Floor Statements

Madam President, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam President, I am very pleased to support the nomination of Bob Groves to be Director of the U.S. Census Bureau. Dr. Groves is not just a well-qualified candidate; he may be the best qualified candidate ever nominated for this position.

Dr. Groves has been endorsed by many scientific and professional associations, including the American Statistical Association, the American Sociological Association, and the Council of American Survey Research Organizations. He has also been endorsed by six former Directors of the U.S. Census Bureau who were appointed by both Republican and Democratic Presidents.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter of endorsement.

In 2001, Dr. Groves was elected by his peers to lead the Institute for Social Research and the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan. This is the largest academic-based research institute of its kind in the world. It has educated many of our Nation's scientific leaders in the field of survey statistics. We sometimes talk about peer review. Well, he has been peer reviewed, and he was selected by his peers to lead that prestigious institution.

Dr. Groves is a longtime Michigan resident. He has been part of the University of Michigan community since he began his master's studies in Ann Arbor in 1970. He graduated summa cum laude from Dartmouth College with a degree in sociology and earned master's degrees in statistics and sociology and a doctorate in sociology from the University of Michigan.

He is truly a highly respected expert in survey methodology and statistics, and he will bring greatly needed leadership to the Census Bureau as it continues to prepare for and execute the 2010 census. Dr. Groves deserves the overwhelming support of the Senate.

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

Mr. President, I thank, first of all, my friend from South Dakota for yielding to me for just a moment. He was to be next recognized. This will take just a moment.

We have been attempting to work out a unanimous consent agreement so we could first vote tomorrow. That was not convenient for a number of Senators. We then tried to work out a unanimous consent agreement for first thing on Wednesday morning to vote on the Levin-McCain amendment. We have so far been unsuccessful in getting that agreement. We will continue to work tomorrow to see if we cannot get such an agreement. In the meantime, that is where it stands.

Again, I thank my friend from South Dakota for yielding.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for not more than 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, July 13, 2009, at 2 p.m. in room 325 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on July 13, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1458, as amended

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act to list bighead carp as injurious under the Lacey Act, along with Senators Voinovich, Schumer, Feingold, Gillibrand, Durbin and Stabenow.

Asian carp are a significant threat to the Great Lakes because they are large, extremely prolific, and consume vast amounts of food. The Bighead carp grow quickly and can grow to over 50 pounds. In addition to the harmful ecological impact that the Bighead carp has had to native fisheries, these fish pose a considerable hazard to boaters and can cause human and property injuries.

The Bighead carp compete with native fish for food and habitat. The Bighead carp, along with the other species of Asian carp, account for the majority of fish in the Missouri River. These fish have little economic or sport value compared to native fish.

The Bighead carp are used in aquaculture ponds in the South to control algae, and because of flooding in the 1990s, the fish escaped the aquaculture ponds and entered into the Mississippi River. They have spread to most of the Mississippi River watershed and the Missouri River. Because the Mississippi River is connected to the Great Lakes through a man-made sanitary and ship canal, the Asian carp are now close to invading the Great Lakes. Fortunately, the Corps of Engineers is operating an electric dispersal barrier to prevent the carp and other non-native fish from moving between the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes.

I want to make sure that all pathways to introduce the Bighead carp are blocked. The legislation that I am introducing today would list the Bighead carp as injurious under the Lacey Act. Listing the Bighead carp as injurious would minimize the risk of intentional introduction by prohibiting the importation and interstate transportation of live Asian carp without a permit. This legislation would not interfere with existing state regulations of the fish, and permits to transport or purchase live Bighead carp may be issued for research or educational purposes. The Fish and Wildlife Service has already listed three other species of Asian carp as injurious through rulemaking procedures.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. This country is facing a serious challenge as a result of thousands of invasive species, like the Bighead carp, being introduced into this Nation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act to list bighead carp as injurious under the Lacey Act, along with Senators Voinovich, Schumer, Feingold, Gillibrand, Durbin and Stabenow.

Asian carp are a significant threat to the Great Lakes because they are large, extremely prolific, and consume vast amounts of food. The Bighead carp grow quickly and can grow to over 50 pounds. In addition to the harmful ecological impact that the Bighead carp has had to native fisheries, these fish pose a considerable hazard to boaters and can cause human and property injuries.

The Bighead carp compete with native fish for food and habitat. The Bighead carp, along with the other species of Asian carp, account for the majority of fish in the Missouri River. These fish have little economic or sport value compared to native fish.

The Bighead carp are used in aquaculture ponds in the South to control algae, and because of flooding in the 1990s, the fish escaped the aquaculture ponds and entered into the Mississippi River. They have spread to most of the Mississippi River watershed and the Missouri River. Because the Mississippi River is connected to the Great Lakes through a man-made sanitary and ship canal, the Asian carp are now close to invading the Great Lakes. Fortunately, the Corps of Engineers is operating an electric dispersal barrier to prevent the carp and other non-native fish from moving between the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes.

I want to make sure that all pathways to introduce the Bighead carp are blocked. The legislation that I am introducing today would list the Bighead carp as injurious under the Lacey Act. Listing the Bighead carp as injurious would minimize the risk of intentional introduction by prohibiting the importation and interstate transportation of live Asian carp without a permit. This legislation would not interfere with existing state regulations of the fish, and permits to transport or purchase live Bighead carp may be issued for research or educational purposes. The Fish and Wildlife Service has already listed three other species of Asian carp as injurious through rulemaking procedures.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. This country is facing a serious challenge as a result of thousands of invasive species, like the Bighead carp, being introduced into this Nation.

Mr. President, the past few months have been marked by several high-profile, tragic shootings that have left families to grieve and communities to ponder why. While many of the details of these recent shootings vary tremendously, one fact remains constant, our current gun laws have failed to keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not have been able to acquire them.

In 1983, James von Brunn, a white supremacist and Holocaust denier, was convicted of attempting to kidnap members of the Federal Reserve Board, after he was caught trying to enter a board meeting carrying multiple firearms. As a convicted felon, Mr. Von Brunn was legally barred from possessing firearms. Despite this fact, on June 10, Mr. Von Brunn walked into the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and fatally shot security guard Stephen T. Johns, a 6-year veteran of the facility, before being shot himself by other officers. Holding a .22- caliber rifle, this man entered a museum that welcomes 30 million visitors and school children annually. Tragically, this type of violence is not uncommon.

On June 1, a 24-year-old man shot two soldiers, PVT William A. Long and PVT Quinton Ezeagwula, outside of a military recruiting station in Little Rock, AR. Private Long, who had just completed basic training and was volunteering at the recruiting office before starting an assignment in South Korea, was killed in the shooting. The man accused in this incident was later found with two rifles and a handgun, despite being under investigation by the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. The day before, a 51-year-old man with a history of mental illness walked into the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, KS, and shot Dr. George Tiller in the head while he served as an usher during Sunday morning services. The accused in this incident had been arrested by police in 1996, after being found with bomb-making material in his car.

These senseless acts of gun violence frequently also target police officers. On April 4, a 23-year-old man, dishonorably discharged from Marine basic training, armed with three guns, including an assault rifle, ambushed and gunned down Officers Eric Kelly, Stephen Mayhle, and Paul Sciullo in Pittsburgh, PA. A fourth officer, Timothy McManaway, was shot in the hand. This shooting occurred just 2 weeks after a 26-year-old man, with a prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, turned two guns, including an assault rifle, on police officers in Oakland, CA. SGTs Mark Dunakin, Ervin Romans, Daniel Sakai, and Officer John Hege were fatally shot in what was the deadliest day for U.S. law enforcement since September 11, 2001.

In the span of a few months, a security officer, a doctor, two soldiers, and seven police officers lost their lives. All devoted their professional lives to the protection of others; all gunned down by someone who should not have had access to a firearm. These are not uncommon events, but rather simply the latest high-profile shootings to capture national headlines. In a nation which suffers 12,000 gun homicides, 17,000 gun suicides, 650 accidental gun deaths, and another 70,000 nonfatal gun injuries every year, there are still those who resist legislation aimed at putting an end to these tragedies. I urge my colleagues to act immediately and pass urgently needed commonsense gun legislation.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries-- DRMM--on 100 years of dedicated service to the Metro Detroit community. Through their commitment to meeting the emotional, spiritual and material needs of the individuals they serve each day, the Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries truly embody their motto: ``Rebuilding one life at a time.''

Founded in 1909, this faith-based, non-profit organization has consistently worked to combat the debilitating and persistent challenges of homelessness, hunger, and addiction in southeastern Michigan. The DRMM has waged this important fight by bringing together a variety of interested parties throughout southeastern Michigan, as well as a wealth of resources. By coordinating 50,000 donors, 120 faith-based organizations, and multiple State, county, and local government agencies, the DRMM has galvanized the community support necessary to make a significant difference in the lives of Michiganders.

The DRMM has played a central role in the rehabilitation of countless individuals in Metro Detroit. The DRMM provides basic necessities for at-risk individuals while fostering a desire to rebuild their lives. This organization offers critical services in the form of emergency, transitional, and permanent housing; psychological and spiritual counseling; substance abuse treatment; and emergency food and clothing. Each year, the DRMM provides 1 million nutritious meals at seven local facilities; more than 160,000 nights of emergency shelter; 75,000 clothing items; and substance abuse treatment for thousands of men and women.

I know my colleagues join me in congratulating all who have contributed to the important work of the Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries over the years, and I look forward to another century of commitment to the community.

Mr. President, this week people all across the Nation are engaging in the oldest known celebration of the ending of slavery. It was in June of 1865, that the Union soldiers landed in Galveston, TX, with the news that the war had ended and that slavery finally had come to an end in the United States. This was 21\1/2\ years after the Emancipation Proclamation, which had become official January 1, 1863. This week and specifically on June 19, we celebrate what is known as ``Juneteenth Independence Day.'' It was on this date, June 19, that slaves in the Southwest finally learned of the end of slavery. Although passage of the thirteenth amendment in January 1863, legally abolished slavery, many African Americans remained in servitude due to the delayed dissemination of this news across the country.

Since that time, over 145 years ago, the descendants of slaves have observed this anniversary of emancipation as a remembrance of one of the most tragic periods of our Nation's history. The suffering, degradation and brutality of slavery cannot be repaired, but the memory can serve to ensure that no such inhumanity is ever perpetrated again on American soil.

All across America we also celebrate the many important achievements of former slaves and their descendants. We do so because in 1926, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, son of former slaves, proposed such a recognition as a way of preserving the history of African Americans and recognizing the enormous contributions of a people of great strength, dignity, faith, and conviction--a people who rendered their achievements for the betterment and advancement of a nation once lacking in humanity towards them. Every February, nationwide, we celebrate African American History Month. And, every year on June 19, we celebrate ``Juneteenth Independence Day.''

Lerone Bennett, editor, writer and lecturer has reflected on the life and times of Dr. Woodson. Bennett tells us that one of the most inspiring and instructive stories in African American history is the story of Woodson's struggle and rise from the coal mines of West Virginia to the summit of academic achievement:

At 17, the young man who was called by history to reveal

Black history was an untutored coal miner. At 19, after

teaching himself the fundamentals of English and arithmetic,

he entered high school and mastered the four-year curriculum

in less than two years. At 22, after two-thirds of a year at

Berea College [in Kentucky], he returned to the coal mines

and studied Latin and Greek between trips to the mine shafts.

He then went on to the University of Chicago, where he

received bachelor's and master's degrees, and Harvard

University, where he became the second Black to receive a

doctorate in history. The rest is history--Black history.

In keeping with the spirit and the vision of Dr. Carter G. Woodson, I would like to pay tribute to two courageous women, claimed by my home State of Michigan, who played significant roles in addressing American injustice and inequality. These are two women of different times who would change the course of history.

The contributions of Sojourner Truth, who helped lead our country out of the dark days of slavery, and Rosa Parks whose dignified leadership sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the start of the civil rights movement are indelibly etched in the chronicle of the history of this nation. Moreover, they are viewed with distinction and admiration throughout the world.

Sojourner Truth, though unable to read or write, was considered one of the most eloquent and noted spokespersons of her day on the inhumanity and immorality of slavery. She was a leader in the abolitionist movement, and a ground breaking speaker on behalf of equality for women. Michigan recently honored her with the dedication of the Sojourner Truth Memorial Monument, which was unveiled in Battle Creek, MI, on September 25, 1999. In April 2009, Sojourner Truth became the first African American woman to be memorialized with a bust in the U.S. Capitol. The ceremony to unveil Truth's likeness was appropriately held in Emancipation Hall at the Capitol Visitor Center. I was pleased to cosponsor the legislation to make this fitting tribute possible. Sojourner Truth lived in Washington, DC for several years, helping slaves who had fled from the South and appearing at women's suffrage gatherings. She returned to Battle Creek in 1875, and remained there until her death in 1883. Sojourner Truth spoke from her heart about the most troubling issues of her time. A testament to Truth's convictions is that her words continue to speak to us today.

On May 4, 1999, legislation was enacted which authorized the President of the United States to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. I was pleased to coauthor this tribute to Rosa Parks--the gentle warrior who decided that she would no longer tolerate the humiliation and demoralization of racial segregation on a bus. I

was also pleased to coauthor legislation directing the Architect of the Capitol to commission a statue of Rosa Parks, which will be placed in the U.S. Capitol, making her the second African American woman to receive such an honor.

Her personal bravery and self-sacrifice are remembered with reverence and respect by us all. Over 55 years ago, in Montgomery, AL, the modern civil rights movement began when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat and move to the back of the bus. The strength and spirit of this courageous woman captured the consciousness of not only the American people, but the entire world. The boycott which Rosa Parks began was the beginning of an American revolution that elevated the status of African Americans nationwide and introduced to the world a young leader who would one day have a national holiday declared in his honor, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mr. President, we have come a long way toward achieving justice and equality for all. We still however have work to do. In the names of Rosa Parks, Sojourner Truth, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and many others, let us rededicate ourselves to continuing the struggle and the struggle for human rights.

In closing, I would like to pay tribute to the Juneteenth directors and event coordinators throughout my State of Michigan. They have worked tirelessly in the planning of intergenerational activities in celebration of Juneteenth. Ms. Marilyn Plumber is heading up three events in Lansing, MI, this week and coordinators in Flint, Detroit, Saginaw, and other areas around the State are observing Juneteenth through a wide range of programs over several days.

Madam President, first, at this point, I wish to thank Senators Harkin and Brownback for the initiative they have taken, for their leadership in bringing before the Senate this healing resolution, this formal apology for slavery and racial segregation.

The resolution before us presents us with the opportunity to address face-to-face the unconscionable and the abhorrent acts of slavery and its aftermath perpetrated against fellow human beings. The apology resolution describes some of the gravest injustices of slavery: families enslaved, then torn further apart after family members were sold separately, stripped of their names and heritage; a system of forced labor that persisted for 250 years; brutal and unspeakable acts of violence against slaves. The injustices continued well after the 13th amendment to the Constitution ended slavery in our Nation because Jim Crow laws disenfranchised former slaves and subjugated them as second-class citizens.

After presenting detailed findings regarding slavery and the system of de jure segregation known as Jim Crow, the resolution reads, in part, that the Senate:

Acknowledges the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality,

and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow laws; Apologizes to

African Americans on behalf of the people of the United

States for the wrongs committed against them and their

ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow laws; and,

Expresses its recommitment to the principle that all people

are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights to

life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and calls on all

people of the United States to work toward eliminating racial

prejudices, injustices and discrimination from our society.

In 2005, the Senate passed a resolution formally apologizing for another tragic legacy of historic racial inequalities in our Nation: lynching. From 1880 to as recently as the 1960s, an estimated 5,000 Americans, predominantly African Americans, were killed by public hangings, burnings, and mutilation. Members of the Armed Forces were lynched in the country they had defended. Following both World War I and World War II, returning soldiers

were lynched, many while still wearing their military uniforms. There would be no new respect for these brave African Americans who had fought for our country, only the old order of injustice.

The Senate passed the resolution apologizing for lynching in an attempt to acknowledge the Senate's past failure to address the prevalence of those despicable acts and to allow for some national healing. It is my hope that the slavery apology resolution before us can serve a similar purpose.

We are fortunate to live in a time that is not blighted by slavery in this country or segregation under the law. But we live with the legacy of the practice of slavery, and it is our responsibility and our duty to continue to examine that history in order to improve the present and the future.

This apology is part of carrying out that responsibility. And doing so in the presence of visitors who are descendants of slaves adds to the meaning of our action.

Madam President, I again thank the cosponsors of the resolution.

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

Mr. President, what is the time agreement?

I ask unanimous consent that I be yielded 4 minutes.

Mr. President, one way to stimulate a key part of our economy--auto sales--is to establish a so-called fleet modernization or cash for clunkers program that would provide a voucher for purchase of new vehicles to those turning in their older less fuel efficient vehicles. This program will encourage people to purchase new more fuel efficient vehicles and will both stimulate the sale of new vehicles and reduce overall fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. By providing incentives for the purchase of new more fuel efficient vehicles, this program will provide a much-needed boost to the struggling auto industry, including manufacturers, dealers, suppliers and other related industries.

New vehicle sales of all auto companies in the world continue to suffer as we weather this unprecedented downturn in the U.S. economy. Since the end of last year, we have seen a decrease in sales of 30 to 40 percent over the same period a year ago. Therefore, it is imperative that we turn around this sales decline, and one way to help is with incentive programs such as the cash for clunkers program. Legislation to implement such a program was first passed by the House of Representatives as a stand-alone measure and has now been included as part of the Supplemental Appropriations Act before the Senate. Including this measure in this critical legislation will allow this program to be implemented quickly and begin to have a positive effect on the economy.

There is strong evidence that this type of program will work. Nearly every major industrialized country in the world with an auto industry has now some kind of vehicle scrappage program in place and there is documented evidence of increased sales. Germany has seen an increase in new vehicle sales of 25 to 40 percent since its program was implemented earlier this year. China saw an increase in new vehicle sales of 15 percent in March after its program was implemented. France has seen an increase in vehicle sales of 8 percent since its program was implemented at the end of 2008. Other countries--such as Japan and Korea--have more recently followed suit and implemented programs like this. It is too early to have sales data for these countries, but they are expected to show similar positive increases in sales of new vehicles.

Under the legislation passed by the House and included in the supplemental, an individual would be able to bring in an eligible older and less fuel efficient vehicle and receive a voucher for a new more fuel efficient vehicle. To be eligible to be turned in, the old vehicle would need to have a fuel economy value of 18 miles per gallon or less, or in the case of a work truck, be older than a 2002 model. The individual turning in the old vehicle would then receive a voucher for a new vehicle. The minimum threshold for the new vehicle purchased would be 22 miles per gallon fuel economy for new passenger cars, 18 miles per gallon fuel economy for new light duty trucks, and 15 miles per gallon fuel economy for new large trucks.

The amount of the voucher received for a new purchase would depend upon the incremental improvement in fuel economy of the new vehicle over the old vehicle. Individuals would receive a voucher of no less than $3,500 toward purchase of the new vehicle, but could receive as much as $4,500 based upon the fuel economy value of the new vehicle. Higher fuel economy, therefore, would bring higher savings--thereby creating a positive incentive for individuals to buy the most fuel efficient vehicles available. To ensure that the older less fuel efficient vehicle would not be used on the road again, the old vehicle would be taken to a registered disposal facility where it would be destroyed by dismantling the drive train and engine block. Any value of other used car parts would be protected, however, as these parts could be sold separately by the disposal facility.

The compromise before the Senate provides a well-crafted and balanced fleet modernization program. It will accelerate national economic recovery by stimulating up to an estimated 1 million new vehicle sales while at the same time pushing consumers toward purchase of more fuel efficient vehicles. This legislation is based upon months of work to develop a compromise among the administration, the auto companies, environmental organizations, and auto dealers. It provides a reasonable compromise and establishes a solid program that will give consumers with older vehicles an immediate cash incentive to purchase new more fuel efficient cars and trucks. By including a hierarchy of cash vouchers for purchase of new vehicles that increases the amount available for the most fuel-efficient new vehicles, this legislation will both stimulate the economy and encourage consumers to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles. This legislation strikes the appropriate balance between economic stimulus and fuel efficiency.

The proposal before us today keeps the focus on the primary purpose of this effort--to stimulate the U.S. economy by providing an incentive for individuals to turn in their older less fuel efficient vehicles and purchase a new more fuel efficient vehicle. It provides the proper balance--it encourages consumers to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles by including a hierarchy of incentives that offer a greater amount for a more fuel efficient vehicle. Stimulating vehicle sales while also getting older less fuel efficient vehicles off the road is surely an important national goal.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Madam President, I am pleased the Senate is taking up the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Act which will save hundreds of thousands of lives and more than $155 billion in health care costs every year. Currently, there are more than 44 million smokers, of which 90 percent began smoking before the age of 18. Tobacco is a product that is responsible for 440,000 deaths each year, is the leading cause of preventable death, and yet, is not regulated.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act will go a long way in regulating tobacco products, and will make it less likely that a child will establish a dependence on tobacco products. In the United States alone, every day approximately 3,000 minors take up smoking. Simply reducing the use of tobacco by these minors by even 50 percent will prevent more than 10 million children from becoming habitual smokers, saving over 3 million of them from premature death due to tobacco related disease.

It is critical that the FDA gain regulatory authority over tobacco related products, in order to ensure that consumers are better informed of the possible risks, addictive qualities, and adverse health effects of these products. In addition, this legislation will create more transparency and, as in many other consumable goods, tobacco manufactures will be required to list all ingredients included in their tobacco products. This bill also gives the FDA the ability to set quality criteria for tobacco products, prohibit cigarettes containing any flavoring other than tobacco or menthol, as well as require the FDA approval for all labels before being put on the market.

In 2005, cigarette manufactures spent more than $13 billion to attract new users, retain current users, and increase consumption. Children especially are exposed to tobacco advertising, seeing tobacco use glorified in movies, and advertisements and sponsorship of sporting events. This advertising misleads users, children and adults, to believe products are healthy, for example, ``light'' or ``low-tar'' designations. Our Nation stands to benefit greatly from this legislation, both in quality of life and revenue saved. The diseases and deaths caused by smoking are preventable, and every person has a stake in the issue, whether they smoke or not.

I was disappointed in 1998 when the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided in Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation v. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, that the FDA did not have the authority under existing law to regulate tobacco as an addictive drug, and I am pleased the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act will take steps to address this lack of regulation. This bill has the support of over 1,000 organizations and deserves our support.

Mr. President, last month the Senate passed and the President signed H. R. 627, the Credit CARD Act of 2009. Thanks to the hard work of Senator Dodd, Senator Shelby, Representative Maloney, many other Members of Congress, and the multitude of fed-up citizens who protested unfair treatment by credit card companies, this landmark bill to protect consumers from abusive credit card practices was passed over the objections of powerful lobbies. Millions of Americans will benefit now that some balance of power is being restored between card holders and card issuers.

Today, I want to thank Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby for including in the Credit CARD Act a provision that I authored and that was cosponsored by Senator Collins and Senator Menendez, to stop the deceptive marketing of free credit reports. I would also like to thank Senator Pryor for working with me to address his concerns about the provision.

Credit reports are a record of an individual's history of receiving and repaying loans, and they frequently contain errors. At the same time, these credit reports are used to calculate the credit scores that have become so central to evaluating a person's creditworthiness. Credit scores are used to determine whether someone will qualify for a credit card, what interest rate they will get, and whether and when that rate will increase. Credit scores perform a similar function for home mortgages, car loans, and consumer lines of credit. Some companies use these scores to screen applicants for apartments, insurance, security clearances, and even jobs. The important role a credit score plays in our everyday lives makes it all the more critical that the reports used to calculate these scores are accurate and accessible to consumers.

In the United States, three large nationwide credit reporting companies, often called ``credit bureaus,'' compile and maintain credit reports for the vast majority of consumers. Until Congress passed the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions, FACT, Act of 2003, consumers had to pay a fee in order to access or attempt to correct the information in their credit reports.

The FACT Act gave consumers the right to a free annual report from each of the nationwide consumer reporting companies. The FTC mandated the establishment of a website, AnnualCreditReport.com, to provide consumers access to their federally mandated free credit reports. In these difficult economic times, it is critical that consumers have a clear understanding of their right to get a free annual report, an easy way to obtain

those reports, and the ability to correct any mistakes since mistakes in a credit report could cost someone a loan or a job.

Today, however, television, radio, and the internet are awash in misleading advertisements for free credit reports. A cottage industry has sprung up of unscrupulous marketers who confuse or deceive consumers into buying products or services they may not need or want by tying the purchases to the offer of a so-called ``free credit report.'' Many of these marketers deliberately obscure the difference between the free reports to which consumers have a right under Federal law--which come with no strings attached--and the ``free reports'' that marketers condition on purchases of credit monitoring, credit scores, or other products.

Deceptive advertisements direct consumers to contact commercial sources unaffiliated with the government-authorized AnnualCreditReport.com. Consumers who request ``free'' credit reports from these sources often find they have unwittingly signed up for credit monitoring or other services they must pay for. Some of these offers include notice that they are not affiliated with the federally mandated free report, and that consumers who accept the offer will either have to pay for another product or cancel a ``trial membership'' within a short time to avoid being charged. These disclaimers, however, are often buried in fine print or appear in places where most consumers won't see them. They simply are not adequate to correct the overall impression that the offer is for the free, no-strings-attached credit report available under federal law. Deceptive advertisements using free credit reports as bait are particularly destructive, because they take advantage of a consumer's general knowledge that free credit reports are available under law, and subvert the law's intent to protect consumers.

The FTC has received hundreds of complaints from consumers who have been confused or deceived into paying for what they thought was their free report provided by law. The Better Business Bureau reports that just one prominent advertiser of free credit reports, FreeCreditReport.com, has been the subject of more than 9,600 complaints over the last 36 months. FreeCreditReport.com requires a potential customer to provide a credit card number in order to establish an account and request a credit report. Many consumers assume this information is necessary for the company to identify the correct credit file, because why else would you have to provide a valid credit card to receive a free report? In fact, buried in the small print it is revealed that customers that request a free credit report must also opt out of a credit monitoring service or else they will be charged $15 a month, indefinitely.

A 2007 study by Robert Mayer and Tyler Barrick of the University of Utah for Consumer Reports WebWatch analyzed 24 websites that market free credit reports and scores and revealed them to be rife with deceptive practices. Many of the websites studied had the word ``free'' in the domain name; others had names similar to the FTC-mandated AnnualCreditReport.com, such as NationalCreditReport.com. Of the 58 sales pitches for credit reports or scores across the 24 websites analyzed, 41 pitches were for ``free'' reports or scores that in fact required purchase of a product or enrollment in a credit monitoring service. The study concluded that the ``enticement of free credit reports and free credit scores is an integral part of marketing credit- related services.'' Interestingly, the study also revealed that of the 24 websites analyzed, nine were owned by, or closely connected to, the nationwide bureau TransUnion, and eight were owned by or closely connected to the nationwide credit bureau Experian.

The Federal Trade Commission has sued companies engaged in such misleading practices, but the deceptive advertisements have not stopped. Since 2005, for example, Experian has paid the government more than $1.2 million in settlements over deceptive marketing of ostensibly free credit reports through the website FreeCreditReport.com. And yet FreeCreditReport.com, through its seemingly ubiquitous advertisements, continues to deceptively peddle its product. At this very moment the Florida Attorney General's office has an active investigation into FreeCreditReport.com for ``Failure to adequately disclose negative option enrollment in credit monitoring with `Free' credit report, deceptive advertising, misleading domain name, and failure to honor cancellations.''

Section 205 of the Credit CARD Act, which contains the Levin-Collins- Menendez provision, will shore up the consumer protection in the FACT Act by requiring simple, honest disclosure in advertisements for ``free'' credit reports. Mandatory disclosures will help ensure that consumers are given accurate information about how to obtain a free credit report with no strings attached. It is an effort to end the deceptive activities of companies that attempt to trick people into buying something that they are entitled by Federal law to receive for free.

Section 205 directs the Federal Trade Commission to issue a rule by February 2010, to require companies advertising free credit reports to disclose the availability of the government-mandated free credit report in all mediums--internet, television, radio and print. Under the statute, the rulemaking must require that all television and radio ads for free credit reports include the disclaimer that ``This is not the free credit report provided for by federal law.'' The rulemaking will also require that all internet advertisers of free credit reports prominently display on the advertiser's homepage and possibly the advertisement itself that consumers can order the free credit reports provided for by federal law from www.AnnualCreditReport.com.

Section 205 provides for FTC rulemaking to flesh out the disclosure requirements, such as what information should be provided, how it should be formatted, and where it should be displayed. This section will not achieve its purpose unless the mandated disclosure is made in a clear, prominent, and effective manner, a standard that disclosures in many current promotions do not achieve. The cleverly deemphasized disclosure currently on FreeCreditReport.com, for example, would not be sufficient.

The success of a disclosure in alleviating confusion and deception depends critically on the manner in which it is presented. Even seemingly minor differences in language or presentation can make the difference between effective and ineffective disclosures. Section 205 recognizes these challenges and the FTC's unique ability to meet them by giving the agency the authority to implement this new disclosure requirement by rule. I encourage the FTC to use consumer testing to identify the most effective disclosures and to design separate disclosure requirements for each type of medium: television, radio, internet, and print.

Section 205 (b)(2)(B) states that, ``for advertisements on the Internet,'' the FTC rulemaking shall determine ``whether the disclosure required under section 612(g)(1) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (as added by this section) shall appear on the advertisement or the website on which the free credit report is made available.'' I want to be perfectly clear, as the Senator who authored this provision and ensured its inclusion in the final bill, that this provision is intended to allow the FTC to require disclosure on an internet ad, on the website to which the ad is linked, on the ``home'' website of the company advertising ``free'' credit reports, or on any combination of the three. In my view, most forms of internet advertising, such as banner ads and paid search engine links promising free credit reports, should include disclosures. It will be up to the FTC to determine the nature and extent of the disclosure on each form of internet advertising.

The goal of section 205 is to eliminate consumer confusion and deception by preventing commercial promotions from posing as the Federal free annual report program, and by ensuring that consumers know how to get their truly free annual reports. Although this provision does not prohibit the marketing of ``free credit reports'' per se, nothing in this section is intended to limit the FTC's authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to prohibit unfair or deceptive practices in or affecting commerce, or its authority under the FACT Act to promulgate regulations regarding the

centralized source for free credit reports. In fact, I hope the FTC utilizes all of its authority to end the deceptive marketing of free credit reports.

Today, deceptive marketing of ``free'' credit reports is big business. Ads appear on television, the internet, and other media. One of the leading advertisers of ostensibly free credit reports that are, in fact, linked to paid services is Experian, which vigorously opposed the disclosure requirements in Section 205. Despite its best efforts to sugarcoat its marketing practices, Experian acknowledged that if it were required in its advertising to inform potential customers of their legal right to get a no-strings-attached free credit report, it would have a harder time selling a ``free'' credit report that also requires consumers to sign up for credit monitoring at $15 per month.

Experian spends tens of millions of dollars advertising FreeCreditReport.com, dwarfing government efforts to publicize the availability of free credit reports at AnnualCreditReport.com and effectively undermining the intent of the free credit report provision of the FACT Act. So it is no surprise that Experian defended its marketing practices with aggressive lobbying. I am confident that the FTC will stand up to that kind of pressure and issue strong pro- consumer regulations by the February 2010 deadline in the law.

If, however, the FTC has not issued final rules by the statutory deadline, Section 205 requires an interim disclosure, ``Free credit reports are available under Federal law at: AnnualCreditReport.com,'' to be included in any advertisement for free credit reports in any medium. That interim disclosure is intended to be required in all ads from February 2010, until the FTC rulemaking is finalized.

As chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I have spent the last 4 years working to expose industry-wide credit card abuses. In 2007, my subcommittee held hearings which brought before the Senate not only consumers victimized by unfair practices, but also the credit card CEOs who approved those practices. In many cases, the card issuers that engaged in these practices relied upon information in a credit report.

Section 205 of the Credit CARD Act will help prevent the subversion of a key consumer protection. Again, I thank my colleagues for enacting Section 205 into law.