Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that would freeze interest rates on existing credit card balances until the full protections of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act go into effect in February.

It is clear that credit card companies see gouging consumers as a viable means of padding their profits. When they realized that we were serious about ending these abusive practices, they unfortunately decided to make one last grab for the pocketbooks of American consumers before the law goes into effect.

Even before the Credit CARD Act passed, I heard from Connecticut residents who had seen their interest rates double or even triple with little warning and no explanation. As the law's implementation approaches, credit card companies have continued to jack up their customers' interest rates to get ahead of provisions in the Credit CARD Act that will permanently prohibit them from arbitrarily raising rates on existing balances.

To those of us who have worked to rein in credit card abuses, this greedy behavior is disturbing, although not surprising. But to the families in my home state of Connecticut and around the country who are struggling to make ends meet these days it is something worse.

Debt can crush families, driving them into bankruptcy and shattering the financial foundation they have worked so hard to build. It is impossible to get ahead when you're falling further and further behind each month. The anytime, any-reason rate hikes that credit card companies have used to enrich themselves have destroyed too many American families.

That is why we took action to stop unjustified rate hikes, and why it is an outrage that credit card companies are trying to jam consumers one last time before our law stops them.

I am not about to let this stand. In April, Senator Schumer and I wrote to the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the National Credit Union Administration, calling on them to use their existing authority to implement an emergency freeze on interest rates.

The regulators, unfortunately, did not act. Therefore, on behalf of our constituents, we must. This legislation will immediately freeze interest rates to ensure that Americans are protected until the full Credit CARD Act goes into effect.

When it does, a provision I included in the legislation will hold credit card companies accountable for their recent behavior. Every 6 months, card companies will be required to review each account that they hit with a rate hike since January 1, 2009, and reduce the rate if the customer has become less of a credit risk or the circumstances that warranted the increase are no longer present.

I have directed Federal regulators to notify all credit card companies that they will be required to comply with this provision and to draft regulations that provide clear, strict rules to govern the reviews. Customers that did not deserve to have their rates raised in the first place should not have to be stuck with the higher rate after the Credit CARD Act takes effect.

Consumers have a responsibility to spend within their means and to pay what they owe. But credit card companies have a responsibility to deal with their customers honorably. And they most certainly do not have the right to rip off American families, especially when this Congress has already gone on the record opposing those actions.

Struggling middle class families won a huge victory when we passed the Credit CARD Act. Let us help them win another by ensuring that the credit card companies' reign of greed does not continue for even the short time before the law is implemented. I urge my colleagues to join me in this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that would freeze interest rates on existing credit card balances until the full protections of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act go into effect in February.

It is clear that credit card companies see gouging consumers as a viable means of padding their profits. When they realized that we were serious about ending these abusive practices, they unfortunately decided to make one last grab for the pocketbooks of American consumers before the law goes into effect.

Even before the Credit CARD Act passed, I heard from Connecticut residents who had seen their interest rates double or even triple with little warning and no explanation. As the law's implementation approaches, credit card companies have continued to jack up their customers' interest rates to get ahead of provisions in the Credit CARD Act that will permanently prohibit them from arbitrarily raising rates on existing balances.

To those of us who have worked to rein in credit card abuses, this greedy behavior is disturbing, although not surprising. But to the families in my home state of Connecticut and around the country who are struggling to make ends meet these days it is something worse.

Debt can crush families, driving them into bankruptcy and shattering the financial foundation they have worked so hard to build. It is impossible to get ahead when you're falling further and further behind each month. The anytime, any-reason rate hikes that credit card companies have used to enrich themselves have destroyed too many American families.

That is why we took action to stop unjustified rate hikes, and why it is an outrage that credit card companies are trying to jam consumers one last time before our law stops them.

I am not about to let this stand. In April, Senator Schumer and I wrote to the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the National Credit Union Administration, calling on them to use their existing authority to implement an emergency freeze on interest rates.

The regulators, unfortunately, did not act. Therefore, on behalf of our constituents, we must. This legislation will immediately freeze interest rates to ensure that Americans are protected until the full Credit CARD Act goes into effect.

When it does, a provision I included in the legislation will hold credit card companies accountable for their recent behavior. Every 6 months, card companies will be required to review each account that they hit with a rate hike since January 1, 2009, and reduce the rate if the customer has become less of a credit risk or the circumstances that warranted the increase are no longer present.

I have directed Federal regulators to notify all credit card companies that they will be required to comply with this provision and to draft regulations that provide clear, strict rules to govern the reviews. Customers that did not deserve to have their rates raised in the first place should not have to be stuck with the higher rate after the Credit CARD Act takes effect.

Consumers have a responsibility to spend within their means and to pay what they owe. But credit card companies have a responsibility to deal with their customers honorably. And they most certainly do not have the right to rip off American families, especially when this Congress has already gone on the record opposing those actions.

Struggling middle class families won a huge victory when we passed the Credit CARD Act. Let us help them win another by ensuring that the credit card companies' reign of greed does not continue for even the short time before the law is implemented. I urge my colleagues to join me in this legislation.

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

Madam President, I rise to speak about the fiscal year 2010 National Defense authorization bill. Although I believe this to be a flawed piece of legislation, I will support it because it provides critical resources, training, and equipment to our troops serving overseas. It adds 30,000 soldiers to our Army, lightening the strain of rigorous deployment cycles. And it provides a 3.4-percent pay raise for our men and women in uniform--not enough, in my view, but welcomed nonetheless. It also authorizes various facility upgrades for our troops, including $9 million to begin construction of an Air Operations Command Center at Bradley International Airport in my State of Connecticut. I commend my colleagues from Michigan and Arizona for their hard work on this bill.

I would also like to take a moment to offer my strong support to the hate crimes prevention amendment. I am also proud to be an original cosponsor of the underlying legislation, the Mathew Sheppard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, and I only wish that my dear friend, the late Senator Kennedy, could be here with us today to see this topic that was so important to him, finally be considered for final passage. This legislation is truly historic and is long overdue. Hate crimes sow discord and threaten entire communities. They are a particularly virulent form of violence, and that is why a broad consensus supports reacting to crimes motivated by bias with swift investigations and strong penalties. However, the special nature of hate crimes often makes those investigations particularly difficult, especially for small, local police departments. Passage of the bill before us will bring more criminals to justice by making it easier for the federal government to assist the investigations of more crimes. I am extremely proud to support this provision.

Despite my strong support for this important provision and many others in this bill, I also have to note some serious reservations I have with some portions of the bill. First, this bill effectively kills our Nation's most advanced tactical aircraft program, the F-22 Raptor, without any plans for replacing it. Furthermore, it fails to authorize funding for any additional C-17 cargo aircraft, though these planes are critical for transporting troops and equipment. Worse, the bill restricts the Air Force from retiring the aging C-5 cargo fleet, planes that are now some 40 years old. Over the President's objection, this bill forces the Pentagon to maintain aging aircraft, imposing an unnecessary burden on our taxpayers and an unacceptable risk on our troops.

I am also disappointed by the inclusion of $560 million for the continued development of the F-136 Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine. This is wasted money, pure and simple. We are already developing an engine that our military supports--one build by the skilled workers at Pratt & Whitney. The Pratt engine has now accumulated more than 140 hours of flight tests without failure. Developing a second engine wastes billions of taxpayer dollars, money that could be better spent on things our troops actually need.

So this is not a perfect bill. But there will be an opportunity to address these issues in the upcoming Defense appropriations bill, during whose consideration the critical priorities I have outlined attained bipartisan support. I am optimistic that we will soon be considering legislation that invest in strategic airlift platforms like the C-17, as well as other important military needs. And I remain optimistic that my colleagues share my commitment to our critical aerospace priorities. This bill includes $2.5 billion to build 125 Blackhawk helicopters for the Army and Navy, aircraft that have proven invaluable in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, $92 million is authorized for a highly advanced wide area surveillance radar system, which will be built in Norwalk, CT, and which will prove critical for our forces' future ability to have precise and up-to-date intelligence of the battlefield. Similarly, $250 million is authorized to build new Pratt & Whitney engines for the Joint STARS radar aircraft that are widely used in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill also authorizes 18 F/A-18 fighter aircraft and 30 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, which marks the beginning of a long production run of these sophisticated jets.

This is good news for our military and good news for our economy. According to the Department of Labor, ``The aerospace industry is a powerful force within the U.S. economy and one of the nation's most competitive industries in the global marketplace. It contributes over 15 percent to our Gross Domestic Product and supports over 15 million high-quality American jobs.'' And, as I have stated before, my small State of Connecticut, which ranks 29th in the Nation in terms of total population, is 6th in aerospace employment. The workers at companies such as Pratt & Whitney, Hamilton Sundstrand, Sikorsky Aircraft, Goodrich, Norden Systems, Kaman, Aerogear, and hundreds of others work day in and day out to provide our troops with the highest quality equipment in the world. The billions of dollars of funding authorized in this bill is

proof of our military's appreciation for their hard work.

Just as important as protecting our troops from the skies is protecting them when they are at sea. That is why funding authorized in this bill for the Virginia class submarine program is so important. The bill includes $4 billion to procure one submarine next year and to prepare to begin building two submarines per year in 2011. This boost in production will better equip our Navy to deliver Special Forces such as the SEALs without detection, launch precision missiles on a moment's notice, and intercept enemy signals unseen and unaffected by weather. This bill also authorizes $495 million to design the Ohio class replacement submarine, our next generation ballistic missile submarine. This bill confirms that submarines have and will continue to stealthily protect our country for decades to come.

There is no higher priority than our national defense. And the brave men and women who serve us overseas must have the resources they need to do their jobs. I will support this legislation because it does that. But I look forward to working with my colleagues to strengthen our approach to defense policy so that we can address some of the shortcomings of this bill as we consider further legislation in the weeks ahead.

Mr. President, today Senator Ensign and I are submitting a resolution designating October 22, 2009, Lights On Afterschool Day. Lights on Afterschool brings students, parents, educators, lawmakers, and community and business leaders together to celebrate afterschool programs. This year, more than 1 million Americans are expected to attend about 7,500 events designed to raise awareness and support for these much needed programs.

In America today, 1 in 4 youth, more than 15 million children, go home alone after the school day ends. This includes more than 40,000 kindergartners and almost 4 million middle school students in grades six to eight. On the other hand, only 8.4 million children, or approximately 15 percent of school-aged children, participate in afterschool programs. An additional 18.5 million would participate if a quality program were available in their community.

Lights On Afterschool, a national celebration of afterschool programs, is celebrated every October in communities nationwide to call attention to the importance of afterschool programs for America's children, families and communities. Lights On Afterschool was launched in October 2000 with celebrations in more than 1,200 communities nationwide. The event has grown from 1,200 celebrations in 2001 to more than 7,500 today. This October, 1 million Americans will celebrate Lights On Afterschool.

Quality afterschool programs should be available to children in all communities. These programs support working families and prevent kids from being both victims and perpetrators of violent crime. They also help parents in balancing the work and home-life. Quality afterschool programs help to engage students in their communities, and when students are engaged, they are more successful in their educational endeavors.

In our work on the Senate Afterschool Caucus, Senator Ensign and I have been working for more than 5 years to impress upon our colleagues the importance of afterschool programming. It is our hope that they will join us on October 22 to celebrate the importance of afterschool programs in their communities back home.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fairness and Accountability in Receiving Overdraft Coverage Act, The FAIR Overdraft Coverage Act. The FAIR Overdraft Coverage Act will rein in abusive fees, give customers greater choice, and bring

greater transparency to overdraft coverage programs.

For too long, some in the financial services industry have gotten rich by taking advantage of consumers.

Earlier this year, in a 90-5 vote, this body passed legislation to crack down on credit card companies who were charging excessive fees and indiscriminately raising customers' rates. Those practices were wrong, and I was proud to lead the charge to put a stop to them.

Today, I hope to rally my colleagues' support to curtail another abusive practice: overdraft fees.

Let me be clear, people have a responsibility to spend within their means.

However, too often, banks take advantage of their customers under the guise of providing the ``service'' of overdraft protection, a service that the customer may not want and may not even know has been applied to his or her account.

The Financial Times recently reported that banks stand to collect a record $38.5 billion in overdraft fees this year.

According to the Center for Responsible Lending, nearly $1 billion of that will come from young adults.

Another $4.5 billion will come from senior citizens like Mario Livieri of Branford, Connecticut. Mario is a 75-year-old retired homebuilder who accidentally overdrew his account by approximately $2, and was charged $35 by his bank. The bank took several days to notify him that the account was overdrawn, and in the meantime, he made three additional minor purchases for which he was charged three additional $35 fees--a total of $140.

When Mario protested, the bank waived one of the four $35 charges. They told him there was nothing more he could do to fight the fees, because this practice was perfectly legal. Mario Livieri is no longer a customer at that bank, and this prevalent practice should no longer be perfectly legal.

Slow-walking notifications to consumers when their accounts are overdrawn is just one way in which banks try to run up the score on overdraft fees. Sometimes, they even re-arrange the order in which they process your purchases, charging you for a later, larger purchase first and then they charge you repeated overdraft fees for earlier, smaller purchases.

Worst of all, so-called ``overdraft protection'' is often added to customers'' accounts without their permission, or even their knowledge. Customers who don't know that this feature is attached to their accounts think their purchases will just be denied if they don't have sufficient money in their accounts. Instead, their depository institutions will let these purchases go through and charge a $35 flat fee for each purchase that overdrafts the account--no matter how small the purchase. And there generally is no limit on the number of fees that a customer can be charged in a single day.

That is just wrong. Families in my State of Connecticut and across the country are already struggling to make ends meet--and these unfair and excessive charges are making it even harder. Over the past few weeks, I've worked with consumer groups and listened to folks like Mario who have been the victims of these abusive practices. Those discussions resulted in the bill I present to you today.

Here is how the bill works.

First and foremost, no consumer should be enrolled in a program like this without their knowledge. My bill will establish an opt-in rule for overdraft protection for ATM and debit transactions so that customers will have to consent before they can be charged an overdraft coverage fee. You will recall that the credit card bill we passed earlier this year had a similar approach to over-the-limit fees.

If you do choose to opt into an overdraft coverage program, the bill will limit the number of overdraft fees banks can charge you--one per month, and no more than six per year. And that fee will be required to be proportional to the cost of processing the overdraft--no more $40 charges for $2 cups of coffee.

My legislation will also put a stop to the practice of manipulating the order in which transactions are posted, and require banks to warn customers if they are about to overdraw their account, giving them a chance to cancel the transaction.

Finally, it will require banks to notify customers promptly when they've overdrawn an account--through a means the customer chooses, from e- mail to text message to letter--so that they can quickly restore their balance and avoid unnecessary fees.

Abusive overdraft policies are unfair, and the banks know it. After it came out in the press that I was working on this legislation, a few of the big banks took steps towards responsible reform.

We will see whether these few are truly committed to reform. America's consumers deserve better--and this legislation will make sure they won't continue to be victims of greedy banks looking to line their pockets at the expense of hard-working families.

I urge my colleagues to join me and Senators Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Jack Reed, Sherrod Brown, Carl Levin, Jeff Merkley, and Robert Menendez in support of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fairness and Accountability in Receiving Overdraft Coverage Act, The FAIR Overdraft Coverage Act. The FAIR Overdraft Coverage Act will rein in abusive fees, give customers greater choice, and bring

greater transparency to overdraft coverage programs.

For too long, some in the financial services industry have gotten rich by taking advantage of consumers.

Earlier this year, in a 90-5 vote, this body passed legislation to crack down on credit card companies who were charging excessive fees and indiscriminately raising customers' rates. Those practices were wrong, and I was proud to lead the charge to put a stop to them.

Today, I hope to rally my colleagues' support to curtail another abusive practice: overdraft fees.

Let me be clear, people have a responsibility to spend within their means.

However, too often, banks take advantage of their customers under the guise of providing the ``service'' of overdraft protection, a service that the customer may not want and may not even know has been applied to his or her account.

The Financial Times recently reported that banks stand to collect a record $38.5 billion in overdraft fees this year.

According to the Center for Responsible Lending, nearly $1 billion of that will come from young adults.

Another $4.5 billion will come from senior citizens like Mario Livieri of Branford, Connecticut. Mario is a 75-year-old retired homebuilder who accidentally overdrew his account by approximately $2, and was charged $35 by his bank. The bank took several days to notify him that the account was overdrawn, and in the meantime, he made three additional minor purchases for which he was charged three additional $35 fees--a total of $140.

When Mario protested, the bank waived one of the four $35 charges. They told him there was nothing more he could do to fight the fees, because this practice was perfectly legal. Mario Livieri is no longer a customer at that bank, and this prevalent practice should no longer be perfectly legal.

Slow-walking notifications to consumers when their accounts are overdrawn is just one way in which banks try to run up the score on overdraft fees. Sometimes, they even re-arrange the order in which they process your purchases, charging you for a later, larger purchase first and then they charge you repeated overdraft fees for earlier, smaller purchases.

Worst of all, so-called ``overdraft protection'' is often added to customers'' accounts without their permission, or even their knowledge. Customers who don't know that this feature is attached to their accounts think their purchases will just be denied if they don't have sufficient money in their accounts. Instead, their depository institutions will let these purchases go through and charge a $35 flat fee for each purchase that overdrafts the account--no matter how small the purchase. And there generally is no limit on the number of fees that a customer can be charged in a single day.

That is just wrong. Families in my State of Connecticut and across the country are already struggling to make ends meet--and these unfair and excessive charges are making it even harder. Over the past few weeks, I've worked with consumer groups and listened to folks like Mario who have been the victims of these abusive practices. Those discussions resulted in the bill I present to you today.

Here is how the bill works.

First and foremost, no consumer should be enrolled in a program like this without their knowledge. My bill will establish an opt-in rule for overdraft protection for ATM and debit transactions so that customers will have to consent before they can be charged an overdraft coverage fee. You will recall that the credit card bill we passed earlier this year had a similar approach to over-the-limit fees.

If you do choose to opt into an overdraft coverage program, the bill will limit the number of overdraft fees banks can charge you--one per month, and no more than six per year. And that fee will be required to be proportional to the cost of processing the overdraft--no more $40 charges for $2 cups of coffee.

My legislation will also put a stop to the practice of manipulating the order in which transactions are posted, and require banks to warn customers if they are about to overdraw their account, giving them a chance to cancel the transaction.

Finally, it will require banks to notify customers promptly when they've overdrawn an account--through a means the customer chooses, from e- mail to text message to letter--so that they can quickly restore their balance and avoid unnecessary fees.

Abusive overdraft policies are unfair, and the banks know it. After it came out in the press that I was working on this legislation, a few of the big banks took steps towards responsible reform.

We will see whether these few are truly committed to reform. America's consumers deserve better--and this legislation will make sure they won't continue to be victims of greedy banks looking to line their pockets at the expense of hard-working families.

I urge my colleagues to join me and Senators Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Jack Reed, Sherrod Brown, Carl Levin, Jeff Merkley, and Robert Menendez in support of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today Senator Grassley and I have submitted a resolution designating the third week of October as National Character Counts Week. In the past, my good friend Senator Domenici and I worked together on the issue of character education, and I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Grassley in continuing to designate a special week to this cause. I hope that with this resolution we may highlight the importance of character building activities in schools not only this week but all year long.

Since 1994, when the Partnerships in Character Education Pilot Project was first established, I have worked to commemorate National Character Counts Week. Character Counts was founded on a simple notion: our core ethical values aren't just important to us as individuals-- they form the very foundation of democratic society. We know that in order to face our challenges as communities and as a Nation, we need our children to be both well-educated and trained--and that begins with instilling character in our children.

Trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship--these are the six pillars of character. Character education provides

students a context within which to learn those values and integrate them into our daily lives. Indeed, if we view education simply as the imparting of knowledge to our children, then we not only miss an opportunity, but as also jeopardize our future. Children want direction--to be taught right from wrong. Young people yearn for consistent adult involvement, and when they get it, we know they are less inclined to use illegal drugs, to vandalize or commit suicide. The American public wants character education in our schools, too. Studies show that approximately 90 percent of Americans support schools teaching character education.

Character education programs work. Currently, there are character education programs across all 50 States in rural, urban and suburban areas at every grade level. Schools across the country that have adopted strong character education programs report better student performance, fewer discipline problems, and increased student involvement within the community.

This renewed focus on character sends a wonderful message to Americans and will help reinvigorate our efforts to get communities and schools involved. With this resolution, it is my hope that even more communities will make character education a part of every child's life. I hope that my colleagues will support this important effort.

Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution on behalf of myself, Senator Durbin and Senator, Cardin, aimed at putting the Senate on the record in support of empowering and strengthening the U.S. Agency for International Development. This is a simple and straightforward resolution, but I believe it speaks volumes about the current situation of U.S. overseas development policy.

USAID has been without an administrator for nearly 10 months. It is critical that this position is swiftly filled by an individual who can serve as a strong advocate for the agency in national security and foreign policy deliberations within the U.S. Government. The Administrator must also work urgently to strengthen, empower and revitalize the agency itself. This essential position must be filled if the U.S. is to take on the myriad of foreign policy challenges that exist in a holistic and sustainable manner--because for nearly all of the challenges we face as a Nation, development will play a key role in helping us solve them.

This resolution also recognizes the tremendously important role development plays in foreign policy, and puts the Senate on record as supporting an empowered USAID. I believe USAID should be a strong and independent voice in high-level U.S. foreign policy debates. If U.S. development policy and, by extension, U.S. foreign policy, is to succeed in the long run, USAID must be an independent body that can advocate for what it knows best--how to effectively deliver and implement U.S. foreign assistance, at the highest level. It must have a serious seat at the table. Our foreign policy will neither be comprehensive nor sufficient to meet the challenges of the 21st century, without serious and unbiased input from America's development experts.

Finally, this resolution recognizes that USAID must be empowered to fulfill its mandate with a robust staff that understands both the needs of the international community as well as the strategic value of development.

It has long been understood that international development is a critically important aspect of our foreign policy. It is high time we matched this reality with a real and meaningful commitment. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important resolution to empower and improve USAID.

Mr. President, it may feel like Ground Hog Day for some of us. We soundly defeated a similar amendment proposed by the Senator from Arizona last week, by a vote of 34-64. The reasons are clear, and have remained unchanged.

The C-17 has proven its worth to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, to our taxpayers that foot the bill, and to the workers that labor day in and day out to provide our military with these critical planes. Our need for these planes is not shrinking--in fact, it is growing. Since the last formal assessment of our military's airlift requirements 4 years ago, our forces have been expanded by 92,000 troops. Our overseas commitments have dramatically increased, resulting in many C-17s flying nearly double the flight hours that were planned for. Why? Because the C-17 is the most versatile and capable airlift plane in our arsenal.

Despite these facts, the Senator from Arizona insists that we extend the life

of our 40-year-old C-5 fleet, at a high cost to our taxpayer. Over the administration's objections, he coauthorized a bill recently that was approved by this body that actually prohibits the military from retiring C-5s. According to the Air Force, the C-5B has already reached 147 percent of planned life expectancy. This is a fleet we must begin to replace.

I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating amendment No. 2580, for the sake of our troops, our taxpayers, and America's workers.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to discuss a very important amendment that was adopted by the Senate. This amendment, which I was proud to cosponsor, expresses the sense of the Senate that the joint surveillance target attack radar system, known as Joint STARS, is one of the most effective and heavily tasked intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets in our Air Force. These aircraft provide critical imagery of tens of thousands of square miles to our troops every day, helping to protect the lives of our troops who are protecting our country so bravely overseas.

The Joint STARS fleet, although only 17 aircraft in size, has demonstrated immeasurable success in Iraq and Afghanistan. So far, they have flown over 55,000 combat hours, tracking the location and movement of enemy troops and discovering hundreds of improvised explosive devices. These aircraft consistently provide our troops on the ground with critical intelligence that helps them prepare for their missions in enemy territory.

The Joint STARS fleet has been protecting our troops for decades, and with that service has incurred expected wear and tear. With no aircraft being designed to replace them, it is absolutely critical that we provide the military with the funds they need to keep up with their heavy deployment cycles. These aircraft are in dire need

of new engines, which are now more than 40 years old. Failure to do so will cost the taxpayer billions of dollars in maintenance and operating costs. According to Air Force estimates, however, replacing the engines will pay for itself within 8 years. This is the only sensible solution.

Workers in Norwalk, CT, have been working on the radar for this aircraft for years. This unique technology provides overall images of the battle space, ensuring our troops receive the most complete and accurate intelligence possible, from camouflaged insurgent camps and enemy vehicles to incoming cruise missiles. It is an incredible product which lends itself to some of the most industrious and dedicated workers in the field. There are hundreds of workers across the country like those in Norwalk that labor day in and day out to ensure that the Joint STARS fleet is able to continue to protect our brave men and women in uniform.

Our troops cannot afford a lapse in the critical surveillance capability provided by our Joint STARS fleet. Our warfighters depend on this cutting edge technology every day, and we must ensure that we do not deny our troops the intelligence they need to successfully and safely execute their missions overseas.

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor the memory of U.S. Army Reserve CAPT Benjamin Sklaver, who was killed on October 2, when his patrol came under attack in Muscheh, Afghanistan. He was 32 years old.

Captain Sklaver personified the values and qualities of a U.S. Army officer, and dedicated himself to improving his country and helping those most in need, both in uniform and as a private citizen. As a U.S. Army captain, Benjamin Sklaver distinguished himself as a capable and talented leader; and as an employee of the CDC and

FEMA Captain Sklaver used his skills to help Americans prepare for and recover from disaster.

Perhaps the most inspiring chapter of his life came after a 2007 deployment to the Horn of Africa, where Captain Sklaver saw how hard it was for rural Ugandan villagers to obtain clean drinking water. Upon his return to the United States, Sklaver helped found the ClearWater Initiative to help bring access to clean water to war torn regions. In just 2 short years, Captain Sklaver's Initiative provided access to clean, potable water to over 6,500 people in Africa, where his charity work earned him the nickname ``Moses Ben.''

Guided by a deep sense of patriotism and the Jewish principle of Tikkun Olam, or fixing the world, Captain Sklaver touched the lives of thousands, and his contributions to his country and to those he helped around the world will not soon be forgotten.

All of us owe a deep debt of gratitude to Captain Sklaver and his family. I extend my deepest condolences to Captain Sklaver's parents Gary and Laura, his brother Samuel, his sister Anna, his fiance Beth Segaloff, and to all those who knew and loved him.

Specialist Justin Pellerin

Mr. President, I am prepared to go right to the heart of the underlying amendment rather than go through this point of order, but let me just point out that there are those who have supported a provision in the fiscal year 2010 Defense Authorization bill that would prohibit the Defense Department from retiring the 40-year-old C-5As. These are the people who are now promoting this amendment to kill the C-17. In effect, the proponents of the McCain amendment are tying the hands of the Air Force, by requiring the Pentagon to upkeep a fleet of C-5s--aircraft that are outdated, costly to operate, and are less capable than the C-17. The Air Force should be allowed to replace them with C-17s and not be forced to waste hundreds of millions of dollars to extend the life of the C-5.

It is less costly to build a C-17 than it is to repair a C-5. That is the reality. If we are looking for cost savings and deficit reduction, then what the committee has advocated actually makes more sense fiscally to do. But instead, the McCain amendment in effect promotes a 40-year-old aircraft, getting older by the day, rather than an aircraft like the C-17 that has the capability of landing almost anywhere on the globe for that matter, highly versatile.

We have nearly 100,000 new troops who have been added to our armed services in 4 years. We need to have an airlift capacity that meets our larger force's needs. I urge the rejection of the McCain amendment.

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

Mr. President, I am going to take a few minutes to address the pending amendment, if I may. Then, at the conclusion of those remarks, I wish to speak as if in morning business for a few minutes to address another matter that will not be the subject of the pending legislation, if that is permissible.

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from Arizona that could wipe out a highly skilled American workforce. It would irreparably damage our combat readiness, deprive our troops in the field of critical resources and threaten our national security. Those are strong words, but that is what is involved if the amendment being offered by the Senator from Arizona is adopted.

I wish to introduce my colleagues to three workers at Pratt & Whitney in Middletown, CT. We see three individuals working on this engine. They are removing test equipment after completing testing on a powerful, cutting-edge engine, preparing it for delivery to the U.S. Air Force. The man on the left is Doug. He has been working for Pratt & Whitney for 24 years. He is married with three children, 8-year-old twins and a 4-year-old.

The man in the middle is Steve. He spent 4 years in the Air Force before coming to Pratt & Whitney and boasts a quarter of a century in aviation experience. On the right is his coworker Michael, with 15 years of experience on the floor and 8 as a supervisor at this facility. If we effectively lay off these workers and the 30,000 Americans like them in 43 States who build the C-17, we will be causing tremendous pain and financial hardship at a time when our communities can least afford it.

In my home State of Connecticut--29th in total population, but 6th in total aerospace employment--we just received word that Pratt & Whitney is going to close maintenance facilities in Cheshire, CT, and East Hartford, CT, costing 1,000 jobs. If this amendment prevails, my State's largest private employer tells me that they will stand to lose another 3,000 jobs. That means the loss of decades of experience and expertise that has allowed us to maintain not parity with the world, but superiority, in the aerospace industry.

Perhaps my colleagues aren't persuaded by the imminent loss of thousands of jobs in my state or even their own. Perhaps some might be tempted to threaten the livelihoods of 30,000 people at a time when we can ill afford it. To them I say, think about these three individuals are doing for our troops.

According to the Air Force, over the last 3 years in the military's Central Command alone, the C-17 has flown more than 100,000 airlift sorties, moved more than 2 million personnel, delivered nearly 300,000 tons of cargo, and executed nearly 2,000 air drops. According to the Government Accountability Office, C-17s have delivered more than 2.4 million tons of cargo to Iraq and Afghanistan alone. That is 2.4 million tons of supplies--everything from critical gear to large vehicles--sustaining our troops on the battlefield.

The Government Accountability Office also notes that this aircraft has ``drawn praise during combat operations''--listen to this--with an 86-percent readiness rate, compared to the 53-percent readiness rate of the 40-year-old C-5 fleet that shares the cargo lift mission with the C-17s. The C-17 is the most reliable airlift plane in our arsenal, and it is also the most versatile. Unlike any other aircraft we have, the C-17 can complete combat, humanitarian, and other transport missions all over the world, thanks to its unique ability to take off and land in difficult environments, in remote airfields, or in situations where runways are shortened or degraded.

The Air Force reports that the C-17 is able to take off and land on 65 percent of the world's soils, whereas older airlift planes can only land on 6 percent.

This incredible versatility makes the C-17 vital to the success of counterinsurgency, humanitarian, and research missions the world over. It can operate not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in places such as Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan, and even Antarctica.

But today I feel this versatility is taken for granted. Our commitments overseas, especially since 2001, have imposed far greater burdens on these aircraft than we had originally planned for.

The Congressional Research Service reports that the C-17 was designed to fly 1,000 hours per year, with an expected lifespan of 30 years. But as our overseas commitments have grown since 2001, the fleet has averaged 1,250 hours per aircraft and some have even reached 2,400 flying hours in a single year.

GEN Arthur Lichte, the Air Force's air mobility commander, has said that at this rate, the C-17s may have a lifespan as short as 22 years. When a mission-critical aircraft is due to retire 8 years earlier than intended, as this one may be, we who are charged with equipping our troops in the field must address our procurement plans and we must do it now. Some of our newest C-17s are already 15 years old.

I wish to remind my colleagues that last July the Senate voted 93 to 1 to authorize the expansion of the Army by 30,000 soldiers. I, along with nearly all of my colleagues, supported that increase to meet our growing security demands and relieve the combat burden on our already overstretched forces. When we took that vote, we incurred an obligation as well to provide those troops with the support they will need in order to do their jobs.

Chairman Inouye and the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee have demonstrated incredible foresight by acting quickly to prevent these future shortfalls in this very important fleet. If this amendment to undo their good work prevails, we are doing a disservice to our troops. We are also doing a great disservice to our taxpayers.

The author of this amendment has said we should kill the C-17 now and wait for a government study down the road to see whether we need more of these aircraft. Well, if we kill the C-17, we will lose our only wide-body assembly line in the United States. According to the Government Accountability Office, it will cost up to $1 billion to restart the line when it inevitably dawns on us that we need additional military cargo planes to support our troops in the field. If we hand these three individuals and the 30,000 of their fellow workers around the country pink slips in the next few days, who do we think is going to build those planes down the road?

By the way, if we choose to try to make up the capability by extending the lives of the C-5As, we would need to overhaul and repair seven of them at a cost of nearly $1 billion to equal the capability we would get from buying just one additional C-17 at a cost of $276 million.

This amendment would hurt our workers, our troops, and our national security. It is a massive expenditure disguised as a short-term savings. It is the very definition of cutting off our nose to spite our face when it comes to the critical needs of our troops in the field. Whatever views one may have on Afghanistan or Iraq, we want to make sure that our troops, wherever they are, receive the support they need.

Today, when the vote occurs, I urge my colleagues to support the committee and reject the amendment to cut out these critical aircraft.

With that, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to move to a matter other than the one I just discussed as in morning business.

Mr. President, it has been a tumultuous year in Iran.

The Iranian regime has continued to pursue its nuclear ambitions, fund terrorist activities throughout the Middle East, and repress its own people. The world watched this repression play out in the wake of this summer's illegitimate elections, when brave and peaceful protestors were violently attacked.

If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons capability, it would pose a significant threat to peace and security in the Middle East, especially to our close ally Israel and others in the region.

For years, the Iranian regime has refused reasonable requests by the international community. And it has failed to meet its obligations under international nonproliferation rules.

That is a threat to both national security and global stability, and it cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged.

President Obama has undertaken an aggressive dual-track approach. He has offered high-level engagement with Tehran, but has matched that carrot with the stick of sustained pressure through economic sanctions. As the President has warned, Iran won't be allowed to run out the clock.

As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, I intend to introduce legislation that will arm the administration with the ability to impose tough, targeted sanctions if Iran does not respond to our final diplomatic efforts in the coming weeks.

We must confront Iran's government with its long record of duplicity and deception on the issue of its nuclear facilities.

Last week, President Obama revealed that Iran is building a secret uranium enrichment facility in violation of international rules.

The President and our allies have rightly insisted that IAEA inspectors be allowed to access this facility promptly. And over the weekend, Iran moved forward on provocative missile tests.

In two days, the United States and our allies will begin key talks with Iran's leaders. Unfortunately, Iran's President has already suggested that appropriate limits to his country's nuclear enrichment program are off the table.

Clearly, in light of this growing threat, there is cause for great concern and prompt action on our part.

But there is also cause for hope that Iran might be forced to change course. We have received renewed support from our allies. We have been encouraged by the strong international rejection of election abuses. And we have seen tensions within the Iranian regime begin to break into the open.

It is not too late for a proper resolution. But the road ahead is difficult. It will require sustained diplomatic effort to ensure all of our strategic partners--the Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians and moderate Arab states throughout the Middle East join this effort.

We will only succeed if Iran is confronted by the prospect of sustained, progressively intensifying multilateral economic and diplomatic pressure on its government including tougher sanctions.

This week's negotiations should confront Iran's leaders with a clear choice: end its illegitimate efforts to enrich uranium, halt its proliferation efforts, and stop supporting terrorists around the world--or continue to deepen this regime's isolation, and ruin the Iranian economy.

The administration is right to attempt engagement with Iran even as we make clear that biting sanctions will follow if international demands for greater transparency continue to meet with stubborn refusal.

Administration officials have outlined to me a menu of additional tough multilateral sanctions that they are considering imposing. Congress must equip President Obama with a full range of tools to deal with the threats posed by Iran.

In the last Congress, the Banking Committee approved comprehensive legislation to impose tough new sanctions on the Iranian regime; authorize investors to divest from companies active in Iran's energy sector; and combat black-market networks spreading weapons around the world. Unfortunately, floor consideration was repeatedly blocked by a small minority.

Given the rising stakes, I intend to work with my committee colleagues, including Ranking Member Senator Shelby, to press forward similar sanctions legislation in the next few weeks.

I want to congratulate Senators Lieberman and Bayh for their leadership on this issue, including their legislation to impose further sanctions on entities involved in importing gasoline to Iran or in assisting Iran's efforts to expand its domestic refining capacity.

Iran's energy sector is a key source of revenue to the government-- and Iran is especially susceptible because of its dependence on imported gasoline. I will integrate these critical provisions into the legislation.

Our legislation will be targeted and strategic, maximizing the economic leverage of the U.S., our partners and allies, and investors while avoiding the risks of a more indiscriminate approach.

The bill would also expand coverage under the Iran Sanctions Act to include financial institutions, underwriters, guarantors, and other business entities, and extend the applicability of sanctions to oil and gas pipelines and tankers.

It would impose a broad ban on direct imports from Iran to the U.S. and exports from the U.S. to Iran of those few items still able to be so shipped, exempting food and medicines.

It will strengthen existing authority to freeze the assets of Iranians active in weapons proliferation or terrorist activity, and make it clear that U.S. entities who establish a subsidiary to get around sanctions laws will be held liable for the activities of their subsidiaries.

Finally, it would impose new requirements that the President actually make a determination, and report every 6 months to Congress, regarding the sanctionability of eligible investments in Iran's energy sector.

In addition to expanding U.S. sanctions, the bill would also establish a simple formula authorizing divestment from firms which invest significant amounts in Iran's energy sector, with provisions patterned after the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act enacted 2 years ago.

Many of us believe that Americans should be able to divest from energy firms doing business with the Iranian regime whose policies they abhor, and which indirectly help to prop up the regime.

They should be given the tools they need to make socially responsible decisions. And investors who choose to divest--States, large pension and mutual funds, and others should be held harmless for these decisions. Investing in Iran is risky business, and investors should be fully informed of those risks going in. The bill does not require divestment; it simply permits it.

Finally, this bill will provide incentives for countries to strengthen their export control systems to stop the illegal diversion of sensitive dual-use technology to countries like Iran, and impose tough new licensing requirements on those who refuse to cooperate.

As we confront the realities of a global marketplace, with manufacturers assembling parts of complex machinery such as aircraft and computers from a supply chain spanning the globe, and as regimes like Iran, North Korea, and Syria trawl various trans-shipment hubs for such parts to assemble high-tech weapons, it makes sense to address this problem head-on.

We have developed a way to do this, with an array of carrots and sticks to prod unwilling countries to get serious about developing and implementing tough, comprehensive export control rules and systems.

Our allies continue to work closely with the US to increase economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran.

I believe our legislation will complement and reinforce those ongoing diplomatic efforts, and send a clear signal to Iran's government of what's in store if they continue to flaunt the will of the international community.

Congress will be moving forward on the same timetable that the President and our allies have set for this fall, to underscore to Iran's leaders the huge price they will pay economically, politically, diplomatically, and otherwise if they do not change course.

The government of Iran must come clean on its nuclear program, which as President Obama observed last week represents a direct challenge to the basic foundation of the international nonproliferation regime. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting efforts in the coming weeks to make clear to the Iranians that we in Congress stand with President Obama in our determination to confront this problem forcefully, and urgently, before it is too late.

Mr. President, we will have our hearing on October 6 in the Senate Banking Committee. My intention is to, shortly thereafter, a week or so, combine the proposals offered into one strong, comprehensive sanctions bill. I, as well as others, believe we should take no options off the table and that we understand the implications of the statement.

Most of us agree every effort ought to be made to resolve this matter short of the use of military force. Obviously, that option remains. I believe we are proposing a sanctions regime, along with the needed cooperation of other nations around the world, that will send an unequivocal message--and nothing would be more important at this hour than to send that clear united message from this body and the other body--of our determination to use all the tools available to us to bring about the desired change we seek.

By adopting this strong legislation, my hope is they will understand how serious we are in our determination to achieve the common goal sought by the administration and us in this body.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, 100 years ago this winter, history was made at the old Mory's Bar on Temple Street in New Haven, CT, as Denton Fowler, James Merriam Howard, Carl Lohmann, Meade Minnigerode, and George Pomeroy formed an a cappella singing group known as the Whiffenpoofs of Yale University.

The Whiffenpoofs, as every Yalie knows, are unsurpassed in talent and tradition. They are now the oldest continuously functioning collegiate a cappella singing group in the United States.

Their history is rich and vibrant. During World War II, the brave men of the U.S. Army Air Force's Black Sheep Squadron adopted ``The Whiffenpoof Song'' as their theme song. And over the course of the 20th century, that famous tune has been recorded by such legendary artists as Bing Crosby, Ella Fitzgerald, Louis Armstrong, and Elvis Presley.

The Whiffenpoofs have inspired a cappella singing groups at colleges and secondary schools across America--in fact, there are now more than 1,200 such groups entertaining audiences.

But their influence is not limited by our borders. Each year, the Whiffenpoofs embark on an international tour, visiting foreign capitals and tiny villages, great palaces and humble churches, and U.S. Embassies around the world, spreading song and good will on behalf of Yale University and America's college students.

Next month, Whiffenpoofs alumni from around the world will descend upon Yale to convene with the current group in celebration of the Whiffenpoofs' centennial. It is sure to be an occasion filled with good cheer, great music, and tremendous fellowship--the trademarks of this beloved Connecticut institution.

Mr. President, I congratulate the Whiffenpoofs of Yale University on their centennial, I thank them for their many contributions to our Nation, and I look forward to another century of song and friendship.

Madam President, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 2359. Our colleague Senator Landrieu spoke at length last night about the reasons she opposes this amendment, which is targeted to her city of New Orleans.

I am here as the chairman of the Banking Committee, to share with you some of the reasons I believe this legislation could have benefitted from a more thorough vetting through the authorizing process.

While superficially an attractive effort to be tough on crime, the proposed amendment is likely to have serious unintended consequences while providing no apparent increase in public safety. The proposed amendment is overly broad, burdensome, and would present great difficulties for Federal, State, and local administrators to actually implement.

Representatives of public housing agencies have raised concerns about implementing this legislation. Advocates for low income families oppose this amendment.

Needless to say, we want to ensure the security of families receiving housing assistance. That is why current law already provides tools for denying or terminating assistance for drug-related and violent crimes and activities in public housing and section 8 assistance, which appears to be the amendment's objective.

I have other concerns about things that may or may not have been the objective of the amendment.

This provision only applies in New Orleans, raising questions about equal protection and the unfortunate possibility of federal law that changes from city to city.

It is a vast expansion of current Federal law. While Senator Vitter describes the amendment as applying to

rebuilt public housing, it is actually very broad. The bill extends far beyond public and assisted housing into all forms of federal housing assistance, including homeless assistance, loans, loan guarantees, or other assistance provided under a HUD housing program.

It is administratively burdensome. The legislation would put additional screening burdens on housing providers, banks, nonprofits, and others who are not currently required to, nor do they have the resources to, conduct criminal background checks. These could include cities administering CDBG, a homeless shelter whose clients vary night by night, or banks processing FHA loans.

It has unintended consequences, and I will provide some examples.

It erects barriers to helping the homeless: The language would appear to apply to homeless shelters, whose clientele change from night to night. Running checks on clients that may only be there for one day or sporadically is nearly impossible, and a waste of scarce resources. Do we really mean to prohibit assistance for these individuals--many of whom are veterans or children--because shelters won't be able to run background checks?

It puts new burdens on banks and homeowners. Every bank originating an FHA loan would have to do a criminal background check on the family buying the home, or refinancing a home. Can you imagine the burden that would create for community banks and homebuyers?

It puts new burdens on small businesses and State and local government CDBG programs. The language could actually require that State and local CDBG programs conduct background checks on small business owners receiving economic development assistance to ensure that they were not a) offenders and b) not residing in federally- subsidized housing.

It provides no room for rehabilitation. The amendment bars someone from ever getting housing assistance, including FHA loans, if they were ever convicted of selling drugs or were a member of a gang, without consideration of rehabilitation. What if that happened 15 years ago? This amendment would run counter to the goals of the Second Chance Act, which this body approved under unanimous consent to help ex-offenders get the services they need to become productive members of society.

In sum, this amendment is superficially attractive. I understand that. But the policy is ill-considered. It will unintentionally hurt homebuyers, veterans, and children without necessarily providing any additional protections. It will create very serious administrative burdens for the public and private sector, with no way to pay for those burdens. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment--let's approach this issue in a more thoughtful way.

Madam President, on behalf of myself and Senator Lieberman, there is no debate about whether the brownfields redevelopment program ought not to exist. It is duplicative and cut out. This is under the economic development initiative program, which supports a wide range of programs to encourage economic redevelopment, including polluted, contaminated, blighted properties. In Waterbury, CT, home of the brass capital of our country, dating back to the early 19th century, most of the business was military related during the Civil War. There were no pollution requirements back then.

Today those properties are virtually worthless because of the contamination. This is a city with a 13-percent unemployment rate. It is a hard-working blue-collar town where people put in hard labor every day. This is a chance for that community to get back on its feet. That is why it is under the economic development program.

I urge my colleagues to be supportive of a hard-working community so we can let them get back on their feet. We urge defeat of the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, several of my colleagues offered amendments that would prohibit funding for individual transportation and housing projects in the underlying bill, including several important projects for Connecticut. I question the judgment of my colleagues who attack specific programs without regard for the purpose these projects serve or the impact they will have in the commuunity. I also question the notion that Washington knows better than the communities and States which projects will provide critical services, stimulate their local economies, and preserve jobs.

I would like to take this opportunity to explain some of the critical funding for Connecticut in this important legislation.

In my State of Connecticut, home to some of America's most frustrating traffic congestion, transit is the future of transportation. Investments in sustainable development have resulted in the creation of job centers and residential communities built around transit stations, all the while serving to clear space on the roads. This transportation funding bill includes $4 million for improvements to the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield rail line, which would establish both faster intercity and commuter rail service between New Haven, Hartford, and Springfield, provide residents of central Connecticut with better access to southwest Connecticut, New York City, western Massachusetts, and Vermont. It also includes nearly $10 million in transit-related projects across the State, including the development of the Thompsonville Intermodal Transportation Center in Enfield, a passenger rail station in West Haven, the Bridgeport Intermodal Center, and expanding transit services and access in Stamford. Transit projects such as these connect Connecticut residents with jobs and make it possible for the regional economies to grow.

Sustainable development and livable communities depend on helping towns and regions across Connecticut invest in their transportation, housing, land use, and economic development needs. That is, for example, this bill includes $1.5 million in funding for the city of Waterbury for the development of brownfield properties and the Naugatuck River Greenway. This community faces a 12.7 percent unemployment rate and millions of square feet of unused, factory space contaminated by generations of brass production and industrial uses. Funding for development of former brownfield sites in Waterbury has been a target on this Senate floor. An amendment was offered to strip away this project's funding. For Members of this body who have never visited Waterbury, I welcome them to walk the streets of this city and question whether this community needs Federal assistance to redevelop properties that have been long-contaminated, abandoned, and blighted. There have been investments on the local and State level to provide this city with the tools they need to thrive. It is only just that the Federal Government do the same.

Our ability to foster economic growth through sustainable development in Connecticut depends on our ability to have affordable housing and assist homeowners struggling to keep their homes in this financial downturn. By providing the resources to keep people in their homes and assistance to communities to expand affordable housing, we can truly strengthen our economy. That is why this bill includes critical funding for housing and foreclosure programs across Connecticut. The bill makes investments in regions, including funds for the Southeastern Connecticut Housing Alliance in Norwich to provide technical assistance to communities in New London County to increase affordable housing and support for the Urban League of Southern Connecticut to provide for foreclosure prevention assistance programs to all of Connecticut. In central Connecticut, funding will support foreclosure prevention and homeownership initiatives in Middletown.

This bill provides nearly $17 million for the State of Connecticut, representing investments in critical programs and services to help the people of my State. This bill supports local officials and organizations that know best the needs of their communities. It represents jobs and economic growth and I am proud to support it.

Madam President, I was pleased to join with my colleagues Senator Murray and Senator Bond to provide much-needed funding to avoid terminations of section 8 housing voucher assistance to families across the country. The Census Department's recently released poverty figures show that in 2008--before the full brunt of the current recession-- nearly one in five American children lived in poverty. Given the challenges confronting the economy and our families, housing assistance programs like section 8 vouchers could not be more important.

Senators Murray and Bond have worked hard in recent years to ensure that the section 8 voucher program is adequately funded. Unfortunately, initial budget estimates that they received from the Bush administration last year proved to be too low to accommodate the needs of the program. In recent months, we have seen newspaper accounts of section 8 funding shortfalls in communities around the country, with families worried that they would have their housing assistance reduced or terminated altogether. The funds provided by this amendment will help ease the minds of many families.

I am also pleased that these funds have been identified from within the section 8 voucher account itself, so this solution is also budget- neutral.

I would be remiss if I did not thank Senators Murray and Bond for their good work in assembling this challenging bill. The Transportation-HUD appropriations bill is responsible for funding our national transportation infrastructure, vital housing assistance and funding to combat homelessness, and aid to our hard-pressed cities and towns. In this bill, the Senators have been able to provide valuable HUD funding increases for priorities such as public housing, section 8 assistance, and community development block grants. I also appreciate the bill's strong funding for transportation, and particularly public transportation programs.

Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues for the $100 million they provided for competitive capital grants to transit agencies seeking to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Senator Shelby and I worked with the managers to include these grants in the economic recovery bill earlier this year. We appreciate their continued support for this initiative.

Mr. President, I rise at a moment when our Nation is enduring its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. This crisis began in the financial sector, but it has impacted every sector of our economy. And perhaps one of the hardest-hit has been our manufacturing sector, which was already reeling even before this crisis.

Over the last decade, we have lost an average of 40,000 manufacturing jobs per month. In Connecticut, we lost nearly 16,000 manufacturing jobs in the last year alone more than 8 percent of our manufacturing sector, gone.

These figures represent the loss of American livelihoods, the economic security of thousands of families.

And they represent a clear and present threat to our national security.

We rely on key domestic industries to supply critical goods and services in a timely fashion when our nation faces an emergency. In wartime and in the aftermath of natural disasters, factories in my state of Connecticut and around the country are relied upon for everything from raw metal to military vehicles and power generators. These products are essential to supporting our war efforts, maintaining critical infrastructure, and protecting our homeland.

Connecticut, although it is 29th in total population, ranks 6th in total employment in the military and aerospace sector. Tens of thousands of residents of my State work in this industry.

When this industrial base is threatened, our military and emergency preparedness suffer.

Six decades ago, President Harry Truman sought to bolster this critical bulwark of security by signing the Defense Production Act, or DPA, into law. The DPA allows the government to tap industrial resources to meet domestic energy supply, address emergency preparedness, protect infrastructure, and help civilian agencies and the military respond to crisis situations.

In the 1950s, the DPA served to address our new national security realities in the wake of the Cold War. In the ensuing decades, beginning with the Korean War, the DPA kept production lines humming, military supply lines fully stocked, and our country prepared in case of emergency.

Congress has reauthorized this Act every few years, but has only sporadically sought to update its provisions to meet changing conditions. And thus, according to independent analyses, Federal agencies' understanding and use of the tools provided by this act have become inconsistent.

Thus, we have proposed bipartisan legislation to make critical reforms to our national defense industrial policy. The Dodd-Shelby bill reflects the contributions of DPA practitioners from a variety of agencies, particularly the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. And I would like to express my appreciation for the work of two civil servants who worked especially hard to help us develop this legislation: Larry Hall, DPA Director at FEMA, and Mark Buffler, DPA title III Program Manager at DOD.

The bill responds to the analysis of two landmark studies completed last year, as required by my amendments to the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act and the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, which directed DHS and the GAO to report to Congress on how the DPA is being used.

In its report, DHS conceded that several agencies authorized to use DPA tools don't take advantage of them. And the GAO report echoed those findings, recommending greater coordination and pro-active use of key DPA authorities.

For instance, under title I of the DPA, the President is empowered to require companies to set aside their commercial business obligations and fulfill government contracts first in order to meet national defense needs. However, although a wide range of Departments and agencies are directed to use this authority, only Defense, Homeland Security, and Energy are doing so. The Pentagon has used it to require companies to set aside other work until production of mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles was complete. FEMA, in coordination with Commerce, has used it to expedite the delivery of power generators and transfer switches needed to restore railroad operations in New Orleans after Katrina. But other agencies that could, and should, be taking advantage of title I, aren't.

Moreover, the GAO found that, unlike DOD, FEMA doesn't even prepare title I contingency plans, which means that it takes longer for DPA provisions to be implemented even after they are enacted.

Therefore, our bill, at the GAO's recommendation, requires that every authorized agency establish a priorities and allocation system similar to that in place at the Pentagon and to coordinate with other agencies in its implementation.

It also sets up a new interagency body that will elevate DPA policy discussions to Cabinet-level posts, so that administrations going forward will be able to reassess the law's provisions and applications, and never lose sight of the importance of coordinating with critical segments of our industry to meet national defense needs. The President will designate a chairperson to lead this committee, which will be composed of Cabinet officials and agency heads authorized to use DPA tools, as well as the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. And the President will also appoint a Deputy Assistant Secretary to coordinate high-level dialogue among relevant government agencies.

This elevated discussion will prove particularly essential in the implementation of title III of the DPA, which allows the President to provide financial incentives including direct capital purchases, loans, and loan guarantees--for U.S. firms to expand domestic production of critical industries. These authorities are critically important--and underused.

Title III is used when the U.S. is overly reliant on foreign sources for a critical product, or when there is otherwise insufficient domestic supply of the product. Unlike other Federal assistance, title III is managed by industry experts. And it is designed to assist companies capable of meeting specific requirements: that the firms can't meet government needs on their own, and that the assistance will lead to commercial viability in the long term.

Today, we have strong evidence that defense companies all along the supply chain--particularly in the third and fourth subcontractor tier-- are being denied access to credit. Machine tool and parts manufacturers in defense and dual-use industries are having a hard time getting capital--not because demand is down, but because bank lending is down. Government loan and loan

guarantee authorities in title III would help--but, the government isn't using those tools.

Therefore, our bill modernizes those powers and brings them into compliance with the 1990 Federal Credit Reform Act. Accordingly, under our bill, such loans and loan guarantees are allowed only to the extent that an appropriations act provides budget authority in advance.

As frozen credit markets continue to hurt our industrial base, it is critical that we revitalize our factories. According to the Department of Commerce, manufacturing now makes up 13 percent of the U.S. economy a quarter of what it was three decades ago. And foreign-made products have risen from a tenth to a third of what we consume over that same time. We are at risk of becoming overly dependent on foreign sources of critical goods, materials, and technology and losing our manufacturing facilities and workforce.

A non-partisan think tank, the Lexington Institute, recently wrote:

If the erosion of U.S. manufacturing persists, America will

become more dependent on offshore sources of goods and the

nation's trade balance will weaken. That will undercut the

role of the dollar as a reserve currency and diminish U.S.

influence around the world. The economy will be less capable

of supporting major military campaigns and less resilient in

the face of market reverses. Most profoundly, America will

become poorer relative to other nations, a trend that the

National Intelligence Council says is already under way in

its most recent assessment of global trends.

This bill isn't a silver bullet to address all of these problems. But it's an important first step towards making more effective one of our best tools to strengthen our manufacturing base. Our bill also makes these efforts more transparent, requiring notification to Congress and a 30-day waiting period for larger projects. As we look to expand DPA use, we are also working to make it more accountable to taxpayers.

As the GAO reported:

Since the DPA was last reauthorized in 2003, there has been

little use of its authorities for areas other than defense.

Lessons learned from catastrophic events have emphasized the

importance of ensuring that needed capabilities and contracts

for key items are in place in advance of a disaster.

Congress didn't intend for such inertia. And now, more than ever, we need dynamic government action to reinvigorate our manufacturing base. It is time for the executive branch to take heed of the warning signs, repair the vulnerabilities in our industries, and restore our manufacturing capacities in the name of our national and economic security.

Mr. President, before concluding our discussion about the 2009 Defense Production Act Reauthorization, I would like to pay tribute to two of my colleagues who have worked diligently on this legislation. First, my friend and ranking member of the Banking Committee, Senator Shelby. Nobody understands the complexities of national security policy and its nexus with economic affairs better than the senior Senator from Alabama. Given the importance of reauthorizing and updating the law prior to its expiration on September 30, I appreciated his good counsel and sincere effort to expedite approval of this important legislation today. I would also like to thank Senator Brown for his work, particularly as chairman of the Economic Policy Subcommittee. The Senator from Ohio has proven to be both an expert on U.S. manufacturing and a skillful surveyor of how the current credit crisis is affecting America's national defense industrial base.

Mr. President, I could not agree more. And I appreciated the leadership that Senator Brown demonstrated in highlighting these important facts during his hearing. In fact, I expressed a similar sentiment in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in February, which I will ask to be made part of the Record.

With this legislation in place, not only do we expect the current and future administrations to apply these newly updated authorities when appropriate, but I hope that they will take care to use them in a creative and appropriate manner in response to ongoing problems that threaten the long-term health of our industrial base--namely the credit crisis' impact on U.S. manufacturing.

My colleague from Ohio has played a key role in raising awareness of these important matters and ensuring that the current administration work with Congress to address our concerns. In particular, I appreciated his ongoing contact with the administration regarding his subcommittee's findings.