United States War Bonds Act of 2009

Mr. President, today I am offering legislation to make permanent a number of education-related tax relief measures. My legislation also improves and makes permanent helpful provisions for 529 plans and the American Opportunity tax credit for education.

At the first hearing I held when I became Chairman of the Finance Committee in 2001, I made clear that education tax policy was a priority of mine. As Chairman, I was able to remove the 60-payment limit for deducting student loan interest and I was able to increase the income limits for that deduction. This was not the only time I fought hard to allow students to deduct their student loan interest. In 1997, I was able to re-instate the student loan interest deduction that Congress had eliminated from our tax laws. However, the 60-payment limit on the deductibility of student loan interest remained. I ensured that the 2001 tax relief bill took care of that problem. Other incentives for education that I was able to enact into law in 2001 included raising the amount that can be contributed to an education saving account from $500 to $2,000; making distributions from pre-paid college savings plans and tuition plans tax-free; and making permanent the tax-free treatment of employer-provided educational assistance. These tax policies and many others, including those for school renovations, repairs and construction, have proven their value to Iowa students in dollars and cents, year after year. The tax relief has delivered measureable educational assistance to Iowans and students and families nationwide, making education more affordable and accessible.

One draw-back of enacting these provisions in the 2001 tax relief bill, however, is that there was a sunset provision attached to that entire piece of legislation. All of the tax relief needs to be made permanent. Especially the education-related tax provisions. That is what my bill today does. My bill makes these provisions permanent.

It is no coincidence that I am introducing my education tax bill on the day the President of the United States talked about jobs. Our economy demands well-educated workers. The popularity of education tax incentives is good news for workers who find themselves unemployed or who want to go back to school to advance, or even change, their careers. Congress is willing to consider permanent tax relief for companies to buy machinery. Why isn't Congress willing to make an investment in people? That is what tax relief for education is. An investment in our future. It is just as important as job-creating tax incentives for businesses. Some will say we can't afford this, but we really can't afford to lose billions of dollars of help for Americans working hard to educate their kids.

Education has made this country great. We should not let this opportunity pass us by. We should not let these education-related tax provisions expire. We should also continue to help make education affordable for families and students. This makes education accessible for all. I look forward to working with my colleagues on passing this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as you are undoubtedly aware, the U.S. is an arctic Nation. As such, the U.S. must ensure that not only its economic and environmental interests in the region are protected, but also its national defense and homeland security interests. While the U.S. maintains a strong working relationship with the 7 other arctic nations--Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation and Sweden--these nations also have their own interests to protect in the arctic region. Despite those relationships, the U.S. cannot assume that these nations will protect our interests in the region. The ability for the U.S. to project its territorial claims and protect its economic interests in the arctic will become increasingly important as the arctic shipping lanes become more accessible as the seasonal arctic ice decreases. With the high potential for increased and industrial and commercial activity in the arctic region, the U.S. must ensure that it is prepared to protect human life as well as the vulnerable arctic environment.

With an expected increase in arctic activity on the horizon, the U.S. cannot wait until our interests in the region are threatened before we act. In that light, the Arctic Deep Water Sea Port Act of 2009 is a major step towards protecting vital U.S. interests in the region. The Arctic Deep Water Sea Port Act of 2009 directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of establishing a deep water port in the arctic to protect U.S. strategic interests in the region. As the lead Departments for National Defense and Homeland Security initiatives for the U.S., the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, while working alongside their subordinate agencies, are best suited for determining and implementing policy decisions that protect U.S. sovereignty and national security.

This two-year study is designed to determine what strategic capabilities a deep water port could provide as well as an optimal location that would provide protection for a wide spectrum of U.S. initiatives. While studying the infrastructure needs for such a port, this study will also endeavor to determine the resource and timeframe needs to establish such a port, given the complex environmental constraints that the arctic marine environment provides. Upon completion of this study, the U.S. will be better positioned to understand the resource and development needs for the arctic region that are required to protect our interests in the region.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act of 2009--the CALM Act. I want to thank my original cosponsor Senator Schumer for his support of this straightforward and commonsense legislation, which would require the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to limit the volume of television advertisements to a level no louder than the average volume level of the programs during which the advertisements appear. This time for this Act is overdue. All too often over the years, Americans, sitting down after a long workday or workweek to enjoy their favorite television shows, have been assaulted by commercials at volumes that are degrees of magnitude louder than the shows themselves. The FCC first received enough complaints from viewers to look into the problem in the 1960s--when television was in its earliest stages--but technology did not exist to fix the problem. Each decade, as consumer complaints piled up, the FCC had to reexamine the loudness issue. Unfortunately, it took no action

even with the technology improved. The complaints continue to this day; in the 25 quarterly reports on consumer complaints released by the FCC since 2002, 21 have listed as a top complaint the loudness of television commercials.

But now, with the digital transition complete and new broadcast technology available, we can finally take this long-overdue action. We now have a common digital platform used by all broadcasters, which presents a terrific opportunity to standardize the loudness of the ads broadcast into our living rooms. As Consumers Union, the nonprofit organization that publishes Consumers Report has stated, in testimony before the House of Representatives, ``the CALM Act provides an elegant and commonsense solution to finally ending a forty-five year consumer complaint in the United States.''

The House has already begun its consideration of companion legislation, and I applaud the leadership of Representative Eshoo on this issue. The television industry has been deeply involved in the drafting of this legislation, and the standards it adopts are practicable, affordable, and effective. I hope my Senate colleagues will act quickly to pass the CALM Act and finally put an end to this longstanding irritation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help finance the war effort without sharp tax increases or increased foreign borrowing, The United States War Bonds Act of 2009 will authorize the Treasury to issue and market War Bonds to the American people to help finance the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I believe that we need shared sacrifice and fiscal discipline in financing the war effort. I don't believe our first instinct should always be a rush to tax. The government has gone to great lengths to address the economic downturn and adding new taxes right now could undermine those efforts. We need to work to reduce Federal spending wherever possible and reduce the growth in spending to finance the war.

War bonds are a cost-effective way to reduce our dependence on foreign creditors and create an outlet for Americans to express their patriotism and support for our servicemembers and America's mission. War bonds allow us to borrow from ourselves, rather than other countries.

This legislation finds a precedent in World War II savings bonds. From May 1, 1941 through December 1945, the War Finance Division and its predecessors were responsible for the sale of nearly $186 billion worth of government securities. Of this, more than $54 billion was in the form of War Savings bonds.

Although the times and economic circumstances are different than the 1940s, America's commitment to protecting freedom and our way of life has not waned. My hope is that we can tap into the same spirit of patriotism and create a sense of participation in the war effort akin to that shown by the greatest generation.

The new military strategy increasing troops by 30,000 for Afghanistan announced last week by President Obama is estimated to cost $30 billion beyond the baseline for Iraq and Afghanistan funding, which stands around $130 billion for 2010. The United States public debt is currently more than $7.6 trillion and nearly $3.5 trillion--46 percent--of the debt is held by foreign investors.While there are no simple solutions to our fiscal woes, while we endeavor to get our fiscal house in order, we must also be responsible borrowers and reduce our dependence on foreign creditors; this is a step in that direction.