Richard Blumenthal

And if we are worried about litigation, I can predict to you 10 more years of crippling litigation in the wake of these two measures because they leave the basic legal problems unresolved.

I think everyone testifying, pro and con, has referred to it as a fix. It is a quick fix that in the long term may do more harm than good.

In my view, that issue would be mooted if it adopted the recommendation that I have made, which is that it take back authority for all of these fee into trust decisions.

I believe either the Department of the Interior or the Congress has to clarify what is meant by that term, 'Federal jurisdiction'.

I hope they will reform the process on their own.

The current process is lawless.

Congress has this responsibility, and it should take back control.

I am here to oppose these measures because of my respect for the principles of sovereignty and the practical impact of land into trust.

I want to say at the outset that I not only respect their views but certainly am deeply moved by their stories.

This may strike many on both sides of the aisle as going too far and greatly overstepping a direct answer to the Carcieri decision.

This legislation would very bluntly overturn the Supreme Court decision from February.

Let us be clear about what this legislation will do.

It would be neither responsible nor constructive for this Committee or the Congress to attempt to push through legislation like the bills before us today without considering the views of the states, counties and cities that we represent.

But it is unreasonable to expect Congress to simply ignore such concerns and fast-track this legislation without considering the effects of these bills.

Possibly our greatest ally in the world, besides Britain, Australia, is becoming much more public about their very deep concerns with respect both to China's military modernization, as well as our staying power and our presence in the…

The new agency--a consumer financial guardian--promises to be a powerful watchdog and protector, and a partner of State attorneys general in fighting for our citizens.

That is why I called for the creation of an independent consumer protection agency whose sole focus is the financial well-being of consumers.

As a former United States Attorney, I can tell you that organized crime would offer a better deal.

I appreciate the opportunity to strongly support the Administration's proposal to create a Federal agency dedicated solely to protecting consumer interests in financial products and markets, and preserve and expand State consumer…

To those who helped create this mess and now plan to flood the airwaves with misleading propaganda, I have just two words for you: Get real.

I think there is some agreement that certain products should be banned.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that this bill is a first draft; it needs refinement, it needs work.

What has happened, Senator, and that question is a very good one, is that many nonbanking institutions have, in effect, invoked the shield by aligning themselves with national banks.

Stronger consumer protection could have stopped this crisis before it started.

I think a point of accountability somewhere that your constituents can call when they have a question or a problem... is tremendously important.