Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. And I was not gaining Republicans.

Mr. DODD. I hope it can be the case. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise this morning to try and set the record straight, if I can, on some of the rhetoric I have heard over the last 24 hours or so regarding the financial reform efforts I have been engaged in along with my colleagues on the Senate Banking Committee for the past 38 months. I became chairman of the Banking Committee in January of 2007, about 38, 39 months ago. Since that time, of course, we have held countless hearings and meetings to deal with the financial crisis beginning in January and February of 2007. In fact, the very first hearings we held were on the foreclosure crisis in the Nation and trying to get the attention of the previous administration, Secretary Paulson and others, to pay attention to the situation that was emerging. Our economy was collapsing and too many people were losing their homes, an economic catastrophe was looming, and, frankly, there was not enough attention being paid initially to this issue by the previous administration. Nonetheless, we worked forward. So, today, we find ourselves on the brink of making an effort to deal with this problem. After listening to some of the rhetoric of the last 24 hours, I wonder if we are in not only the same Chamber in the same city but on the same planet when it comes to the efforts that have been made to try and reach bipartisan agreement to deal with financial reform. I have almost unlimited patience, as many of my colleagues know, but that unlimited patience is being tested by some of the comments I have heard. So I felt incumbent to respond this morning to some of these accusations about the effort being made to achieve a proposal on financial reform that might attract broad support in this Chamber, unlike other efforts that have been made over the past several years, as I have said repeatedly during the many months we have been working on this important legislation. These are complex issues. We have gone through the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression. That is how serious this is. In the words of financial leaders in this country and elsewhere, we were on the brink of a meltdown of the entire financial system in this country, and we came perilously close to having that occur. For those 7 million who lost their homes or the 8.5 million who have lost their jobs, it might as well have been a financial meltdown, not to mention the retirement incomes that evaporated and, of course, the loss of confidence in our future, along with health care and a variety of other things that have happened to working families in this country. During the course of this debate, as critical as it is, of these complex matters that make up the structure of the architecture of our financial system, it is critical to the future of our economy and the livelihoods of millions of middle-class Americans across this Nation that this debate should not be sullied by misinformation or derailed by those who would try and make it just another partisan game. Playing politics with this issue is dangerous indeed. Unfortunately, the talking points deployed by the Wall Street lobbyists, in an effort to protect the status quo, leave my constituents and many Americans vulnerable to yet another economic crisis. Those arguments are littered with falsehoods--outright falsehoods--that I regret to say are now being repeated by people who should know better and, frankly, do know better. So today and this morning I wish to set the record straight. I wish to start by attacking one of the wildest and, frankly, most dishonest objections to this legislation, which is the notion that it is somehow a partisan document. I consider the minority leader and the ranking member of the Banking Committee to be good friends. They are patriots, with whom I have worked over many years on many issues. Senator Shelby and I have been working together for over 1 year on these issues, and I cannot, for the life of me, understand how anyone can claim with a straight face that what I have tried to achieve on this bill is a partisan effort. I have spent the last year seeking bipartisan consensus. In February of 2009, over 1 year ago, with the new Obama administration freshly sworn in, I insisted from the very beginning that Senator Shelby's staff be included in meetings with the White House and Treasury Department on all financial matters. When I had the opportunity to take over the chairmanship of the HELP Committee, the committee charged with the responsibility of writing the health care reform legislation, I chose to stay as chairman of the Banking Committee, in no small part because I received commitments from Senator Shelby and others that we would work together on this financial reform legislation. When I introduced a discussion draft of this proposal back in November--almost 6 months ago--Senator Shelby indicated we had bipartisan consensus on at least 70 percent of the bill back in November. To get closer to a full agreement, I created four bipartisan working groups almost 6 months ago, each of which was charged with achieving real and meaningful progress in various sections of the bill. Even when Senator Shelby and I found areas where we could not agree, I continued to reach out to other members of the committee, including my friend and colleague from Tennessee, Senator Corker, and others, spending weeks working to try to achieve a consensus on financial reform. It is not even a slight exaggeration to say we spent countless hours--phone calls, meetings, e-mails, discussion drafts--day after day, week after week, month after month, to try to get closer and closer to a proposal our colleagues could support. We can see the results. The bill we marked up in our committee last month was much changed from the proposal I made in November, the initial discussion draft, to reflect the work that had gone on over those many weeks and months and the ideas brought to the table by colleagues of both parties from members of that committee and others. My friends on the other side of the aisle may not like every line in the bill that will now be before us in a few short days, but at the very least let us not pretend the bipartisan work that produced this legislation didn't happen. It did happen. That is a disservice to yourselves--those who make these allegations--and their good staffs who worked hard over these many weeks with my Democratic staff and others to produce this product. If Members wish to vote against the bill, they can do that. That is their right to do so. They can go on record in support of leaving their constituents vulnerable to more lost jobs, more foreclosures, more shuttered small businesses, more wiped out retirement accounts. It is up to each individual Member to decide for themselves that is the vote they wish to cast when it comes to this effort. But the outcome of this debate will, mark my words, affect the economic security of ordinary Americans, and they deserve to know the truth of what has happened. Today, I wish to talk about bailouts. Nobody likes them. Under our proposal, they will never happen again. As the President said in his State of the Union Address, bailing out some of the large banks whose own mismanagement caused the crisis was ``about as popular as a root canal.'' That, of course, happened under the previous administration, I should note. But serious legislators of both parties realized that we had no choice. Our system was so broken that these companies had become too big to fail. If we did nothing else, our entire economy could collapse, we were told. You would think that if you wanted to avoid being backed into that corner again, if you wanted to avoid more bailouts, you would oppose efforts to protect the status quo. But Wall Street special interests needed a way to defend this broken system. After all, for many of them, the kind of mismanagement that costs us millions of jobs is the way they pad their profits and pay their lobbyists. So they turned to Frank Luntz, their political strategist. Let me tell you what he came up with. I will quote from Mr. Luntz's memo that was leaked, I will quote from his partisan memo: The single best way to kill this legislation is to link it to the big bank bailout. No matter what is proposed, no matter what is in the bill, no matter what protections it includes, call it a bailout. It is a naked political strategy. If it succeeds and this legislation goes down, and another crisis sinks the American economy, then the next recession and all of the damage it will bring to the working families of this country will have happened for the sake of that false talking point that Mr. Luntz has been proposing. I don't expect Frank Luntz to care about the truth of what we are engaged in here. That is not his job. He is a political strategist. He is to provide political talking points to people when you want to defeat something. I don't expect the bank lobbyists and special interests to care about the truth; they don't seem to worry about that. But the American people deserve better from us in this Chamber. That is why I have been so dismayed over these last 24 hours to hear Members of this body repeat the utter falsehood--concocted by special interests whose jobs and pensions are plenty secure, thank you very much--that this bill will lead to more bailouts. Frank Luntz suggested that allies of the big banks say: If there is one thing we can all agree on, it's that the bad decisions and harmful policies by Washington bureaucrats that in many ways led to the economic crash must never be repeated. The minority leader, speaking yesterday, said: If there's one thing Americans agree on when it comes to financial reform, it's this: Never again should taxpayers be expected to bail out Wall Street from its own mistakes. We cannot allow endless taxpayer-funded bailouts for big Wall Street banks. That's why we must not pass the financial reform bill that's about to hit the floor. Remember what Frank Luntz said: The single best way to kill any legislation is to link it to the big bank bailout. It is straight from the Wall Street special interest talking points. That is what they are determined to do to defeat this bill--suggest somehow that there is a bailout provision in this bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. The bill, as drafted, ends bailouts. Nothing can be more clear in the legislation. For the very first time, our Nation will have someone with the job of monitoring risks to the financial system and sounding the alarm before those risks can take down the entire system, as it almost did. The bill imposes sufficient standards on Wall Street firms that create those risks. Our bill establishes a financial stability oversight council to monitor risks and requires the Federal Reserve to write strict rules, including stronger requirements regarding capital, leverage, liquidity, and risk management on the largest financial companies, making it hard for them to get too large and limiting the risk they represent. Cracking down on the biggest players is critical to ending bailouts. If a Wall Street firm does become too large or too complex and poses a grave threat to our financial stability, the Federal Reserve has the power to restrict its risky activities, restrict its growth, and even to break up those institutions. I will repeat that. If a Wall Street firm becomes too large and too complex, the Federal Reserve has the power under our bill to prohibit those activities, including even breaking up those institutions. Additionally, our bill extends oversight to dangerous nonbank financial companies, such as AIG, that could pose a risk to our financial stability, as it did. It prohibits banks and other financial institutions that own banks from engaging in proprietary trading, making risky bets with money that doesn't even belong to them. Second, our bill eliminates the Federal Reserve's ability to prop up individual institutions using what is called the 13(3) authority, another way to stop banks from thinking that they could be bailed out if in fact they engage in activities that cause them to begin to fail. The Fed's lending authority is strictly restricted, not expanded, as some have claimed. Third, our bill sets up predictable, orderly, and safe processes for shutting down dangerous Wall Street firms that fail without endangering the entire economy. No financial firm will ever again be ``too big to fail.'' Quite the opposite. We insist that the provisions be in place so that it can never again make the claim that they are too big to fail. Large, complex financial companies will be required to submit plans for their own shutdown--we call them living wills--if the company goes under. Companies that fail to produce a realistic plan will be hit with tougher capital requirements, restricted in how much they can grow, and even can be broken up. Most large financial companies would be resolved through the normal bankruptcy process. That is the presumption in our bill--receivership. Where bankruptcy is not an option, the bill creates a mechanism for the FDIC to unwind those companies. The management will be fired, shareholders will be wiped out, and creditors will take their losses. Middle-income families on Main Street won't have to pay a penny. The largest Wall Street firms would have to put up money for a $50 billion fund to cover the costs of liquidating the failed financial firm, and any shortfall will be made up by the largest and riskiest financial firms. Why should the American taxpayer have to pay for unwinding these companies? They should put up the money themselves. Let them pay for the unwinding that goes on. Don't charge it to the American taxpayer. Our bill includes those provisions. Wall Street doesn't like this fund, and they are plenty content to let taxpayers continue to pay the price for industry mistakes. Let me be clear, despite what their apologists may claim, these funds can only be used by the FDIC and only used to liquidate the failed company, not prop it up. To review, our bill imposes tougher standards on large, risky Wall Street firms. It eliminates the Federal Government's capacity to bail out individual companies. It requires that financial firms write their own shutdown plans and even pay for the liquidation process if it is needed. Here is what I have to say to Wall Street. If you have a better idea, let's hear it. If you have other ideas, let's debate them. But if all you have is black-and-white talking points that bear no relation to reality, don't reflect the efforts that have gone on for months to try to produce a proposal that might gain broad support here in this Chamber, then get out of the way and let the serious legislators work. Don't write this off by quoting a political strategist's talking points, when all of this effort has been made over these many months. I am told by my staff--and I have dealt with 42 pieces of legislation in 39 months--that about 37 have become the law of the land. I made a determination as chairman to work together, wherever possible, to achieve common points. So my history is to try to achieve that wherever possible, and I take great offense at the suggestion that it has been otherwise. The outcome of this debate affects the economic security of every single American and every single American family. What we have been through, we should never have to go through again. Our bill takes steps to try to achieve that. It is not that we are going to stop every economic crisis in the future. That would be a foolish suggestion. But what we have done is fill in the gaps that allowed this crisis to occur and provide tools for the coming generation so they can address future economic crises and still allow for the vitality of a financial services sector to produce jobs, create wealth, allow credit to flow and capital to form so our economy can prosper again. Trying to achieve those three goals has been the hallmark of what I have tried to put together with the bill, along with my colleagues on the committee. I believe we have done a good job in achieving that. I would be the last one to claim perfection. If people have other ideas, that is what the process is for. But to castigate it and label it as nothing more than a partisan debate and suggest that somehow what we have done here is to perpetuate ``too big to fail'' is poppycock. It is unfortunate that at this hour in this debate, that is all we hear from on the other side. The door is still open. We are not yet on the floor debating this bill. I will have meetings with Senator Shelby and others. My patience is running out. I have extended the hand, and I have written provisions in the bill to accommodate various interests. I will not continue doing this if all I am getting from the other side is a suggestion that this is a partisan effort. We have been through it over and over on the floor for the last year and a half. I think the American people are sick of it. They want to see us work together to achieve results that benefit them, not some political party, or narrow ideology, and certainly not the narrow interests on Wall Street. In the coming days, I will give you a bill I think we can vote for and stand up and proudly support and, more importantly, one that we can say to the American people we will not have to go through what we have been through in the last 2 years, and never again should another generation face the kinds of risks we did because of the gaps that existed in our financial regulatory structure. I ask unanimous consent that the entire Frank Luntz memo be printed in the Record. I want the public to read it so they will know what we are up against here with this political chicanery.

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

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes, if I can. I know we are in the waning minutes of going out of session and Members have, I think by and large, probably left the city for their respective States--as I will be doing in a day or so, going back to Connecticut to spend time with my family and constituents over the Easter-Passover break. I wish to take a couple of minutes to talk briefly about my responsibilities as chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee on which I serve with 22 others of our colleagues. Almost a quarter of this institution sits on that committee. Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama is my ranking Republican member and former chairman of the committee, I might point out. We finished our work, at least in our committee, last Monday--a rather abbreviated markup, I might point out. I didn't plan it to be that way, but we ended up with a pretty short markup of a fairly complicated bill. A week ago today, at about this time or a little after this time, we received amendments. Almost 400 amendments were filed, so I anticipated a rather elongated markup, but members decided they weren't going to offer their amendments in the committee, which is their right. I had a responsibility as chairman of the committee to consider those amendments if they were offered, and we were prepared to accept some, modify some, and reject others. But the conclusion of the committee was to take what changes we had made and move forward. So it is my hope that shortly after our return in the second week of April, we will come to the floor of the Senate to debate--hopefully a full-throated debate--about how we reform the financial services sector of our Nation. In light of the events over the last several years, this is a compelling issue that mandates our involvement and participation. We can hardly allow this Congress to leave the door wide open again to the kind of abuses that brought our Nation to the brink of financial collapse. Those were the words used by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Ben Bernanke, on September 18 of 2008, as they were the words of the former Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, when they met with the leadership of the House and the Senate and the respective leaderships of the committees of jurisdiction. They predicted that had we not acted in the remaining weeks of that session before the adjournment in 2008, in fact, we might very well be looking at a very different country today. Certainly we avoided the collapse they talked about but at great cost. The fact that this country and its taxpayers had to write a check for $700 billion, resources of which went to a handful of financial institutions to ``bail them out'' in order to preserve the safety and soundness of a fragile financial system is something that still causes remarkable levels of anger and frustration--understandable levels of frustration and anger--of the American people all across the country, regardless of where one lives. The idea is that a firm on Wall Street could get near the brink of disaster and get massive resources poured into them and then we have to watch someone's home in Connecticut or Delaware or Colorado, Tennessee or Alabama foreclosed, a business closed, a retirement account evaporating within a matter of hours, despite the fact these larger institutions were getting the resources from the American taxpayers. We made an effort--I don't claim by any stretch of the imagination perfection--to try to deal with the reforms. Obviously, it is a complicated matter and complications are added to it. We have 23 members of a committee, not to mention 100 Members of this body who all have various views on what ought to be done, not to mention the other body, the White House, stakeholders, and others, trying to fashion legislation, not saying we are going to stop all financial problems in the future--that would be ludicrous to make such a suggestion--but there will be other financial problems. What we are going to try and do with this bill and what we think we have done to a large extent with this bill is to say there may be other financial problems but never again should a financial problem of a major financial institution put the rest of the country at risk. That is what happened. Because of their abuses, their greed, the failure of regulators, or the failure of the government to regulate certain institutions, we saw a system go haywire. I do not mind if some firm wants to go to the casino and gamble with their money. I understand that. But the idea that they would do that with the taxpayers' money or with the well-being of our economy has to stop. Our legislation is designed to do that. First and foremost, never, ever again should a financial institution get so large, so interconnected, and produce products that put the rest of us at risk. Our legislation shuts that door, we believe, firmly. Others are arguing because, frankly, they do not want to admit what the real argument is about, they do not like the fact we have a consumer protection agency for the first time in the history of our country, so people who buy a mortgage, buy stock, buy an insurance policy, whatever else it may be, will have someplace to go if, in fact, they are being abused. That is exactly what happened. They were abused in too many instances. Rather than focus their criticism on that, they are focusing on other things that, frankly, we are dealing with very effectively in the legislation. We also set up an early warning system to the largest extent possible so we know what is going on out there with products and firms that bring us to the brink of disaster as they did only a few short months ago. We are looking at some of these exotic instruments--credit default swaps, derivatives, over the counter--an industry that went from about $90 billion and within the space of 6 or 7 years, to close to $600 billion. It exploded in large measure because it was in the shadow economy. That ends with this bill. They are going to have the glaring light of sunshine on them through exchanges so the American people can know exactly what these instruments are and how much risk is being taken with their use. There are elements of this country that do not like that idea because they would rather not have the light shone on them to examine what they are, but we are determined to see to it that is going to be the case in our legislation as well. There are a lot of other provisions in a 1,400-page bill that deal with other matters related to all of this business. I wanted to inform my colleagues that we have a strong bill coming out of our committee--a fully independent consumer protection agency, bureau or division. It is housed in the Federal Reserve in our bill, which has caused some people to wonder how independent it can be. It is totally independent. Its head will be appointed by the President of the United States. That head would then have to be confirmed by the Senate. The budget this agency would have is going to be separate from other budgets. It will have its own line of funding to go forward. It has independent authority on rulemaking, examination, and enforcement with institutions that have assets in excess of $10 billion. And for those that are smaller than that, the examination and enforcement will be done at the State level or others will be responsible. Many are concerned this would reach down to the community banks. We separated that out. I know my colleagues expressed that view. That we have finally someone watching out is going to be very important. We were told for years our system was safe and sound because they were making a lot of money. As we learned painfully, that is not the only criteria to determine whether a financial institution is safe or sound. In fact, they were anything but safe and sound, despite their earnings reports. We subsequently learned that people were put into homes they never could afford, did not understand because these institutions were securitizing those mortgages, bundling them together and then selling them to unwitting investors because they had ratings on them that never reflected the reality of what those instruments were worth in our country. Our legislation deals with that as well in a very strong and effective manner. My only purpose in sharing a few thoughts this afternoon before adjournment occurs is to say I hope my colleagues in their visits back to their States, in talking with their constituents, will talk about these issues. Listen to your businesses on Main Street. Listen to the borrowers. Listen to the users and the customers of financial institutions. The institutions are going to call you. They are going to write you. They are going to find you, believe me, because many of them do not like what I have done in this bill. They would like the status quo to be maintained. You are going to hear from them, I promise you. You are going to have to work a little harder to listen to the voices out there who may not contact you about this but will tell you what it is like to try to borrow money, make an investment, get credit, buy a home, get a student loan in order to afford the cost of higher education. I urge my colleagues to listen to those voices as well. They deserve to be heard in this debate. Then I hope we will have the kind of full-throated debate when we get back, meet with the other body with a final product, and hopefully give the President of the United States a bill worthy of the challenge before us. This is the single largest reform of financial services since the thirties. It is long overdue. We must not fail in our obligation to meet the challenges. If we leave here failing to do this, we will expose our economy, and the American public will never, ever again write a check as they did in the fall of 2008. You can forget about that. We need to make sure these firms that get into trouble understand the presumption is bankruptcy, receivership. Shareholders will pay a price, and management goes. The idea that you are going to be able to count somehow on the American taxpayer pulling your chestnuts out of the fire is over within the ``too big to fail'' concept. The importance of achieving that goal along with these other reforms I think will have the desired effect. Failure to do that leaves us exposed to the kinds of financial challenges we have witnessed over the last several years. Again, a business, I say respectfully, in Connecticut, Delaware, or Colorado, a homeowner in those States should not have to pay the price because a handful of financial institutions got too greedy, too risky, and were unwilling to examine what they were doing or did, recognizing the Federal Government would bail them out if they made a bad choice, which they did. I look forward to that debate and presenting the bill our committee marked up on Monday of this past week. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to spend a couple of minutes to express my gratitude to a lot of people. I begin by thanking my colleagues here, both Democrats and Republicans. Obviously, all of us would have liked to have had a health care bill that was more than a partisan vote. It didn't turn out that way. I am glad we ended up with the result we did. I thank the members of the HELP Committee on which I serve, both Democrats and Republicans. Although we didn't end up with a bipartisan vote on that committee, there was a very vibrant, active, civilized discussion over many days last summer regarding the HELP Committee's portion of this health care product. Obviously, having been the acting or temporary chair of the committee in the absence of our friend and colleague from Massachusetts who was obviously ill and could not be there, I begin by thanking Tom Harkin. You have heard people talk about him already. He has taken over the reins of that committee and has done an excellent job. I thank Barbara Mikulski, my long-time friend and colleague, who did a tremendous job in dealing with various aspects of the health care debate, as Tom Harkin did, Jeff Bingaman, Patty Murray--again, seasoned members of the committee and Members of this body who have contributed to many pieces of legislation over the years. Jack Reed, my neighbor and great friend from Rhode Island, was tremendously helpful on the committee, as well as Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who played a critical role working with people like Senator Hagan of North Carolina, working with Sheldon Whitehouse, who was on our committee at the time and played a critical role in fashioning our public option. Jeff Merkley and Bob Casey were very productive and serious members of the committee effort. Al Franken and Michael Bennet have since joined the committee, and Sheldon Whitehouse has moved on. But I want the record to reflect my deep appreciation for their work. Let me also thank Mike Enzi and the people such as Tom Coburn and others, Judd Gregg, from the committee. I can't go down the whole list, but the Republicans on the committee, while they don't necessarily like to admit it, made a contribution to the bill. One hundred sixty-one amendments--I know they are tired of hearing me talk about over the last several months--were their additions to the HELP Committee final product. I have talked about Max Baucus, my friend. We have served together, along with Tom Harkin in this Chamber and the other, for 35 years together. The work of the Finance Committee, which bore a tremendous share of this responsibility, dealing with very complicated issues that are within the jurisdiction of that committee, was tremendously important. I won't go down and list all the members of the Finance Committee. In fact, we had several on our committee who served both on Finance and on the HELP Committee: Jeff Bingaman on the Democratic side; I know there were several Republicans as well who filled a dual role by serving on both committees. I thank my friend from Montana as well for his work. He has been recognized and acknowledged by many and deservedly so over the last number of days. I commend, if I may, the staff members of the Finance Committee, beginning with Liz Fowler and the group I ask unanimous consent to include for the Record. They did a wonderful job. Senator Baucus has referred to them already, but I also wish to thank them this afternoon for their work. On the Budget Committee, again you have heard Senator Kent Conrad talk about the Budget Committee staff. I ask unanimous consent that their names be printed as well at this juncture in the Record, if I may.

Mr. DODD. I want to make particular reference to the members of my staff, beginning with Jeremy Sharp and Tamar Magarik Haro who did a wonderful job. Jeremy Sharp's father is former Congressman Phil Sharp. He was part of the class with Max Baucus and Tom Harkin and me, Henry Waxman and George Miller, who played a critical role in the debate in the House. Both Tamar and Jeremy were tireless in this effort, going back many months. I am deeply grateful to them. Jim Fenton is my legislative director and played a very important role as well in those efforts. Then, of course, there are the other members of the HELP Committee, many of whom, of course, were staff members of Ted Kennedy. I inherited their expertise, their knowledge, their great abilities when Ted was laid up. They continued to work with us, beginning with Carey Parker who is, of course, legendary in this institution, having served with Senator Kennedy since the day he arrived 47 years ago. While not directly on the HELP Committee staff, I can't tell you what a critical role Carey Parker played time and time again during the rough spots. Michael Myers, Pam Smith, Connie Garner, Stacey Sachs, David Bowen--all were tremendously influential in the process. Mark Childress, who worked with Tom Daschle before, was at the White House for a while, came back up and stayed with us on that effort. Mark was invaluable in understanding the rhythms of the Senate, understanding the White House, and we are deeply grateful. Jenelle Krishnamoorhty, who worked with Tom Harkin, I have gotten to know her very well, and the members of Tom's staff. I want Jenelle to know how much I appreciate her work. She did a tremendous job for us as well. I want to thank the leader's staff as well, who were so valuable to us: Kate Leone, obviously; Carolyn Gluck; Bob Greenawalt; Bruce King; Randy Devalk; Jacqueline Lampert; and Gary Myrick, who we see here all the time pacing this Chamber at all hours of the day and night, keeping an eye on the movements of the Senate and what is occurring, keeping the leader well informed, about as knowledgeable as anyone you will meet in understanding exactly what is happening at all moments. To Gary and the leader's staff, I apologize if I left anybody out, but I thank them for their work as well. This bill also included the work on education issues. There were a number of people who played a very important role in that. In my office: Maddy Gitomer, Averi Pakulis, Joe Caldwell, and Anna Staton were all part of our efforts in that regard. I should have mentioned earlier Tom Kraus, Topher Spiro, and Andrea Harris who worked on HELP Committee efforts as we moved forward on the bill. Those were a lot of names I have just recited. I said them so quickly that they may fly by. It hardly reflects the recognition they deserve for the time and effort they have put in. They will never be standing before a bank of microphones or getting their picture taken, probably won't have articles written about them and what they did or didn't do during their tenure in the Senate. But this place only functions and runs, the floor staff who are here and the respective cloakrooms who do the work every single day that make this institution work as well as it does, spending the hours, the weekends crafting ideas and compromises that allow us to move forward. While there are a lot of people deservedly, in a very public way, getting credit for the work that has transpired over these many months, I didn't want this moment to pass without at least expressing my gratitude to them and others whose names I, unfortunately, have not mentioned, who have made this day possible. To them, to my colleagues, to Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi, House Members who valiantly took up a Senate-passed bill that they had strong reservations about and yet understood the value of the moment. And to President Obama, who understood the importance of this issue and insisted it come up. I remember Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Max Baucus and I served with Dan Moynihan, and Max had served with him on the Finance Committee when he chaired that committee, a very wise man who understood the movements of the executive branch and the legislative branch. He once told me that American Presidents, whether they get one or two terms, only get somewhere between 18 and 24 months to do anything really meaningful. It is those first days from January 20, Inauguration Day, to maybe as late as Election Day of the midterm elections in their first term. If they are going to do anything really important, that is the window in which they have to try. After that, it gets harder. You campaign for reelection. If you are reelected, you are a lame duck. Your ability to affect huge issues narrows. I thank our President. Whether you agree or disagree with his politics or his policies, the fact that he took on a major issue that had been crying out for decades for resolution is testimony to his willingness to put a political administration, a political campaign on the line. For those who work with him, from his chief of staff to his advisers on these various matters, history will be and should be deeply grateful to President Barack Obama for having the courage to take up a big issue that deserved and needed resolution by the Congress for the American people. Whatever else transpires in the remaining tenure of his office, whether he serves one term or two, in large measure he will be defined by his willingness, his courage to raise this issue, when many others suggested this was a worthless task to take on, we couldn't succeed, he would be wiser to follow a course where less significant issues might be at stake. So to the President, I thank you immensely for having the courage to take this on. I believe in the long call of history the American people will thank you as well for having the courage to bring up this important issue. With that, again, this is one of those very few rare days we get in this institution historically, but it is one in which I am deeply proud to have been involved. I thank all who made it come to pass. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague and commend him for his leadership on this issue, along with, of course, our distinguished majority leader so many others, including the wonderful staff we don't often mention--the remarkable work being done by the individual staff of Members and the committee staff of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I see my good friend, Tom Harkin, who now chairs that committee, along with Max Baucus, and so many others of the leadership staff who have brought us to this moment. I rise to discuss the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act. Although none of us are ignorant of the historic nature of the health care portion of our work this past week, I wish to take a few moments to talk about the significance of the education portion of the bill. I listened intently to my friend from Tennessee talk about this part of the bill as well. I have great admiration for him, having served as the Secretary of Education and as Governor of Tennessee. He has a wealth of knowledge on the subject matter. I commend him for it. However, we disagree with this particular portion. I rise to express a different point of view about why I believe what we have included in this bill has great value. Obviously, the major attention has been focused on the health aspects of what we are doing. That in itself is a major achievement. The reconciliation portion of this bill before us now strengthens a good bill and makes it even better. Last evening I discussed portions of the bill that I think add tremendous value to our efforts to provide health care once and for all for all Americans. But the education portion of this bill also has great significance. Since the Pell grant was established in the 1970s, as all of us know, it has made college a possibility for millions and millions of young Americans. I had the great pleasure of serving with Claiborne Pell as a Member of this body. He served in the 1960s up until only a few years ago. We lost him a number of months ago; he passed away. But it is incredible to think of what a difference that individual, that one Senator made in the lives of millions of our fellow citizens. In years to come, some may not know who Claiborne Pell was, but I would like the record to reflect he was a remarkable Senator. He authored legislation creating the Northeast Corridor, wrote the legislation that banned the testing of nuclear weapons on the ocean floor. He was the author, along with Jacob Javits, of the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, and he was the author of Pell grants. Unique and remarkable contributions, each and every one of them, but he should long be remembered for making education an opportunity that would not be denied because one lacked the resources to afford it. Those millions of young Americans are now leaders in our Nation. They are innovators, some of our most productive and successful citizens. This bill is not unlike the GI bill at the end of World War II, when we recall men who came back from the theaters of the Pacific and Europe who were able to receive an education under the GI bill, who would tell us what a remarkable investment it was. It has been repaid millions of times over by those who today make contributions to our country because they got an education because there was a creative Congress, because there was an administration that understood the value of an education in the midpart of the 20th century. Here we are now into the second decade of the 21st century facing a similar issue. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind about the value not only of making us a healthier country by the adoption of the health care provision of this bill, but a better educated country-- not only to advance our own needs--but to make sure individuals have the opportunity to maximize all of their potential. Today that wouldn't be the case without Pell grants. What they have done to and for our society has been remarkable. Countless individuals would not have had the opportunity to attend college without Pell grants. Since then the importance of a college education has only grown, not only for the individual students who want to achieve their full potential, but our Nation as well. America's ability to compete in the global economy depends on having a well-educated workforce in the 21st century. Today, that means a college-educated workforce. Unfortunately, while the urgency of opening the door to college has grown, the support provided to our most important college aid program has slipped. In fact, it has gone further--it has fallen off a cliff. In 1975, the maximum Pell grant covered 80 percent of the average student's tuition, fees, room and board at a 4-year public university. Today it covers less than one-third at a public university. Our failure to keep pace with the exploding cost of college threatens to slam the door on a generation of Americans, making college impossible for many and leaving those who do find a way to further their education with a debilitating burden of overwhelming debt. Make no mistake, allowing the Pell Grant Program to wither, as would be the case without the adoption of the language in this bill, isn't just a slap in the face to low and middle-income hardworking American families. It is a serious threat to America's competitiveness in the 21st century. Fortunately, the legislation in front of us presents an opportunity to revitalize the Pell Grant Program and to unlock the opportunity of higher education for millions of Americans. The bill invests $13.5 billion to fill the shortfall in the Pell Grant Program and ensures that such a shortfall doesn't develop again, as the cost of college continues to increase in the years ahead. For instance, if we fail to act, the maximum Pell grant award could be a paltry $2,100 for the year 2010. Never before has the effectiveness of this program been at such risk. The legislation before us protects the maximum award at a level of $5,500 and increases to almost $6,000 by 2017, 7 years from now. We all know that in 7 years the cost of education will have continued to skyrocket. I would be the first to admit that while we are putting tremendous resources into this program, we can imagine in 2017 what college education will be like, even at public universities. This Pell grant assistance, as important as it is, is not going to come close to meeting the needs of families, so we will continue to work to increase aid. But in this legislation, we also peg these increases to inflation in order to try to keep up with the cost of higher education. In my home State of Connecticut, this would enable more than 4,300 additional students to go to college. In addition, this legislation makes important investments in Historically Black Colleges, community colleges, and the College Access Challenge Grant Program, which fosters partnerships between government and the nonprofit sector that helps low-income kids get a chance to go on to a higher education. It invests in programs that help students determine what college is best for them, as well as prepares them not only to get into those schools but to graduate from them. When those students do graduate, they will no longer be faced with that mountain of debt we have heard about over and over again that puts so many of their own careers and contributions to society on hold while they have to pay off these debts, seeking jobs and opportunities that may not be what they need for their future growth and potential. To help with this, our legislation caps repayment of Federal loans at 10 percent of discretionary income and forgives payments after 20 years. This represents an important investment not only in our children's future but in the future of our country. It will pay enormous dividends. This investment isn't just smart, it is fully paid for. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates this legislation will reduce the national debt and deficit by $10 billion over the next 10 years. We accomplish that by eliminating what amounts to billions of dollars in wasteful spending within the Federal student loan program. Let me explain. Currently, some Federal student loans are made through the Direct Loan Program, while others are made through the Federal Family Education Loan Program, the so-called FFEL Program. This program overpays banks for servicing these Federal loans. The result is that money intended to help students go on to a higher education ends up instead helping to pad the profits of those lenders. That is a waste of money. What is more, banks in the FFEL Program get their loan guarantee and interest subsidy entitlements regardless of how they treat the student borrowers. While they bank the profits when the loans are repaid, taxpayers end up shouldering the risk of defaults. So our legislation converts all future Federal student loans to direct loans. This doesn't cut the private sector out of the student loan industry. What it does is as American as apple pie. It makes them compete. It ends these unnecessary payments and force banks to compete for the job of servicing student loans. When institutions have to compete, consumers benefit. For students and parents, it means better customer service and the same good rates that have always been the hallmark of Federal student loans. As for taxpayers, it means a savings of $61 billion over 10 years, money that now flows into the coffers of banks, but under this legislation will be used to help more kids go on to college and bring down our national deficit. In short, what we have here is a win-win, a fully paid for and much needed investment in equal opportunity and American competitiveness. I would be remiss if I did not note that we could and should be doing more. It comes as a serious disappointment to me and to education advocates across the country that funding for a new early childhood learning initiative was not included in this package. I desperately wanted it to be there, as did my friend Tom Harkin from Iowa who has worked with me, along with others, for years on early education. As important as it is to enable a high school student to graduate and attend college, it is just as critical that we prepare every child to be a viable candidate for their next step in the education process. The achievement gap that robs too many American children of their opportunity begins very early, before the age of 3, according to everything we know about child development. You know the statistics, as most of us do. Investments in early childhood education pay off tenfold when we consider the decreases in crime, the reduced need for special education and welfare services, and improved health of these children who have access to early education. Just as the increasingly competitive global economy calls us to unlock the door to higher education, we must also do everything we can to bring every American child to that threshold of maximizing his or her potential. That important work requires a serious commitment to early education. This legislation would have been a perfect opportunity to follow through on that commitment. So the fight will continue, unfortunately, without the strength this bill would have provided. But for now we have the chance to do some real good for young people and for our Nation. I urge my fellow Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, to support this commonsense measure, save the Pell Grant Program, and make a real difference in the lives of countless young Americans for years to come. I remind my colleagues this is just part of what is at stake in this debate. The amendments being offered, on too many occasions by our friends on the other side of the aisle, are doing nothing more than trying to stop this legislation from going forward. I hope that will stop. Let's pass this bill. We have a chance to not only change the quality of health in America but also to open the doors of opportunity for American students. For those reasons, I urge adoption of this package. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to take a couple of minutes, if I can, this afternoon. I realize we are getting toward the close of the end of the week, and Members will be heading off to their respective districts and States for the weekend. We will be coming back on Monday or Tuesday. I want to take a couple of minutes, because next week we will be having a markup in the Senate Banking Committee of the financial regulatory reform effort that we have been involved in now for about 2 years. It was 2 years ago this past weekend that the collapse of Bear Stearns occurred in 2008. Not that that was the beginning of the problems; that was merely the evidence of how deep the problems were. Of course, the events that unfolded in 2008 only confirmed what was happening in March was the beginning of a near total collapse of the financial system in this country. During those last 2 years, we have had countless hearings and meetings, gathering information from all sorts of sources both here as well as around the country to determine what best steps we could take to see to it that the country would never again face that kind of near collapse of our financial system; to see to it that the tools would be there, so that when the next emergency arose, as it surely will to one degree or another, that the next generation would have the tools necessary to avoid the economic system sort of spinning out of control, as it did over these last 2 years; and, thirdly, to make sure that in our efforts to plug the gaps that created the problems in the first instance, and the tools necessary to deal with future ones, we were not going to strangle the financial system of our Nation so that we could not create jobs, have credit flow, capital move, so that our Nation could again prosper economically. The interrelationship between our financial system and economic growth is inseparable. Without a strong and dependable, secure, safe financial system, the idea of economic growth in our country is, of course, a fiction. So we have a deep and serious challenge, as we have had over these past 2 years, to reform a system that has not been reformed since the 1930s. There have been various new regulators who have been added, additional restrictions imposed at one time or another, but not the kind of comprehensive view that I think the country expects in light of the events that have unfolded over the last couple of years. As chairman of the committee over the last 36 months, since I became chairman in January of 2007, we have tried to respond to this issue, first in 2007, by focusing on the root cause of the problem. That was, of course, in the mortgage lending market, where mortgages were going out the door from lending institutions that the borrowers did not understand, and could never afford, and the lenders knew that at the time. As a result, we began to see the collapse of our economy when those mortgages were then securitized and sold to investors only to discover that, of course, these mortgages were worth a lot less than the rating agencies claimed they were. That was not a minor problem. We have now had 7 million people in this country who have had their homes in foreclosure. Many of them, if not most of them, will lose their homes as a result of what happened. The unemployment rate has cost 8\1/2\ million people their jobs in this country, and in certain parts of the Nation unemployment rates hover around 17 percent, on average a little less than 10 percent. There are good signs that are occurring that indicate our economy may be recovering at certain levels. But tell that to the person who lost their job today, lost their retirement income, lost their homes, lost that sense of self-worth and value that you can never put a pricetag on but is essential for our Nation's sense of optimism and strength in these difficult days. For all of those reasons, we have tried to craft a bill here that deals with those goals of plugging the loopholes, the gaps, providing the tools for the future, and creating a system that will allow our economy to grow and prosper once again. There are four major areas of the bill I have talked about. One is for once and all end the notion that any financial entity never can become so complicated, so interconnected, so big, that it has an implicit guarantee that the taxpayers of this country are going to bail it out when it begins to fail, or fails. The $700 billion paycheck the American people wrote in order to stabilize our financial institutions in the fall of 2008 should never, ever happen again. The bill I have crafted, along with my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, we believe achieves that goal. I owe a special thanks, a very special thanks to two of our colleagues, a Democrat and a Republican, who have worked over many weeks to try to do exactly what I have described doing for you, and that is to shut down the possibility that the American taxpayer will ever again be asked to write that kind of a check. So my thanks to Mark Warner of Virginia, a new Member of this body, one who, in his previous life, before being the Governor of Virginia, worked in the financial services arena of our country and knows it well. His partner in this was another member of the Banking Committee, Bob Corker of Tennessee, another new Member of this Chamber. He served as the mayor of Chattanooga, TN, a very successful businessman in his own right, who also understands these issues as well, if not better, than most Members who serve here, with all due respect. The two of them have worked along with the Treasury Department and others. They have listened to an awful lot of people in crafting this title I and title II of our bill dealing with systemic risk and with ``too big to fail.'' In November I offered a proposal, what I called a ``discussion draft,'' for our consideration. Since that time we have modified that bill substantially as a result of the input and suggestions of Senators Warner and Corker--and others, I might add; not exclusively but they have been the leaders on this issue. Earlier we had an independent agency with rule writing authority to address systemic risk. In our new version we created a Treasury-led council with the ability to make recommendations and rule writing. Senator Shelby of Alabama, the ranking Republican and former chairman of the Banking Committee, made those suggestions. That is different from what existed in November. It is a stronger provision; it makes more sense. Working with Senator Corker and Senator Warner, we have included his and Senator Warner's ideas with respect to the power of the council to act as an early warning signal, and the establishment of a new Office of Financial Research at the Treasury Department to standardize, collect, and analyze financial data, to inform the work of the council. They were very worthwhile suggestions. We have also taken Senator Corker's and Senator Warner's ideas on ending, as I said, ``too big to fail.'' We have a process in place for placing failing financial companies in receivership and liquidating them, unless they can go into bankruptcy. At Senator Shelby's request, we have this mechanism available for any failing financial firm, not just those who were previously subject to heightened regulation. The Fed's emergency lending authority has also been changed. At Senator Shelby's request, we have significantly cut back on the Fed's use of its emergency lending authority, the so-called 13(3) section under the Fed rules. No longer can the Federal Reserve Bank bail out a company such as AIG, which is what they did. Instead, the Fed must create broad programs subject to rulemaking and approval by the Treasury. Only then can the Fed lend against good collateral. We have made a host of other changes, including in the area of credit rating agencies, audits of the Federal Reserve, Federal governance changes, securitization, credentialed supervision to protect the dual banking system, and on and on, of modifications to the November discussion draft that I offered last Monday as this new proposal. The last thing I would do is claim perfection. I am trying to put together a bill that reflects the various ideas of our colleagues, necessary to garner the necessary support in order to move from the committee to the floor of this Chamber for further consideration. That is not easy. What I have tried to do is to maintain these principles of eliminating ``too big to fail,'' setting up that systemic risk radar operation, so we have far more early warnings of the kinds of looming problems that could threaten our economy and threaten the financial system of this Nation and others. This bill does that in a very strong way. Again, I thank my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, for their contributions that are now reflected in the bill that I proposed on Monday, and it will be the subject of our markup of that bill beginning on Monday, late Monday afternoon, early Monday evening. We made other changes as well. In November, I offered a proposal to create a free-standing consumer protection agency. I thought it made sense to do so. But there were suggestions that have come from my colleagues here, both Democrats and Republicans, to place that agency, renting space, nothing more than that, at the Federal Reserve. There is a good reason for doing that, in my view, in terms of the budgetary authority and how we fund the operations. But I insisted that we have four major principles associated with consumer protection. I would remind my colleagues, never, ever before have we had a focused operation in this Nation that was dedicated to protecting the users of financial services. We have all read about Toyota and the problems with its braking system. I am not here to characterize the legitimacy or the accuracy of those complaints. But what is not in doubt is that there is an agency of government today which exists which allows a consumer of a bad product, such as an automobile, or an appliance, or food they eat, to be able to register that complaint and get redress, so that other consumers would not be adversely affected by a bad product, a consumer product, something you buy, something you use, something you eat, something you drive, something you manipulate. What we have never had in this country is a counterpart to that kind of protection when it comes to the mortgage you buy, the credit card you engage in, the loan you make, the check you deposit, the insurance policy you buy, or the stock you purchase. This country deserves, in the 21st century, to be able to say to consumers of financial products, there is a place where we can offer some protection for those who might abuse you in the process, as happened in this most recent crisis. But we try to do it in a responsible way, because we recognize there can be a conflict. I am not confident this happens as frequently as some might suggest, but if there is a conflict between the safety and soundness rules of a financial institution and the consumer protection of those who are the purchasers or users of financial services, we have now changed the proposal I offered on Monday. This new proposal has our consumer protection agency renting space, if you will, at the Federal Reserve, but it is independent in its rulemaking, it is independent in its examination and its ability to have an enforcement of those financial institutions that have assets, particularly on examination enforcement above $10 billion, which means it will go after the largest institutions and the marketers of these financial products. But those principles of having a presidentially appointed director, confirmed by the Senate, having an independent source of funding, are now all reflected in this bill with the changes we have made. There are other changes as well. For the first time, large financial companies will be subject to Federal examination enforcement as well. This means that for the first time, community banks will see their nonbank competitors examined and regulated on a level playing field as well. Small banks have a legitimate complaint, that they have been subject to regulation, but the nonbanks are not, and that is unfair. Nonbanks also dispense financial products, and the users or the purchasers of those products ought to have the same degree of protection. Our bill that we presented on Monday does that. There will be no assessments on small banks or large banks or nonbanks. The Federal Reserve will pay the freight of this agency. Concerns have been raised that somehow consumer protection will create safety and soundness. I already suggested to you, we have a mechanism here that I think will ease or eliminate any concerns people have about any potential conflict that could possibly occur. The point I wanted to make in these two areas, one on ``too big to fail,'' systemic risk councils, looking at the consumer protection area, I have been listening carefully to my colleagues, all 22 Democrats and Republicans on the committee. We had over 50 hearings alone, I believe is the number, this past year on the subject matter. Since November, it has been 4 months that have gone by with ideas that have been brought to the table, and they are reflected in this bill that I offered for consideration on Monday. Beginning on Monday of next week, we will begin the process of doing what we do here in this institution of the Senate, we will begin the so-called markup of a bill, where we sit around, all 23 of us, and try to narrow the differences that may exist as we try to come forth with a product for the full consideration of the Senate. I am looking forward to the amendments that will be filed by noon tomorrow. It will give us the weekend to analyze those amendments, many of which I hope we will be able to accept to improve this bill; in others there may be differences that we cannot resolve in the markup of the committee. But I have assured my good friend from Alabama, the ranking Republican on the committee, Senator Shelby, that I am determined to get a bill, to do it in an orderly fashion, to have the markup of this subject matter which is so important to all Americans be done in a civil fashion, so we listen and respect each other as we craft these ideas to try and make a difference and see to it that we never again see our country face the kind of near brink of utter disaster that we came close to accomplishing as a result of the gaps that have existed in our financial regulatory system. I thank my colleagues for indulging me these few minutes to kind of share with you some of the changes that have occurred since November in the draft we have offered. There are many more I have not gone into in these few minutes that are reflected in the proposal. But it is a balanced bill, one that is designed to be fair and clear, one that will give us better lines of authority reflecting the changes that have occurred in our country over many years, allowing for a greater, I think, sense of confidence that certain things will be done. One of the changes we made, my good friend from Alabama made the suggestion and I have included it in the bill. Up to now, the New York Fed, which is a very important regional Federal bank--the Chair of that bank has always been chosen by the very banks the New York Fed regulates. Under our proposal, the head of that New York Fed will be chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate. That is a major change. I know it may not seem like much to others, but imagine the inherent potential contradiction that the very people you are charged with regulating decide who the regulator is going to be. This bill changes that, along with many other suggestions. Again, that one came from my friend from Alabama. I thank him for it, along with many other ideas reflected in the bill. I know we have our differences. We have not resolved all of them, but that is why we are here--to resolve differences and come forward. I am confident we can do that and that we will end up in the next number of weeks with a financial reform package that will enjoy broad-based support in the Senate. We will work with our colleagues in the other body and offer to the President for his signature the first major comprehensive reform of financial services institutions since the Great Depression. The task is a huge one. It is daunting in many ways. The bill is almost 1,400 pages long. It is a reflection of weeks and months of work. It is not something crafted over the last weekend and thrown together. It is a reflection of hours and hours of consultation among Democrats and Republicans, stakeholders, advisers, and other people who bring a great deal of wealth and knowledge to this debate. I felt the time had come to lay down a product and ask my colleagues to react to it, to ask those knowledgeable about the issue to examine it and then for us to get about the business we are sent here to do; that is, to change laws where they need changing, to strengthen regulators where they need strengthening, to create oversight and regulation where it is missing so that we can have a renewed confidence in our economic system. That was my goal at the outset. It is my goal with the presentation of the bill. It is my confidence that my colleagues will embrace this as well when we have a chance to cast final votes in this body. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleague Senator Grassley, to introduce legislation on behalf of the millions of talented, high-achieving American students who every day, despite our best efforts, are being left behind. When we talk about reducing the achievement gap, we usually think of helping economically disadvantaged kids who are having a tough time in school keep up with their peers. Unfortunately, there is also a growing gap between high-achieving kids from high-earning families and students with just as much potential and talent who come from difficult economic circumstances. Potential is being squandered every day. Tragically, some estimates indicate that one in five of our highest-achieving students drops out of school. That is 20 percent of our best and brightest students, the hope of our nation and the key to our economic competitiveness in the 21st century, left behind. Every child should have the opportunity to reach their full potential. So, today I introduce the Equity in Excellence Act of 2010, designed to eliminate this gap among high-achieving students by helping talented but economically disadvantaged kids find the challenging and enriching materials and programs they need to stay in school and on track. Here is how it works. First, our bill will help to evaluate how school districts are challenging their most talented students--and to diagnose the problem when they are not. Second, it will put in place evidence-based programs--ranging from enrichment programs to academic acceleration strategies to high quality support material--designed to maximize learning among high-potential students. Third, it provides funding to hire and train personnel--principals, counselors, psychologists--skilled in meeting the needs of high- achieving students. Fourth, it provides funding to educate and inform parents of these students, so that they can partner with schools in supporting their kids. This legislation has been endorsed by the National Association for Gifted Children, an organization of more than 8,000 parents, teachers, education professionals, and community leaders united in support of high-achieving kids and their unique needs. Of course we all want to ensure that every child--no matter what their strengths and weaknesses, no matter what their grades or test scores, no matter what their economic background--can get a good education that prepares them for the 21st century economy. Every child who falls through the cracks represents a tragedy. When those who have displayed such tremendous potential are left behind, we all suffer. This legislation offers a step towards keeping those kids challenged, engaged--and in school. I want to thank Senator Grassley for joining me in this effort, and encourage our colleagues to join as well.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleague Senator Grassley, to introduce legislation on behalf of the millions of talented, high-achieving American students who every day, despite our best efforts, are being left behind. When we talk about reducing the achievement gap, we usually think of helping economically disadvantaged kids who are having a tough time in school keep up with their peers. Unfortunately, there is also a growing gap between high-achieving kids from high-earning families and students with just as much potential and talent who come from difficult economic circumstances. Potential is being squandered every day. Tragically, some estimates indicate that one in five of our highest-achieving students drops out of school. That is 20 percent of our best and brightest students, the hope of our nation and the key to our economic competitiveness in the 21st century, left behind. Every child should have the opportunity to reach their full potential. So, today I introduce the Equity in Excellence Act of 2010, designed to eliminate this gap among high-achieving students by helping talented but economically disadvantaged kids find the challenging and enriching materials and programs they need to stay in school and on track. Here is how it works. First, our bill will help to evaluate how school districts are challenging their most talented students--and to diagnose the problem when they are not. Second, it will put in place evidence-based programs--ranging from enrichment programs to academic acceleration strategies to high quality support material--designed to maximize learning among high-potential students. Third, it provides funding to hire and train personnel--principals, counselors, psychologists--skilled in meeting the needs of high- achieving students. Fourth, it provides funding to educate and inform parents of these students, so that they can partner with schools in supporting their kids. This legislation has been endorsed by the National Association for Gifted Children, an organization of more than 8,000 parents, teachers, education professionals, and community leaders united in support of high-achieving kids and their unique needs. Of course we all want to ensure that every child--no matter what their strengths and weaknesses, no matter what their grades or test scores, no matter what their economic background--can get a good education that prepares them for the 21st century economy. Every child who falls through the cracks represents a tragedy. When those who have displayed such tremendous potential are left behind, we all suffer. This legislation offers a step towards keeping those kids challenged, engaged--and in school. I want to thank Senator Grassley for joining me in this effort, and encourage our colleagues to join as well.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to lay out where we are on this effort to do reform of the financial structures of our economy. It has been a long undertaking and I will not take a lot of time and I will not go into great detail. But I thought it might be helpful for my colleagues and others to get some sense or a feel of how things are progressing. So I wish to share some thoughts on some major issues we are grappling with. I wish to begin by thanking the 22 other members of the Banking Committee. About one-quarter of the Senate is seated at that table in our Banking Committee hearing room. I wish to thank every member for their work. We have been deeply involved now for well over a year--more than a year; a year and a half--on the issue of how we should shape the regulatory structure of reform. This year we have had somewhere around 80 hearings, listening to a broad range of experts and others who have brought their thoughts and ideas, not to mention the informal meetings that occur outside of the normal hearing process. It has been a very long undertaking, and worthwhile. We have been trying to examine the causes of this problem that has been so devastating to our country and to others outside of our country--the economic near collapse--and then, from that experience, trying to shape and set up policies that will fill in those gaps that led us to this problem. Secondly, we are trying to take steps so that we are prepared to deal, as we will at some point in the future have to, with another economic crisis as it comes along, and to have what I call an architecture or a structure that will allow our system to be able to respond far more prudently than it was able to during the last couple of years. I should add as well a third goal, and that is to create a structure to not only grapple with the crisis, but also be a source of innovation and creativity for wealth creation and job creation that our financial services sector had a reputation of accomplishing, or at least helping to accomplish over the years. Those are not inconsistent goals. It is a challenge to balance them. It is never perfectly right. But our responsibility--both as legislators in this Chamber and the other body, as well as the role of regulators and, obviously, those in the private sector and public sector--is to try and strike that balance between protecting the public and consumers who use financial services, as well as to be able to provide a level of confidence to those who use them, that the system is going to be safe. It doesn't mean you are going to get a guaranteed return when you buy a stock, but you ought to feel confident when you deposit your paycheck that the institution is going to be there, or you are going to be protected from losing those resources. So I wish to take a few minutes and share some thoughts on where we are. I will quickly add, as well, I wish to pay particular thanks to the members of the committee. As many people are aware, Senator Shelby and I, my ranking member, have worked closely together over the last 3 years that I have been chairman of this committee on a wide range of issues, and I am grateful to him for his efforts. He is, obviously, significantly involved in this debate. I wish to thank Bob Corker, the Senator from Tennessee. He is a new Member of this Chamber, but has performed, I think, a tremendous task of trying to sit down and work out the differences, and they are complex and they are difficult. Nonetheless, he has rolled up his sleeves and demonstrated a level of maturity and interest far beyond the years of his service. All of us-- and I, certainly--wish to thank him publicly as well for his efforts, and that of his staff, trying to help us get there. Other members of the committee, including Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Chuck Schumer, Mark Warner, have taken on particular heavy lifts, and I will talk about them in a minute as I discuss what is going on, along with Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Mike Crapo of Idaho. So there have been a lot of people involved in this as we go forward. I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge their hard work and that of their staffs over these many months. We are still not there yet. I am not here to announce an agreement or to tell my colleagues we have reached a consensus. We are trying to get there, but we are not there yet. We are making an effort to see if we can't develop a set of proposals that will enjoy broad support in this institution as we go forward. So we have all seen, of course, the devastating consequences. I hardly need to spend much time enumerating them here. People are living them every day, and they don't necessarily need to hear them outlined. However, I will just share again what all of us are painfully aware of. Mr. President, 8.4 million jobs have been lost since December of 2007. The unemployment rate is currently at 9.7 percent. It has been obviously far too high. I think all of us know, as the Presiding Officer does, that there are pockets in our country where that 9.7 is maybe half the unemployment rate in certain areas of rural America and urban America. An astonishing 6.1 million Americans have been without a job for half a year or more in our Nation. Millions of our fellow citizens who did nothing wrong have nonetheless lost homes, their retirement security, their jobs, their health care. Small businesses have been unable to access credit and have been forced to lay off workers, reduce production, or even have had to shut their doors. Working class families in our country have seen their wealth decline significantly, and, worst of all, today we remain entirely vulnerable to yet another crisis. We haven't finished this work, and if something were to happen again tomorrow, as much as we have been working on this issue, we haven't passed the necessary legislation to minimize a crisis bringing us close to the brink of financial collapse as the one we are presently in did. So, obviously, the status quo--I am getting kind of tired of using those words; business as usual, whatever words you want to use to describe it--cannot persist. Congress, in my view, must pass comprehensive, meaningful reform of our financial system. My hope and intention is to do everything I can in the waning days of my service after 30 years here to achieve that goal. We have to correct the failures that allowed us to get into this mess, but we must also develop a regulatory system that is prepared for the next one, and one that is going to invite, as well, the kind of creativity and innovation that allow for job creation and wealth creation that our system has in the past provided. Over a year ago, the Banking Committee, as I pointed out earlier, set out to investigate the causes of financial crises and the vulnerabilities that lie in our financial regulatory structure. Over the last year or more, we have held literally dozens and dozens of gatherings, hearings, informal and formal meetings. We have listened to hundreds of experts in a wide variety of fields who have been either affected by, or who have offered some ideas as to how we can create this architecture about which I have spoken. We have examined and reexamined all sets of proposals sent to us by the White House, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and others. In November of last year, I offered my colleagues a discussion draft of where I was. I didn't suggest it had cosponsors or backers, but I thought people ought to know where the chairman of the committee was, so I laid out a broad proposal in these areas. It certainly produced a discussion, I can tell my colleagues. Not always a welcome one from certain corners, but I thought people ought to know at least where I stood on these issues. If I were going to write this alone and I didn't want anyone else to offer their ideas and suggestions, I had some pretty strong and sound ideas as to where we ought to be. I then asked my fellow committee members, Democrats and Republicans, to work on major parts of the bill. It is so complex and so big and broad, the subject matter, that I didn't think any one member, even a chairman and a ranking member, could necessarily put their arms around all of it. So I asked various members who expressed an interest in various subject matters if they would take on the responsibility, a Democrat and a Republican working together, to see if they could come up with some ideas that would be sound, intelligent reforms of the financial system. It has been an enormous task. As I said a moment ago, these are incredibly complex issues, but with the good work done by so many on the committee, I believe we are well on our way to producing a very strong bill. The problems with our economy run system-wide, and while there is the temptation by some to address only one or two issues and claim victory and call it a day, we are working in our committee on a bill that will attack these problems and vulnerabilities in a rather comprehensive way, one that we believe will make a difference. The bill as we fashion it is designed to achieve four major accomplishments: No. 1--and the first priority, I would argue, if I had to prioritize whether the others fall into this category--is ending too-big-to-fail bailouts. That, to me, is the most important thing we can achieve here. Never, ever again should the American taxpayer of this country be forced to write a check, which they did, because there is an implicit guarantee that the Federal Government of the United States will bail out a company lest it threaten the stability of the economy as a whole. It will make it so undesirable for a company to get too big or too complex with new capital, new leverage requirements, supervisory requirements, and set up a mechanism so large, complex companies can be shut down through bankruptcy or resolution in a way that does not threaten the economy or expose the American taxpayers, as they have been. It is a resolution, it is a bankruptcy, it is a receivership, and it is painful to creditors, to shareholders, and to the management who bear the burden but not taxpayers. We are very close to achieving that. Again, I thank Mark Warner of Virginia and Bob Corker of Tennessee who dealt with this issue, this and systemic risk, which I will mention in a minute. They worked I don't know how many hours sitting down trying to fashion this resolution mechanism. But the idea that we would watch the American taxpayer write out a check for $700 billion, knowing the reaction of the American public--by the way, in the absence of what we are trying to do here, I think we did the right thing. Had we not done it, the financial problem would have been a lot worse. We never again ought to be put in that position, where that is the only alternative we have. This bill will address that issue. Secondly, we create an early warning system in the economy so somebody is looking out for the next big problem. The bill would create what we call a systemic risk council--that is our goal--that will have the job of looking across the economy to identify unsafe products, activities, institutions that could threaten the economy as a whole in the future. We cannot afford to be caught off guard again by obvious weaknesses in our system because no one is responsible for taking a broad view. Again, it is not going to stop everything, but we did not have this ability in the past. Again, Mark Warner and Bob Corker have worked very hard on a resolution mechanism and systemic risk and all of us owe them a debt of gratitude for their efforts. Third, we bring transparency and accountability to the exotic instruments, such as derivatives and credit default swaps, things that are rather arcane to most Americans, to put it mildly, but have been lurking too long in the dark and were able to cause untold damage to our economy because they lacked transparency and regulation. We change that in this bill. That is our hope anyway, if we get to the conclusion of it. We have to regulate these activities that left investors and our economy open to the tremendous risks they did not even know existed. Literally, billions of dollars being traded--frankly, gambled--behind closed doors drove our economy to the verge of collapse. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, and their staffs have been working on this issue over many weeks to try and come up with an intelligent, thoughtful, well-drafted set of proposals on these exotic instruments, particularly derivatives. I thank them for the job they have done, and I am confident when our colleagues have had a chance to be briefed about their efforts, there will be broad-based support for what is included in our bill. We have to rein in these crazy compensation packages that have outraged the public and hurt companies by rewarding short-term profits and wild risk-taking. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho, and their staffs have been working on governance issues. More work needs to be done on this issue. I thank both our colleagues, again a Democrat and Republican, for trying to come up with ideas on governance issues that will avoid some of the problems with which we are all too familiar. We create--and one that has attracted the most attention because of the issues involved--a strong and independent consumer protection watchdog, one that has never existed but has come to financial services. It is somewhat ironic we have a Consumer Product Safety Commission, so if we buy a toy for our children or a product or an appliance and it does not work or it causes us great harm or danger, there is a place called the Consumer Product Safety Commission which will protect us from these hazardous appliances. Yet when it comes to financial services, we have had no place to go to get a similar kind of protection. That analogy has been drawn by others in the past, and I think it is an appropriate one. We have undertaken this effort. It is controversial because I think there are a lot of fears people have about what we are trying to achieve with all this. Yet if you look back and you watch what has unfolded over the last couple years, and particularly where you see some of these barons of the financial services sector reaping millions of dollars in bonuses after their companies have been shored up through taxpayer efforts, and yet the very people who had their homes, their jobs, their retirement, their health care, their life savings put at risk, what do they get, having come up with the tax dollars to protect these industries? We want to see to it that we never have again the consumer of financial products be unprotected when we start examining these issues. We are working on this issue to put together what I set out as principles that should be included in a consumer protection watchdog. The failure to protect consumers, as I think most people know, led to some of the dangerous practices we saw and put our economy at so much risk. People were given mortgages they did not understand and could not afford. To ensure strong consumer protection, the real question is: Will this office have the independence and the authority it needs to get the job done to take care of consumers? I focused on four principles from the very beginning of this debate involving this consumer protection idea we hope to produce. One, that it have an independent head appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by this body, the Senate; second, that it have an independent budget so the office will have the resources it needs to do the job; third, that it have the autonomy to craft rules to protect consumers; and fourth, an ability to enforce those rules as well. With these features, the office, I think, can act to protect consumers from the kinds of abuses we have seen, such as skyrocketing credit card interest rates, an explosion in checking account fees or predatory lending by the mortgage industry. Where rent space is less important--not unimportant, less important--what power and authority it has is the critical question. Obviously, we want to do this in a way that does not jeopardize the safety and soundness of institutions. I do not believe there necessarily is any conflict, although some suggest there may be. We are trying to provide, as well, a mechanism to resolve when, in fact, we have some conflict between safety and soundness and consumer protection. I understand that concern. We are trying to accommodate that while simultaneously maintaining the independence and autonomy of this agency. Our goal is to end the status quo, as I said earlier--words I am getting tired of using, but doing nothing is unacceptable--and to create a system where honest businesses, large and small, can thrive on a level playing field, where middle-class families can find work, invest with confidence, and achieve the dreams they have for themselves and their children. Today, I am pleased to report that good work has been done by Democrats and Republicans both on the Banking Committee to put financial reform in a strong position. While we do not have a bipartisan agreement yet at all, we are trying to. I don't know if it will happen. I am optimistic it can happen. I have been around here long enough to know these things can fall apart easily. It is fragile. Complex issues you think you resolved can produce unintended consequences. Most importantly, getting it right--while I would like to get it done soon, I want to make sure we do it correctly and properly. This is one of the hardest tasks I have been asked to undertake in my years here, to try and fashion these proposals in a way that can bring broad support in this institution. We do not have an agreement yet, but because I have colleagues, such as the ones I mentioned on the Democratic side, such as Jack Reed, Mark Warner, Chuck Schumer, Tim Johnson--I can go down the list of those who worked on the issues--and I also have colleagues such as Bob Corker, Dick Shelby, Judd Gregg, and others to make an effort on that side to see if we can make agreements. I know everything we are hearing about Congress these days, that nothing seems to be working here, but we are making an effort to come up with a proposal that will achieve those goals, a good, strong bill and one that will enjoy good, strong support in this institution. I hope I have not talked too long, but I wished to give at least a flavor of where things are today. As I said, we are not done yet. We are in a pretty strong position to achieve a good, strong bill and one we can be proud of in this institution. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in commemoration of the life of John Patrick Murtha. John Murtha gave nearly six decades to the country he loved. At the age of 20, he left college to join the Marines. As soon as he arrived, the Marines knew they had a gem of a young man on their hands. Routed to Officer Candidate School, he became a leader of his peers, earning the American Spirit Honor Medal during training. Although his duty to the Marines ended in 1955, his desire to serve did not. He remained in the Reserves for the next decade, and then volunteered for service in Vietnam. There, he cemented his reputation as an American hero, earning the Bronze Star, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, and two Purple Hearts. John's service in the Reserves lasted long into his political career. He didn't retire until 1990, at which time he was awarded the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. But when he returned from Vietnam, he decided that serving the people of the State of Pennsylvania was another way to give back to his country. He came to Congress roughly a year before I did, the first Democrat to hold that seat since World War II. As long as I have been here, it seems like John has been as much of a fixture in the House Chamber as the desks themselves. John being a marine, it is probably not surprising that he never stopped fighting to give our troops in the field the resources they needed to do their jobs. He became the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and was a reliable advocate for our military--and for the people of his district. His deep passion for our military and his commitment to making sure they had the resources they need reached as far as Connecticut, where we make the finest submarines and aircraft in the world. He knew that the products we make there are critical to the success of our military, and he was always there alongside me, standing up for our defense workforce and the fine products they make. Many of us will remember with great admiration the courage John showed when he came to the floor in November 2005 to call for an end to a war he had supported. Colleagues on both sides knew that John Murtha would never make a statement like that lightly, and his bold stance played a large role in bringing towards an end that misguided war. Of course, most Americans never got to know John Murtha's soft side. But his beloved wife Joyce--they were married for 55 years--and his three wonderful children knew him as his colleagues did: as a funny, warm man who loved his job, loved his constituents, and loved his country. A colleague of his, Congressman Bob Brady, said, ``There will never be another Jack Murtha.'' And he is right. But we can all carry on his work, impressed by his long record of service and inspired by his deep patriotism and commitment. I was proud to know John Murtha, and we were all lucky to have him.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleague Senator Ensign, to introduce legislation that will provide children with safe, healthy, and academically focused afterschool programs. The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2010 is endorsed by the Afterschool Alliance, an organization representing more than 25,000 public, private, and non-profit afterschool providers dedicated to expanding access to high quality afterschool programs, as well as a broad coalition of other local and national organizations. They, and I, have committed to providing quality afterschool care because the record is clear: students who regularly attend afterschool programs have better grades and behavior in school, better peer relations and emotional adjustment, and lower incidences of drug use, violence, and pregnancy. When kids have something productive to do in the hours between when they are let out of school and when their parents get home from work, they are more likely to avoid the traps of risky behavior, more likely to be physically healthy and academically successful, and more likely to fulfill their potential. As co-chairs of the Afterschool Caucus, Senator Ensign and I have worked to expand awareness of these benefits by organizing annual briefings, sharing research, and advocating fiercely for a focus on afterschool care when we talk about how to give our kids the best opportunities possible. While we know that afterschool care works, the truth is that too many American kids don't have access to good programs. More than 15 million children--from kindergarten through 12th grade--spend time unsupervised in the hours after school. That includes an incredible 40,000 kindergartners and nearly 4 million middle school students in grades six to eight. When the bell rings and the school day ends, these kids face some 3 hours of unscheduled, often unsupervised time before their parents get home from work. Those are rarely productive hours, and, worse, those are the hours during which these children are most likely to experiment with risky behaviors. We can do better for our kids. The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2010 has three goals. First, to enhance the quality and sustainability of afterschool programs. Second, to emphasize physical fitness and wellness programs as part of our nationwide effort to reduce childhood obesity, and third, to encourage service learning. Our legislation provides States with tools designed to keep quality programs going. It would allow program grantees the ability to renew their grants if they can show that the programs are working. It gives states the option to expand technical assistance functions to improve the quality of afterschool programs. Our legislation will increase opportunities for young Americans to be more physically active. The administration has put a focus on reducing obesity--one of the easiest medical conditions to recognize, but one of the most difficult to treat--among our children. Obesity costs our society as much as $147 billion each year--and the best way to stop it is to encourage our kids to be more active. Afterschool programs offer a tremendous opportunity to do just that, and our legislation includes such wellness efforts in the list of programs that can receive support. Our legislation encourages kids to get involved in service learning and youth development activities. Service learning integrates student- designed service projects with academic studies. This type of program has been shown to strengthen student engagement, enhance student achievement, lower drop-out and suspension rates, develop workforce and leadership skills, and provide opportunities for teamwork. Of course, as we offer this legislation, I must also remind my colleagues that afterschool programs only work with sufficient funding. In a difficult economy, it is even more important to focus on empowering these programs. Studies have shown that afterschool care can reduce worker absenteeism by as much as 30 percent and reduce worker turnover by up to 60 percent. Decreased worker productivity related to parental concerns about afterschool care costs our economy up to $300 billion each year. Approximately 1 in 10 children is currently enrolled in afterschool care. However, 2/3 of parents with children who do not participate in a program would enroll their children in afterschool if they had that option. We should work to give them that option. The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act is a positive step towards offering all of our children the chance to spend their afternoons safely and productively. It is a step towards making good on the most important promise: the one we make to our kids. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleague Senator Ensign, to introduce legislation that will provide children with safe, healthy, and academically focused afterschool programs. The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2010 is endorsed by the Afterschool Alliance, an organization representing more than 25,000 public, private, and non-profit afterschool providers dedicated to expanding access to high quality afterschool programs, as well as a broad coalition of other local and national organizations. They, and I, have committed to providing quality afterschool care because the record is clear: students who regularly attend afterschool programs have better grades and behavior in school, better peer relations and emotional adjustment, and lower incidences of drug use, violence, and pregnancy. When kids have something productive to do in the hours between when they are let out of school and when their parents get home from work, they are more likely to avoid the traps of risky behavior, more likely to be physically healthy and academically successful, and more likely to fulfill their potential. As co-chairs of the Afterschool Caucus, Senator Ensign and I have worked to expand awareness of these benefits by organizing annual briefings, sharing research, and advocating fiercely for a focus on afterschool care when we talk about how to give our kids the best opportunities possible. While we know that afterschool care works, the truth is that too many American kids don't have access to good programs. More than 15 million children--from kindergarten through 12th grade--spend time unsupervised in the hours after school. That includes an incredible 40,000 kindergartners and nearly 4 million middle school students in grades six to eight. When the bell rings and the school day ends, these kids face some 3 hours of unscheduled, often unsupervised time before their parents get home from work. Those are rarely productive hours, and, worse, those are the hours during which these children are most likely to experiment with risky behaviors. We can do better for our kids. The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2010 has three goals. First, to enhance the quality and sustainability of afterschool programs. Second, to emphasize physical fitness and wellness programs as part of our nationwide effort to reduce childhood obesity, and third, to encourage service learning. Our legislation provides States with tools designed to keep quality programs going. It would allow program grantees the ability to renew their grants if they can show that the programs are working. It gives states the option to expand technical assistance functions to improve the quality of afterschool programs. Our legislation will increase opportunities for young Americans to be more physically active. The administration has put a focus on reducing obesity--one of the easiest medical conditions to recognize, but one of the most difficult to treat--among our children. Obesity costs our society as much as $147 billion each year--and the best way to stop it is to encourage our kids to be more active. Afterschool programs offer a tremendous opportunity to do just that, and our legislation includes such wellness efforts in the list of programs that can receive support. Our legislation encourages kids to get involved in service learning and youth development activities. Service learning integrates student- designed service projects with academic studies. This type of program has been shown to strengthen student engagement, enhance student achievement, lower drop-out and suspension rates, develop workforce and leadership skills, and provide opportunities for teamwork. Of course, as we offer this legislation, I must also remind my colleagues that afterschool programs only work with sufficient funding. In a difficult economy, it is even more important to focus on empowering these programs. Studies have shown that afterschool care can reduce worker absenteeism by as much as 30 percent and reduce worker turnover by up to 60 percent. Decreased worker productivity related to parental concerns about afterschool care costs our economy up to $300 billion each year. Approximately 1 in 10 children is currently enrolled in afterschool care. However, 2/3 of parents with children who do not participate in a program would enroll their children in afterschool if they had that option. We should work to give them that option. The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act is a positive step towards offering all of our children the chance to spend their afternoons safely and productively. It is a step towards making good on the most important promise: the one we make to our kids. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending nomination.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 2, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Restoring Credit to Main Street: Proposals To Fix Small Business Borrowing and Lending Problems.''

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 2, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 2, 2010, at 11:15 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 2, 2010. The Committee will meet in room 345 of the Cannon House Office Building beginning at 2 p.m.