Floor Statements

No, please proceed.

Madam President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I didn't watch the match. I am in a conference committee, and that process has gone on for about a year and a half--for years--which may be a record as well. I also commend that young man from North Carolina. I congratulate the Presiding Officer and the other Senator from North Carolina--the young man, more importantly, who went through the grueling process of a lengthy tennis match.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Mikulski be recognized after I complete my remarks.

Madam President, as chairman of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, and as the cochair of the conference committee, along with Howard Berman, the Congressman from California, I want to begin by thanking my fellow conferees.

You have heard from Senator Bennett of Utah, a conferee; Senator Menendez, of New Jersey; John Kerry, of Massachusetts; my colleague from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman; Senator Shelby of Alabama; Senator Lugar, the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee-- John Kerry is currently the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Lieberman is the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. So we have had some very active members, along with the House conferees. Numerous members in the House, as well, have played a significant role in the development of this conference report.

I also commend the administration, and particularly the Secretary of State, our former colleague, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and her staff for the remarkable job they have done over these many weeks, when we have tried to craft this very important piece of legislation. They were excellent in their work and did a wonderful job.

Obviously, the President, first and foremost, deserves credit for insisting upon a multilateral approach, which they, to a large extent, achieved.

This legislation complements that international effort. Three decades ago, when I was serving in the other body--with a full head of black hair in those days, so that is going back in time--the House International Relations Committee collaborated with the Senate Banking Committee to produce what was called landmark legislation in 1977. It was called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, known as IEEPA, which is how I will refer to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

To this day, IEEPA empowers Presidents of the United States to apply strong sanctions against any nation, organization, or person that poses an ``unusual and extraordinary threat'' to the United States. It is with these authorities that American Presidents, over the years, have effectively enforced trade embargoes against, in this case, Iran, banning exports and imports, and freezing key Iranian assets.

While IEEPA authorities have kept the U.S. businesses from entering Iran, years ago, it had become very clear--abundantly clear--that much more was needed to be done, not only in the case of Iran but other nations as well.

That is why, in 1996, the Senate Banking Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee once again collaborated to develop new sanctions on non-U.S. businesses investing in Iran's energy sector.

Oil and gas was providing Iran's terrorist regime with key sources of revenue, and action was needed to be taken. In those days, the resulting Iran-Libya Sanctions Act--later named the Iran sanctions act because Libya complied with the concerns we had at the time. As a result of them stepping forward and renouncing terrorism, we were able to drop Libya from the title of that bill. As I heard Senator Bennett say--and I think other colleagues would join in this--there is no great joy in crafting this bill. We are doing so out of defense of our Nation and over a threat being posed by the Government of Iran. We hope that they will understand the seriousness of this endeavor, the collaborative nature of our efforts, and we hope they will see the light as Libya did, and we urge them to take the proper steps to remove the threat they are presently posing.

Regrettably, despite a very clear mandate, American Presidents have failed to comply with the law, ISA legislation, adopted back in 1996, despite billions of dollars in oil and gas investments.

How have administrations avoided complying with the law we passed in 1996? Frankly, that has been the subject of considerable discourse within the Banking Committee over the last number of years.

First, when the Iran sanctions act mandates that American Presidents ``shall'' impose two out of a menu of six penalties on sanctionable foreign companies, it only says that Presidents ``should'' investigate credible evidence of energy investments and ``should'' make determinations that they have, in fact, engaged in sanctionable acts.

Thus, administrations since 1996 have simply avoided launching investigations and making those determinations.

Executive branch officials of both parties have conceded that they did not even want to waive sanctions. Waiving imposition of sanctions, they have contended, is an admission of a foreign company's guilt. If we are, in effect, imposing a sanction on a company, and then officially relieving them of U.S. penalties, we are impinging on those companies' reputation and implying that the companies outside the U.S. jurisdiction are nonetheless in violation of our laws.

Such extraterritorial provocations might be grounds for retribution-- either through reciprocal sanction or trade barriers. Thus, administrations--Democrats and Republicans--have avoided even launching the ISA investigations called for in 1996 or, of course, making any determinations so as not to resort to sanctions waivers.

Administrations have certainly used the threat of imposing these sanctions to some effect. But as multiple reports by the Congressional Research Service and the GAO have indicated, investments in Iran's energy sector have continued, and the regime in Iraq has benefited from those revenues.

This measure that I am today managing, along with others, marks a new chapter in Congress's long history of confronting the Iranian threat. But far more importantly, the conference report, which we will be voting on later this afternoon, we are considering makes profound changes to the law, which, if implemented correctly, will bring about strong pressure to bear on Tehran in order to combat its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, support for international terrorism, and gross human rights abuses.

The act says, in no uncertain terms, that Presidents shall be required, if they have established that credible evidence of a firm engaging in ISA-sanctionable activity exists, to launch investigations, make determinations, and ultimately impose sanctions on those companies investing in Iran's energy sector.

Moreover, it imposes new sanctions on companies providing refined petroleum products or helping to build Iran's domestic refineries.

In response to Tehran's terrible abuses of its own people--Senator Lieberman has gone on at some length about this, and he is absolutely correct, a major part of the report focuses on the Iranian people and what they are subjected to on an hourly basis by a government which the majority of people in that country abhor. In the wake of what they have been doing and Iran's fraudulent presidential election, the conference report and the act imposes visa, property, and financial sanctions on Iranians the President determines to be complicit in serious human rights abuses against other Iranians on or after the date of Iran's election.

The conference report and the act imposes a U.S. Government procurement ban on foreign companies doing energy business in Iran or helping the Iranian Government to monitor and jam communications among its people. No longer will U.S. taxpayers' money be used to support Iran's corporate sponsors.

The act further codifies trade restrictions in law and ends the few remaining Iranian imports allowed into the United States.

Similarly, the legislation also allows States, local governments, and private investors to exercise their own right to divest from companies investing in Iran's energy sector.

The act explicitly states the sense of Congress that the United States should support the decisions of State and local governments to divest from these firms and clearly authorizes divestment decisions made consistent with the standards of the act.

Elsewhere in the act and the conference report legislation is a provision cracking down on the international black market weapons trade, which rogue countries, such as North Korea and Iran, have long exploited. Under this act, the United States will identify countries that are allowing sensitive U.S. technology that can be used for weapons of mass destruction or terrorism to be transshipped into Iran, and it will force these countries to cooperate in establishing appropriate customs, intelligence gathering, and trade restrictions. If they refuse to cooperate with the United States, the act requires imposition of severe export restrictions on those countries.

Finally, the act establishes a very strong new banking section to be undertaken by the Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Stuart Levey, and his colleagues. Stuart Levey has worked in two administrations now and should be highly commended, by the way, for the remarkable work he has done over the years. This is an official of the Treasury Department who is so knowledgeable on this subject matter and was invaluable in helping us craft this legislation. I especially mention him and thank him for his contribution.

This new section takes aim squarely at Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard Corps--or the IRGC, as it is known--and attempts to choke it off from an increasingly important source of power--international financial investment.

Section 104 of the act has two principal parts. First, the Treasury will direct American banks to prohibit or impose strict conditions on correspondent or payable-through accounts of any foreign financial institutions working with key Iranian entities.

For example, foreign banks conducting substantial business with the IRGC, its front companies or affiliates, will be cut off from its American accounts. Hypothetically, then, if an Asian or Latin American bank were to provide services to an IRGC-owned construction company, for instance, building a major gas pipeline, that bank would be shut off from U.S. correspondent banking.

In addition, foreign banks servicing the various Iranian banks blacklisted by the Treasury Department and the UN Security Council will also be targeted under this section.

Section 104 directs the Treasury to restrict correspondent banking for foreign banks directly involved in Iran's weapons of mass destruction proliferation and terrorist financing, as well as money laundering toward those aims.

In the end, the act presents foreign banks doing business with blacklisted Iranian entities a very stark choice: Cease your activities or be denied critical access to America's financial system.

The second part of section 104 would hold U.S. banks accountable for actions by their foreign subsidiaries. Under IEEPA, which I described earlier, U.S. companies have long been banned from doing business with Iran. Now under this act, this conference report, foreign entities owned or controlled by U.S. banks will also be prohibited from doing business with the IRGC. If their foreign subsidiaries continue to do so, the U.S. parent companies will be subjected to severe penalties-- civil fines amounting to twice the value of the transaction or $250,000 and criminal fines if there is proven willful intent, up to $1 million, and 20 years in jail.

To be sure, we have included waivers in the act. We believe that the President of the United States must have flexibility in executing foreign policy. We all agree with that point. As I mentioned before, foreign nations consider ISA waivers to have extraterritorial impact on companies in their jurisdiction.

For the most part, waivers of the sanctions in this act may only be exercised if they are deemed necessary to the national interest or, in the case of energy investment and refined petroleum sanctions, if the companies are from nations cooperating in multilateral efforts against Iran. Reports to Congress are to be detailed about the particular investments or transactions considered sanctionable, as well as why these waivers are invoked.

Only in the case of refined petroleum sanctions do we allow for some additional flexibility. In that case, the President of the United States may delay making determinations about the sanctionability of specific transactions every 6 months if the President can demonstrate progressively greater reductions in refined petroleum transportations in Iran.

These are very tough unilateral measures, but Congress does not expect them to effect change in a vacuum. Unilateral sanctions are but one tool of statecraft available to American Presidents to effect such change. In my view, they are less likely to be effective than tough, coordinated, multilateral sanctions.

All of us recognize that acting alone we may achieve some results. Acting

together, we have the opportunity to truly bring about the desired change we all seek.

These unilateral sanctions must be exercised as part of a comprehensive, coordinated diplomatic and political effort conducted in cooperation with our allies and designed to achieve the real results we all seek.

I believe President Obama has been both thoughtful and deliberate in his approach to pressuring Iran to change its conduct. Having just this month achieved UN Security Council approval of Resolution 1929 and European Union endorsement of additional energy and financial measures on Iran, the President of the United States is clearly setting the stage for what we all hope is strong, targeted, and effective multilateral and multilayered pressure on Tehran.

These measures are not ends but merely a means to an end, first and foremost, to suspend Iran's illicit nuclear program, to protect Israel and our other friends and allies, to combat Tehran's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and express support for human rights in their country.

I see my colleague from Arizona. I believe it was his suggestion that the human rights effort be part of this legislation. I did not have a chance to mention him earlier in my remarks. I thank my colleague for this proposal which includes very strong language and a message to the Iranian people that this is not about them, this is about their government. It is very important that all of us in our remarks today make it clear that we are tremendously sympathetic to what they are going through and, therefore, part of our proposal has strong language that allows us to address--at least to try to address--the issue of human rights abuses in Tehran. Again, I appreciate all the hard work.

I mentioned the conferees earlier: my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, Senator Menendez, Senator Kerry, Senator Shelby, Senator Bennett, and Senator Lugar, from the Senate perspective who were part of drafting this bill, as well as our House conferees, led by Howard Berman of California. I extend a special thank you to all of them for their leadership.

I also thank Senator Reid, the majority leader, and Senator McConnell. None of this ever happens without the majority leader of the Senate taking a leadership role and insisting this matter move forward, insisting it be addressed before we break for the July 4 recess period coming up next week and in the midst of all the other things in which we have been involved. My colleagues know we have been involved in a very lengthy conference regarding financial reform. I am delighted to take some time out from that effort to address this particular proposal and urge our colleagues to be supportive of this proposal.

I also want to support what I mentioned earlier--President Obama's approach--and I appreciate his team's work in helping us improve this important legislation. I mentioned earlier our Secretary of State and former colleague. We had extensive meetings with her, National Security Adviser, General Jones, Deputy Secretary of State Steinberg, Under Secretary of the Treasury Levey--I mentioned the tremendous work he has done, Stuart Levey in the Department of Treasury--Assistant Secretary of State Verma, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Cohen, and Office of Foreign Assets Control Director Adam Szubin. All of these people, and many others, along with our staffs--and I am particularly grateful to my staff for the work they have done, led by Colin McGinnis of my office, who did a remarkable job in pulling this together to see to it that we worked with our counterparts, and there are many others on my staff as well I should mention.

Neal Orringer from my office deserves great credit for his work as well. It has been a great pleasure working with Rick Kessler, Shanna Winters, Alan Makovsky, and Daniel Silverberg.

Additionally, I thank Ranking Member Richard Shelby, along with his talented counsel, John O'Hara.

I also thank Margaret Roth-Warren, our brilliant, detail-oriented legislative counsel who spent weeks on end working with my staff and me and others to make this, hopefully, the most comprehensive and effective sanctions legislation that we can include.

I have hopefully mentioned all the appropriate members of the staff. There is always a danger of leaving someone out. I do not want to do that. They work very hard. These are the unknown people we do not always get to recognize. They spent countless hours pulling this most comprehensive sanctions conference report together. We are very grateful to all of them and the tremendous work they do every single day.

I know my colleague from Maryland wishes to be heard. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am told we have time. Floor staff will let me know. We have a little more time available.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to recognize three individuals, two of whom are no longer with us, and one is a man who just retired from a life of dedication to his community and family. I wish to spend a few minutes talking about the three of them, if I may.

The first is a friend of mine who passed away several weeks ago, an individual who made a wonderful contribution to our country.

Doug Gravel was a wonderful friend, a great champion of American education, and a person who attracted a legion of friends, supporters, and followers throughout his life.

Although he never lived for fame or even for recognition, Doug Gravel was instrumental in shaping the way we teach our children in this country, from one end of our Nation to the other.

The Montessori method of teaching, familiar to many people, was developed a century ago by Maria Montessori in Italy. It was designed as a system to educate the whole child by empowering children to guide their own development. It encourages kids to develop their own unique personalities and fosters their curiosity in the world around them while removing environmental obstacles to their progress.

For many children, the Montessori method has proven to be an unqualified success. Many of its methods are incorporated in public education in this country as well. Its revitalization in the latter half of this century can be traced back to a very small group of individuals--parents who lived in my state in Greenwich, CT. One of those people was a fellow named Doug Gravel.

Realizing there was no clearinghouse for parents, teachers, and school administrators interested in the Montessori method, Dr. Nancy McCormick Rambusch established the American Montessori Society at the Whitby School in Greenwich, CT in 1960. It is today America's oldest Montessori School, and Doug Gravel was right there with Nancy Rambusch when the program started.

At that time, the fate of the Montessori School was in doubt. In fact, an article in 1964 in Time magazine confidently predicted that the American Montessori movement would die out entirely within a few years.

The critics, obviously, were terribly wrong, as they often are, thanks in no small part to the work of Dr. Nancy Rambusch and Doug Gravel. The American Montessori Society grew and prospered. Today, the society has 11,000 members in 50 nations around the world, and it works to ensure that the high standards and excellent education that have come to symbolize the Montessori schools are available to children everywhere.

I was very privileged to serve as honorary Chair of the society's annual conference back in 2007 when it celebrated the 100th anniversary of Montessori education. I am pleased that the organization's archives from the Montessori Society are housed at the research center at the University of Connecticut, named for my father.

As part of my work for the organization, I had the honor of getting to know Doug Gravel very well. His commitment to quality education was matched by his commitment to treating those around him with respect and compassion.

His warm personality, his wise mind, and his tremendously sharp wit were a source of great joy to his friends and to the many whom he educated--and entertained--throughout his life and certainly in his capacity as a Montessori trainer and headmaster of the Caedmon School in New York.

My family will always have a special love for Doug Gravel. I come from a family of educators, starting with my great-grandmother Catherine Murphy who came to this country unable to read or write her own name. But soon after arriving in Connecticut she got herself elected to the local school board because she knew the future belonged to those who were educated.

My father's three sisters, my brother Tom, and my sister Carolyn all became teachers as well. In fact, Carolyn, in particular, carried on my father's passion for Montessori education at the Whitby School in Greenwich, CT, back in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Doug was such a good friend to Carolyn, to our entire family, and to educators everywhere, for that matter.

On behalf of all those grateful for the good work Doug Gravel did for American education, for the great person he was, I offer my condolences to his beloved Maria, his brilliant and beautiful daughters Mary and Anne, and his cherished grandchildren. I offer that wonderful family my thanks and the thanks of many thousands of parents and children, all of whom benefitted because there was someone named Doug Gravel who modernized and revitalized American education.

Tribute to Preston J. Empey

Mr. President, the second individual I wish to recognize has no particular fame in any way at all. He is just a wonderful human being who announced his retirement. I rise today in the midst of all the work we are doing to support ordinary Americans, working families--people who go about their daily lives in every way to try to support their communities and their families.

In particular, I rise to celebrate one of them, a man named Preston Empey--``Press'' to his friends and family.

In 1953, Press Empey, who had served in the Navy during World War II and then gone on to college, got a job at the Cloverleaf Dairy in Provo, UT, where he was soon promoted to manager.

Press Empey worked hard to support his young family. And over the past 60 years, he became legendary for treating his customers as though they were members of his own family.

Milk was cheaper in those days when Press started out. It was also something you got from a face you knew instead of a cold case at a convenience store or grocery store.

To our younger members, some of the people who work in this Chamber, the idea of having a milkman show up at your house sounds like ancient history. It is not that ancient. It was not that many years ago when most Americans were familiar with someone who actually delivered the milk. Press did it, up until a few weeks ago, in his community for almost 60 years.

Press's customers got to know him--some so well that if they were not home when he delivered the dairy, they trusted him to go inside and put it in the refrigerator anyway. And he got to know them. When hard times befell customers--as they certainly have in every one of our communities over the years--and they could no longer afford their shipments or products, he worked with them to ensure they got their deliveries every day and at some future point paid him back for the products and services they were receiving.

No matter what befell him--bad weather, injury, illness, even mechanical troubles--he would be there on time even if it meant starting his day hours before sunrise. Once, after his truck rolled over on the highway, Press calmly got it back on the road, dusted himself off, and made every single delivery that day.

Still, when he was asked about his greatest accomplishment, he paused and said: ``Well, we've raised five children.'' He and Glenna did just that. He and his lovely wife had great fun. I have known the family for years. They are remarkable people, hard-working, diligent, delightful human beings.

Once Press invited some friends, including my late father-in-law Karl Clegg, to go hunting in the Utah mountains. Maybe because Press couldn't bear to be away from that dairy truck of his, he decided that it would make a fine camper for all of them. After all, it had good insulation, lots of space for sleeping, and, best of all, a cooler stocked with ice cream.

Off they went, taking the dirt roads and crossing streams, drawing, one can imagine, wide-eyed stares from fellow hunters in huge SUVs as they bounced along in the dairy truck through the mountains and hills of Utah. The cooler turned out to be a fine meat locker as well, although Press and Karl's snoring echoed off the truck's walls and posed an obstacle to others who might have wanted to sleep. They had a great trip in Press Empey's dairy truck.

For more than half a century--almost 60 years--Press has been an institution. He is now retiring at the age of 83, not because he is tired but because his trucks, in his own words, are plum worn out.

That is good news for his lovely wife Glenna and wonderful family who will get a little more of Press to themselves after a life spent sharing his generosity of spirit and profound dedication with their neighbors and his customers. As I said, for more than half a century, they have been a hard-working American family.

I am pleased to congratulate Press on his retirement and join my wife Jackie and our family in wishing him and Glenna many years of happiness and joy.

Remembering Bill Stanley

Mr. President, lastly, I wish to spend a minute talking about a wonderful man who passed away a few weeks ago in my home State of Connecticut. I rise to talk about the rich and eventful life of one of Connecticut's great champions and favorite sons, William Stanley of Norwich, CT.

Bill Stanley was a stockbroker for 46 years, although that is about the last thing anyone would ever think of when asked to describe him. That was his job, but his life was far more interesting and far more complicated than that. He was active in politics. He served for a term in the State senate. He was an influential adviser and trusted friend to my father, who served in this body, as well as former Governor and Senator Abe Ribicoff, and Ella Grasso, the first woman elected Governor in her own right in the United States, among many others.

He served as the official photographer of his hometown newspaper, the Norwich Bulletin. He had his own radio show for more than a decade, and he published the history of his community on a regular basis.

But most importantly, Bill Stanley's life was defined by his love for his community of Norwich, CT, and the incredible work he did for many years to boost its prominence and champion its virtues and favorite sons, regardless of who they were.

When Bill was a very young boy in elementary school, he wrote an essay for school and attempted to redeem one of American history's most despised figures and a native son of Norwich, CT--not that his connection to the community is often bragged about--Benedict

Arnold. Sure, he was a traitor, young Bill wrote, but what about his positive attributes, he suggested. Bill Stanley was suspended for 3 days from elementary school because of that essay. But that did not shake him. It is not that Bill abided treason but Benedict Arnold could not have been all that bad in Bill Stanley's mind--after all, he was from Norwich.

Later in life, he would insist that Samuel Huntington, not George Washington, should be recognized as our first President. Why? Well, among other things, Samuel Huntington was from Norwich, CT.

Each year, the Second Company Governor's Footguard of New Haven-- Benedict Arnold's organization--would convene a ceremony at the cemetery where Samuel Huntington was buried. Why? Well, as the Footguard's Major Commandant said, ``We did it for Bill.'' Because Bill Stanley is from Norwich. Well, 2 years ago, they even made Bill an honorary captain in the Footguard.

Bill fostered a lifelong crusade to create a Founding Fathers museum, designed to recognize the Presidents elected under the Articles of Confederation and the Continental Congress, to secure Norwich's rightful place. Samuel Huntington was the first President under the Articles of Confederation, so there is some legitimacy to Bill Stanley's case, although it has never been recognized by many more than Bill Stanley and those of us who come from Norwich, CT.

When the executive editor of the Norwich Bulletin asked Bill to write a regular column about Norwich history, each one began, ``Once upon a time.'' It became so popular that he eventually published 10 books, which earned $\1/4\ million, which Bill promptly gave to charity. Because it wasn't all about glorifying Norwich's past--Bill made it his mission to build a better future as well for his neighborhood and friends and the people he cared deeply about.

In 1987, St. Jude Common, a retirement home, opened on three acres of land Bill donated to that charity. He used his political acumen to raise $4.5 million in State funds to open the home, and another $400,000 from the Diocese of Norwich.

A friend who served with him on the home's board of directors recalled:

Every year at Christmas, he would make sure we set up a

dinner for all the residents. I would always attend to see

the joy he had in bringing joy to others. He captured the

Christmas spirit and was always a joy to be around.

Bill Stanley was truly a joy to be around. He was a fascinating guy, who always had an interesting story and was busy as he could be up until his last illness. He was a great friend to my family. My father loved him dearly. He was a loyal and true friend in so many wonderful ways. I am glad I never had a tough race against someone from Norwich as well.

I join his beloved wife Peg, his son Bill, Jr., whom I know so well, and his daughters Carol and Mary in mourning Bill Stanley's passing, and I join every man, woman, and child in Norwich, CT, in giving thanks for the wonderful life of William Stanley.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in 1995, U.S. News and World Report named Stanley Israelite one of the ``Twelve Indispensible Americans.''

But I didn't need U.S. News and World Report to tell me just how indispensible Stanley is. He worked with me for 25 years, beginning the very first day I was sworn in as a Member of the House of Representatives. This weekend, he celebrated his 85th birthday, and I join in that celebration.

One day, very early in my service, I was out to dinner with Stanley-- which was a very important part of any decision I made. He listened to me talk for a while about some issues we were working on, but when I asked him for his advice, he simply said, ``I am going to tell you one thing about this job. Never forget the people.''

Stanley never has. In my office, he was the person who could be counted on to stand up for any constituent, no matter how big or small their need. And in his spare time, he became a fixture of his community and a champion for small businesses. When he retired, he took exactly 1 day off and then returned to work for the Norwich Community Development Corporation.

When he won an award from the Norwich Rotary last year, Stanley, in his typical modest fashion, said, ``I hope I deserve this. If you said I do, I'll accept it. I won't give it back.'' Well, that was the first time Stanley Israelite ever passed up an opportunity to give something back to this community.

Mr. President, Stanley Israelite is a national treasure, a favorite son of Connecticut, one of my closest advisers, and one of my dearest friends. I wish him all the best on his 85th birthday and in all the days ahead.

Mr. President, I wanted to take a few minutes today to speak in support of the amendment offered by my dear friend and colleague from Nevada, Harry Reid. I am proud to be cosponsoring this important amendment. Last November we passed, with bipartisan support, an amendment that extended the very successful first time homebuyer tax credit and expanded it to the ``move up buyer.'' My good friend from Georgia, Senator Isakson was instrumental in crafting this extended and expanded tax credit and I want to commend him for all the work he has done on this issue. Under that legislation, which we worked on together, homebuyers who were eligible for the credit had to sign a binding contract for their new home by April 30 and close by June 30 to receive the credit.

As of April, the Internal Revenue Service estimates that 2.6 million Americans have used the credit. The National Realtors Association reported that home sales rose by 6 percent between March and April this year as Americans clamored to qualify for the credit. That increase marked the third consecutive month that home sales grew. And that is exactly what this legislation was intended to do--spur home sales and bring the housing market back to life.

There are between 55,000 and 75,000 eligible homebuyers who entered into contracts to purchase a principal residence by April 30, but who will not get the benefit of the homebuyer tax credit because they do not close by June 30. There are a variety of reasons this might occur: the seller is unable to secure a timely approval from their lender for sales related to distressed properties; recent natural disasters have damaged the property; or the homebuyer has experienced delays in the processing of their Federal mortgage program application.

This amendment would extend the closing date deadline from June 30 to September 30 so that these eligible homebuyers can still claim the credit. I want to make very clear that this amendment does not extend the credit to new applicants--they must still meet all the eligibility requirements and be under contract by April 30. This amendment just gives them more time to close the deal.

At the end of the day, this amendment is really about fairness for the thousands of homebuyers who might be ineligible for the credit simply because it is taking longer than usual to complete their paperwork. It is simply unfair to allow homeowners who played by the rules to lose this credit due to administrative challenges beyond their control. I also want to note that this provision is fully paid for by denying corporations the ability to deduct punitive damages from their taxable income. Once again, I thank the majority leader and his staff for crafting this fiscally responsible amendment to help homebuyers. I urge all my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life and career of John Woolman Douglas, who passed away on June 6, 2010, at the age of 88.

We are all familiar with the images of the 1963 civil rights march, which took place here in Washington, DC, and is still one of the largest demonstrations of its kind in the Nation's history. It was during this march, in front of the Lincoln Memorial, with the National Mall flooded with demonstrators, that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his iconic ``I Have a Dream'' speech.

The images of that day, and of Dr. King's speech, have left an indelible mark on U.S. history. These events are remembered as some of the most important moments in the struggle against racial discrimination. They are also remembered as a nonviolent and hopeful affair--a stark contrast to the violence which characterized earlier demonstrations in the deep south.

Much of the credit for the success of this historic event goes to the tireless work of an Assistant Attorney General at the Justice Department. His name was John Douglas. As the head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, Douglas was charged by President Kennedy with the responsibility for the logistics and security of the march. For five weeks in the summer of 1963, he worked tirelessly with local law enforcement, the march's organizers, and the city of Washington to ensure a peaceful, effective demonstration.

Though his efforts went largely unnoticed to most Americans, it was vital to the success of this iconic event. It was also a testament to Mr. Douglas's personal belief in ensuring that the laws of our nation protect and promote the civil rights of all citizens.

His commitment to the rule of law, and to the advancement of basic human and civil rights in the United States and across the globe, helped John Douglas find himself at the forefront of some of the most significant moments of the 20th century--events that helped shape that century into one of progress and promise.

The son of the late U.S. Senator Paul Douglas, John was a 1943 graduate of Princeton University. After serving in the Navy during World War II as an officer on a PT boat in the Pacific, he enrolled at Yale Law School, in my home State of Connecticut. In 1948, he went on to London as a Rhodes Scholar and returned to clerk for Supreme Court Justice Harold Burton. He then embarked upon a career in private law practice and in government, during which he sought to advance the cause of justice both at home and abroad.

In 1962, Douglas was one of four men who negotiated the release of more than 1,000 anti-communist prisoners, captured and held by Cuban leader Fidel Castro after the Bay of Pigs invasion. He then served in the Kennedy Justice Department, where he was Assistant Attorney General until leaving to help his father run his final campaign for U.S. Senate in 1966.

Upon returning to private practice, he served as cochairman of the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. In 1970, he learned that schools in the South were still placing black students in separate classes and preventing them from participating in after school activities. Under his direction dozens of volunteers travelled to the South to assist in taking legal action to stop these injustices. Throughout the 1970s and 80s, he continued working actively on civil rights issues, serving as the cochairman of the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, and also as president of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association.

Internationally, Mr. Douglas worked to advance human rights through the development of democracy across the globe. In 1985, he traveled to South Africa, where he demonstrated against apartheid. He then returned to that nation as an official election observer in 1994--the year that Nelson Mandela was elected as President of South Africa in the first multi-racial election in that nation's history. He also served as an election monitor in the African nation of Namibia on three occasions in the 1980s and 1990s.

When he saw the rule of law warped into the tool of oppressive regimes, John Douglas stood courageously on the side of justice and human rights. As chairman of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace from 1978 to 1986, he advocated for international arms controls. He also travelled to Chile in 1986 to protest the violent, oppressive regime of General Augusto Pinochet.

Clearly, he knew, just as my father Thomas Dodd, one of the lead prosecutors of the Nuremberg trials did, that the law is humanity's strongest and noblest weapon against tyranny and oppression. This is a fundamental value that John Douglas truly took to heart, and throughout his career he fought for the rule of law over the rule of the mob both at home and abroad.

His contributions to the advancement of these principles shall never be forgotten, and I extend my deepest condolences to his family for their loss.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to S.J. Res. 26, which would invalidate the EPA's endangerment finding for greenhouse gas emissions issued last December. This disapproval resolution is the absolute wrong approach to energy and climate policy in this country. Not only does it fly in the face of the science currently available on this issue, but it also ties our hands at a critical moment when we should be exploring every option available to us for mitigating the potentially disastrous environmental, economic, and national security-related effects of climate change.

The scientific evidence currently surrounding our planet's changing climate could not be clearer, or the need to address it more urgent. There is broad consensus in the scientific community that most of the rise in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is due to human activity and that this warming trend could have potentially far-reaching consequences for the environment, agriculture, and public health. The EPA's endangerment and cause or contribute findings, which state that greenhouse gas emissions threaten public health and that emissions from new motor vehicles regulated under the Clean Air Act contribute to climate change, unequivocally reflect this longstanding scientific consensus. Indeed, the EPA's conclusions are based on empirical assessments from such highly respected, nonpartisan institutions as the U.S. Global Climate Research Program and the National Research Council.

Nevertheless, in spite of the veritable mountain of evidence demonstrating that we need to immediately begin addressing this challenge, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to ignore the available science and bury their heads in the sand by supporting this ill-conceived disapproval resolution. They are, in effect, voting to continue the failed policies of the Bush administration, which for 8 long years ignored sound science, ridiculed good policy, and relegated the U.S. to the back bench in the race to develop and deploy clean, renewable sources of energy.

This is not a path on which we can afford to continue. As the ongoing tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico clearly shows, our Nation's failure to comprehensively address climate change and free our country from its addiction to oil and other fossil fuels poses a serious threat to our economy and the public's well-being. It is now time for the United States to take a leading role in this effort--to reach into the deep well of technical expertise and ingenuity of its citizens--and build a new, clean energy economy that will create new jobs and help rescue the planet from some of the most deleterious impacts of climate change.

Today we are presented with a choice. Do we acknowledge the scientific near-certainty of climate change and the critical role the EPA must play in addressing it? Or do we hamstring our Nation's environmental

experts, gut a national oil savings program, and reject sound science? We must send a strong message to the American people and the rest of the world that the United States is fully committed to robustly confronting climate change and pioneering new, innovative approaches to energy policy that move our country away from its dangerous overreliance on fossil fuels. I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided legislation.

Madam President, I wish to recognize VSA, the International Organization on Arts and Disability. VSA is an affiliate of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and was founded in 1974 by Ambassador Jean Kennedy Smith--a pioneering leader in the area of access and inclusion in the arts for children with disabilities. For over three decades, she has blazed the trail for VSA to become the preeminent international organization on arts and disability. As a result of Ambassador Smith's tireless efforts and sustained vision, VSA is changing perceptions all over the world about people with disabilities. Each year, 7 million people of all ages and abilities participate in VSA programs in dance, music, drama and the visual arts.

Ambassador Smith and VSA have created an extraordinary network of educational resources, programs, festivals, and services that bring the arts into the lives of individuals of all ages--with and without disabilities. VSA programs occur in schools, community centers, hospitals, performing arts centers, art galleries, and college and university campuses. They involve teacher and artist training programs, the development and distribution of educational resources, and performance and exhibition opportunities for individuals of all ages. Through the development, implementation, and dissemination of model programs and initiatives, VSA helps acknowledge the importance of the arts in academic and vocational achievement for individuals of all abilities. These programs operate in all 50 states and in 51 countries around the world.

From June 6 to 12, more than 2,000 people will convene in Washington, DC, to celebrate Ambassador Smith's vision and to share their talents and accomplishments with all of us. From the Kennedy Center, to the Smithsonian Institution, the Shakespeare Theatre Company, Union Station, AFI Silver Theatre and Cultural Center, and many venues in between, performances and exhibitions will showcase the work of these outstanding artists and provide first-rate entertainment to residents of the Washington metropolitan area as well as visitors from around the world.

Among the professional artists who will lend their talents to this extraordinary gathering are world-renowned artists Dale Chihuly, Dame Evelyn Glennie, Patti LaBelle, Salif Keita, Marlee Maitlin and architect Michael Graves.

As part of the festival, hundreds of educators, policymakers, parents, and disability advocates will convene for the International VSA Education Conference, which will feature sessions that provide participants with tools and resources to advance inclusive education in their own communities.

Countless individuals have worked tirelessly for many years to create and expand the diverse programming and rich history of VSA. The leadership that Ambassador Jean Kennedy Smith has provided for more than 35 years has inspired those efforts and made these many accomplishments possible. The 2010 International VSA Festival is a tribute to her and to those individuals who embraced her vision and shared her passionate belief that all people should have the opportunity to participate in the arts. In honoring VSA and the work done by Ambassador Smith, we recognize the magnitude of her mission, and the importance of the arts not only for individuals with disabilities, but in all of our lives.

Madam President, today I have a heavy heart to mark the passing and commemorate the life of SSgt Edwin Rivera, a native of Waterford, CT, who lost his life in Afghanistan last week at the age of 28.

Staff Sergeant Rivera, the only son of middle-class Puerto Rican parents who came to Connecticut in the 1970s, graduated from Waterford High School in 2000. And they were proud of young Edwin, who served his first deployment in 2006, even as they missed his presence.

``The center of the family shifts back to my house when Edwin is gone,'' his mother said.

He was gone for 15 months, not the promised 12. And when he came home, he was changed by what he had seen. But he soon became the lively, committed family man, seeing his two sons, Rolando and Lorenzo, off to school, working at the Millstone nuclear powerplant, starting a new life with his wife Yesenia.

Last summer, however, he told his mother that he still thought about the sad faces of the children he had seen in Afghanistan, the children who couldn't

enjoy the stable, safe life he was providing for his own family.

``When the U.S. soldiers drive by,'' he told her, ``the children will scramble like mad in the dust just to get thrown a simple pencil from us. They don't even have pencils. I was born for this, it's my duty, to protect those families over there.''

So Edwin went back, leaving for Afghanistan again in early January with the 1st Battalion of the 102nd Infantry Regiment, a Connecticut National Guard unit based in New Haven. Like Edwin, many of those who went with him were not on their first deployment. But they fought with courage and commitment. And when Staff Sergeant Rivera made the ultimate sacrifice for his country, he did so in defense of his mates.

Staff Sergeant Rivera will be missed. But his selflessness, his commitment to his family, and his love of country will not be forgotten; rather, they will remain as an inspiration to his two young sons and to all of us who honor his service.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize May as National Cancer Research Month. This year, nearly 1.5 million Americans will be diagnosed with cancer and more than 500,000 will die from the disease. Of course, when we talk about cancer, we are referring to more than 200 diseases but taken together, cancer remains the leading cause of death for Americans under age 85, and the second leading cause of death overall.

In my capacity as a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, I have spent my career fighting alongside my colleagues to provide increased funding for medical research to ensure that organizations like the National Institutes of Health have the ability to continue their critical lifesaving work. It remains my hope that, as the NIH continues to provide us with new and innovative research and treatments, we will continue to provide them with the resources they need.

As a person directly affected by cancer, I believe we must continue to strengthen our Nation's commitment to this lifesaving research for the health and well-being of all Americans. The nation's investment in cancer research is having a remarkable impact. Discoveries and developments in prevention, early detection, and more effective treatments have helped to find cures for many types of cancers, and have converted others into manageable chronic conditions. The 5-year survival rate for all cancers has improved over the past 30 years to more than 65 per cent, and advances in cancer research have had significant implications for the treatment of other costly diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer's, HIV/AIDS and macular degeneration.

I take this opportunity not only to mention the value and importance of cancer research, but also to remember the people in my life who have been touched by this disease. Last year alone, we lost not only my sister Martha, but my dear friend Ted Kennedy to aggressive forms of cancer. Like many of my constituents whose lives have been touched by cancer, I think of them every day--and their battles strengthen my resolve to fight for better treatment and more cures.

I want to thank every one of my constituents who have come to my office to meet with my staff and me about this disease. It is no secret that cancer touches the lives of more Americans than those who are just diagnosed with it--friends and family also face the difficulty of supporting their loved ones through these hard times. I know how much time, effort and resources they expend on these trips. Many of them are sick or in recovery, or taking care of very ill loved ones, yet they still find the time to come down and share their stories with us, and I thank them for it. Their stories, anecdotes and struggles give a face to the people all across the country whose lives are touched by this important research, and hearing about them help us to do our jobs better. We could not have gotten health care reform passed without their constant efforts and support.

In commemorating May as National Cancer Research Month, we recognize the importance of cancer research and the invaluable contributions made by scientists and clinicians across the U.S. who are working not only to overcome this devastating disease, but also to prevent it. I lend my support as a father of two girls, as a husband, and as a public servant to supporting those who struggle with this deadly disease and I urge my colleagues to join me and do the same.

Mr. President, I speak in memory of a great American, a champion of human rights, and a personal hero of mine, Whitney Harris.

Whitney Harris, who passed away last month at the age of 98, was the last surviving Nuremberg prosecutor. He served alongside my father during the trials of Nazi war criminals, and was the lead prosecutor in the very first of those trials, which resulted in the conviction of the man who led the Nazi Security Police, including the dreaded Gestapo. And he was part of the team that brought to justice the former commander of the concentration camp at Auschwitz. Whitney's work earned him the Legion of Merit.

I, of course, got to know Whitney through my father. Men like them who took part in that unique episode in world history carried with them both the honor that comes with such good work and the burden that comes with confronting evil at such close range. My father's resulting passion to continue doing good works was so strong that it inspired not just his public service, but also my own. And while so many have spent the decades since World War II attempting to come to terms with what they saw, Whitney Harris has done incredible work helping all of us to understand what it all meant.

He believed that the United Nations should create a permanent international war crimes tribunal because he knew that the Holocaust was merely the most egregious manifestation of the evil that man is capable of inflicting.

Whitney wrote a poem once that he read at a Holocaust Observance Day ceremony. It read, in part: ``A thousand years have passed. What was the number killed at Auschwitz? It matters not. Twas but a trifle in the history of massacre of man by man.''

The work he did at Nuremberg is enough to cement Whitney Harris's place among the great legal giants and the great defenders of humanity of his generation. But his work since his speaking, his writing, his teaching represent an invaluable contribution to future generations.

To his beloved wife Anna and his wonderful family, I join Whitney's many admirers in sharing your sense of loss at his passing and your pride in his many accomplishments.

He lived a life in service to the world. And the world is better for it.

Mr. President, millions of Americans rely on transit to go about their daily lives.

Many of them are poor, elderly, or disabled.

For some, transit is more than a convenience--it is absolutely vital.

Unfortunately, in communities across the Nation, transit has become a casualty of the economic downturn.

Service cuts, fare increases, and layoffs--the result of tight budgets nationwide--have become an epidemic, disconnecting people from their jobs, placing huge burdens on already disadvantaged populations, and reducing quality of life for millions of American families.

The American Public Transportation Association recently found that 84 percent of transit systems either have enacted or are contemplating fare hikes or reductions in service.

The transit crisis is having an impact on the American people.

In 2008, transit ridership reached 10.7 billion riders, the highest level since 1956 and a 38 percent increase since 1995.

But last year, ridership fell by half a billion.

This has serious implications for national priorities like reducing traffic congestion, addressing climate change, enhancing our energy security, and restoring our economic competitiveness.

Of course, it has serious implications on the lives of ordinary Americans.

Young people are finding it harder to get to school.

Low-income families, forced to pay more for less service, are losing what is often their only option for getting to work.

The elderly and disabled, robbed of their mobility, can't access health care facilities.

Many who have long relied on transit are being forced to purchase cars, adding to congestion on our roads, pollution in our skies, and the economic burden already weighing heavy on working families.

We need more transit service, not less.

Now, my preference would be to pass a significant infrastructure and jobs bill, one that would invest billions in our infrastructure, our roadways, and our transit systems.

That approach would create hundreds of thousands of good construction jobs while simultaneously making critical long-term investments in our nation's future productivity and economic growth.

But even if we can't do that, we can't afford to turn our backs on the transit crisis.

Therefore, today I rise to introduce the Public Transportation Preservation Act of 2010.

This legislation will provide $2 billion in emergency funding to transit agencies across the nation so that we can minimize disruptions in service, fare increases, and layoffs.

It is not nearly enough money to give America the transit system it needs and deserves.

But I hope it will be enough to stop the bleeding and allow millions of Americans who rely on transit to maintain their ability to go to work, get to the doctor, and go about their daily lives without significant disruption.

Senators Menendez, Durbin, Schumer, Lautenberg, Brown of Ohio, Reed, and Gillibrand have joined this bill as original co-sponsors.

I thank them for their commitment to public transportation.

I urge my colleagues to join us on behalf of those who rely on transit.

Mr. President, millions of Americans rely on transit to go about their daily lives.

Many of them are poor, elderly, or disabled.

For some, transit is more than a convenience--it is absolutely vital.

Unfortunately, in communities across the Nation, transit has become a casualty of the economic downturn.

Service cuts, fare increases, and layoffs--the result of tight budgets nationwide--have become an epidemic, disconnecting people from their jobs, placing huge burdens on already disadvantaged populations, and reducing quality of life for millions of American families.

The American Public Transportation Association recently found that 84 percent of transit systems either have enacted or are contemplating fare hikes or reductions in service.

The transit crisis is having an impact on the American people.

In 2008, transit ridership reached 10.7 billion riders, the highest level since 1956 and a 38 percent increase since 1995.

But last year, ridership fell by half a billion.

This has serious implications for national priorities like reducing traffic congestion, addressing climate change, enhancing our energy security, and restoring our economic competitiveness.

Of course, it has serious implications on the lives of ordinary Americans.

Young people are finding it harder to get to school.

Low-income families, forced to pay more for less service, are losing what is often their only option for getting to work.

The elderly and disabled, robbed of their mobility, can't access health care facilities.

Many who have long relied on transit are being forced to purchase cars, adding to congestion on our roads, pollution in our skies, and the economic burden already weighing heavy on working families.

We need more transit service, not less.

Now, my preference would be to pass a significant infrastructure and jobs bill, one that would invest billions in our infrastructure, our roadways, and our transit systems.

That approach would create hundreds of thousands of good construction jobs while simultaneously making critical long-term investments in our nation's future productivity and economic growth.

But even if we can't do that, we can't afford to turn our backs on the transit crisis.

Therefore, today I rise to introduce the Public Transportation Preservation Act of 2010.

This legislation will provide $2 billion in emergency funding to transit agencies across the nation so that we can minimize disruptions in service, fare increases, and layoffs.

It is not nearly enough money to give America the transit system it needs and deserves.

But I hope it will be enough to stop the bleeding and allow millions of Americans who rely on transit to maintain their ability to go to work, get to the doctor, and go about their daily lives without significant disruption.

Senators Menendez, Durbin, Schumer, Lautenberg, Brown of Ohio, Reed, and Gillibrand have joined this bill as original co-sponsors.

I thank them for their commitment to public transportation.

I urge my colleagues to join us on behalf of those who rely on transit.

Mr. President, how much time remains for my friend from Kansas?

Mr. President, let me begin by saying that Sam Brownback and I are good friends. We have a different point of view in this matter. But that in no way at all should be reflected in our relationship with each other, as we have served together for many years. I fundamentally disagree with him about this.

Instructing conferees is an interesting motion in many ways. As we will be going to conference with the other body, I will be delighted to listen to these various ideas. But this is a matter which does deserve to be protected.

First of all, let me say that when it comes to automobile dealers, they are no different than community banks or other financial institutions; the overwhelming majority are good people and do a good job. But we do not pass laws in this country because a majority of the people commit crimes. We pass laws for the minority who can abuse their relationship with customers or with people. That is no different in this particular case at all.

So this is not about whether you like automobile dealers or do not like them. The simple question is: The second largest purchase that most Americans make is the purchase of an automobile. We do not buy stocks. We do not buy fancy institutions and so forth. We buy a home and we buy an automobile, and they are expensive undertakings.

So the question is very simply: We have established in our legislation, for the first time in the history of our country, a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that will watch out for the average American citizen when it comes to financial practices. We have a Consumer Product Safety Commission. We have the Food and Drug Administration which protects you against products that you ingest, so you have some ability to respond if they do you harm.

If you buy a lawn mower or you buy any other consumer product, we have a place you can go to get a recall when that product does injury or could do injury to you. Yet we have no place in this country, where you can be ruined by a financial product, to get you any redress.

So this legislation, for the first time in our Nation's history, establishes a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to watch out for bad mortgages, car loans, watch out for other financial activities in which the average individual may engage.

As I said, one of the most principal activities that people engage in as consumers is the purchase of an automobile. So we are trying to protect people. If we are going to say to community banks and to credit unions and other financial institutions: You must comply with these rules, they will be

enforced at the local level. But you have a community bank on one corner, a credit union on the other corner and a car dealer on the third corner and all three would like to compete for that business. To the credit union and the community bank we say: You have to comply with rules that protect consumers. But you, Mr. Auto Dealer over here, you do not have to do that. You can go off and do exactly as you want.

That is a mistake and why we have insisted that these provisions include automobile dealers. So I rise in opposition to this proposal.

A lot is said in this body about our men and women who serve in uniform. We all believe that, just as those heroes stand for us every single day, in bodies such as this we ought to stand for them. I wish to focus my remarks on what happens to men and women in uniform today because it is that constituency alone that ought to be reason to defeat this motion.

As we considered financial reform, then, we strove to heed the words of groups such as the Military Coalition, a consortium of over 30 nationally prominent military and veterans organizations, representing more than 5.5 million current and former servicemembers and their families, including such groups as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the National Guard Association, the Military Officers Association, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and many others.

All these groups have written a letter in which they say, in part: The most significant financial obligation for the majority of servicemembers is auto financing.

It is also the place where servicemembers are most likely to be taken advantage of. Recently, the New York Times reported on one case, that of Matthew Garcia, a 25-year-old Army specialist who was recently subjected to a trick called yo-yo financing by an unscrupulous car dealer, just as he was preparing to deploy for Afghanistan.

According to the story in the press, Specialist Garcia, stationed at Fort Hood, TX, bought an automobile at a used car lot, signed up for a loan at a 19.9 percent interest rate. That would be bad enough, but that is not the worst of it, the high rate of interest. The problem came when Specialist Garcia drove the car home.

The dealer called Specialist Garcia several days later to say the financing contract had actually fallen through and demanded an additional $2,500 in cash from Specialist Garcia. To make sure he paid up, the dealer blocked the soldier's car so no one could leave.

That is the way some--a few but some--auto dealers are treating our men and women in uniform. It is not enough that I tell you this story or one story in the press account. Under Secretary of Defense Stanley-- in fact, my good friend, Senator Brownback, quoted from the letter from Clifford Stanley. But listen to the operative sentence in the letter from Under Secretary Stanley:

The Department's position as stated in my letter to

Assistant Secretary Barr remains unchanged. The Department of

Defense would welcome and encourage the CFPA protections for

Servicemembers and their families with regard to unscrupulous

automobile sales and financing practices provided such

protections would not limit access to legitimate products.

Which they do not at all. So we are hearing from Under Secretary of Defense Stanley, in which he says: ``Bait and switch'' financing, falsification of loan applications, failure to pay off liens on trade- in vehicles, ``packing'' loans with items whose price bears little, if any, relationship to their real cost, and discriminatory lending are the kinds of problems members of our Armed Forces and their families face when dealing with financing their cars with car dealers.

In fact, Secretary Stanley reports that 72 percent of military counselors and attorneys surveyed had cited problems with auto dealer abuses in just the past 6 months alone, 72 percent cited it as a major problem. The Department of Defense is telling us that our men and women in uniform are at risk of being ripped off, as they are every single day.

That is why, of course, we adopted, 98 to 1, by the way, the amendment offered by Scott Brown, our colleague from Massachusetts, and Jack Reed, our colleague from Rhode Island. That amendment said we must have an office of servicemember affairs in the consumer bureau. Why did we establish that office there? What is the principal obligation that these service men and women get into that causes so much difficulty? It is automobiles sales. That is why we put it in.

What an irony it would be that we vote 98 to 1 to say we ought to establish that office within the consumer financial bureau and then turn around and adopt the Brownback amendment or insist upon it in a conference report, which basically exempts every one of these auto dealers from having to comply with the consumer protection laws. That would be an irony beyond ironies in a way, to on one hand say: We want to help you and protect you and then, on the other hand, take away the major organizations out there that do the most damage to them.

The Brownback motion would steal away this protection from our Armed Forces by creating a loophole for the exact sector of the financial services industry in which servicemembers are most vulnerable, and that is in auto sales. Let me be clear. All of us have relationships with auto dealers. I have a wonderful relationship with the people in my State of Connecticut whom I have worked closely with over the years.

All of us support those businesses. As I said at the outset of these remarks, the overwhelming majority of them do a good job and do not engage in unscrupulous behavior. But the laws are not written for the many, they are written for the few out there who do take advantage of these young men and women.

As we know from the evidence supplied by our military organizations and others who have written, rarely do they ever get involved in a matter such as a Banking Committee matter, to have the Under Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of the Army, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Order of the Purple Heart, and the Officers Association, all of them, 30 organizations saying: Do not do this.

Yet we are about to turn around and undo the efforts we have made to see to it that these young men and women, whom we all talk about in Memorial Day speeches, and so forth--what a great job they do for our country, and then turn around, in the one area they get taken to the cleaners on day after day, which is in this one particular area, and to exempt them entirely from the consideration of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The community bankers oppose this. The credit unions oppose this as well. They want a level playing field. They would like to compete for that business. They have to comply with the rules. How can you turn around and say to that community bank or that credit union: You have to live with these rules, but the guy on the other corner does not have to do so. How is that fair when it comes to financing, as I said have said, the second largest purchase that anyone would make, that most people make in their lives?

So it is unfair, it seems to me, to have two sets of rules for the same product. That is what we would be doing if this amendment were adopted, and, of course, the conferees were required to insist upon supporting language in the House bill. Military leaders such as Michael Donley, the Secretary of the Air Force, support this approach because, in his words:

Protection from unprincipled automobile lending enables our

Airmen to concentrate on their primary mission--to fly, fight

and win in air, space, and cyberspace.

Advocates such as Holly Petraeus, wife of GEN David Petraeus, the director of the Better Business program for military families, at a press conference, strongly supports the protections we have in this bill. They know the hardships military families face and believe it should not be compounded by shady lenders.

By the way, it is not just our servicemembers who suffer from lending abuse in this sector as well. There is a long and sad history of racial discrimination in auto lending. For example, African-American borrowers who are charged more than 2.5 times the amount in subjective rate----

I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute and provide 1 additional minute for my friend from Kansas as well.

Let me, if I can, because my friend from Kansas cited this, about separating out the financing from the lenders. There was a court case. Listen to what one of these witnesses, involved in that distinction, had to say. Some argue that auto dealer financing operations are not the lenders, they are merely processing the paperwork.

According to court testimony of a former finance and insurance manager from a Tennessee auto dealer:

The standard industry practice is to prepare the financing

documents so that the customer is not alerted in any manner

that the person with whom he is dealing has the ability to

control the customer's price of credit. This allows the

finance arranger to present himself as the ally of the

customer, which further relaxes and disarms the customer. The

nature of the transaction creates the perfect opportunity for

a dealer to obtain a large kickback from an unsuspecting

customer by subjectively inflating their interest rates.

This is not a time to do so much damage, in my view, to these young men and women in uniform.

I ask unanimous consent that several letters we have from the various military organizations in opposition to the Brownback amendment be printed in the Record.

All time has expired on Brownback?

Mr. President, I commend both of my colleagues, Senator Hutchison and Senator Hagan, my good friends from Texas and North Carolina. They have done a great job and deserve our thanks for the work they have put into this proposal. I am supportive of the motion to instruct. As a conferee, I will have something to say about this, I presume, in the conference. I thank them for their efforts. They have laid this out pretty well. I don't need to take a lot of time. I have some further remarks that lay out why I think this is a good proposal. I appreciate very much their efforts in this regard.

I am prepared to yield back time on this matter and urge colleagues to support the Hutchison-Hagan motion to the financial reform package. It is a good proposal, one that deserves all of our support.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered on both motions?

I don't see my colleague from Kansas but I know he wants the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the Brownback motion.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the Hutchison-Hagan motion.

Brownback would come first and then the Hutchison-Hagan motion.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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