Floor Statements

Mr. President, the 1955 football season was not a good one for the Harvard Crimson. With only three victories, it was somewhat surprising that no less a team than the mighty Green Bay Packers reached out to a senior end with a professional job offer. ``No thanks,'' replied young Ted Kennedy, ``I have plans to go into another contact sport--politics.''

Few have played this rough-and-tumble game with as much energy, determination, and joy as Senator Edward Kennedy. He served the people of his State and our Nation through five decades and under 10 Presidents. He authored more than 300 bills that became law and cosponsored another 550. His remarkable record of legislation has touched the lives of virtually every American, always with a focus on improving lives, bringing justice, and creating opportunity.

As we recall what he gave to our Nation, we also reflect upon what we have lost. It is my sincere hope that the Kennedy family will find comfort in the thoughts and prayers offered by so many around the country and the world. To those who have lost a friend and to his outstanding staff, which has lost an inspiring leader, I extend my deepest condolences. I considered him a dear friend as well as an esteemed colleague.

When I first came to the Senate in 1997, I knew Senator Kennedy only by reputation. It was a reputation that was not entirely flattering, based upon such labels as ``ultra-liberal'' and ``utterly partisan.'' That was not the Senator Kennedy I came to know and admire. He was easy to work with, and his heart was always in the right place. I worked closely with Ted on many education issues, particularly by increasing Pell grants which help our neediest students. In our work together on the Armed Services Committee, we teamed up to strengthen our Navy as members of the Seapower Subcommittee.

I found him to be a partner who always sought solutions. I saw in him the same traits that drew the attention of the Green Bay Packers--a tough competitor and a great teammate.

The lion is a symbol of courage. Certainly, Senator Kennedy possessed great political courage. He fought for his convictions, but he was always willing to reach across party lines. He never, as he often said, let the pursuit of the perfect become the enemy of the good.

But he also possessed courage at the most fundamental level--the willingness to face danger. His historic trip to South Africa in 1985, conducted against the stern warnings of the pro-apartheid government and in defiance of violent demonstrations, helped tear down the wall of racial separatism in that country.

Senator Kennedy often said that a day never went by that he did not think of his brothers. He did more than merely think of them; he strove always to emulate them. Like Jack, he asked what he could do for his country. Like Bobby, he dreamed things that never were and said why not.

The end of a life so devoted to public service brings to mind the Parable of the Talents. The master, leaving on a journey, entrusts a servant with a portion of his treasure. Upon his return, the master is delighted to find that his wealth has been wisely invested and multiplied.

Edward Moore Kennedy was entrusted the great treasure of convictions, energy, and passion. He invested that treasure wisely and multiplied its benefits to all. Like the master in the New Testament, to him we say, ``Well done, good and faithful servant.''

Mr. President, I rise today to bid farewell and to express my gratitude to Senator Mel Martinez as he retires from service in the U.S. Senate. During his time here, he established an admirable reputation for hard work, dedication to his State and our Nation, and a commitment to principles.

I have had the privilege of working with Senator Martinez as a member of the Armed Services Committee and its Seapower Subcommittee. In addition, we worked together on the Special Committee on Aging, where he has served as ranking member.

Working with Senator Martinez has always been rewarding. This has been especially true on the Armed Services Committee, where he brings to bear on defense issues both detailed knowledge and long-range vision. On the Seapower Subcommittee, he has been a strong ally in keeping our Navy pre-eminent and has been a highly effective advocate for continuing the DDG-1000 program, the next generation of destroyers.

Senator Martinez's work on the Special Committee on Aging continued his long record of shaping policies important to seniors in Florida and throughout America. From local government to his service as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and in the Senate, he has been a strong voice for ensuring that all Americans live longer, healthier, and more productive lives.

But the greatest legacy Mel Martinez leaves the Senate is his inspiring life story. Born in Cuba, he arrived in America at age 15. He earned his undergraduate and law degrees from Florida State University, and went on to practice law for 25 years. He demonstrates the highest qualities of our nation of immigrants, of the opportunities America provides, and of the character and determination of those who come to our shores. His desire to continue to work for expanded freedoms to the people of Cuba exemplifies his character and principles. I join my colleagues in wishing him and his family well, and in looking forward to many more contributions to the public good from this man of many gifts and accomplishments.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the nomination of Professor Cass Sunstein to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA.

Professor Sunstein's nomination has been endorsed by a number of groups, including the Farm Bureau, the Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Manufacturers.

I will ask consent to have letters of support from these organizations printed in the Record following my remarks.

While many people outside of Washington have never heard of this office, it can have an enormous influence on our everyday lives. Through the process of regulatory review, OIRA--as it is known in Washington--plays an integral role in the rulemaking process. The office advises agencies as rules are developed and then reviews the methodologies used to develop and justify these rules.

Professor Sunstein has extensively studied government regulation and the various methods that can be used to evaluate regulatory effectiveness. During his confirmation hearings, I noted several core principles that seem to underpin Professor Sunstein's work.

He advocates greater transparency in the regulatory process. One of his recommendations is that agencies be required to better justify decisions to regulate, particularly when the costs of regulations appear to exceed the benefits. That makes sense to me.

Professor Sunstein strongly supports the use of cost-benefit analysis as a tool for evaluating regulation. At the same time, he recognizes that such analysis has limitations when it comes to considering intangible costs and benefits.

Recently, Professor Sunstein has proposed an alternative to more draconian ``command-and-control'' regulation. In his book ``Nudge,'' he makes a compelling case for regulation that does not dictate actions but instead encourages certain behavior without limiting personal freedoms. This ``nudging'' can promote societal goals without depriving individuals or organizations of other choices.

As with many nominees who make the transition from academia to government service, Professor Sunstein will find that as he steps from the world of theory into the realm of practice, not every idea discussed in the classroom can be easily converted into government policy--nor should it be. During his confirmation hearing, Professor Sunstein and I discussed several provocative statements he has made in the course of his career, statements that are troubling on their face.

I was deeply concerned, for example, by his past comment that hunting should be banned. When I questioned Professor Sunstein on this statement, he responded as follows:

Hunters are among the strongest environmentalists and

conservationists in the United States. And it would be

preposterous for anyone in a position like mine to take steps

to affect their rights or their interests.

In a July 14, 2009, letter to Senator Chambliss, Professor Sunstein promised to respect second amendment rights if confirmed as OIRA Administrator. Professor Sunstein explained:

I strongly believe that the Second Amendment creates an

individual right to possess and use guns for purposes of both

hunting and self-defense. I agree with the Supreme Court's

decision in the Heller case, clearly recognizing the

individual right to have guns for hunting and self-defense.

If confirmed, I would respect the Second Amendment and the

individual right that it recognizes.

I was also concerned by several law review articles in which Professor Sunstein made the bizarre statement that animals be given standing to sue in court--allowing ``representatives'' to sue on an animal's behalf. In response to questions on this subject during his confirmation hearing, Professor Sunstein clarified that he was suggesting this as a means by which existing animal cruelty laws could be enforced by civil suits. In a letter to me on this issue, Professor Sunstein further stated:

I have no personal plans to regulate farm animal husbandry

in any way. If confirmed, and if the Department of

Agriculture were to propose any regulations in that domain, I

would work with the Department to ensure that any proposed

regulations follow the law and fit with the priorities of the

President--and that they take full account of the pressing

needs of America's farmers and ranchers and the countless

consumers who benefit, every day, from their remarkable

efforts.

I will consent to have Professor Sunstein's letter printed in the Record following my remarks.

I know that a number of my colleagues have shared these concerns or raised other concerns based on Professor Sunstein's extensive bibliography. I understand that Professor Sunstein has made himself available to meet with Senators to discuss those concerns and has in some cases provided written clarifications of his positions. I expect that when confirmed as OIRA Administrator, he will continue to be as accessible and responsive to this Congress.

On balance, I support Professor Cass Sunstein as Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have letters of support and Professor Sunstein's letter, to which I referred, printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Lieberman in introducing the Weapons of Mass Destruction Prevention and Preparedness Act of 2009. This legislation would increase our Nation's protections against an attack using WMDs.

The bill implements many of the recommendations of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism. Congress established that Commission in 2007 in legislation that Senator Lieberman and I coauthored.

Heading the WMD Commission were former Senators Bob Graham and Jim Talent. Last December, the Commission produced a comprehensive report on the WMD threats to our Nation and provided recommendations to prevent further proliferation and acts of terrorism using these deadly weapons. The Commission's ``World at Risk'' report warned that it is ``more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013.''

The Commission's report is a call to action.

The Commission reinforces the sense of urgency that the Homeland Security Committee has felt during its many hearings on deadly threats to the American people--threats that include terrorists dispersing anthrax spores, detonating a nuclear device in a major city, or striking with other weapons of mass destruction.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress created the Department of Homeland Security, reformed our intelligence agencies, strengthened FEMA, increased grants for State and local first responders, and enhanced security at our seaports and chemical facilities. As the Commission observes, however, ``the terrorists have been active, too,'' and we must continue our efforts. Nuclear proliferation and advances in biotechnology give terrorists new methods

to carry out their avowed intention to commit mass murder.

The mental images of nuclear blasts and mushroom clouds are powerful and frightening. As the WMD Commission rightly notes, however, the more likely threat is from a biological weapon. In contrast to nuclear weapons, the technological hurdle is lower to develop and disseminate bioweapons, access to pathogens is more widespread, and pathogens are harder to contain. The spread of biotechnology, the difficulty of detecting such pathogens, and terrorists' known interest in bioterrorism combine to produce an even greater menace.

Bio-weapons are appealing to terrorists in part because we are unlikely to realize that an attack has occurred before it begins to kill many of its victims.

Worldwide security has lagged behind the growth of this threat. Even within our own country, the Commission and GAO have found that we fail to secure potential biological weapons effectively. In July, the GAO found significant deficiencies in perimeter security at biological labs that handle the world's most dangerous biological agents and diseases, such as the Ebola virus and smallpox. Because no cure or treatment exists for some of the pathogens handled by these labs, this is alarming.

Thousands of individuals in the United States have access to dangerous pathogens. Currently there are about 400 research facilities and nearly 15,000 individuals in the U.S. authorized to handle the deadly pathogens on the ``Select Agent List.'' Indeed, the FBI has determined that a cleared scientist who worked at a regulated research lab likely carried out the Anthrax attacks on the Senate and the U.S. postal system in 2001.

To counter this threat, the WMD Commission recommends increasing the security of biological laboratories that handle dangerous pathogens. This legislation would do so by establishing additional security measures for the most dangerous pathogens that terrorists are likely to use in an attack. A negotiated rulemaking--with Federal agencies and research institutions at the table--would develop these enhanced security standards. This would ensure that regulations, which make our Nation's labs more secure, would not have the unintended consequence of deterring legitimate research endeavors.

In order to help fund the security enhancements at the highest-risk biolabs and avoid diverting research funding to security upgrades, the bill authorizes a grant program at $50 million for each of the next four years. This is a sufficient level of funding to ensure that each of the labs registered to handle the most dangerous pathogens could access funding.

In response to another Commission finding that many research facilities that handle less strictly controlled, yet still dangerous pathogens are not even known to the government, the legislation requires registration of these labs. This system of enhanced security for labs with the most dangerous pathogens and the registration of labs that handle less dangerous pathogens will result in facility security requirements that are tiered based on the risk that a pathogen at a particular facility could be used in a biological attack.

To better prepare the American people for a bio-weapon attack, the bill improves the government's ability to distribute medical countermeasures and requires actions to improve communications with the public before and during a biological attack. As the Commission wisely advised, citizens need to know what to expect during a biological attack and how they should respond.

While security controls must be improved within our own country, global security problems are daunting. Countries like Syria do not adhere to the Biological Weapons Convention, which is the multilateral treaty that banned the development, production, and stockpiling of biological weapons. Other countries that signed the treaty may not be living up to these commitments.

To address these international biosecurity threats, the bill requires that the Director of National Intelligence, DNI, report on countries that have facilities with the highest-risk pathogens and the security measures in place at these facilities. The DNI also must develop a strategy for improving the Federal Government's capabilities to collect, analyze, and disseminate intelligence related to weapons of mass destruction.

In addition, the bill would direct the Secretary of State to provide assistance to enhance security at laboratories with dangerous pathogens worldwide and to use exchange programs to train foreign nationals. In this way, foreign nationals can promote lab safety and detect disease outbreaks in their home countries.

This legislation, which would implement the WMD Commission's recommendations, is an important and significant step forward in addressing the growing threat of weapons of mass destruction, and of bio-weapons in particular. Countering this threat is critical for the security of our Nation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Lieberman in introducing the Weapons of Mass Destruction Prevention and Preparedness Act of 2009. This legislation would increase our Nation's protections against an attack using WMDs.

The bill implements many of the recommendations of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism. Congress established that Commission in 2007 in legislation that Senator Lieberman and I coauthored.

Heading the WMD Commission were former Senators Bob Graham and Jim Talent. Last December, the Commission produced a comprehensive report on the WMD threats to our Nation and provided recommendations to prevent further proliferation and acts of terrorism using these deadly weapons. The Commission's ``World at Risk'' report warned that it is ``more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013.''

The Commission's report is a call to action.

The Commission reinforces the sense of urgency that the Homeland Security Committee has felt during its many hearings on deadly threats to the American people--threats that include terrorists dispersing anthrax spores, detonating a nuclear device in a major city, or striking with other weapons of mass destruction.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress created the Department of Homeland Security, reformed our intelligence agencies, strengthened FEMA, increased grants for State and local first responders, and enhanced security at our seaports and chemical facilities. As the Commission observes, however, ``the terrorists have been active, too,'' and we must continue our efforts. Nuclear proliferation and advances in biotechnology give terrorists new methods

to carry out their avowed intention to commit mass murder.

The mental images of nuclear blasts and mushroom clouds are powerful and frightening. As the WMD Commission rightly notes, however, the more likely threat is from a biological weapon. In contrast to nuclear weapons, the technological hurdle is lower to develop and disseminate bioweapons, access to pathogens is more widespread, and pathogens are harder to contain. The spread of biotechnology, the difficulty of detecting such pathogens, and terrorists' known interest in bioterrorism combine to produce an even greater menace.

Bio-weapons are appealing to terrorists in part because we are unlikely to realize that an attack has occurred before it begins to kill many of its victims.

Worldwide security has lagged behind the growth of this threat. Even within our own country, the Commission and GAO have found that we fail to secure potential biological weapons effectively. In July, the GAO found significant deficiencies in perimeter security at biological labs that handle the world's most dangerous biological agents and diseases, such as the Ebola virus and smallpox. Because no cure or treatment exists for some of the pathogens handled by these labs, this is alarming.

Thousands of individuals in the United States have access to dangerous pathogens. Currently there are about 400 research facilities and nearly 15,000 individuals in the U.S. authorized to handle the deadly pathogens on the ``Select Agent List.'' Indeed, the FBI has determined that a cleared scientist who worked at a regulated research lab likely carried out the Anthrax attacks on the Senate and the U.S. postal system in 2001.

To counter this threat, the WMD Commission recommends increasing the security of biological laboratories that handle dangerous pathogens. This legislation would do so by establishing additional security measures for the most dangerous pathogens that terrorists are likely to use in an attack. A negotiated rulemaking--with Federal agencies and research institutions at the table--would develop these enhanced security standards. This would ensure that regulations, which make our Nation's labs more secure, would not have the unintended consequence of deterring legitimate research endeavors.

In order to help fund the security enhancements at the highest-risk biolabs and avoid diverting research funding to security upgrades, the bill authorizes a grant program at $50 million for each of the next four years. This is a sufficient level of funding to ensure that each of the labs registered to handle the most dangerous pathogens could access funding.

In response to another Commission finding that many research facilities that handle less strictly controlled, yet still dangerous pathogens are not even known to the government, the legislation requires registration of these labs. This system of enhanced security for labs with the most dangerous pathogens and the registration of labs that handle less dangerous pathogens will result in facility security requirements that are tiered based on the risk that a pathogen at a particular facility could be used in a biological attack.

To better prepare the American people for a bio-weapon attack, the bill improves the government's ability to distribute medical countermeasures and requires actions to improve communications with the public before and during a biological attack. As the Commission wisely advised, citizens need to know what to expect during a biological attack and how they should respond.

While security controls must be improved within our own country, global security problems are daunting. Countries like Syria do not adhere to the Biological Weapons Convention, which is the multilateral treaty that banned the development, production, and stockpiling of biological weapons. Other countries that signed the treaty may not be living up to these commitments.

To address these international biosecurity threats, the bill requires that the Director of National Intelligence, DNI, report on countries that have facilities with the highest-risk pathogens and the security measures in place at these facilities. The DNI also must develop a strategy for improving the Federal Government's capabilities to collect, analyze, and disseminate intelligence related to weapons of mass destruction.

In addition, the bill would direct the Secretary of State to provide assistance to enhance security at laboratories with dangerous pathogens worldwide and to use exchange programs to train foreign nationals. In this way, foreign nationals can promote lab safety and detect disease outbreaks in their home countries.

This legislation, which would implement the WMD Commission's recommendations, is an important and significant step forward in addressing the growing threat of weapons of mass destruction, and of bio-weapons in particular. Countering this threat is critical for the security of our Nation.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to serve as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Constitution grants the President the power to nominate and appoint individuals to the Federal judiciary. It also gives the Senate the power of advice and consent to such appointments. It does not, however, provide any specific guidance to the Senate on how we should exercise this important power.

In a democracy, discourse and disagreement are inevitable. Some, including myself, would say that these ingredients are not only expected, they are necessary for the healthy continuation of our vibrant, dynamic democracy.

Given this backdrop, disputes regarding the scope of the Senate's power of ``advice and consent'' are not uncommon or unexpected whenever the President puts forth a nominee for the Supreme Court. In fact, the ink on our Constitution was barely dry when the Senate rejected John Rutledge, one of President Washington's 13 nominees to the Supreme Court. Some Senators suggested they had voted against Mr. Rutledge out of a concern that he was losing his sanity. But the main reason for opposition to Mr. Rutledge appears to have been the nominee's opposition to the Jay Treaty with Great Britain--a treaty popular with the federalist-controlled Senate.

Since Mr. Rutledge's rejection by the Senate in 1795, Senators have continued to grapple with the criteria applicable to their evaluation of Supreme Court nominees and the degree of deference that should be accorded to the President.

There is no easy answer to this difficult question. Some argue that closer scrutiny by the Senate and less deference to the President is required when confirming judicial nominees, not only because Federal judges are in a separate branch of government but also because they have lifetime appointments. Thus, constitutional law scholar John McGinnis concludes that the text of the Constitution gives the

Senate ``complete and final discretion in whether to accept or approve a nomination.''

Many other legal scholars, however, articulate a more constrained role for the Senate. They argue that the Senate's power should be exercised narrowly, giving extraordinary deference to the President. Under this standard, the Senate would not reject judicial nominees unless they were clearly unqualified to serve.

Citing Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 76, those who would constrain the Senate's review of judicial nominees explain that the ``advice and consent'' responsibility was only intended as a safeguard against incompetence, cronyism, or corruption. As Dr. John Eastman testified before the Judiciary Committee in 2003, the Senate's power of ``advice and consent'' does not give ``the Senate a coequal role in the appointment of Federal judges.''

The constitutional arguments on both sides of this question of how much deference to give the President are enlightening. But, as is so often the case, my personal belief is that the truth lies between the two extremes. As a Senator, I have afforded considerable deference to both Democratic and Republican Presidents on their Supreme Court nominees. In considering judicial nominees, I carefully consider the nominee's qualifications, competency, personal integrity, judicial temperament, and respect for precedent. Those are the tests I have applied to Sonia Sotomayor. Having reviewed her record, questioned her personally, and listened to the Judiciary Committee hearings, I have concluded that Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed to our Nation's highest Court.

My decision to support this nominee does not reflect agreement with her on all of her rulings as a judge serving on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. I disagreed, for example, with the perfunctory manner in which Judge Sotomayor has disposed of one case of constitutional consequence. Her panel's cursory analysis of the complex and novel questions about the 14th amendment's equal protection clause and title VII in the Ricci case--the case involving the New Haven firefighters, which has been called a reverse discrimination case--was as unfortunate as the decision itself. Indeed, in contrast to her panel's one- paragraph opinion, the Supreme Court, in this case, needed nearly 100 pages to debate and resolve just the statutory question presented-- never mind the difficult constitutional questions that were set aside for another day.

But my concerns about a handful of Judge Sotomayor's rulings, as well as some of her prior comments over the course of her 17 years on the Federal bench, do not warrant my opposing her confirmation. Upon reading some of her other decisions, talking personally with her, questioning her at length, and hearing her response to probing questions, I have concluded that she understands the proper role of a judge and that she is committed to applying the law impartially, without bias or favoritism. Specifically, in her testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Sotomayor reaffirmed that her judicial philosophy is one of ``fidelity to the law.''

She pledged ``to apply the law,'' not to make it. She testified that her ``personal and professional experiences'' will not influence her rulings.

There is no question in my mind that Judge Sotomayor is well qualified to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. She has impressive legal experience. She has excelled throughout her life, and she is a tremendously accomplished person. Indeed, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary--after an exhaustive review of her professional qualifications, including more than 500 interviews and analyses of her opinions, speeches, and other writings--unanimously rated her as ``well qualified.''

Based on my personal review--a careful review--of her record, my assessment of her character, and my analysis of her adherence to precedent, Judge Sotomayor warrants confirmation to the High Court.

I know I will not agree with every decision Justice Sotomayor reaches on the Court, just as I have disagreed with some of her previous decisions. I believe, however, that her legal analyses will be thoughtful and sound and that her decisions will be based on the particulars of the case before her. My expectation is that Justice Sotomayor will adhere to Justice O'Connor's admonition that ``a wise, old woman and a wise, old man would eventually reach the same conclusion in a case.''

Based on her responses to the Judiciary Committee, Justice Sotomayor will avoid the temptation to usurp the legislative authority of the Congress and the Executive authority of the President. As Chief Justice John Marshall famously wrote in Marbury v. Madison, the Court must ``say what the law is.'' That, after all, in a nutshell, is the appropriate role for the Federal judiciary. For a judge to do more would undermine the constitutional foundations of the separate branches.

I will cast my vote in favor of the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor, as I believe she will serve our country honorably and well on the Supreme Court.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Camp Agawam boys' summer camp in Raymond, ME, which is celebrating its 90th year on August 14, 2009. Agawam has an exceptional history as one of the Nation's oldest summer camps.

Founded in 1919, Agawam was owned and operated continuously by the Mason family until 1985. Throughout its history, Camp Agawam has provided a unique and exciting summer camp program for boys from Maine and from across the country. The talented staff and counselors at Agawam continue to carry on the Mason family's vision of providing a safe, positive environment for boys to make lifelong friends and foster skills through outdoor recreation and activities.

Agawam has made significant contributions to youth in Maine's local communities. Strongly supported by camp alumni and parents, the camp's Maine Idea program highlights the impressive commitment by Agawam to provide free campership opportunities to Maine boys. This is truly a meaningful investment in Maine's most precious resource--our children.

I congratulate and commend Agawam's talented staff, counselors, council members, camp alumni, parents, and campers on a remarkable 90 years.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. Let me begin by thanking the committee's distinguished chairman, Senator Levin, and ranking member, Senator McCain, for their leadership in crafting this bill and for their strong commitment to our Nation's Armed Forces.

This legislation will provide essential training, equipment, and support to our troops as they engage in combat overseas and in exercises at home. The legislation will provide critical force protection to our men and women in uniform; help restore our military's readiness; and continue the development of technologies to counter existing and emerging threats. This is a critical time in our nation's history and the committee has, once again, demonstrated its strong support of our soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines and their families.

It also offers an important opportunity for continued debate as to our Nation's strategy in Afghanistan. The legislation we are now debating contains an amendment that Senator Ben Nelson and I offered during committee markup to express the sense of Congress that the administration should review any previously established measures of progress and establish further measures of progress for both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Our proposal was approved unanimously by the Senate Armed Services Committee. It represents a significant bipartisan call for the administration to establish clearly defined policy objectives for Afghanistan as our nation sends more troops and billions of additional dollars to the region.

Time and again, I have expressed serious reservations about sending more troops to Afghanistan without clear, specific benchmarks. The President needs to provide clear, measurable goals for Afghanistan and the region. I have raised my concerns with top Pentagon officials, including Commander of U.S. Central Command General David Petreaus and Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal about the risks in sending additional troops to Afghanistan. I have no doubts at all about the courage and skill of our men and women in uniform. They are simply the best in the world. I have considerable doubts about whether the President's strategy can succeed.

The legislation before us also includes a strong commitment to strengthening Navy shipbuilding. A robust Navy budget is of critical importance. Our nation needs a strong and modern naval fleet in order to counter existing and emerging threats.

For several years, military leaders have documented a minimum national requirement for 313 ships to support our Navy and Marine Corps. Unfortunately, however, the Navy's fleet has declined to 283 ships. I am deeply concerned by the decreasing size of the Navy fleet and have worked to increase the funding allocated to shipbuilding. This legislation is an important step toward reversing that troubling decline.

As the threats from around the world continue to grow, it is vitally important that the Navy have the best fleet available to counter those threats, keep the sealanes open, and to defend our Nation. Bath Iron Works and the shipyards of this country are ready to build whatever ships the Navy needs. It is vitally important that there not be a gap in shipbuilding that jeopardizes our industrial base. That is what this legislation works to accomplish.

The instability and inadequacy of previous naval shipbuilding budgets have had a troubling impact on our shipbuilding industrial base and has contributed to significant cost growth in the Navy's shipbuilding programs. The 313-ship plan, combined with more robust funding by Congress, will begin to reverse the decline in Navy shipbuilding.

This bill authorizes $1 billion in funding for construction of the third DDG-1000 and honors the agreement the Navy negotiated to build all three ships at Bath Iron Works, BIW. The Pentagon's preference to have BIW build all three of the DDG-1000s demonstrates confidence in BIW, should ensure stable work for the shipyard, and should also help to stabilize production costs for the Navy.

That same confidence was also demonstrated this May when Defense Secretary Robert Gates toured BIW, the first official tour of our shipyard by a Defense Secretary since the 1950s. Secretary Gates said that what impressed him most during his tour was BIW's ability to innovate and the pride and professionalism of its workforce. Maine has a long and proud history of innovation and creativity, and BIW represents Maine ingenuity at its best. Secretary Gates's statement that the men and women of BIW will have consistent work for years into the future was a very welcome acknowledgement of the yard's accomplishments.

In addition, this legislation authorizes $2.2 billion for continued DDG-51 procurement and nearly $150 million for the DDG-51 modernization program.

Our bill also includes a provision that repeals a requirement enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 that would require all future surface combatants to have nuclear propulsion systems. The provision allows the Navy to conduct analyses of requirements capabilities for new ship classes without biasing the analyses in favor of one propulsion option or another. Continuing this requirement would dramatically increase the costs of large surface combatants, reduce the overall number of ships that could be built at a time when the Navy is seeking to revitalize and modernize its fleet, and would undermine the Chief of Naval Operations 313-ship plan.

Our Senate bill also includes funding for additional littoral combat ships.

While this program has suffered a number of setbacks, the Navy, with the help of Congress, has taken significant steps in order to better oversee this program. These ships are important for the Navy in order to counter new, asymmetric threats, and the Navy needs to get these ships to the fleet soon.

The Senate's fiscal 2010 Defense authorization bill also includes funding for other defense-related projects that benefit Maine and our national security.

The bill authorizes $28 million for a new aircraft hangar at the Bangor Air National Guard base in Bangor, ME. This new hangar is essential for the Maine Air National Guard and will replace the 55- year-old building the guard now uses. With the construction of a new hangar, the Maine Air Guard will be able to better maintain its aircraft.

The bill also authorizes $7.1 million for Portsmouth Naval Shipyard to be used for security improvements at Gate No. 2. The money will be used to install new antiterrorism and protection measures at the guard house that will improve security.

Funding also is provided for machine guns and grenade launchers, both of which are manufactured by the highly skilled workers at Saco Defense in Saco, ME.

In addition, the legislation authorizes $10.5 million for the University of Maine. This funding would support continued research and development of light weight modular ballistic tent insert panels designed by the University of Maine's Army Center of Excellence in Orono. These panels provide crucial protection to servicemembers in temporary dining and housing facilities in mobile forward operating bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The funding would also support continued research and development of high temperature sensors for health monitoring of aerospace components. These sensors are capable of sensing physical properties such as temperature, pressure, corrosion and vibration in critical aerospace components.

And, the bill would also support continued research and development of cellulose nanocomposites panels for enhanced blast and ballistic protection as well as provide for woody biomass conversion to JP-8 Fuel.

Finally, I am pleased that this bipartisan Defense bill also authorizes a 3.4- percent across-the-board pay increase for servicemembers, half a percent above the President's budget request.

This bill provides the vital resources to our troops and our nation and recognizes the enormous contributions made by the State of Maine to our national security. The bill provides the necessary funding for our troops, and I offer it my full support.

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

Madam President, I rise in support of the nomination of Dr. Robert Groves to be the next Director of the Census Bureau. Our committee, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, scrutinized this nominee very carefully. First, I wish to give some background on why it is so critical that we have a well-qualified individual heading the Census Bureau as quickly as possible and then talk to my colleagues about why I believe Dr. Groves is, indeed, the right person for that critical position.

With the 2010 census fast approaching, the Director of the Census Bureau will need to quickly take action to ensure an accurate, actual enumeration of all those residing in the United States, as set forth and required by our Constitution.

The decennial census is a complex and extensive operation. The information collected has significant impact on the distribution of political power because, after all, it governs the allocation of seats in the House of Representatives and it also affects the allocation of more than $300 billion in Federal resources. With so much at stake, it is essential that the results of the census be accurate, objective, credible, and free from even the appearance of political influence.

The Census Bureau, unfortunately, faces significant operational and organizational challenges. Bureau officials acknowledged in 2008 that they were experiencing critical problems in the management and testing of key information technology systems.

Due to the leadership and investigative work of Senator Carper and Senator Coburn, our committee held numerous hearings looking at the failed procurements of the Census Bureau. Believe me, it has not been a pretty picture. These problems have resulted in a dramatic increase in the cost of the 2010 census, and it is particularly alarming in this day and age of technology that millions of dollars invested by the Census Bureau in handheld computers have gone to waste. The Bureau,

in fact, has once again returned to the use of paper and pencil to gather important data. Isn't that extraordinary in this day and age? It is clear there are woefully inadequate and wasteful procurement practices and even gross mismanagement at the Bureau. We simply cannot afford to waste time and money on critical programs that do not produce results, particularly when it comes to a constitutionally mandated task such as the census.

The next Director of the Census Bureau must take steps right now to address the current shortcomings and to prepare for the current and future census challenges. He will be responsible for ensuring that the Bureau fulfills its mission in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, without undue political influence and with careful management of taxpayer dollars.

I have concluded that Dr. Groves is superbly well qualified for this important position. That is why our committee unanimously voted, by a voice vote, to confirm him. Our committee spans the political spectrum, and all of us felt Dr. Groves was well qualified for this critical position.

Madam President, personally, I have had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Groves, to scrutinize his qualifications and background, and to question him intensely about the issues that have caused a few of my colleagues concern. I say to my colleagues, look at the hearing record, look at Dr. Groves' responses. I pressed him, as Senator Carper has pointed out, about the need to conduct the census free of any political influence, and I specifically asked him about the use of sampling for the 2010 census and the 2020 census. Dr. Groves not only committed to keeping politics out of the population count but also said he would resign and actively work to stop any action to improperly influence the census for political gain. He further stated, under oath, that he had no intention of seeking an adjustment of either the 2010 census or the 2020 census.

Let me read from the committee transcript because I, too, am very concerned about this problem. There were some initial indications that this White House might, in fact, be looking to influence the census in an improper way. That is why I wanted to get Dr. Groves on the record, under oath, on this important issue.

Here is what I asked him:

Dr. Groves, would you be prepared to resign if you were

asked or pressured to do something or take some action to

satisfy a political concern?

Doctor Groves responded to me:

More than that, Senator. If I resign, I promise you today

that after I resign, I would be active in stopping the abuse

from outside the system.

In other words, Dr. Groves told me that if political pressure were put on him, he would not only resign, he would go public and he would lead the fight to protect the census from undue political influence. He committed to a transparent census process, stating:

Sunshine, doing one's work in an open environment, having

an ongoing dialog with all of the stakeholders is one way to

insulate the Census Bureau from that political partisanship.

He went on to add:

Transparency is a very powerful antidote to attempts for

partisan influence.

What could be clearer than that? Here we have a nominee who has pledged that he would resign if political influence were brought to bear on his office. I don't know what more you could ask, and this is the commitment given at a public hearing, under oath, as well as privately to me when we met in my office.

Let me go on to the second issue that has been raised. Again, an important issue. I agree with my colleagues on my side of the aisle who have been concerned about whether sampling would be used rather than the actual count mandated by the Constitution. On this issue of sampling, I asked Dr. Groves:

Will you advocate for the statistical adjustment or use of

sampling for the 2010 census?

Dr. Groves's response:

No, Senator.

That is an unqualified response: ``No, Senator.''

I then asked him a further question: ``Will you advocate for the statistical adjustment of the 2020 census,'' since, after all, maybe there is not time to adjust the 2010 census to have sampling or a statistical adjustment, given how close we are to the 2010 census. So I asked him about the 2020 census.

Dr. Groves's response:

I have no plans to do that for 2020.

Dr. Groves's record of service and leadership and scientific research spans the academic, government, and private sectors, both within the United States and internationally. As the director of the University of Michigan Survey Research Center, a very well-known prestigious research center; as the former director of the Joint Program in Service Methodology; and the former associate director of Statistical Design Standards and Methodology at the Census Bureau, he is considered to be one of a half dozen most highly regarded service research experts in the world.

He is extraordinarily well qualified. He is not a political person. He is a scientist, a researcher, a statistician. That is why it is not surprising that Dr. Groves's nomination has received strong support from a number of organizations, including the American Statistical Association. I will concede, I did not know that such an organization existed prior to this nominee. But they have endorsed him, as well as some, perhaps, groups better known to us, such as the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the Population Reference Bureau.

But here is what is more telling. Six former Census Directors from both Democratic and Republican administrations have also endorsed Mr. Groves's nomination. Six from both parties, from both sides of the aisle, from Democratic and Republican administrations. This is a testament to the respect that Dr. Groves's peers have for his work.

Dr. Groves has the leadership and professional experience that is needed to lead the Bureau through the 2010 census to plan for the 2020 census and to direct the Bureau's other vital programs. I would be the first to be here in opposition if I believed he was going to use sampling or if I believed he was going to be susceptible to political pressure. There is nothing in the record or in his testimony that suggests that.

I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support this nomination and to let us get on with the critical work that needs to be done at this Bureau which, regrettably, has been so poorly managed in the last few years.

I look forward to working with Dr. Groves. I urge our colleagues to support his nomination.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I enjoyed hearing my colleague's comments about our friend Senator Norm Coleman because I share the same sentiments. I rise today to speak about the extraordinary service of this extraordinary individual.

When I became the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee in 2003, a freshman Senator took over the position that I had held as the chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. During the next 6 years, I came to know Senator Norm Coleman as an energetic, farsighted, and committed public servant, but most of all I came to know Norm as a dear friend.

As chairman, and later ranking member, of PSI, Norm demonstrated unfailing leadership and extraordinary dedication. Working with his colleague from across the aisle, Senator Carl Levin, Norm enhanced PSI's reputation as the Senate's premier investigative subcommittee. He undertook many complex and important investigations.

Under this team's leadership, the subcommittee was successful in ferreting out waste, fraud, and abuse to the tune of $14 billion. I remember particularly well an investigation that exposed tax cheats in Medicare and in defense contracting.

Another success resulting from Norm's leadership was his highly successful and courageous ``oil for food'' investigation. Norm's investigation uncovered billions of dollars of fraud in this program operated by the United Nations. Norm was focused, determined, and undeterred in his pursuit of the facts, in his pursuit of the truth.

Norm's abiding concern for upholding the public trust is rooted in his background. As a former prosecutor, he is a champion of the rule of law. As a former mayor, he understands the concerns of State and local government. As a Senator, he always worked hard for the people he represented and for the people of this entire country.

These traits were evident in his service as a member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Norm's hard work ensured that the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction had the resources and the authority necessary to do his work effectively. Norm's keen insight into local government was invaluable during our extensive investigation into the failed response to Hurricane Katrina. His insight--critical insight--helped to shape reform in so many areas, ranging from our intelligence agencies, the postal service, and government contracting.

Norm was also a passionate advocate for educational opportunity. His support for strengthening the Pell Grant Program demonstrated his belief that the benefits of higher education should be available to everyone with the determination and the desire to pursue more education.

In fact, the only quibble I have with Norm's public service dates back to his tenure as mayor of St. Paul. His success in bringing professional hockey back to Minnesota was certainly commendable, but it was based, as I understand it, on the flawed premise that Minnesota is the hockey capital of the United States. The people of Maine know better, of course, but this was typical of Norm's pride in his State.

The past election brought great disappointment, but it also revealed character. Norm ran a vigorous, honorable campaign, under very difficult circumstances. He never betrayed his constituents, nor compromised his principles. When the final court decision went against him, he graciously conceded defeat. In fact, I had the opportunity to talk with Norm right after the supreme court in Minnesota ruled against him. I was struck, once again, by his determination to do what he felt was best for his State, even though it was not best for him. I was also touched by his commitment, once again, to his constituents and to moving on and ensuring that they had two Senators representing them. He was not bitter. He was not hurt. He was at peace. He was at peace because he knew he had served the people of his State to the best of his ability and with all his heart and tremendous intellect.

It has been a true honor to serve with Norm Coleman in the Senate, and the American people--not just the people of Minnesota--are better off for his service. It has been a joy to develop our friendship--a friendship I will always cherish and always continue. I will miss serving with Norm day to day, but I know I will see him many times.

I wish Norm and his wonderful family all the best in the years to come.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona.

Let me start with some background on the Loran system since it may not be familiar to many of our colleagues. This is a radio navigation system with 24 land-based transmitters which are operated by the Coast Guard that can be used to determine the location and speed of the receiver. Some mariners and aviators use the current system, which is known as Loran-C, for navigation, while others have switched to the GPS system. An upgraded Loran system, which is known as eLoran, would use Loran-C transmitting stations as its foundation and it would serve as a backup to GPS as well as a primary navigational tool.

This infrastructure would provide the foundation that is necessary to have a backup for the GPS. If we abandon the Loran-C system, as Senator McCain has advocated, we would lose the considerable investment of $160 million we have already made to deploy the eLoran system, and this system is one that a joint Department of Homeland Security and Department of Transportation assessment team has recommended as the backup for GPS.

Why do we need a backup for GPS? The fact is GPS is vulnerable to atmospheric interference and jamming. A loss of the GPS signal for even a short duration and in an isolated region would adversely affect cell phone coverage, the national power grid, and air traffic.

Our Nation needs a reliable backup. This isn't just my opinion. This is the considered opinion of an independent assessment team that just filed its final report in January of this year. One of the previous speakers referred to a GAO report that is over 25 years old. I am talking about an assessment that was just completed in January of this year. DHS and the Department of Transportation jointly commissioned an assessment team that included a diverse group of senior decisionmakers and experts from government, academia, and industry. This team reviewed 40 previous reports, interviewed the key stakeholders, industry representatives, and other experts, and received 980 comments on what should be done, and 93 percent of those comments were in favor of maintaining the Loran system--93 percent.

Listen to who some of the commentators were. Sprint Nextel, which is the supplier of critical communications capabilities, and the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration both stated that they currently use the Loran system and that

they support upgrading to eLoran as a backup and complement to the GPS system. The Department of Energy moves controlled nuclear material around the country and uses Loran-C as ``an active and robust supplement to GPS.'' This is the Department of Energy's Nuclear Security Administration telling us it needs and relies on the Loran-C system. They describe it as an active and robust supplement to GPS. The Department of Energy uses Loran-C to provide location information on nuclear material in the event of blocked visibility, solar storms, and intentional jamming of the GPS system.

In January of this year, when the team released its report, it unanimously concluded that the eLoran should serve as the national backup system for GPS and that the Loran-C infrastructure should be maintained until we have full deployment of the eLoran.

Think what we are doing if this amendment passes. What we are proposing is to discontinue a system that is being relied upon by the Department of Energy and countless other users. That is why this independent assessment team--this isn't my opinion, this is the independent assessment team's conclusion--says we must maintain the current system until we have fully transitioned to the eLoran system, which will be the backup for GPS. What is being proposed by this amendment is to discontinue the Loran-C system prior to having a backup in place. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Again, I would emphasize that this was a unanimous conclusion of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation's independent assessment team as of January of this year. It is the newest assessment we have. It is the most complete review that has ever been done.

The fact is, the weaknesses in the GPS system are well known. A GAO report published in May raised serious concerns regarding the near- and long-term health and reliability of the GPS network, noting that there is a high risk--that is GAO's assessment--that the Air Force will not be able to meet its schedule for the deployment of GPS satellites. The Department of Defense predicts that over the next several years, many of the older satellites will reach the end of their operational life faster than they will be able to be replaced.

A Wall Street Journal article in June concluded that the GPS satellite system--the article cited new interference problems with the signals being transmitted by recently launched GPS satellites, raising additional serious concerns about the timeline for the deployment of the next generation of GPS satellites.

The assessment team reported on a GPS interference incident in San Diego that lasted 3 hours. The GPS system is not failproof. It can be intentionally interfered with or it can stop operating due to atmospheric conditions.

The eLoran would fulfill the requirement established in National Security Presidential Directive 39 for a backup to GPS. This is a modest investment of funds to make sure we do not experience a dangerous gap.

Another myth we keep hearing is that there hasn't been sufficient study into the issue of whether a backup is needed for the GPS system. In fact, as I have indicated, eLoran has been exhaustively studied. The result of these successive scientific and budgetary analyses is that eLoran represents the most cost-effective backup to GPS.

Again, that is not just my opinion. That is the unanimous conclusion of the independent assessment team that was established by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation.

I urge the defeat of the amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill to reduce the production of black carbon, a potent contributor to global climate change. I am pleased to be joined on this bill by my friend and colleague, Senator Durbin, as the lead cosponsor.

Black carbon is a particulate produced during the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing materials. It has been estimated to have, on an equivalent mass basis, more than 500 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. Reducing the production of black carbon would help stabilize the global climate.

Black carbon is produced by some events, such as forest fires, that cannot easily be corrected by Senate actions. My bill addresses a mechanism of black carbon production that we can influence.

Throughout the world today, an estimated two billion people cook with solid fuels over an open fire or with primitive stoves. More than 50 percent of the controllable black carbon emissions in the world are due to these practices. Modern stoves, designed to efficiently burn fuel, can eliminate up to 90 percent of the black carbon produced during cooking and home heating.

Additionally, cooking and heating with poorly designed stoves emits noxious gases and particulates. Experts believe that these pollutants cause the premature deaths of over 1 million people, chiefly women and children, each year. Replacing these stoves with modern alternatives will strongly reduce the number of these deaths. There is a real need to find alternatives to those poorly performing stoves to improve global environmental and human health.

The U.S. Agency for International Development carries out activities under a number of existing projects to place low-cost, fuel efficient stoves in poor communities. It has found that, to be successful, the new stoves must be customized to fit the needs and cooking traditions of the community. These programs have had a very positive impact. But, they have not had the resources to optimize stoves to minimize black carbon emissions.

Our bill authorizes $1 million per year for 2 years for the U.S. Agency for International Development to conduct a pilot program to develop and test stoves that optimize both fuel efficiency and black carbon reduction.

This measure addresses an issue, global climate change, that we must take very seriously. It also provides funding that, while addressing an important global pollutant, also alleviates a public health disaster affecting developing nations. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill to reduce the production of black carbon, a potent contributor to global climate change. I am pleased to be joined on this bill by my friend and colleague, Senator Durbin, as the lead cosponsor.

Black carbon is a particulate produced during the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing materials. It has been estimated to have, on an equivalent mass basis, more than 500 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. Reducing the production of black carbon would help stabilize the global climate.

Black carbon is produced by some events, such as forest fires, that cannot easily be corrected by Senate actions. My bill addresses a mechanism of black carbon production that we can influence.

Throughout the world today, an estimated two billion people cook with solid fuels over an open fire or with primitive stoves. More than 50 percent of the controllable black carbon emissions in the world are due to these practices. Modern stoves, designed to efficiently burn fuel, can eliminate up to 90 percent of the black carbon produced during cooking and home heating.

Additionally, cooking and heating with poorly designed stoves emits noxious gases and particulates. Experts believe that these pollutants cause the premature deaths of over 1 million people, chiefly women and children, each year. Replacing these stoves with modern alternatives will strongly reduce the number of these deaths. There is a real need to find alternatives to those poorly performing stoves to improve global environmental and human health.

The U.S. Agency for International Development carries out activities under a number of existing projects to place low-cost, fuel efficient stoves in poor communities. It has found that, to be successful, the new stoves must be customized to fit the needs and cooking traditions of the community. These programs have had a very positive impact. But, they have not had the resources to optimize stoves to minimize black carbon emissions.

Our bill authorizes $1 million per year for 2 years for the U.S. Agency for International Development to conduct a pilot program to develop and test stoves that optimize both fuel efficiency and black carbon reduction.

This measure addresses an issue, global climate change, that we must take very seriously. It also provides funding that, while addressing an important global pollutant, also alleviates a public health disaster affecting developing nations. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

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

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Madam President, moments from now, President Obama will unveil his administration's long-awaited proposal to restructure and reform our Nation's financial regulatory system. I wish to take a few minutes to share my initial reactions to some of the most important features in the President's plan.

At the outset, let me say the President and his financial team deserve considerable credit for tackling this critical issue. It is important that all of us recognize how critical Federal financial regulatory reform is and that we not put this issue off until some distant future. When the present crisis is behind us--something we all hope will be sooner rather than later--other issues will demand our attention and calls for reform, I fear, will begin to fade. If that happens, our financial system would remain flawed, and these flaws must be corrected or they will emerge, once again, in the future to threaten our prosperity and to imperil financial markets.

In several aspects, the President's financial reform proposal parallels legislation I introduced in March to fundamentally transform our Nation's financial regulatory system. The bill I introduced would create a council of financial regulators to act as a systemic risk monitor. The bill would also require stronger safety and soundness standards and would close the loophole on the regulation of credit default swaps. It would eliminate the Office of Thrift Supervision, among other provisions.

There is widespread consensus that we do need a system, a measure for reviewing systemic risk. We need to have one entity that is responsible for looking across the financial markets and financial institutions and identifying regulatory black holes and high-risk practices or products that could put our financial markets at risk. For this reason, I am pleased the administration is proposing the creation of a council of regulators to ensure that many perspectives and areas of expertise are brought to the table.

As we know now from bitter experience, we do not have, currently, any entity charged with evaluating risk across the financial spectrum. As a result, we saw institutions take on far more leverage than was appropriate. We saw exotic new derivatives that were poorly disclosed, not well understood, and lightly regulated, if at all, develop over the last few years and imperil our financial markets. So it is critical that we have an entity--and I believe a council of regulators is the best entity--to look across the financial markets rather than having each regulator view its regulatory responsibilities and regulated entities through a narrow prism.

To my mind, the President's decision to rely on a council model makes his proposal far more practical and effective than alternatives which would have required the restructuring of most or all of the financial agencies that currently oversee the financial system. The effort to achieve that kind of massive change and consolidation would take many years to implement. As the experience in the United Kingdom demonstrates, it would be no guarantee that our Nation's economy would be shielded from systemic risk, even after such a consolidation were implemented.

Under the legislation I have introduced, a financial stability council would be the primary entity responsible for detecting systemic risk and taking action to protect against that risk. While I am pleased the President has chosen the council of regulators model as well, I differ with his proposal to have the Secretary of the Treasury serve as the head of the council. Instead, I believe the council's chairman should be independent of any of the regulatory agencies serving on the council and that it is important that that chairman devote his or her full energies to that role and not have other important responsibilities.

It is also important that individual be subject to congressional oversight, be presidentially appointed, and Senate confirmed.

I do believe, however, that the President made the right choice in not assigning this role to the Federal Reserve. That is a model that has been discussed, that perhaps the Federal Reserve should take on the responsibility of the systemic risk monitor. The Chairman of the Fed would be a member of the council, I have advocated, and, of course, the Nation's top banker would play a critical role in how the council discharges its responsibilities. But, in my view, the Federal Reserve already has plenty on its plate--including, after all, the conduct of monetary policy--and should not be distracted from those primary responsibilities by being asked to lead the new council.

There are several other important provisions in the President's plan on which I would like to comment. First, with respect to the too-big- to-fail problem, my bill would give the council the authority to make sure large financial institutions do not imperil the system by imposing higher capital requirements on them as they grow in size or raising their risk premiums or requiring them to hold a larger percentage of their debt as long-term debt. The President also proposes that the council play a role in setting these requirements. We have to get away from the problem we have now where we create a moral hazard. A firm knows if it becomes big enough and engages in sufficiently risky processes or practices, Uncle Sam is going to step in and bail that institution out. That is exactly the wrong message for us to be sending.

It is astonishing to me that our regulatory system was so lax and had so many gaps in it that we could have this huge market in credit default swaps arise where they were regulated neither as a security or as insurance; that we can have a situation where a large firm such as Bear Sterns has a leverage ratio that exceeds 30 to 1 and no regulator is stepping in; that we can have all of those kinds of problems. That is what we have to act to prevent.

The approach to too big to fail is one we have to undertake carefully, however. I don't think it makes sense to put some arbitrary limit on how big a firm can get, but I do believe that with increased size should come increased scrutiny by the regulators and higher capital requirements.

The TARP congressional oversight panel has adopted a similar position. As the panel has explained:

We should not identify specific institutions in advance as

too big to fail, but rather have a regulatory framework in

which institutions have higher capital requirements and pay

more on insurance funds on a percentage basis than smaller

institutions which are less likely to be rescued as being too

systemic to fail.

Second, I support the idea of requiring that lenders keep some ``skin in the game'' when dealing in asset-backed securities. One of the big problems with the current system is risk has become divorced from responsibility. The mortgage broker gets paid for finding the client, placing the loan with a financial institution, and then has no further obligation. The financial institution that is underwriting the loan

ends up selling it on the secondary market so, again, it has no further obligation. This system goes on and on and on. So I think the President is right about requiring everyone along the chain to have a financial interest in the ultimate health of the mortgage.

Since last spring, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, of which I am the ranking member and Senator Lieberman is the chairman, has held a series of hearings on the roots of the present financial crisis. One problem consistently raised by the experts is the fact that asset-backed securities allowed lenders to sell their loans to investors and thereby avoid the risk that borrowers might default on these loans. That encouraged looser lending standards, and led to the boom and ultimately the bust in the housing market.

I understand the ability to sell those loans gives more liquidity and allows for additional mortgages to be made. But I think if you required the lenders to retain an interest in the loan, they are going to have more at stake when it comes to the financial security of the loan and, indeed, whether the loan should have been made in the first place.

Third, I am intrigued by the President's proposal to reform the role played by credit rating agencies. I am deeply concerned by the failure of these agencies to provide meaningful warning of the riskiness of investments backed by subprime loans, even after the market's downturn. I am very troubled by the way the system works now, where essentially there is an auction, there is ``ratings shopping,'' and there are conflicts of interest inherent in the system.

Fourth, I support the President's proposal to regulate and bring transparency to the derivatives market, including the over-the-counter market. This is a large, complex market where some companies are trying to enter into legitimate hedging contracts, but other financial institutions have been engaged in a tangled web of interlocking contracts that are extremely difficult to properly evaluate.

The lack of regulation and transparency in this area led to the near failure of AIG, which had engaged in hundreds of these contracts in the form of credit default swaps. As the financial crisis deepened, the American taxpayer was forced to bail out AIG with at least $70 billion due to the uncertainty of the impact of these credit default swaps on the economy as a whole. But AIG's experience should not be used as an excuse to alter the traditional authority of States to regulate insurance.

It was a noninsurance financial subsidiary of AIG that led to the debacle. AIG's insurance business remained pretty healthy. The problems were in the financial services unit, and I do not think it is a coincidence that unit was regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision, primarily, which has been long recognized as the weak sister when it comes to bank regulators. That is why both my bill and the effect of the President's proposal is to do away with that regulator and to have a consolidated regulator.

Fifth, I need to learn more about the President's proposal to consolidate consumer protection for financial products into one agency. The current financial regulatory agencies--whether the bank regulators or the Securities and Exchange Commission or the CFTC--all have an important role to play in consumer protection, a role that has not always been played adequately in the last few years. Is the answer, however, to the problems we have seen simply to remove consumer protection from the bank regulators' responsibilities? I am not sure that is the right response. I think we need to look very closely at this issue.

Finally, I welcome the President's proposal to provide Federal regulators with resolution authority over holding companies and other nonbank financial institutions similar to the kind the FDIC has over banks. This lack of authority presented Federal regulators with a Hobson's choice with respect to nonbank financial institutions such as AIG: bail them out or allow them to fail, notwithstanding the damage to the economy as a whole.

Madam President, let me conclude my comments.

As a former Maine financial regulator, I am convinced that financial regulatory reform is absolutely essential to restoring confidence in our financial markets and to preventing a recurrence of a crisis such as the one we now face.

I applaud the administration for making this reform a priority.

America's Main Street small businesses, homeowners, employees, savers, and investors deserve the protection of an effective, new regulatory system that modernizes regulatory agencies, sets safety and soundness requirements for financial institutions to prevent excessive leverage, and improves oversight, accountability, and transparency. I look forward to working closely with the administration to achieve these goals.