i'd like to thank them all, and they are senator tom udall, senator bernie sanders, senator patti murray, dick durbin, dick blumenthal, elizabeth warren, tommy baldwin, rong wyden, and senator cory booker. so thank you to all my colleagues who care a lot about ending predatory financial transactions that strip billions of dollars out of hardworking americans' accounts. we have a lot of work to do on this. we've accomplished some. much more to be done. certainly when james truswell

adams said each generation individuals have to stand up and fight against practices designed to destroy the american dream, he's talking about things like this: practices that proceed to undermine the success of america's working families. let's stop those predatory practices in their tracks and pass the safe lending act. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i call up my amendment in my judgment 3490. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from washington, ms. cantwell proposes amendment number 3490 to -l amendment number 3464. ms. cantwell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i call up this amendment and offer it because the issue is making sure that those who work in the air transportation system are safe and secure. this is an important issue to the men and women who work not just at sea tack airport and are

part of the delivery system of making sure that air transportation goes safely but they are an integral part of air transportation at every airport in the united states of america. this issue is something that's been considered in the house of representatives as part of the transportation package as well, and it's part of what we think should be in this package in the united states senate. that is to make sure that those who are part of the delivery system, that those ticket counter agents, those agents who are aiding and assisting in getting passengers through the terminals and on to planes and at the gate assisting as many of the challenging days go by of delivering good air transportation service, what's happened is that these individuals have become victims, victims of physical violent abuse. that is the public has taken to bodily harm against these individuals. so this amendment puts in line similar safeguards that are in

line with other transportation officials who are protected from this kind of physical abuse. i'll have more to say on it, mr. president, but i know my colleague was trying to get to the floor to speak as well. but i will put into the record examples of individuals who are ticketing agents, baggage agents, air transportation or deliver systems who have been hurt and they deserve to have protection. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to urge a "yes" vote on the upcoming amendment to require the f.a.a. to set a minimum standard seat size. this amendment would ensure that airlines can't keep chopping down on seat size and leg room until consumers are packed in like sardines in a can on every flight. over the last few decades, between the size of the seat and the distance between the seats, the flying public has lost half a foot of their space.

flying is not pleasant anymore. you're crammed in. i'm not that tall. i'm a little under 6'1". what i do when i fly is i take out the magazine and the airsickness bag and the little folder that shows you where the exits are to gain 1/16th of an inch more leg room so my knees don't bang into the seat in front of me. mom with kids have a lot of trouble in these very narrow seats. and ever get the situation where you're in the middle and there are two sort of large people on either side of you? it is not the most pleasant flying experience. and we don't have too much competition anymore. we have very few airlines. this is a place where the public is clamoring for change. when i said i was going to introduce this amendment i got

more feedback on it than most other things. you didn't have to be 6'4" to understand the problem. you would think airlines would lower the prices when going in the other direction but instead they started charging for the extra inches in leg room once considered standard. so it practically cost you an arm and a leg just to have space for your arms and legs. at a time when airlines are making record profits, at a time when fuel costs are extremely low, we need this amendment to protect consumers' safety and comfort. this amendment would do three things. it doesn't set a standard seat size. it freezes the current seat sizes in place so they can't shrink any further. it directs the f.a.a. to set minimum standard seat size and pitch for all commercial flights. and some of this involves comfort, but some of it involves

safety. god forbid there is something terrible happening on a plane, the seats are so narrow it's harder for people to get out. finally, we focus on transparency. we require airlines to post their seat sizes on their web sites, providing at least a commercial incentive for airlines to offer more comfortable seat arrangements. mr. president, most folks travel under the expectation the airlines are going to set the guidelines, and that's that. there's nothing they can do about it. we actually had to put in the underlying bill that airlines should refund bag fees charged to consumers if the airline lost their bags. and i would say to my good friends on the other side, if we can mandate bag fees are returning, not leaving it up to the tpraoep market, we can mandate -- free market, we can mandate that at least the f.a.a. set a proper seat size. can't say leave it up to the

free market on one but not up to the other. it's not a little fair. now, you see why we need these amendments. the bag fee, which i agree with, where if they lose your bags or delay your bags, you shouldn't -- they shouldn't keep the extra bag fee, you should get it refunded, in most industries that would be a standard practice. if you fail to deliver a service, somebody paid for, you should get your money back. but sometimes in the airline industry you have to require basic courtesy. in conclusion, mr. president, the great abraham lincoln was once asked how long a man's legs should be, and he famously answered long enough to reach from the body to the ground. if you asked a major airline today how long should a man's legs be, they'd say short enough to miss the tray table. that's not way to fly.

mr. president, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and move this bill in a more consumer-friendly direction. and with that, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. schumer: mr. president, some of our colleagues have to catch -- the presiding officer: the

senate is in a quorum call. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: some of my colleagues have to catch planes, and it takes extra time for them to squeeze into these small seats with no leg room, so i would yield back my time and urge we -- and ask that we move the vote up to right now. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question now occurs under amendment number 3483. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:# vote: