Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 2, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 2, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Global Internet Freedom and the Rule of Law, Part II.''

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a constitutional amendment I am introducing today, along with my colleague Senator Tom Udall, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. This proposed amendment would simply authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money for Federal political campaigns--including independent expenditures--and allow States to regulate such spending at their level. It would also provide for implementation and enforcement of the amendment through appropriate legislation. I invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us by cosponsoring the amendment. Let me begin by noting that I am a firm believer in the sanctity of the First Amendment. I believe we must continue to do all we can to protect the free speech rights of all Americans. I do not suggest changing the language of the First Amendment, which I revere. But I do not believe that money is speech, nor do I believe that corporations should be treated exactly the same as individual Americans when it comes to protected, fundamental speech rights. That is what the Supreme Court has effectively now held. I recognize that amending the Constitution is a long-term undertaking, and that this effort will not likely bear fruit during my remaining time in this body. Reinhold Niebuhr said that nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime; I would add much less during a Senate term.' I hope that in the wake of this court decision we can begin that comprehensive reform effort; I know that it would be worth doing. The Constitution itself establishes a long and complex process for its own amendment, including approval by Congress and the States, and I am proposing to use that process to save our democratic system of government, and ultimately our republic, from the continued corrosion of special interest influence. I am introducing the amendment because I believe that constitutional questions deserve constitutional answers. While I intend to support interim legislative steps to address urgently those issues that can be addressed in the wake of this decision, including increased disclosure requirements, further limitations to prevent foreign corporations' influence on our elections, and other measures, I think the scope of such efforts is limited by the court's sweeping, even radical conclusions in this case. Make no mistake, as much of the commentary surrounding it suggests, the Citizens United case is one of the most radical decisions in the court's long history of campaign finance reform jurisprudence. It overturns 100 years of precedents to come to the unjustified conclusion that corporations deserve the same free speech protections as individual Americans. It opens the door to corporations spending vast amounts of money directly from their treasuries to influence Federal elections, and thereby influence Federal officeholders and policy decisions, in ways much more direct and concentrated than is the case now through corporate and union political action committees. If you are concerned now about the undue special interest influence of big banks, energy companies, health insurance firms, pharmaceutical firms and other special interests on our political process, just wait until these entities can spend millions of dollars directly to elect or defeat officeholders. If you are concerned about the special interest- generated paralysis of our legislative process, wait until you see the results of this decision. As one distinguished Republican election lawyer who opposes the decision recently said, it will be the ``wild, wild west.'' Perhaps most radical is the court's conclusion that corporations are legal ``persons'' seemingly deserving of the exact same free speech protections as all Americans. This decision notwithstanding, corporations are not people. A first-year law student will note that corporations are basically a legal fiction, entities created with certain limited legal rights designed to enable them to operate in the business world: to enter into and enforce contracts, to conduct transactions, and the like. They can't vote or think or speak or run for office. They only make political and policy decisions through their officers and shareholders, informed by their lobbyists and others. They should not enjoy the same fundamental free speech protections that individual Americans enjoy in our political discourse, or the ability to spend unlimited funds directly from large corporate treasuries for that purpose. As others have observed, the framers could not have imagined, and would not have wanted, a system in which corporations could pour literally billions of dollars into elections and thereby exercise grossly outsized influence over the fate of our elected representatives. Such a system does not promote free speech; it mocks it. I have worked for decades to reform our campaign finance laws, with colleagues and former colleagues like Senators Boren, Mitchell, Byrd, Daschle, Feingold, Kerry, McCain, Dole, Cochran, and others. Time and again we have developed comprehensive bipartisan efforts, only to have them frustrated by a small minority of Senators, or in one case by a veto exercised by the first President Bush. I have served my party as head of the Democratic National Committee, and so I have seen the problems of our current campaign finance system from a variety of perspectives. In previous debates I have rehearsed the problems with our current system. They include the exponentially increasing costs of campaigns. The endless time we must spend to travel and make calls to raise money, which is then spent mostly on expensive and increasingly negative TV ads in our states. The ways in which special interests buy access and influence, and how such influence erodes the trust and confidence of Americans in our democracy. These problems are systemic, pervasive and fundamental. They require comprehensive, fundamental reforms. A constitutional amendment would create the conditions for the possibility of real statutory reform that could then be adjusted as we go along, to address new abuses and problems as they arise. I attended the Supreme Court's oral arguments in this case, and I heard in the pointed questions of the Justices who composed this 5-4 majority the portents of this radical decision. But even then I did not anticipate fully how breathtakingly far the court would reach. That extended reach was not only unwise and unjustified, it was also unnecessary. This court majority, whose members have so forcefully decried judicial activism, might have taken a less radical approach, and resolved the legal issue before them without drawing such sweeping conclusions. Instead, they chose to ride roughshod over decades of the court's own legal precedents and the principle of stare decisis. That is why I believe it is fair to say, as Justice Stevens did in his stinging dissent in this case, that this case was brought by the Justices themselves. I urge my colleagues to read Justice Stevens' detailed, powerful and carefully reasoned dissent. In it, among other things, he observes that the only thing that has really changed since the Supreme Court made its rulings in the Austin, 1990, and McConnell, 2003, decisions, upholding the corporate campaign spending ban, is the composition of the Supreme Court. Instead of deciding the case based on the narrow issues before them, in a raw display of activist judicial power the majority in this sharply divided court took the rare step of asking for the case to be broadened and re-argued, and then issued this sweeping decision. With this decision, I believe the court has seriously jeopardized its own integrity, already damaged by its hugely controversial decision in Bush v. Gore, and done enormous harm to our democracy--harm which will only become clearer to Americans in the next few years as close Congressional and state races are decided by the spending of corporate interests. The public reaction to this court decision has been swift and strong, I think because Americans intuitively recognize that it represents an enormous transfer of power away from citizens to wealthy corporations. I saw a poll recently which showed broad opposition to the decision among all Americans--Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike. The poll showed that it was opposed by 66 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Republicans, and 72 percent of Independents. Americans intuitively recognize the dangers of a decision to allow corporations to spend unlimited funds against candidates. They see this decision's potential to worsen the problem of special interest influence, and to further erode trust and confidence in that process. Though this hasn't been commented on too broadly in the media reports following this decision, I also believe Americans recognize that the next logical step the Supreme Court could take in the wake of this decision is to go beyond this decision which overturns the ban on corporate independent expenditures in campaigns to allow direct corporate contributions to candidates. This constitutional amendment is a version of one passionately championed for years by Senator Hollings, and updated by Senator Schumer in the last Congress. I have decided to reintroduce it at this point in our debate to emphasize that even though I support efforts to do what we can in the interim to reform our campaign finance laws, ultimately we must cut through the underbrush and go directly to the heart of the problem: the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley vs. Valeo and other subsequent decisions which conflate money with speech, and this most recent decision in Citizens United which lifts the long-time ban on direct corporate spending in campaigns. In these decisions, the Supreme Court has basically made it impossible for Americans to have what they have repeatedly said they want: reasonable regulations of campaign contributions and expenditures which do not either directly or indirectly limit the ideas that may be expressed in the public realm. I submit that such regulations would actually broaden the public debate on a number of issues by freeing it from the narrow confines dictated by special interest money. With its decisions, the Supreme Court has effectively neutered comprehensive efforts to control the ever-spiraling money chase, and has forced legislation intended to control the cancerous effects of money in politics to be more complicated and convoluted than necessary. The complications we are forced to resort to, in turn, create new opportunities for abuse. Even without a constitutional amendment, we can try to make some progress. For example, I think we made some decent progress on the McCain-Feingold legislation, even despite the Court's decisions since 2002 narrowing the reach of that law. But we cannot enact truly comprehensive legislation that will get to the heart of the problem under current court rulings. I wish we could. I have long supported a clean elections system of public financing for Congressional campaigns which would integrate spending limits, citizen financing, and other basic reforms. That is the way I think we should go. There are other approaches. But the fact is--and I am sorry for this--that unless the Supreme Court again reverses itself, we cannot get the comprehensive legislation we really need unless we first adopt an amendment to the Constitution. This amendment is neutral on what kind of regulation of campaigns would be allowed. It simply authorizes such regulation, and leaves it to Congress and state legislatures to determine what might be appropriate. That is where such decisions should be made on these issues: by the people's representatives in Congress and in state legislatures. That is why I think amending the Constitution and enabling Congress to make those decisions is the first step if we are to make real progress on this front. Others will argue for a narrower constitutional amendment to focus primarily on the issue of corporate expenditures. That is another way to address the issue, though I believe it would still leave many unanswered questions about Congress' ability to regulate broadly in this area. We should have a full and robust debate about all of the options. Someday we may adopt this idea, if the situation continues to run out of hand. And we may look back to this court decision in 2010 and mark it as an historic watershed, a catalyst for major change. I sincerely hope that will be true, for the sake of this institution and our democratic process, and for the sake of our country. I commend the amendment to my colleagues' attention, and urge them to consider cosponsoring it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, today I honor a great American from my home State of Connecticut, Harold McGraw, Jr. After serving as a captain in the Army Air Corps during World War II, Mr. McGraw joined the family business, McGraw-Hill, as a sales representative in 1947. Over the next half century, he worked his way up to the position of president of the McGraw-Hill book company, and then CEO and chairman of the parent corporation, McGraw-Hill, Inc. Not satisfied with simply succeeding in business, Mr. McGraw quickly became a leader in his community. In the 1980s, he founded the Business Council for Effective Literacy, BCEL, and served as its president for a decade. He spoke at events across the country to champion the cause of adult literacy, giving generously of his own wealth and raising funds from corporate and public entities alike. A BCEL grant led to the formation of the National Coalition for Literacy and established Mr. McGraw as a key public policy expert on this important issue. His work laid the foundation for the National Literacy Act and the National Institute for Literacy, and those of us in Congress and in the executive branch quickly became familiar with his tireless advocacy. He spoke up in person and in letters. He mobilized the business community. And he was always accessible to adult learners, teachers, and local adult literacy programs. Always cognizant of the role education played in his own success, Mr. McGraw has worked hard to make education a focus of his civic engagement, including efforts with the New York Public Library, the Council for Air to Education, the International Center for the Disabled, and the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy. A proud Princeton graduate, Mr. McGraw gave back to his alma mater with a generous gift to establish The McGraw Center for Teaching and Learning at Princeton University. Princeton President Harold Shapiro said that the McGraw Center would help ``redefine teaching and learning for future generations.'' Mr. McGraw has also lent his publishing expertise to the Princeton University Press. The Harold W. McGraw, Jr. Prize in Education, established in 1988 by The McGraw-Hill Companies to mark the Company's 100th anniversary, honors those who have dedicated themselves to improving American education. But Mr. McGraw is no stranger to honors himself. In 1990, President Bush awarded him the Nation's highest literacy award at a special White House ceremony. And he is the recipient of honorary degrees from the Graduate School of Princeton University, the City University of New York, Ohio University, Pine Manor College, Fairfield University, Hofstra University, and Marymount Manhattan College, as well as the Cleveland E. Dodge Medal for Distinguished Service to Education from Columbia University's Teachers College. Mr. McGraw has given so much to our country at large, but he hasn't forgotten the State he and I both love. A major supporter of the library in his town of Darien, he has also contributed generously to Norwalk Hospital and St. Joseph's Hospital, along with his local church. He has worked to support elderly care at the Waveny Care Center in New Canaan, CT, Pegasus Therapeutic Riding in Stamford, and a wide range of civic organizations, from the Boy Scouts to the Literary Volunteers of Connecticut. Harold McGraw represents the best of American business and civic culture. All of us in Connecticut are proud to call him one of our own, and the many whose lives have been touched by his commitment to adult literacy are grateful for his efforts. We look forward to his continued good deeds and remain inspired by his example. It is my pleasure to honor this great American.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, at the request of the administration and on behalf of my fellow original cosponsors Senator Menendez, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Cardin, the Public Transportation Safety Program Act of 2010. This legislation is designed to provide the Federal Transit Administration with the proper funding and rulemaking, examination, and enforcement authority to improve the safety of our nation's transit systems. The issue of improving transit safety is a bipartisan issue, on which I think all Members can come to agreement. While this proposal from the administration is a good and appropriate first step in the Federal Government's efforts to improve transit safety, I look forward to working with my cosponsors and all of my colleagues on the Senate Banking Committee to make the final bill, which will emerge from the Senate Banking Committee, the strongest legislation possible for ensuring the safety of our nation's transit systems. Transit is among the safest modes of transportation. Between 1998 and 2007, incidents on public transportation rail systems fell by half. But in light of a recent series of high-profile accidents, Americans have grown concerned, and rightfully so. As our Nation's transit systems age, it is becoming increasingly clear that it is time for the Federal government to take a more direct role in their oversight. Currently, the Federal Transit Administration has limited authority to implement and enforce national transit safety standards and we have gone without a proper national transit safety program for far too long. Having been handed an unfunded mandate, States have been forced to scrape by with State Safety Oversight boards. Many of these boards lack authority, expertise, a dedicated budget or even full-time employees to monitor safety. This is unacceptable. This ad hoc approach to transit safety oversight must be replaced with better oversight and clear national transit safety standards. Congress should provide the FTA with the authority and the resources to bring consistency and Federal leadership to our transit safety system. It is our duty to ensure that accidents like those that occurred in 2009 are prevented. I commend the Administration, particularly Secretary LaHood and administrator Rogoff, for taking a leadership role on this very important issue and sending the proposed legislation to Congress. This proposal is a good start, and I look forward to discussing it with my colleagues. The Obama administration has indicated its commitment to improving transit safety. It is time for us to do the same. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, at the request of the administration and on behalf of my fellow original cosponsors Senator Menendez, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Cardin, the Public Transportation Safety Program Act of 2010. This legislation is designed to provide the Federal Transit Administration with the proper funding and rulemaking, examination, and enforcement authority to improve the safety of our nation's transit systems. The issue of improving transit safety is a bipartisan issue, on which I think all Members can come to agreement. While this proposal from the administration is a good and appropriate first step in the Federal Government's efforts to improve transit safety, I look forward to working with my cosponsors and all of my colleagues on the Senate Banking Committee to make the final bill, which will emerge from the Senate Banking Committee, the strongest legislation possible for ensuring the safety of our nation's transit systems. Transit is among the safest modes of transportation. Between 1998 and 2007, incidents on public transportation rail systems fell by half. But in light of a recent series of high-profile accidents, Americans have grown concerned, and rightfully so. As our Nation's transit systems age, it is becoming increasingly clear that it is time for the Federal government to take a more direct role in their oversight. Currently, the Federal Transit Administration has limited authority to implement and enforce national transit safety standards and we have gone without a proper national transit safety program for far too long. Having been handed an unfunded mandate, States have been forced to scrape by with State Safety Oversight boards. Many of these boards lack authority, expertise, a dedicated budget or even full-time employees to monitor safety. This is unacceptable. This ad hoc approach to transit safety oversight must be replaced with better oversight and clear national transit safety standards. Congress should provide the FTA with the authority and the resources to bring consistency and Federal leadership to our transit safety system. It is our duty to ensure that accidents like those that occurred in 2009 are prevented. I commend the Administration, particularly Secretary LaHood and administrator Rogoff, for taking a leadership role on this very important issue and sending the proposed legislation to Congress. This proposal is a good start, and I look forward to discussing it with my colleagues. The Obama administration has indicated its commitment to improving transit safety. It is time for us to do the same. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Shaken Baby Syndrome Prevention Act of 2010, important legislation that promotes awareness and prevention of Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma, a devastating form of child abuse that results in the severe injury, disability or death of hundreds of children each year. Child abuse and neglect is a well-documented tragedy for some of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, NCANDS, 794,000 children were victims of abuse and neglect in 2007. Babies are particularly vulnerable; in 2007, children aged 12 months or younger accounted for nearly 40 percent of all child abuse and neglect fatalities and children aged 4 years and younger accounted for almost 77 percent. Yet even these disturbing statistics may not paint an accurate picture; most experts agree that child abuse is widely under reported. Abusive head trauma, including Shaken Baby Syndrome, is the leading cause of death of physically abused children, in particular for infants younger than one. When a frustrated caregiver loses control and violently shakes a baby or impacts the baby's head, the trauma can kill the child or cause severe injuries, including loss of vision, loss of hearing, brain damage, paralysis, and/or seizures, resulting in lifelong disabilities and creating profound grief for many families. Far too many children have experienced the horrible devastation of Shaken Baby Syndrome. A 2003 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimates that as a result of Shaken Baby Syndrome, an average of 300 U.S. children will die each year, and 600 to 1,200 more will be injured, of whom 2/3 will be infants younger than one. Medical professionals believe that thousands of Shaken Baby Syndrome cases are misdiagnosed or undetected, as many children do not immediately exhibit obvious symptoms after the abuse. Prevention programs can significantly reduce the number of cases of Shaken Baby Syndrome. For example, the upstate New York SBS Prevention Project at Children's Hospital of Buffalo has used a simple video to educate new parents before they leave the hospital, reducing the number of shaken baby incidents in the area by nearly 50 percent. In Connecticut, a multifaceted prevention approach involving hospitals, schools, childcare providers, and community-based organizations in awareness and training activities, including home visits and targeted outreach, has raised awareness and encouraged prevention across the state. Hospitals in many states educate new parents about the dangers of shaking a baby, yet it is estimated that less than 60 percent of parents of newborns receive information about the dangers of shaking a baby. Without more outreach, education, and training, the risk of Shaken Baby Syndrome will persist. With the introduction of the Shaken Baby Syndrome Prevention Act of 2010, I hope to reduce the number of children injured or killed by abusive head trauma, and ultimately to eliminate Shaken Baby Syndrome. Our initiative provides for the creation of a public health campaign, including development of a National Action Plan to identify effective, evidence-based strategies for prevention and awareness of SBS, and establishment of a cross-disciplinary advisory council to help coordinate national efforts. The campaign will educate the general public, parents, child care providers, health care professionals and others about the dangers of shaking, as well as healthy preventative approaches for frustrated parents and caregivers coping with a crying or fussy infant. The legislation ensures support for families who have been affected by SBS, and for families and caregivers struggling with infant crying, through a 24-hour hotline and an informational website. All of these activities are to be implemented through the coordination of existing programs and/or the establishment of new efforts, to bring together the best in current prevention, awareness and education practices to be expanded into areas in need. Awareness is absolutely critical to prevention. Families, professionals and caregivers responsible for infants and young children and must learn about the dangers of violent shaking and abusive impacts to the head. Additionally, this bill will include a study to identify the current data collected on Shaken Baby Syndrome and examine the feasibility of collecting uniform, accurate data from all states regarding the incidence rates of Shaken Baby Syndrome, the characteristics of perpetrators, and the characteristics of victims. It is my hope that having this information will enable us to better reach those who may be at risk for Shaken Baby Syndrome and, thus, prevent Shaken Baby Syndrome. On behalf of the victims of Shaken Baby Syndrome, including Cynthia Gibbs from New York, Hannah Juceum from California, Sarah Donohue from New York, Kierra Harrison from Nevada, Miranda Raymond from Pennsylvania, Taylor Rogers from Illinois, Cassandra Castens from Arizona, Gabriela Poole from Florida, Amber Stone from New York, Bennett Sandwell from Missouri, Jamison Carmichael from Florida, Margaret Dittman from Texas, Dalton Fish from Indiana, Stephen Siegfried from Texas, Kaden Isings from Washington, Joseph Wells from Texas, Dawson Rath from Pennsylvania, Macie McCarty from Minnesota, Jake Belisle from Maine, Benjamin Zentz from Michigan, Chloe Salazar from New Mexico, Madison Musser of Oklahoma, Daniel Carbajal from Texas, Nykkole Becker from Minnesota, Gianna D'Alessio from Rhode Island, Brynn Ackley from Washington, Rachael Kang from Texas, John Sprague from Maryland, Ryan Sanders from Virginia, David Sedlet from California, Reagan Johnson from Virginia, Skipper Lithco from New York, Brittney Sheets from New York, Madilyne Wentz from Missouri, Nicolette Klinker from Colorado, Brianna Moore from West Virginia, Shania Maria from Massachusetts, Dayton Jones from Pennsylvania, Breanna Sherer from California, Evelyn Biondo from New York, Kenneth Hardy from Pennsylvania, Alexis Vazquez from Florida, Joshua True from Washington, Stephen David from California, Michael Blair from Arkansas, Olivia Thomas from Ohio, Kaleb Schwade from Florida, Aiden Jenkins from Pennsylvania, Isabella Clark from Pennsylvania, Aaron Cherry from Texas, Dominic Morelock from Ohio, Emmy Cole from Maine, Chelsea Forant from Massachusetts, Joshua Cross from Ohio, Gavin Calloway from Maryland, Christopher Daughtrey from North Carolina, McKynzee Goin from Oregon, Bryce McCormick from Florida, and many other innocent lives lost or damaged, I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that this legislation becomes law so that we can expand efforts to eradicate Shaken Baby Syndrome.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Shaken Baby Syndrome Prevention Act of 2010, important legislation that promotes awareness and prevention of Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma, a devastating form of child abuse that results in the severe injury, disability or death of hundreds of children each year. Child abuse and neglect is a well-documented tragedy for some of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, NCANDS, 794,000 children were victims of abuse and neglect in 2007. Babies are particularly vulnerable; in 2007, children aged 12 months or younger accounted for nearly 40 percent of all child abuse and neglect fatalities and children aged 4 years and younger accounted for almost 77 percent. Yet even these disturbing statistics may not paint an accurate picture; most experts agree that child abuse is widely under reported. Abusive head trauma, including Shaken Baby Syndrome, is the leading cause of death of physically abused children, in particular for infants younger than one. When a frustrated caregiver loses control and violently shakes a baby or impacts the baby's head, the trauma can kill the child or cause severe injuries, including loss of vision, loss of hearing, brain damage, paralysis, and/or seizures, resulting in lifelong disabilities and creating profound grief for many families. Far too many children have experienced the horrible devastation of Shaken Baby Syndrome. A 2003 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimates that as a result of Shaken Baby Syndrome, an average of 300 U.S. children will die each year, and 600 to 1,200 more will be injured, of whom 2/3 will be infants younger than one. Medical professionals believe that thousands of Shaken Baby Syndrome cases are misdiagnosed or undetected, as many children do not immediately exhibit obvious symptoms after the abuse. Prevention programs can significantly reduce the number of cases of Shaken Baby Syndrome. For example, the upstate New York SBS Prevention Project at Children's Hospital of Buffalo has used a simple video to educate new parents before they leave the hospital, reducing the number of shaken baby incidents in the area by nearly 50 percent. In Connecticut, a multifaceted prevention approach involving hospitals, schools, childcare providers, and community-based organizations in awareness and training activities, including home visits and targeted outreach, has raised awareness and encouraged prevention across the state. Hospitals in many states educate new parents about the dangers of shaking a baby, yet it is estimated that less than 60 percent of parents of newborns receive information about the dangers of shaking a baby. Without more outreach, education, and training, the risk of Shaken Baby Syndrome will persist. With the introduction of the Shaken Baby Syndrome Prevention Act of 2010, I hope to reduce the number of children injured or killed by abusive head trauma, and ultimately to eliminate Shaken Baby Syndrome. Our initiative provides for the creation of a public health campaign, including development of a National Action Plan to identify effective, evidence-based strategies for prevention and awareness of SBS, and establishment of a cross-disciplinary advisory council to help coordinate national efforts. The campaign will educate the general public, parents, child care providers, health care professionals and others about the dangers of shaking, as well as healthy preventative approaches for frustrated parents and caregivers coping with a crying or fussy infant. The legislation ensures support for families who have been affected by SBS, and for families and caregivers struggling with infant crying, through a 24-hour hotline and an informational website. All of these activities are to be implemented through the coordination of existing programs and/or the establishment of new efforts, to bring together the best in current prevention, awareness and education practices to be expanded into areas in need. Awareness is absolutely critical to prevention. Families, professionals and caregivers responsible for infants and young children and must learn about the dangers of violent shaking and abusive impacts to the head. Additionally, this bill will include a study to identify the current data collected on Shaken Baby Syndrome and examine the feasibility of collecting uniform, accurate data from all states regarding the incidence rates of Shaken Baby Syndrome, the characteristics of perpetrators, and the characteristics of victims. It is my hope that having this information will enable us to better reach those who may be at risk for Shaken Baby Syndrome and, thus, prevent Shaken Baby Syndrome. On behalf of the victims of Shaken Baby Syndrome, including Cynthia Gibbs from New York, Hannah Juceum from California, Sarah Donohue from New York, Kierra Harrison from Nevada, Miranda Raymond from Pennsylvania, Taylor Rogers from Illinois, Cassandra Castens from Arizona, Gabriela Poole from Florida, Amber Stone from New York, Bennett Sandwell from Missouri, Jamison Carmichael from Florida, Margaret Dittman from Texas, Dalton Fish from Indiana, Stephen Siegfried from Texas, Kaden Isings from Washington, Joseph Wells from Texas, Dawson Rath from Pennsylvania, Macie McCarty from Minnesota, Jake Belisle from Maine, Benjamin Zentz from Michigan, Chloe Salazar from New Mexico, Madison Musser of Oklahoma, Daniel Carbajal from Texas, Nykkole Becker from Minnesota, Gianna D'Alessio from Rhode Island, Brynn Ackley from Washington, Rachael Kang from Texas, John Sprague from Maryland, Ryan Sanders from Virginia, David Sedlet from California, Reagan Johnson from Virginia, Skipper Lithco from New York, Brittney Sheets from New York, Madilyne Wentz from Missouri, Nicolette Klinker from Colorado, Brianna Moore from West Virginia, Shania Maria from Massachusetts, Dayton Jones from Pennsylvania, Breanna Sherer from California, Evelyn Biondo from New York, Kenneth Hardy from Pennsylvania, Alexis Vazquez from Florida, Joshua True from Washington, Stephen David from California, Michael Blair from Arkansas, Olivia Thomas from Ohio, Kaleb Schwade from Florida, Aiden Jenkins from Pennsylvania, Isabella Clark from Pennsylvania, Aaron Cherry from Texas, Dominic Morelock from Ohio, Emmy Cole from Maine, Chelsea Forant from Massachusetts, Joshua Cross from Ohio, Gavin Calloway from Maryland, Christopher Daughtrey from North Carolina, McKynzee Goin from Oregon, Bryce McCormick from Florida, and many other innocent lives lost or damaged, I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that this legislation becomes law so that we can expand efforts to eradicate Shaken Baby Syndrome.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first I wanted to say a few words to welcome our new colleague, Scott Brown, who has joined our ranks as a Member of the Senate from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I wasn't able to be here at 5 p.m. when he was sworn into office, but I wish him the very best. I had a good conversation with him a couple weeks ago after his election and look forward to serving with him. I rise this evening to honor a good friend and a legendary public servant. Although he only served here a short time, Paul Kirk has been a public servant for decades. I wish to tell him and his wife Gail and their family what a remarkable contribution in a few short weeks Paul Kirk has made as a Member of the Senate. Paul is an American who will never get the kind of attention he deserves for the rich life of public service he has led throughout his career. That won't bother him one bit because that is who Paul Kirk is. For over half a century, he has been motivated not by a desire to seek recognition or to receive it but by a passion for progress and a deep love of his own country. Paul came to Washington last fall with the impossible task of succeeding our dear friend Ted Kennedy as Senator from Massachusetts. Paul did so not in the hopes of filling Teddy's shoes but in continuing to blaze the path forward that Ted Kennedy forged more than four decades ago when he arrived as a new Member of this body. As a U.S. Senator, Paul Kirk has served the Commonwealth with great dignity and humility. Although he was only among our ranks for a few short months, all of us will miss him in this Chamber. He left such a good and lasting impression of his service. Paul's time here is just one of many roles he has played in service to our Nation and our democracy. In 1965, many years ago, Paul Kirk entered public service as an assistant district attorney in Massachusetts. But it wasn't long before Paul's story became intertwined with the Kennedy family in Massachusetts. In 1968, Paul worked on Robert Kennedy's Presidential campaign, and the very next year he joined the Senate staff of Bob's brother Ted. Thus began the kind of a partnership that has moved mountains throughout our history. As a Senate staffer, the political director of Teddy's Presidential campaign, and the chairman of our own Democratic Party, Paul served alongside Ted Kennedy as Teddy and his remarkable staff over those four decades fought battle after battle on behalf of the American people. Paul has always understood the importance and power of the American story. That is why he has served for a decade as chairman of the National Democratic Institute of International Affairs, working to spread and support democracy around the world so that every nation could know what it is to be truly free. And he has worked to strengthen our own democracy as well, as the longtime cochairman of the Commission on Presidential Debates. As we all know, Paul Kirk is a very proud Democrat, but he is even prouder as an American. In an age when it seems as if partisanship can overwhelm even our most fundamental Democratic values, Paul Kirk has stood for fair play and open debate for decades. Many Americans first met Paul Kirk after Teddy passed away, when Paul so elegantly conducted that remarkable memorial service at the Kennedy Library in Boston. They saw in him the passion that led him to join Ted Kennedy in the cause of progress and also the quiet dignity of a man for whom the work would go on, even after the passing of his very dear friend. As a U.S. Senator, they have seen him take up the torch of issues that mattered to Teddy and to the people of Massachusetts and to the American people, none more important, of course, or dear to Paul's heart than the fight to reform our health care system, a fight that will have to continue in his absence. Paul has been assisted in this difficult job by a core of public servants, the names of whom are unfamiliar to most and the likes of which we might not see again, the staff he inherited from Ted Kennedy. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican--I say this to new Members-- the older Members of this Chamber, Democrats and Republicans, will tell you that to know the Kennedy staff was to respect how talented and professional that staff was, how fairly they treated every Member of this body and every staff member. It was the core reason for their success legislatively, because they had such respect for individual Members, the staff who works here, and for the ideas people brought to the debate. They too, of course, deserve our appreciation and recognition as well. I congratulate Senator Scott Brown and welcome him to this Chamber. It is a remarkable opportunity he will have to represent the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I look forward to working with him in the coming days and weeks. Senator Brown comes to fill a seat from which great things have been done for the people of Massachusetts and our country. I think there might be no greater compliment I can pay to the man whom we welcomed last year than to say to Senator Brown: We wish you the very best in filling Ted Kennedy's shoes and Paul Kirk's shoes as well. To my friend Paul, I thank you for your service, not just the service you performed in this Chamber but a lifetime of service you have given to our country and the many more years of service I know you will be able to provide. To his wife Gail, I thank you for sharing your husband with the country over these past months. I wish you all the best as you look forward as well to the future. To our colleagues who have come to know Paul's decency and professionalism, I urge we follow his example, not just in dogged pursuit of good legislation that moves our country forward but in the effort to make this Chamber a place where good ideas and good conscience can once again trump pettiness and partisanship. Let us be guided in our work not just by Teddy's passion but by the selfless spirit of service that has made Paul Kirk such a fine U.S. Senator and a very good American. I thank Paul for his service. I said to him the other day that my only regret is that he hasn't been able to serve here a longer time because I think he would have made a remarkable contribution to our country. He did in a short time, but I have a feeling that had he been here for a number of years, the country would be a better place today. It already is because of his service. It could have been even better. I wish him the very best. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. That is fine. I know the Senator from North Dakota had asked to be heard.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I believe there are some Members who are coming. Absent someone walking in the door, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally allocated to both sides.

Mr. DODD. How much time remains?

Mr. DODD. I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from Vermont. He has been very strong on this issue, and I want to give him as much time as I can.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. DODD. Totally?

Mr. DODD. I will use the 3 minutes, and I will inquire of my friend and colleague from Alabama, at what point are we going to conclude this debate?

Mr. DODD. Let me go ahead. I will assume we will probably wrap up the debate with 3 minutes remaining. We have a diversity of opinions, including from Paul Krugman, who is known as a more progressive economist, in favor of this nomination, although and albeit he has certain caveats he expressed about the nominee, Ben Bernanke; the Washington Post; and others as well. Warren Buffett was asked on CNBC about this nomination and he said: All I can say is, if you are going to turn him down, let me know a day or two in advance because I would like to sell off some stock. They asked him why, and he said because he believed the message to the markets would be a devastating one. The one thing about the Federal Reserve--and there are legitimate complaints about the Federal Reserve System--but what we don't need is for short-term politics to become the vehicle by which we decide Fed policy. The independence of the Fed has been a critical component for stability in our economy. I happen to believe--despite being the chair of the Banking Committee for all of 2007, as the Presiding Officer knows, I could not get the attention of the previous administration, including the Federal Reserve, about the mortgage crisis in our country. We had 12 hearings, the first of which was on February 7, 2007, on this subject matter alone. So if I were going to decide my vote on this nominee on that basis, I would vote against Ben Bernanke because, frankly, it was a failure by the previous administration early on not to understand the gravity of this situation. But I can't make my decision solely on that. The fact is, as I said earlier, we have had a leader in the Federal Reserve over the last year and a half who virtually saved our economy from a predictable collapse had he not been there. Beginning in the fall of last year, when a group of us were in the room of the Speaker of the House, Democrats and Republicans, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve warned us, if we failed to act in a number of days, the entire financial system in this country and a good part of the world would melt down, to give an exact quote. I don't need to tell my colleagues that was sort of the economic equivalence of a 9/11 moment, when we were warned by the most important central banker in the world what could happen if we didn't act. As a result of Ben Bernanke's leadership, as well as others--people such as Judd Gregg, Bob Corker, Chuck Schumer, who worked on this, the leadership in the House--we were able to put together a terribly unpopular package, but 75 of us on that night in this Chamber voted for that very difficult proposition, to avoid the kind of catastrophe that would have happened. There are very few people I think who would have had the ability, the creativity, the imagination, and the courage to come up with these ideas. Ben Bernanke did. So as a result, we are in far better shape today. However, we are far from out of the woods. We have a foreclosure problem that is still huge. We have commercial problems that are coming along that are going to be massive. If we don't have a Chairman of the Federal Reserve but only an Acting Chairman, I don't know what that means--and particularly the individuals who helped to create the very imaginative vehicles that allowed us to come out of this problem. To have him walk away and find the Federal Reserve, this important central bank, without leadership at this critical moment, I think would be beyond shameful. It would be the height of irresponsibility. As Democrats and Republicans, the previous administration offered this nomination. Many of us supported it. We need to come together, at least in moments such as this, not to abandon our country over partisan politics or ideology and failing to understand that if there need to be reforms in the Fed, let's reform them, but let's not walk away from an importantly critical individual who has made a difference in our economy and our Nation. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to terminate this filibuster--vote to end that--and then vote to confirm Ben Bernanke as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. I have been told I can speak until 3:20, but I will not take up all the time. As I said a moment ago, this is one of those moments where we need to step back and recognize the danger of our actions. This is not just a free vote. I know some people would prefer--they have the right to vote--to vote against the guy but hope he gets confirmed. That may work, but it is dangerously precarious. If we don't have 60 votes to end this filibuster, and if we don't produce the votes to confirm him, then I think this Congress, this body, regretfully, will have to bear the responsibility of abandoning the very people and situations we talk about today--jobs, the housing market, getting our economy back on its feet again--and anticipate the kind of reaction we will see in the markets and elsewhere, setting us back weeks, if not months or years, in our ability to get through this fragile period and allowing the hopes and aspirations and the confidence of the American people to grow. I know it is an awful lot to stake the future of all that on just a nomination, but this is not some Assistant Under Secretary of some other agency. It is the central bank Chairman of the most central bank in the world. It is a critically important component in us continuing our path of economic recovery. We will bear the collective responsibility of failing to meet that obligation if we walk away from this obligation by either continuing this filibuster or defeating this nominee. So I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans--there is enough to battle about on how we are going to deal with these issues in the coming weeks, but on this matter let us send a message to the American people that we understand their frustrations, their worries, and we are doing everything we can to get us back on track again. Witness the President's remarks last evening. You have a laser-like focus on the economy and job creation in our country. Don't make that effort fail because we send a message to our markets and the world that we cannot confirm an individual who saved us from an economic catastrophe in our country. I urge my colleagues to pass the cloture motion to end debate and then, of course, to confirm Ben Bernanke as chairman of the Federal Reserve. With that, I yield back the remainder of the time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, today we consider important legislation to confront a serious threat to the security of the U.S., of our close ally Israel, and of our other allies in the Middle East and Europe--the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. This is one of the most serious foreign policy challenges facing the United States today. Before we move forward on this measure, let me outline briefly where we have been. In 2008, after careful consideration, the Banking Committee reported out a bipartisan bill to put pressure on the Iranian regime to come clean on its nuclear program, and end its illicit nuclear activities. Unfortunately, that bill never was considered on the Senate floor because of the obstruction of a handful of Senators. In recent months, all of us have been deeply troubled to see the Iranian regime violently punishing its own citizens for pressing for fair elections. And we have watched with growing concern the activities of the leaders of this troubled regime, including the continuing repression of their people, their deception about the previously secret nuclear enrichment facility at Qom, and their more recent threats to expand substantially Iran's uranium enrichment activity, in defiance of the demands of the international community and the U.N. Security Council. Last fall, the committee held additional hearings, where we considered the views of a wide range of outside witnesses, and relevant administration officials, on policy options toward Iran. Senator Shelby and I then worked with our committee colleagues to craft a comprehensive, bipartisan bill that was reported out of the Banking Committee unanimously in late October, by a vote of 23-0. The bill is comprehensive, and includes tougher sanctions; provisions which enable divestment by States and local governments from firms working in Iran's energy sector; and measures to combat the black market diversion of sensitive technology to Iran. On December 15, the House acted to approve overwhelmingly a more limited package of sanctions. I am pleased we will be able to finally act today on this comprehensive measure, also with the overwhelming support of this body. Madam President, when he took office, President Obama adopted a two- track policy of engagement backed by the prospect of further sanctions, and I have supported his approach. He has worked tirelessly with our allies to try to bring Iran's leaders to the table to negotiate an end to their illicit nuclear activities or, failing that, to impose a range of new sanctions in hopes of changing Iran's behavior through more coercive diplomatic efforts. Our legislation strengthens what has come to be known as the ``pressure track.'' Today we must send a clear signal to Iran's leaders that if they continue to defy the will of the international community, our Nation and other nations are prepared to confront them with tough new sanctions. I believe that the administration shares this conviction and applaud their work with our allies to develop multilateral agreements on a powerful new set of sanctions, should ongoing diplomatic efforts toward Iran fall short. We must convince Iran's leaders that they face a clear choice. They can end the suppression of their people, come clean on their nuclear program, suspend enrichment, and stop supporting terrorists around the world. Or they can face sustained, progressively intensifying multilateral economic and diplomatic pressure--including tougher sanctions--and deepen their international isolation. And if they continue to refuse, they will then face the unilateral sanctions contained in this bill. Our approach acknowledges the gross human rights abuses that Iran's people continue to suffer at the hands of Iran's security forces and the widening chasm that has opened between the regime and the people of Iran, as we witnessed again recently in the violent reaction of security forces to peaceful demonstrations. It contains a number of important human rights provisions, including Senator Schumer's measure to impose a sweeping ban on U.S. Govemment contracts on companies which provide communications monitoring or jamming technology to the government of Iran. Iran has reportedly expanded its monitoring and suppression activities, employing them widely again this month. This bill makes clear that those who help Iran's government to suppress the everyday speech and internet communications of its people will be punished. That same point was made in the resolution adopted by the Senate just before Christmas, which I cosponsored, expressing our support for the human rights of the Iranian people. Senator McCain has also raised with me today the prospect of his offering some additional human rights language, and I intend to work with him as we move toward conference on that issue. Our bill also takes direct aim at Iran's illicit nuclear activities. It is clear that Iran's leaders are beginning to feel the heat of increased international pressure and the specter of biting sanctions, but more must be done. Following its public disclosure, Tehran has provided international inspectors with access to the nuclear site at Qum, but has taken other steps to limit cooperation with the IAEA. Iran's government had committed to sending most of its low-enriched uranium abroad for processing for medical purposes in October, but now rejects that approach and has decided to further provoke the international community by expanding its enrichment activities. I suspect that only the prospect of intensified, sustained pressure by a coalition of countries will prompt these leaders to reconsider their position. In order to maximize that pressure, just as we did last year, we have incorporated a number of ideas from our Senate colleagues into one committee bill. Senators Bayh, Lieberman, and Kyl proposed penalties on companies that support Iran's import of refined petroleum products or bolster its domestic capacity. Senators Brownback and Casey proposed authorizing state and local governments to divest from companies involved in critical business with Iran. As I mentioned, Senator Schumer proposed banning government contracts to firms that provide technology used by the Iranian regime to monitor or disrupt communications of its citizens with one another and the outside world. Senator Menendez proposed targeting sanctions against Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, its affiliates and front organizations for supporting terrorism and contributing to proliferation, and Senator Johanns pressed for renewed targeting of Iran's proxy Hezbollah in the same way. Senator Bunning urged tighter reporting requirements on sanctions. In addition, we have incorporated our own proposals to tighten our trade embargo, enhance Treasury's mandate to freeze assets tied to terrorism and proliferation, crack down on the black market export of technology to the regime, expand the scope of other sanctions, and take other measures. Madam President, instead of finalizing the preliminary agreement on low-enriched uranium struck between Iranian negotiators and the P5 + 1 group in October, Iran's leadership now appears to have definitively rejected that offer, and has continued a pattern of belligerent behavior that is almost certain to result in tougher sanctions being imposed soon. While some have argued that increased economic sanctions are unlikely to change the behavior of Iran's leaders, I believe a comprehensive approach coordinated with our allies--including the Europeans, moderate Arab states throughout the Middle East, India, and Russia and China who hold great sway with Iran's leaders--must contain a tough sanctions component if it is to succeed. I recognize that sanctions alone are not sufficient, and that multilateral sanctions are likely to be more effective than those we impose unilaterally. Sanctions must be used as effective leverage, undertaken as part of a coherent, coordinated, comprehensive diplomatic and political strategy which tips the scale such that it is more beneficial for Iran to forswear its nuclear weapons ambitions and other behaviors that are undermining regional peace and stability. We have worked closely with administration officials as we developed and refined this measure. They support much of what is in the bill. Even so, I recognize there are still some lingering concerns. Before we left for the holidays, the State Department sent a letter to Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Kerry, describing some of these concerns. They sought a general exemption from sanctions for companies from countries that are closely cooperating with the U.S. on multilateral efforts on Iran, a mechanism which could provide an additional incentive for certain countries to work with us on imposing tougher sanctions. I am open to discussing such an incentive mechanism as we move toward conference, as long as it would contain strict criteria for the President to make a determination about what, precisely, constitutes ``close cooperation.'' There have been a number of discussions in recent weeks on how to craft such an exception, and we have made some progress. There are diplomatic efforts underway, led by the U.S. and others, to achieve a united approach at the U.N. Security Council on sanctions. I believe we can come to some agreement with the other body, and with the administration, on the remaining issues on this bill. I know that the administration shares our belief that we must augment current economic sanctions, and will continue to work with us on an appropriate mix of pressure tools as this process moves forward and the final version of the bill is developed. Madam President, ultimately, I expect that different layers of additional sanctions--from the U.N. Security Council, from a U.S.-led coalition of like-minded allies, and unilaterally from the U.S.--may prove necessary if we are to actually have a powerful effect on Iran's behavior. And even then there are no guarantees that they will be persuaded to reverse course. I hope our legislation will complement and reinforce ongoing diplomatic efforts, and send a clear signal to Iran's leaders of what is in store if they continue to flout the will of the international community. I am grateful to Senator Shelby and all of my colleagues on the Banking Committee, and those off the committee who have worked so hard in recent months to ensure that ours is a smart, targeted, yet comprehensive approach to Iran policy. Overwhelming Senate support for passage of this bill will send a clear signal of our resolve to bring an end to Iran's illicit nuclear activities, as the President continues to build a broad coalition of nations who share our concerns about Iran, and who are willing to join with us in imposing a tough, comprehensive regime of new sanctions. I know there are still some differences to be worked out with the House version, which is less comprehensive, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to develop a final version that will enjoy broad bipartisan support within both bodies, and the support of the President, as soon as possible. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Arizona, Senator John McCain, to reintroduce legislation on an issue we have worked on together for over a decade. The Blind Persons Return to Work Act of 2010 will renove disincentives to work for blind individuals in the Social Security Disability Insurance, SSDI, program. Removal of these barriers will facilitate the transition of blind Americans from SSDI to income-earning, taxpaying, productive members of the American workforce. Today there are over 1.3 million Americans who are legally blind and an estimated 10 million Americans with visual impairments. The Americans with Disabilities Act and advances in technology have eliminated many barriers for blind individuals. Today blind individuals are employed in nearly every type of job and profession. They lead businesses and governments. Time and again, they have proven they are more than capable. Yet, societal misperceptions, attitudes, and barriers persist. Unfortunately, more than 70 percent of working-age blind individuals remain unemployed. This is an enormous untapped resource of skills and talents for our country, and it is simply unacceptable. One thing is clear: blind individuals want to work. I don't know how you put a price tag on the personal value of work. The dignity it provides is priceless. There are many challenges to increasing the employment rate of blind individuals. However, one common sense step we should take is to correct unintended disincentives and barriers within our SSDI program. Within the SSDI program are earnings limits for beneficiaries. Historically, there was a longstanding linkage between the treatment of earnings for blind individuals and seniors. In 1996, Congress passed the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act. This legislation was adopted to encourage seniors to continue working later in life. While it significantly reduced restrictions on earnings for seniors, it created disparities for individuals who are blind. My friend from Arizona and I have worked tirelessly since then to correct this issue of fairness. The Blind Persons Return to Work Act will replace the monthly earnings limit for individuals who are blind with a gradual phase-out, allowing blind individuals to systematically replace benefits with earned income. Under the current system, if a blind person earns just one single dollar over the limit, they lose their entire SSDI benefit. Clearly, this is a drastic reduction in income and disincentive to work and earn to the fullest potential. Instead of this ``cash cliff,'' our legislation will gradually reduce benefits by $1 for every $3 earned over the limit. It also establishes annual versus monthly earnings tests and a standard deduction for impairment-related work expenses, changes that will reduce administrative burdens for both blind individuals and the Social Security Administration. As we work to turn our economy around, the Federal Government should do everything within its power to support all Americans in returning to work. I urge my colleagues to join us in sponsoring this common sense approach of removing barriers to employment for blind Americans.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Arizona, Senator John McCain, to reintroduce legislation on an issue we have worked on together for over a decade. The Blind Persons Return to Work Act of 2010 will renove disincentives to work for blind individuals in the Social Security Disability Insurance, SSDI, program. Removal of these barriers will facilitate the transition of blind Americans from SSDI to income-earning, taxpaying, productive members of the American workforce. Today there are over 1.3 million Americans who are legally blind and an estimated 10 million Americans with visual impairments. The Americans with Disabilities Act and advances in technology have eliminated many barriers for blind individuals. Today blind individuals are employed in nearly every type of job and profession. They lead businesses and governments. Time and again, they have proven they are more than capable. Yet, societal misperceptions, attitudes, and barriers persist. Unfortunately, more than 70 percent of working-age blind individuals remain unemployed. This is an enormous untapped resource of skills and talents for our country, and it is simply unacceptable. One thing is clear: blind individuals want to work. I don't know how you put a price tag on the personal value of work. The dignity it provides is priceless. There are many challenges to increasing the employment rate of blind individuals. However, one common sense step we should take is to correct unintended disincentives and barriers within our SSDI program. Within the SSDI program are earnings limits for beneficiaries. Historically, there was a longstanding linkage between the treatment of earnings for blind individuals and seniors. In 1996, Congress passed the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act. This legislation was adopted to encourage seniors to continue working later in life. While it significantly reduced restrictions on earnings for seniors, it created disparities for individuals who are blind. My friend from Arizona and I have worked tirelessly since then to correct this issue of fairness. The Blind Persons Return to Work Act will replace the monthly earnings limit for individuals who are blind with a gradual phase-out, allowing blind individuals to systematically replace benefits with earned income. Under the current system, if a blind person earns just one single dollar over the limit, they lose their entire SSDI benefit. Clearly, this is a drastic reduction in income and disincentive to work and earn to the fullest potential. Instead of this ``cash cliff,'' our legislation will gradually reduce benefits by $1 for every $3 earned over the limit. It also establishes annual versus monthly earnings tests and a standard deduction for impairment-related work expenses, changes that will reduce administrative burdens for both blind individuals and the Social Security Administration. As we work to turn our economy around, the Federal Government should do everything within its power to support all Americans in returning to work. I urge my colleagues to join us in sponsoring this common sense approach of removing barriers to employment for blind Americans.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer. I have two subject matters I wish to address. One is the amendment of my friend and colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, that he has just addressed in his remarks, and a second set of remarks regarding Haiti that I also want to address. I chair the subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee dealing with the Western Hemisphere and, obviously, includes the nation of Haiti, as well as served as a Peace Corps volunteer some 40 years ago on the island of Hispaniola on the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. So aside from the interest we all have in what has happened to the thousands of Haitians as a result of this catastrophic earthquake that has occurred, I have many friends in that country, some of whom I have not heard from in the last week or so, who are lost at this point. I want to address some thoughts on that subject matter as well. But I want to, first of all, if I can, address the subject matter of the Thune amendment which will be voted on, I gather, at some point either today or tomorrow, whenever that is going to be dealt with here. Let me begin by, first of all, thanking my colleague from South Dakota. I applaud him for saying that while it was a controversial debate a year ago last fall on whether to have an emergency economic stabilization program, I remember the night that we all gathered here and sat at our desks in this Chamber and voted 75 to 24 on whether to commit as much as potentially $700 billion in order to stabilize our financial institutions and move forward. It was a courageous vote that a number of our colleagues took that day, many of whom were up for reelection within a matter of days after that vote, and yet cast ballots in favor of it despite the tremendous outpouring of anger over the fact that we were in those economic circumstances to begin with, and that, secondly, we might be committing as much of American taxpayer money to stabilize our financial institutions. I happen to believe, and I think history is proving to be so, that we made the right choice that evening; that even though it was a painful vote, had we not stabilized those financial institutions, I firmly believe we would be looking at a far more catastrophic set of economic problems both here and around the globe had we not acted. So while those resources have gone to large financial institutions and to major organizations because that is what was needed to be done, there is an understandable degree of anger and frustration being expressed by our fellow citizenry because people on Main Street, average citizens, have suffered terribly during this process. There was a point not many months ago where 20,000 jobs a day were being lost in our Nation; 14,000 people a day were losing their health care; 10,000 people a day were losing their homes in the United States to foreclosure. So the American people have suffered terribly as a result of this economic crisis. But we needed to take those steps. As a result, today, while the news is still far from good, in most corners of this country we are stabilizing an economic crisis. We avoided a depression which we were on the brink of falling into had we not taken that action. So I want to commend my colleague from South Dakota for recognizing the value of that decision. Now he points out with a chart--it is not up here any longer--the fact that there is about $320 billion which remains unexpended as a result of that decision. The good news is that we crafted that bill that required two separate votes--an initial one for the $350 billion, and then around January of this year--or last year, excuse me--the additional $350 billion would be appropriated and spent. As a result of the good news we have avoided having to expend all of those resources. As a result, there is actually money coming back in. We have now recouped about $165 billion of the original money that was spent, including over $13 billion in fees and interest payments that were earned back by the Federal Government as a result of those decisions. We all hope the full amount will be recovered. There will be an opportunity in the coming days for all of us to vote on whether we ought to ask those large financial institutions, which were the beneficiary of taxpayer assistance, whether they are going to vote for a fee or a tax, if you will, over a limited number of years on those recipients of billions of dollars of American taxpayer money, to pay that back through fees and taxes. I hope my colleagues will be supportive of the initiative offered by President Obama in recent days. But the issue before us is whether we ought to shut all of this program down, the remaining $320 billion that is there. I want to remind my colleagues what the administration has suggested, and I believe all of us have embraced, is that small businesses and our community banks in this country are struggling. I do not recall a day over the last number of months when I have not heard a speech on the Senate floor of this Chamber where a Member has not gotten up and talked about what is happening in the absence of credit flowing to smaller businesses in their States, or that community banks in their States are failing because the economy has not reached them, the improving economy. What the administration has suggested, and I strongly support, as I believe most of us do, is that we need to get assistance and support to these smaller businesses and to these community banks in order that they can survive and get on their feet, and credit will flow where it is not flowing today. The administration has sent a letter committing to limit the use of these dollars to mitigating foreclosures, which is still serious; support for small banks so they can lend to their communities; facilitate small business lending; and address the deepening crisis in the commercial mortgage banks. Those are the four obligations we are talking about. It is not unlimited. It is not all for ideas that may be floating around here that have little or no merit. It is specifically the areas in which we all know we need to provide help. We can do this one of two ways. We can do it by appropriating additional money, which goes right to the heart of the argument of my colleague and friend from South Dakota. We cannot afford to do that. Again, the deficits are growing larger by the hour, and to appropriate additional money at a time like this would be very difficult if not unwise in many cases. Or we can take resources we have already appropriated that are not being spent, that could be used exactly for the purposes that are needed for our economy to get moving again. In a sense it is a catch-22. Our economy is only going to improve if small business starts hiring again, community banks start flowing credit again, and we minimize the foreclosure problem. How do you do it? It doesn't happen magically. It happens because we make intelligent decisions. A year and a half ago, when we voted for the economic stabilization bill, the problem in front of us was the stabilization of financial institutions. So the resources were going to be limited for that purpose. We thought we might need $700 billion. The good news is, we haven't needed that amount and a substantial amount of the money is coming back in. There remains this pool of $320 billion in that fund. Wouldn't it make sense if, in fact, we are trying to get this economy moving again, to take some of those resources and make it available to small businesses, to community banks to flow credit so they can actually hire people and grow again, to minimize foreclosures? That is what is needed to be done. We can do it one way or the other, but we can't do it by just talking about it. I beseech my colleagues at this juncture not to vote in favor of this amendment which would deprive us of resources in order to do the things that all of us agree need to be done. I know my friends, most of them here, are not going to be voting for a program that requires additional appropriations for the very argument the author of the amendment has made. We can't afford to do it. If we are not going to do that--and yet we are simultaneously saying we need to do these things in order to get us out of this hole, where average businesses and workers on Main Street in the country can be the beneficiary of some of this help to get our economy moving--where does it come from? Where are the resources going to come from? Why not take some of these resources and dedicate them to exactly the purposes that have been identified by the administration and recommended by Members of this body, both Republicans and Democrats? If you support the Thune amendment, you deprive us of that opportunity. That is it. The only alternative left, then, is to go through an appropriations process, which we are being told by our friends over here they will not support. Again, what happens is a lot of rhetoric, a lot of talk. After all the help that has gone to the major Wall Street institutions, at the very hour we ought to be trying to help Main Street institutions, these smaller banks, smaller businesses, we will not have the resources to do it. I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about this. While this program has been terribly unpopular for all the reasons we have heard from others, at this critical moment, at a time when we could make such a difference, when falling back into a recession again could happen very easily, a deeper recession, at this very hour to deprive the administration, the Congress, the people who care so much about community banks and small businesses, I think would be a huge mistake. I urge colleagues to reject the Thune amendment. Again, the commitments have been made. These resources go to one of four areas, primarily to community banks to get credit flowing and to small business but also to mitigate foreclosures and to address the deepening crisis in commercial mortgage loans which is there. We have a pool of resources to respond to it. My hope is, all these dollars will be paid back with interest, as I think there is some evidence as we have seen already may, in fact, occur. But we need to continue on this path, if we are going to succeed in our efforts, watching optimism and confidence be restored to Main Street in America. This is one opportunity for us to do it, to get this job done. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Thune amendment for all the reasons we have in the past. This is not a new amendment. It has been offered in the past. It has been rejected by colleagues for many of the same reasons I have tried to articulate this afternoon. The arguments haven't changed. What has is the dedication of these resources exactly to the areas that so many of us have talked about over the last number of months. I urge rejection of that amendment. Haiti Mr. President, I wish to speak to the subject matter of Haiti and the events of the last week that have occurred in that country. My interest in the subject matter is not any different than that of every single person who has watched with horror the photographs and pictures, the stories of the tragedy that has afflicted that poor, desperate country that occupies one-third of the island of Hispaniola. I bring an added personal attention to it because I have many friends, many of them I have known for 40 years, in the island nation of Haiti. I have been there on numerous occasions over the years, in addition to my first introduction to Haiti at 22 years of age as a Peace Corps volunteer, when I was sent to a small village on the border of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, in 1966, some 40 years ago. My interest and my friendships go back a long time. I am deeply concerned and worried about what is occurring there and what steps we might take as a nation, in conjunction with others, to provide some help to a people who are in desperate need. I rise to discuss the tragic situation, the humanitarian disaster that has occurred in the wake of last week's earthquake, and the U.S.- led response to this crisis. Last Tuesday, as we all know, as the world knows, one of the largest earthquakes recorded in the area hit about 15 miles from the capital city of Port-au-Prince in Haiti. This massive earthquake brought immediate destruction to Port-au-Prince and surrounding areas and communities, instantly crumbling houses and buildings, destroying roads, seaports, cutting power and water lines throughout the country. Most tragically, the earthquake has killed tens of thousands of Haitians who, at the time the quake struck, were simply going about their daily lives--desperate lives, I might add, but daily lives. The Government of Haiti has indicated they believe 70,000 of their fellow citizens have been killed in this earthquake. Other officials fear the death toll may be as high or more than 200,000 people as a result of those brief moments that caused that nation state to crumble. These heart-wrenching numbers do not even account for those injured who are homeless, the orphaned without food, water, shelter or any kind of medicine. The losses extend well beyond Haitians. The United States also lost a dedicated public servant named Victoria DeLong, who was serving as cultural affairs officer at our Embassy in Port-au-Prince. Several more Americans have been killed and many more remain unaccounted for a week later. The United Nations, no stranger to dangerous and difficult missions, has suffered its single greatest loss of life in the history of the United Nations. Over 100 United Nations staffers and peacekeepers remain unaccounted for. The special representative for Haiti, Hedi Annibi, also lost his life. On behalf of my colleagues in the Senate, I extend our heartfelt condolences to the friends and the families of those who lost their lives in Haiti. They should know they are in our thoughts and prayers every single minute of every day. This earthquake has been called a disaster of epic proportions. When such a disaster strikes one of our neighbors, a country so close to many of us, our Nation responds, as have others. I applaud President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Administrator Shah for their immediate, robust, and coordinated efforts, which has truly been a whole-of- government response, utilizing resources, skills, expertise of our State Department, USAID, and the Defense Department. Secretary Gates deserves great commendation. Our forces in uniform that poured into the area on a moment's notice to help out, as they always do, deserve particular recognition in this effort. We have deployed thousands of troops to Haiti who are supporting operations at the Port-au-Prince airport, working to provide logistical support, open the port. The United States has sent an aircraft carrier with numerous helicopters to deliver aid to otherwise hard-to-reach places in and around Port-au- Prince, a hospital ship to provide lifesaving medical care, and urban search and rescue teams and doctors to help rescue those trapped and treat those who are injured. In addition to manpower, the United States has pledged money and supplies, including water, ready-to-eat meals, and medicine to help those in need. This response has demonstrated the generosity and spirit of the American people, especially when it comes to helping others who are in desperate need, as clearly Haiti is. The American people have also responded, as we always do. It is a source of great pride to all of us to watch our fellow citizens, people whose names we will never know, the donations which they have given may not sound like much; but for people who have lost a job, lost a home, as I talked about a moment ago, during this economic crisis, to reach deep into these almost empty pockets to send that $1 or $5 or $10 to help out some family they will never know, some child they will never meet in a place they may never go to, may never have known about before is, once again, a demonstration of the spirit and heart of our fellow citizens in the United States. Aid agencies and NGOs have reported an outpouring of support as our fellow citizens have donated money, clothing, and supplies to hundreds of organizations that operate in Haiti today. These donations are absolutely critical at this time. At a time when we can't seem to decide on a bipartisan basis what day of the week it is, to watch President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush, two people who have been political opposites, have very different points of view, sitting down together as two former leaders of our Nation to head the effort to provide relief to Haiti is a demonstration of what we ought to be doing together here on occasions that affect our own citizenry. If two former combatants in the Presidential field can sit down and become a team in responding to a crisis in Haiti, it ought to be a lesson about what we need to be doing when it comes to our own crises here at home. I commend President Clinton and President George W. Bush for their tremendous work. I commend President Bush's father, who joined with President Clinton back when the tsunami crisis hit Southeast Asia. The Bush family has always responded at times such as this. Both father and son deserve our thanks and commendation for what they have done. Of course, Bill Clinton has dedicated his post-Presidency period to a global initiative to help out every single day in places that are not the subject of news stories, as Haiti is. He, of course, deserves our expression of gratitude as well. The international community has responded. Over 27 international search-and-rescue teams, with some 1,500 rescuers from around the world, are already on the ground in Port-au-Prince and neighboring communities, searching through the rubble to find those who may have survived. I know all of us sit in absolute stunned admiration for those who have survived 6 and 7 days, living in the midst of rubble, to be discovered alive and be extracted by rescue workers. Our only hope in these waning hours, is that we will find additional people who have somehow miraculously have survived this disaster. It has been unbelievable. Relief workers, doctors, supplies have arrived from China, Israel, Iceland, Brazil, France, more countries than I can enumerate. The European Union has pledged over $\1/2\ billion in assistance already, and I suspect more will be forthcoming. Despite its own tragic losses, the United Nations has come to the rescue of the Haitian people. The United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti has responded heroically to this disaster, organizing supply convoys, conducting search-and-rescue missions, and providing security. On Saturday, the World Food Program fed 40,000 people. Within the next week or two, that number will increase to 2 million. Private organizations are also doing heroic and valued work, including the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, Save the Children, Partners in Health. Let me say, particularly on Partners in Health, my great friend, Paul Farmer, who spent years in Haiti as he has in other nations working with HIV/AIDS and other issues, is there, as you might expect, in Haiti. I have spoken to him. He has many needs, as you might imagination. He needs orthopedic surgeons, trauma specialists, skilled nurses, supplies. My hope is, in these coming days, coming hours, we will be able to get those resources to him. On the ground, the Obama administration and the international community are working as quickly as possible to distribute aid to those in need and to help clear the jam of supplies arriving in Port-au- Prince and Cape Haitian, in some cases, in the northern part of the country. It is critical that aid gets distributed beyond the immediate confines of the airport. Those who survived the quake are now trying to survive, once again, without food and water and medicine and shelter. At the same time, we must work as quickly as possible to ensure that violence does not break out as people become desperate to survive, as one might expect under these circumstances. The people of Haiti are our neighbors, and it is our duty to help them weather this storm, as others are doing as well. I strongly agree with Secretary Clinton who, during her trip to Haiti this past Saturday, affirmed to the Haitian people that ``we will be here today, tomorrow, and for the time ahead'' as well. I wish to take a few minutes to describe what I believe needs to happen at this ``time ahead'' of us that Secretary Clinton referred to. These are not all the suggestions. I know many others are coming in, and we need to think about how we can intelligently respond to this. We can't do it all alone. We need help from the international community, obviously. But there are some steps we can take that I think would make some difference in all this. In order to do that, we must understand where Haiti was the day before the earthquake struck. Despite its location only a few hundred miles from the wealthiest Nation in the history of mankind, Haiti is one of the poorest nations on the face of this Earth. It ranks as the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, with 80 percent of the population living under the poverty lines of this hemisphere. While recent years showed some positive trends in economic growth, the 2008 hurricanes devastated that country, causing widespread destruction and severely damaging the agriculture sector, upon which two-thirds of all Haitians depend. Remittances to Haiti represented more than twice the earnings from exports and accounted for one-quarter of the gross domestic product of that nation. Haiti has also one of the lowest life expectancies in the world. The average Haitian income is less than $1 a day. In terms of income, less than $1 a day. Clearly, Haiti had a lot of ground to cover before this earthquake struck, and rebuilding Haiti is not going to be easy for anyone. Many have debated why Haiti remains so poor and what can be done to alleviate poverty, improve public health outcomes, and help that nation develop a sustainable and equitable way forward. This debate is all the more important and necessary as we move forward. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and as an American who knows and cares about Haiti, having worked with the people of Haiti and its leaders for much of my career, I am committed to finding the best solutions to these vexing problems and to working in close coordination with the administration, the United Nations, and our neighbors in the region, including Brazil, Mexico, and others who are already there helping to rebuild Haiti. I might mention, there are 400 physicians from the island of Cuba who are operating in Haiti today, down there trying to make a difference. Whatever thoughts people have about the Government of Cuba, the fact is, there are doctors there now from that nation that is only a few miles from the northern parts of Haiti who are now trying to save lives. As we begin to transition from a rescue mission to a medium- and long-term recovery mission, we must think creatively and allocate resources to the most effective and efficient methods for sustainable reconstruction and development. We must find ways to make Haitian agriculture better equipped to feed the people of Haiti, and we must work to forgive Haitian debt. In April of this past year, Haiti was added to the IMF and World Bank's list of what is called the Heavily Indebted Poor Country Initiative making them eligible for special assistance with debt relief. This is an auspicious start, and one we must build upon. Public insecurity has long been a systemic problem, hampering economic growth. Therefore, it is critical we work with the Haitian authorities in that nation and others to build and reform the institutions to bolster the rule of law in Haiti that will be necessary to lift Haitians out of poverty, rebuild the country and attract and maintain foreign direct investment to jump-start that nation's economy. Throughout this process, we must not get bogged down by old formulas and hardened ways of doing business as usual. We must think outside the box, as the expression goes, marshal the necessary resources and creativity of our friends in the region, and the Haitian people must devise and be a part of a medium- and long-term strategy for this effort. To that end, Senator Lugar of Indiana, the former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I will be introducing legislation shortly that will help to speed Haiti's recovery by instructing the Secretary of the Treasury to work with other nations to totally relieve Haiti of their outstanding international debt, including the debt incurred through 2011. That ought to be something every nation agrees to do; in the absence of which, I do not know how you can ever talk about economic recovery if you are willing to require a country that does not even have a fully functioning government today to meet those obligations. Additionally, our legislation will help to spur economic activity, which is absolutely essential if we are going to have any kind of recovery process. We will do so by promoting trade between the United States and Haiti and lifting restrictions that would be barriers to trade being able to flow between Haiti and the United States, putting people to work. The Haitian people have endured immeasurable suffering in recent days, but their spirit is indomitable. On Sunday, countless ordinary Haitians came together to observe Mass amid the bleak ruins of Port-au- Prince. Their faith in each other and their future may have been tested, but it is far from broken. I stand committed--as I am sure our colleagues throughout this Chamber are as well--to working with them, our fellow citizens here at home, and the international community, not just today but in the weeks and months and even years ahead, to ensure that our commitment to helping Haiti recover is meaningful, sustainable, and rises to the great challenge we face. With that, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank the majority leader for all of his help in trying to move this legislation forward. This comprehensive sanctions legislation would arm the administration with critical tools to apply additional pressure on the Iranian regime and disrupt its proliferation and terrorist activities at a pivotal time--a time when Iran's leaders continue to flaunt the will of the international community, trample on the rights of its own people, and threaten the national interests of the United States and our strongest allies, including Israel. It is now clearer than ever that tougher sanctions must be a key element of our comprehensive Iran strategy going forward. My primary goal with this bill is to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability. That is why this measure passed the Senate Banking Committee unanimously in October, and I had hoped that we would be able to consider it in the Senate and move toward a conference with the House before we went out for the holidays. While I would have strongly preferred that, I recognize that given the delays on health care reform, we will not now have time to do that. I am also aware that the administration continues to have some concerns about how to create incentives in the bill for countries to cooperate more closely with U.S. efforts to impose tough new multilateral sanctions. I believe we have made some progress in our discussions of recent days, and I am grateful that the majority leader has indicated his willingness to move forward on the bill as soon as possible after we return.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to mark the passing and honor the service of Marine CPL Xhacob LaTorre of Waterbury, CT. Corporal LaTorre died this week of wounds he sustained from a roadside bomb while on patrol in Afghanistan's Helmand province. He would have celebrated his 22nd birthday last Saturday. Corporal LaTorre graduated from Crosby High School where he was active in the ROTC program. A born leader, he joined the Marine Corps in 2005. He was on his third tour of duty, having served two tours in Iraq and was awarded a good conduct citation and a Purple Heart. In his too short time, Corporal LaTorre proved himself as a soldier and a patriot. The bravery and dedication he showed as a marine, however, was just one side of his personality. To his friends and family, Xhacob will be remembered as an outgoing and energetic young man with a kind heart, a penchant for mischief, and an infectious sense of humor. As a young boy, Xhacob earned pocket money by going from table to table at a restaurant, charming patrons and earning a dollar for each joke he told. That young boy grew into a man of integrity and courage. His service and his sacrifice are a credit to his parents, Daniel and Nicole. I know how proud they are of him, and I hope they know that we grieve alongside them. They, along with Xhacob's wife, Frances, and his young son, Javier, are in our hearts. It may seem at times a sad irony that our best and brightest young men and women are the ones who go into battle and sometimes do not come home, having given their lives in service to their country. But that is what keeps our Nation strong and free. All of us in Connecticut and across America mourn the loss of CPL Xhacob LaTorre. And none of us will ever forget the debt of gratitude we owe to him and his family. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the attached articles.

Mr. DODD

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