Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes, if I can, to express my thanks first to Majority Leader Reid and the leadership team for all they have done to bring us to a final vote later this evening on the effort to extend unemployment insurance to jobless Americans as well as to provide tax credits for homebuyers and allow more businesses to utilize the net operating loss carry back. I thank the leadership for it. I want to also thank Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee, who was responsible for putting this all together, and his staff who worked very hard. I presume they did so in conjunction with Senator Grassley, the ranking member of that committee. I know it took some time. I regret it took as long as it did to get the extension of unemployment insurance. As I am sure Members have heard over the last few weeks, every day we delayed in providing some relief to people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, 7,000 people were losing their unemployment insurance. Again, all of us know people within our communities, our neighborhoods, and our States who have lost their jobs as a result of the tremendous downturn in our economy. These people are trying to pay mortgages, literally put food on the table and provide for their families. Unemployment insurance has been absolutely critical over the years. This is not the first time, obviously, we have had an extension. It has traditionally been a bipartisan effort. Republican and Democratic administrations have agreed to provide these extensions. This one, unfortunately, took too long, in my view, to put in place, given the depth of this recession, given the fact that so many people have now fallen outside of the employment picture. I know the numbers people talked about are anywhere from 8 to 15 percent unemployment rates, depending upon where you live. I don't think those numbers are anywhere near close to reflecting what is going on. If you asked me candidly what the unemployment rate is in this country, I think it hovers closer to 20 percent since an awful lot of people are so discouraged they have stopped looking because the economy has been that bad. So this extension of benefits is absolutely essential. But extending unemployment benefits means in effect there is simply not enough job creation in the economy. That gets me to the second part of this bill and that is the homebuyer's tax credit. I see my friend from Georgia who has arrived on the floor. It is perfect timing, because I was about to talk about him. He was the principal author a number of months ago of the first-time home buyer tax credit that was included as part of the Recovery Act. That provision authored by Johnny Isakson of Georgia which I was pleased to support has been used by almost 2 million people. That provision is about to run out by the end of this month. As a result of his efforts these past few weeks--and I am pleased once more to be his partner in this effort--we have been able to extend that benefit to the first-time home buyer. But we have done something beyond that, which Johnny Isakson has talked about over the many weeks he and I have talked and that is to expand it to the move-up buyer. That is that person who literally moves up from the house they are in to that new house. That family may have grown--a couple of additional children--and they are able to move up into that next category. This bill now provides not only the benefit to the first-time home buyer but to that move-up home buyer as well. 70 percent of existing homeowners today can potentially qualify for this move-up buyer credit. That is going to be a tremendous benefit, in my view. The credit is still $8,000 for the first-time home buyer, but now move-up buyers can claim a credit up to $6,500. You have to have an income, if you are a single person, of $125,000 or less; if you are joint filers, $225,000 or less. There is a cap on the home price of $800,000 or less. Move-up buyers have to have lived in their current home for at least 5 years. And all home buyers, first-time or move-up, have to be prepared to stay in their new home for 3 years. This credit cannot be used by investors. We also included a lot of anti-fraud provisions. Again, I am confident my friend from Georgia has made this point: The first-time buyer traditionally is someone who has saved just enough to get into that first home. As I think Senator Isakson said, they are probably sleeping on futons and eating a lot of Lean Cuisine or other things just to survive in that new house. They are so excited to be in there, and sacrificed tremendously to get into that first home they dreamed about having. The move-up buyer is more inclined and capable of buying that furniture, maybe building a porch, putting a garage on, a new roof on the house and generally making improvements. So the ripple effect economically from that move-up buyer is going to be a real benefit. The first-time home buyer obviously helps, but being able to actually make those kinds of investments I think is going to be help create jobs in this country. It is not going to solve all our problems, but it is going to help get people working again: the home builders, employees at home improvement and hardware stores, landscapers, contractors, people in the real estate business, those kinds of jobs that can make a difference. So I am pleased we are extending unemployment insurance, but I am also very pleased we are doing this on the homebuyer tax credit because it does provide some economic lift in the country at a time when we desperately need to restore confidence and optimism. We have a way to go, obviously, before we start feeling that level of confidence and optimism that was present before the current downturn. But in most recessions our country has been in, real estate has been at the heart of it, and the recoveries from our recessions have been led by the real estate sector of our economy. If this recession is typical of other recessions, real estate will help our economy to come out of this downturn. It is not the only factor but it is a major factor in recovery. This extension will run to next spring, at a critical time of real estate sales in our Nation. I can't begin to thank my colleague from Georgia enough for his tireless efforts in this arena. This is how it ought to be, by the way. This is the way we are supposed to do business around here, where we come together, listen to each other's ideas, and then try to work it so our colleagues will appreciate the effort that has been made and try to make a difference in our country. I thank my friend from Georgia for his leadership once again on this issue. But for him, I don't think this would have happened. You can't always say that about every bill. A lot of people were involved in this issue. But I would say to my colleagues, had it not been for Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia, I don't think we would be where we are today. On behalf of my constituents in the State of Connecticut, your first-time home buyer provision, which I was pleased to join in, will likely help 10,000 home owners in my State. I don't know what the number will be as a result of this provision, but it is going to make a difference to families in Connecticut, so we thank the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. DODD. I yield.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague and, as I said earlier, I thank Senator Reid and Senator Baucus and their staffs as well for allowing us to come to this moment. It is a good day for our country. I thank my colleague again, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of the Global Child Survival Act of 2009, which I introduced earlier this week along with Senators Corker and Durbin. I do so in the hopes that the United States will take these important steps towards living up to its obligation as the world's wealthiest nation. Ours is a moral obligation, of course; reducing mortality rates for children in developing areas of the world is within our grasp. We--we in this very body--have the power to save millions of innocent and vulnerable lives. Ours is also a literal obligation. As part of the Millennium Development Goals, the United States has made an explicit commitment-- along with 188 other nations--to doing its part to reach this goal. To date, we have made significant progress and improved the lives of tens of thousands of individuals. But unless we bring to bear the full force of our knowledge, our creativity, our compassion, and our commitment to implementing effective strategies, we will ultimately fail to keep our promise to millions around the world who need us. I can't accept that. Not when nearly 9 million children under the age of five die every year--more than 24,000 every day. That is a number equal to the population of South Windsor, CT, dying every day--mostly from preventable and treatable causes like pneumonia, diarrhea, malaria, and sepsis. Not when nearly 4 million newborns every year die in the first 4 weeks of life. Not when 2.5 million children die each year from diseases for which vaccines are readily available. Not when it is clear that simply by living up to the commitments we have already made, to say nothing of furthering our commitments, we could save so many lives so easily. This is a moral imperative. But it is also a strategic imperative. The state of a country's public health is inextricably linked to its security. Poor health systems around the world represent a danger to America. Last year, the Director of National Intelligence reported as follows: Chronic, non-communicable diseases; neglected tropical diseases; maternal and child mortality; malnutrition; sanitation and access to clean water; and availability of basic health-care also affect the US national interest through their impacts on the economies, governments, and militaries of key countries and regions. Countries with high child and maternal mortality are inherently less stable and more prone to violence. The consequences of failing to live up to our commitments under the Millennium Development Goals will be felt around the world. These goals are not beyond our reach. Already, the increased distribution of simply technologies like mosquito nets and basic vaccinations has reduced child mortality to its lowest level since we began keeping track of the statistics in 1960. Simple efforts like distributing bed nets and micronutrients are saving 10,000 children a day. But our success to date is not an excuse for complacency going forward. There is more we can do. We could save 1.4 million newborns by encouraging exclusive breast feeding for the first 6 months of life. We could cut in half newborn mortality and reduce maternal mortality simply by providing basic childbirth assistance--things like clean equipment and trained attendants. If we make simple remedies like oral rehydration therapy for diarrhea and antibiotics for respiratory infections available in accordance with the Millennium Development Goals, we could cut the child mortality rate by two-thirds, saving nearly 6 million lives a year. The legislation requires the administration to develop and implement a strategy to improve the health of, and reduce mortality rates among, newborns and children in developing countries. It supports effective, life-saving programs to provide children and mothers with basic minerals and vitamins that we daily take for granted, and it takes on the scourge of easily treatable and preventable diseases such as pneumonia and cholera. It empowers young girls by helping them get good educations, and protects them from abusive practices such as female genital cutting. It establishes a task force to monitor and evaluate the progress of government agencies responsible for ensuring that we meet our commitment to the Millennium Development Goals. It puts Congress on record as supporting innovative intervention strategies--from community based health centers to ready-to-use food therapies. It authorizes the President to put our money where our intentions are. Finally, this bill makes an important statement at a pivotal time. We are close to reaching a key milestone on the road to achieving our Millennium Development Goals in 2015. This legislation will put the Senate on record supporting robust child survival health programs as the international community redoubles its efforts to achieve these goals and prepares for the 2010 G8 and G20 summit in Canada, where child survival and maternal health will be a major priority for the assembled nations. It doesn't cost a lot to save a life. Children in developing countries die of diarrhea every day--but the oral rehydration therapy needed to treat it costs just 54 cents. Children die of respiratory infections--but the treatment is just 71 cents. The United States does a lot to combat child mortality. We have devoted more than $6 billion to child survival programs over the past 20 years. It has worked. But we can do more. We have committed to do more. We must do more. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort, which has already garnered bipartisan support. Millions of lives hang in the balance. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, before I get to the substance of my remarks, let me comment briefly, if I can, on the comments of my colleague and friend from Utah, Senator Bennett. He has been an invaluable Member when it comes to these issues of economics in our country. His background and experience has brought a wealth of talent to this institution at some very critical moments. I want my colleagues to know, as the new chairman of the Banking Committee after the election of 2006, I happened to have been in the position of being asked to manage a situation that began, as many will recall, back in September of last year. September 18 is a date which will be forever emblazoned in my mind and memory. It was on that evening that a small group of us were asked to gather in the office of the Speaker of the House, where Chairman Bernanke of the Federal Reserve Bank and Secretary Paulson, the Secretary of the Treasury, announced to us that we had a matter of days to act as a Congress or we would face a meltdown of our financial system in this country and elsewhere. In some ways, it was the economic equivalent to 9/11. It took all the oxygen out of the room, I can tell you. I was sitting next to Dick Shelby, my friend from Alabama. As I say, there were about 10 or 12 of us in that room that evening who received that message. Within 2 weeks, from September 18 to the end of the month, we ended up voting here on the floor that night--we all sat in our chairs, as we do on rare occasions when there is a moment of significant import. Every single Member cast a ballot from their seat. I knew that evening, by the way, as I listened to the call of the roll, that there were several of our colleagues here who were 40 days away from the election, and that probably they were going to lose their seats if they supported the proposal. And they did. But they did what I thought was the courageous and right thing to do. And 74 people voted that night in favor of it; 25 against. Our colleague from Massachusetts was not here that evening, Ted Kennedy. There were 99 Senators. As long as I live, I will never forget that vote that evening because I think it is what the Founders sort of had in mind. We recall--those of us who were here, I am sure my friend from Florida remembers, it made the townhall meetings pale by comparison--the reaction over those 2 weeks across the Nation. There will be historians who debate the wisdom of the specifics of the bill. But I recall with great clarity the morning my friend from Utah just described, with about five of us in the room, and that was S-116, one floor down from where we stand this evening. We met to try and fashion together something on a bipartisan basis that we could present to our colleagues and the administration and others that would incorporate the protections we thought we could pull together in a space of days to respond to this, and with the necessary resources. Bob Bennett was the author, as I recall, who insisted we break up this proposal into two parts so we would have a chance to evaluate the success of it. I think it was a remarkable and very valuable suggestion that contributed significantly to the outcome of that vote. It also offered those an opportunity at a later date to determine whether to proceed with it. There were differences of opinion about that, and, again, historians will debate this. But the people of this country ought to know that a guy named Bob Bennett from the State of Utah, along with several others, played a role which I think helped save our country at a critical moment. We have a lot of disagreements around here. I am a Democrat from New England. He is a Republican from Utah, although, as he well knows, my wife's family is from Utah, so I have some Utah connections. But it was one of those moments where I think Americans would like to think we can act around here when a crisis occurs. While we differ and disagree on a lot of issues, as he knows, despite our friendship--as long as I live, in the years I have served here, that morning, that occasion, and the events that followed in the short days afterwards, I think, helped keep this country on a stable footing and we avoided the kind of depression and collapse that could have occurred. I did not intend to speak about this, but since he addressed the issue--I have kept a lot of notes about those 2 weeks. I have copious notes, almost 500 pages of them, that describe the events of those 2 weeks in great detail because I was involved in every meeting and every drafting session. So I can tell you down to every dotted ``i'' and crossed ``t'' what happened during those 2 weeks. It was a moment of great import, and I thank my friend from Utah for his contribution to all of that. Madam President, I want to address the issue of the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act. I am sorry we are still here debating this. This legislation was introduced nearly 3 weeks ago, and twice the adoption of this bill has been stopped, despite overwhelming support. Yesterday 87 of us voted to get us one step closer to extending unemployment benefits. We all would prefer to be talking about how we can get people back to work than extending benefits. It would be far better for the Nation if we could talk about what we are doing to create jobs. But in the interim, while we have not created as many jobs as we would like, providing benefits is crucial. Let me take a moment to add that we would not be here at all without the work of our colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, who has championed this issue over the last month or so as a new Member. We are neighbors in New England, but she speaks for the country when she talks about the importance of this issue and what a difference it has made in the lives of families, as they struggle to keep their homes and provide the necessary resources for their children and others. As part of this effort--and I know there is some debate--I wanted to also recognize my colleague and friend from Georgia, Johnny Isakson. The two of us have been working, as many of my colleagues know, on a proposal to extend and expand the first-time home buyer tax credit. Senator Isakson has been the leader on this issue. I commend him for it, and I want to thank him and his staff for their work to get this extension before the credit runs out on November 30. Already we have seen the impact of this credit on jump-starting the housing sector. Sales of existing homes rose 9.4 percent in September--the highest level in 2 years. Extending this credit, in our view, temporarily through the slowest housing sales months would help maintain the recovery. The great fear everyone has is that without swift action these good signals we have been getting--and while certainly not a recovery yet, they are an indication we may be heading now in the right direction-- will stall during these critical cold months, and the winter months are difficult months for the housing sector. I think inaction would be a great mistake. This legislation he and I have authored would extend the current credit through the spring, increase the income limitations, and provide a slightly smaller credit to the so-called move-up market--not just first-time home buyers, but the move-up market--helping to make more than 70 percent of current home buyers eligible for this credit. I want to stress, as my colleague from Georgia has on numerous occasions, including during a hearing I held only a few days ago of the Senate Banking Committee--where he testified eloquently, I might add, that this tax credit needs to be temporary. Democrats and Republicans on the committees, I think, were deeply impressed with how knowledgeable Johnny Isakson is about real estate issues. He spent more than three decades in the business and knows it well, and he impressed, I think, all of us with his knowledge of this industry and what a critical component it is of our economy. That aspect he advocated for, as I mentioned before, is that the effectiveness of this credit depends on it being temporary, which it is. That will encourage, we believe, prospective home buyers to buy that home now--those who are thinking about it. Extending it continuously would not. I want to indicate to my colleagues that this credit should remain temporary and not become a tax extender that we extend year after year after year after year, as we do in certain other areas of our economy. But neither the unemployed nor prospective home buyers will be helped by stalling on the speedy passage of this legislation. Every night for 3 weeks now--going back to the unemployment compensation issue--we have gone home and not had to worry about how we are going to make those mortgage payments or feed our families. We are Senators, and so we have these jobs that provide us with more than a decent income, and we never have to feel that gnawing worry about whether there is going to be enough money to allow us to keep our homes or to see to it that our families are going to have the basic necessities they need. Every night--every night--7,000 more Americans in our Nation have exhausted their unemployment benefits. So for 3 weeks--7,000 people a day have had their jobless benefits run out. They do not have jobs. They do not have benefits to help them. These are hard-working people who contribute to our economy and contribute to our country, their families, and their neighborhoods. They have been good providers. And because of a collapsing economy--which they did not create--they find themselves in the dire circumstances where they are unable to meet those obligations at home. Over the years I have been in this body, we have come together during critical moments like this--never quite as serious as this one--and have extended those benefits to people because we know how important it is to them. We have been able to come together to get it done. Yet now, for nearly 3 weeks, we have been stalled in our effort to provide needed relief. I mentioned early we provided relief for the banks, $700 billion in relief, in less time than it is taking us to provide relief to jobless workers. That is what Bob Bennett and I were doing. We had a crisis in the country. So we worked on the legislation for 2 weeks. From September 18 to October 1, that is how long it took for us to come together and vote 74 to 25 to provide $700 billion to stabilize the financial institutions in this country. I think we did the right thing. History will debate it. Here we have been nearly 3 weeks and we can't even come up with unemployment compensation for the 7,000 people every day who are losing these benefits. You explain that to the American public. This collapse occurred in our economy not because they did anything wrong, but because they lost their job. Here we are still 3 weeks later dithering about whether we can get some special amendment we would like added that has nothing to do with this issue--ACORN payments or other proposals. I don't question the sincerity of people, but why would they allow that to obstruct an extension of jobless benefits that hundreds of thousands of Americans so desperately need? In total, since playing politics with this issue, 140,000 Americans have exhausted their benefits. That is my math. We know this is important. Last night we had 87 votes to move to the motion to proceed, but here we are running out 30 more hours while another 7,000 people are losing those benefits. So I don't have to tell my colleagues how vital this lifeline is for families back home in their states. They all know it. People can't find work. They need a little help to put food on the table and make ends meet until they can find that job again. Unfortunately, this recession is hitting families in all of our States. According to the National Employment Law Project, nearly 14,500 people in my home State of Connecticut and 400,000 people nationwide have already exhausted all of their unemployment benefits. By the end of the year, that will rise to 20,000 people in my State, 1.4 million people across the country. One of my constituents wrote in desperation the following: I have been without benefits for two months now. I have a family of 5. Every day is a struggle. My husband and I have been looking for work every day. There are no jobs! Something has to change. I ran out of my benefits. Please have someone help not only me, but everyone that is without work. It is not just these people who will suffer when these benefits run out; it will be their children. It will be the local businesses whose customers can't afford to buy their products anymore. It will be the local governments who lose tax revenues that pay the salaries of our policemen and firefighters. We have a good bill that I worked on with Senator Baucus, Senator Reid, and, as I said, Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire, who has been our champion on this issue. Our new freshman Senator from New Hampshire has led the way, and again, her leadership has been invaluable. Madam President, 140,000 people over 3 weeks whose benefits have run out while Republicans have stood in the way of this important legislation, I think, deserve better. We managed to give the banks $700 billion in 2 weeks; we ought to be able to take care of people who are losing their benefits by passing a bill that they need so desperately. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I wish to speak in honor of a good friend and a friend to American cinema, Daniel Melnick, who passed away recently at the age of 77. Those who know Hollywood will remember Daniel as a successful producer of film and television, and as a studio executive who believed in audacity and creativity--a filmmaker's studio executive, if you will. He was a prodigy, becoming the youngest producer at CBS Television at the age of 19, where he worked on such series as the legendary ``Get Smart,'' and producing his first feature film at MGM, the thrilling ``Straw Dogs,'' before he turned 40. Over the next decade, he played a role in the development of films ranging from ``Network'' to ``Kramer vs. Kramer'' to ``The China Syndrome,'' while serving as head of production at both MGM and Columbia. As a film producer, Daniels's credits include ``All That Jazz,'' ``Altered States,'' ``Footloose,'' ``Roxanne,'' and ``L.A. Story.'' Fittingly, his work as a producer was bold and vibrant--just the sort of films he encouraged as a studio executive. In all, Daniel's films were nominated for more than 80 Academy Awards, and won more than two dozen Oscars. I will remember Daniel as a warm, funny, breathtakingly creative friend whose beautiful house in Utah was the site of many wonderful get-togethers. We are poorer for the loss, but richer for all he gave to our country and the arts.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that would freeze interest rates on existing credit card balances until the full protections of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act go into effect in February. It is clear that credit card companies see gouging consumers as a viable means of padding their profits. When they realized that we were serious about ending these abusive practices, they unfortunately decided to make one last grab for the pocketbooks of American consumers before the law goes into effect. Even before the Credit CARD Act passed, I heard from Connecticut residents who had seen their interest rates double or even triple with little warning and no explanation. As the law's implementation approaches, credit card companies have continued to jack up their customers' interest rates to get ahead of provisions in the Credit CARD Act that will permanently prohibit them from arbitrarily raising rates on existing balances. To those of us who have worked to rein in credit card abuses, this greedy behavior is disturbing, although not surprising. But to the families in my home state of Connecticut and around the country who are struggling to make ends meet these days it is something worse. Debt can crush families, driving them into bankruptcy and shattering the financial foundation they have worked so hard to build. It is impossible to get ahead when you're falling further and further behind each month. The anytime, any-reason rate hikes that credit card companies have used to enrich themselves have destroyed too many American families. That is why we took action to stop unjustified rate hikes, and why it is an outrage that credit card companies are trying to jam consumers one last time before our law stops them. I am not about to let this stand. In April, Senator Schumer and I wrote to the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the National Credit Union Administration, calling on them to use their existing authority to implement an emergency freeze on interest rates. The regulators, unfortunately, did not act. Therefore, on behalf of our constituents, we must. This legislation will immediately freeze interest rates to ensure that Americans are protected until the full Credit CARD Act goes into effect. When it does, a provision I included in the legislation will hold credit card companies accountable for their recent behavior. Every 6 months, card companies will be required to review each account that they hit with a rate hike since January 1, 2009, and reduce the rate if the customer has become less of a credit risk or the circumstances that warranted the increase are no longer present. I have directed Federal regulators to notify all credit card companies that they will be required to comply with this provision and to draft regulations that provide clear, strict rules to govern the reviews. Customers that did not deserve to have their rates raised in the first place should not have to be stuck with the higher rate after the Credit CARD Act takes effect. Consumers have a responsibility to spend within their means and to pay what they owe. But credit card companies have a responsibility to deal with their customers honorably. And they most certainly do not have the right to rip off American families, especially when this Congress has already gone on the record opposing those actions. Struggling middle class families won a huge victory when we passed the Credit CARD Act. Let us help them win another by ensuring that the credit card companies' reign of greed does not continue for even the short time before the law is implemented. I urge my colleagues to join me in this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that would freeze interest rates on existing credit card balances until the full protections of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act go into effect in February. It is clear that credit card companies see gouging consumers as a viable means of padding their profits. When they realized that we were serious about ending these abusive practices, they unfortunately decided to make one last grab for the pocketbooks of American consumers before the law goes into effect. Even before the Credit CARD Act passed, I heard from Connecticut residents who had seen their interest rates double or even triple with little warning and no explanation. As the law's implementation approaches, credit card companies have continued to jack up their customers' interest rates to get ahead of provisions in the Credit CARD Act that will permanently prohibit them from arbitrarily raising rates on existing balances. To those of us who have worked to rein in credit card abuses, this greedy behavior is disturbing, although not surprising. But to the families in my home state of Connecticut and around the country who are struggling to make ends meet these days it is something worse. Debt can crush families, driving them into bankruptcy and shattering the financial foundation they have worked so hard to build. It is impossible to get ahead when you're falling further and further behind each month. The anytime, any-reason rate hikes that credit card companies have used to enrich themselves have destroyed too many American families. That is why we took action to stop unjustified rate hikes, and why it is an outrage that credit card companies are trying to jam consumers one last time before our law stops them. I am not about to let this stand. In April, Senator Schumer and I wrote to the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the National Credit Union Administration, calling on them to use their existing authority to implement an emergency freeze on interest rates. The regulators, unfortunately, did not act. Therefore, on behalf of our constituents, we must. This legislation will immediately freeze interest rates to ensure that Americans are protected until the full Credit CARD Act goes into effect. When it does, a provision I included in the legislation will hold credit card companies accountable for their recent behavior. Every 6 months, card companies will be required to review each account that they hit with a rate hike since January 1, 2009, and reduce the rate if the customer has become less of a credit risk or the circumstances that warranted the increase are no longer present. I have directed Federal regulators to notify all credit card companies that they will be required to comply with this provision and to draft regulations that provide clear, strict rules to govern the reviews. Customers that did not deserve to have their rates raised in the first place should not have to be stuck with the higher rate after the Credit CARD Act takes effect. Consumers have a responsibility to spend within their means and to pay what they owe. But credit card companies have a responsibility to deal with their customers honorably. And they most certainly do not have the right to rip off American families, especially when this Congress has already gone on the record opposing those actions. Struggling middle class families won a huge victory when we passed the Credit CARD Act. Let us help them win another by ensuring that the credit card companies' reign of greed does not continue for even the short time before the law is implemented. I urge my colleagues to join me in this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise to speak about the fiscal year 2010 National Defense authorization bill. Although I believe this to be a flawed piece of legislation, I will support it because it provides critical resources, training, and equipment to our troops serving overseas. It adds 30,000 soldiers to our Army, lightening the strain of rigorous deployment cycles. And it provides a 3.4-percent pay raise for our men and women in uniform--not enough, in my view, but welcomed nonetheless. It also authorizes various facility upgrades for our troops, including $9 million to begin construction of an Air Operations Command Center at Bradley International Airport in my State of Connecticut. I commend my colleagues from Michigan and Arizona for their hard work on this bill. I would also like to take a moment to offer my strong support to the hate crimes prevention amendment. I am also proud to be an original cosponsor of the underlying legislation, the Mathew Sheppard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, and I only wish that my dear friend, the late Senator Kennedy, could be here with us today to see this topic that was so important to him, finally be considered for final passage. This legislation is truly historic and is long overdue. Hate crimes sow discord and threaten entire communities. They are a particularly virulent form of violence, and that is why a broad consensus supports reacting to crimes motivated by bias with swift investigations and strong penalties. However, the special nature of hate crimes often makes those investigations particularly difficult, especially for small, local police departments. Passage of the bill before us will bring more criminals to justice by making it easier for the federal government to assist the investigations of more crimes. I am extremely proud to support this provision. Despite my strong support for this important provision and many others in this bill, I also have to note some serious reservations I have with some portions of the bill. First, this bill effectively kills our Nation's most advanced tactical aircraft program, the F-22 Raptor, without any plans for replacing it. Furthermore, it fails to authorize funding for any additional C-17 cargo aircraft, though these planes are critical for transporting troops and equipment. Worse, the bill restricts the Air Force from retiring the aging C-5 cargo fleet, planes that are now some 40 years old. Over the President's objection, this bill forces the Pentagon to maintain aging aircraft, imposing an unnecessary burden on our taxpayers and an unacceptable risk on our troops. I am also disappointed by the inclusion of $560 million for the continued development of the F-136 Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine. This is wasted money, pure and simple. We are already developing an engine that our military supports--one build by the skilled workers at Pratt & Whitney. The Pratt engine has now accumulated more than 140 hours of flight tests without failure. Developing a second engine wastes billions of taxpayer dollars, money that could be better spent on things our troops actually need. So this is not a perfect bill. But there will be an opportunity to address these issues in the upcoming Defense appropriations bill, during whose consideration the critical priorities I have outlined attained bipartisan support. I am optimistic that we will soon be considering legislation that invest in strategic airlift platforms like the C-17, as well as other important military needs. And I remain optimistic that my colleagues share my commitment to our critical aerospace priorities. This bill includes $2.5 billion to build 125 Blackhawk helicopters for the Army and Navy, aircraft that have proven invaluable in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, $92 million is authorized for a highly advanced wide area surveillance radar system, which will be built in Norwalk, CT, and which will prove critical for our forces' future ability to have precise and up-to-date intelligence of the battlefield. Similarly, $250 million is authorized to build new Pratt & Whitney engines for the Joint STARS radar aircraft that are widely used in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill also authorizes 18 F/A-18 fighter aircraft and 30 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, which marks the beginning of a long production run of these sophisticated jets. This is good news for our military and good news for our economy. According to the Department of Labor, ``The aerospace industry is a powerful force within the U.S. economy and one of the nation's most competitive industries in the global marketplace. It contributes over 15 percent to our Gross Domestic Product and supports over 15 million high-quality American jobs.'' And, as I have stated before, my small State of Connecticut, which ranks 29th in the Nation in terms of total population, is 6th in aerospace employment. The workers at companies such as Pratt & Whitney, Hamilton Sundstrand, Sikorsky Aircraft, Goodrich, Norden Systems, Kaman, Aerogear, and hundreds of others work day in and day out to provide our troops with the highest quality equipment in the world. The billions of dollars of funding authorized in this bill is proof of our military's appreciation for their hard work. Just as important as protecting our troops from the skies is protecting them when they are at sea. That is why funding authorized in this bill for the Virginia class submarine program is so important. The bill includes $4 billion to procure one submarine next year and to prepare to begin building two submarines per year in 2011. This boost in production will better equip our Navy to deliver Special Forces such as the SEALs without detection, launch precision missiles on a moment's notice, and intercept enemy signals unseen and unaffected by weather. This bill also authorizes $495 million to design the Ohio class replacement submarine, our next generation ballistic missile submarine. This bill confirms that submarines have and will continue to stealthily protect our country for decades to come. There is no higher priority than our national defense. And the brave men and women who serve us overseas must have the resources they need to do their jobs. I will support this legislation because it does that. But I look forward to working with my colleagues to strengthen our approach to defense policy so that we can address some of the shortcomings of this bill as we consider further legislation in the weeks ahead.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today Senator Ensign and I are submitting a resolution designating October 22, 2009, Lights On Afterschool Day. Lights on Afterschool brings students, parents, educators, lawmakers, and community and business leaders together to celebrate afterschool programs. This year, more than 1 million Americans are expected to attend about 7,500 events designed to raise awareness and support for these much needed programs. In America today, 1 in 4 youth, more than 15 million children, go home alone after the school day ends. This includes more than 40,000 kindergartners and almost 4 million middle school students in grades six to eight. On the other hand, only 8.4 million children, or approximately 15 percent of school-aged children, participate in afterschool programs. An additional 18.5 million would participate if a quality program were available in their community. Lights On Afterschool, a national celebration of afterschool programs, is celebrated every October in communities nationwide to call attention to the importance of afterschool programs for America's children, families and communities. Lights On Afterschool was launched in October 2000 with celebrations in more than 1,200 communities nationwide. The event has grown from 1,200 celebrations in 2001 to more than 7,500 today. This October, 1 million Americans will celebrate Lights On Afterschool. Quality afterschool programs should be available to children in all communities. These programs support working families and prevent kids from being both victims and perpetrators of violent crime. They also help parents in balancing the work and home-life. Quality afterschool programs help to engage students in their communities, and when students are engaged, they are more successful in their educational endeavors. In our work on the Senate Afterschool Caucus, Senator Ensign and I have been working for more than 5 years to impress upon our colleagues the importance of afterschool programming. It is our hope that they will join us on October 22 to celebrate the importance of afterschool programs in their communities back home.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fairness and Accountability in Receiving Overdraft Coverage Act, The FAIR Overdraft Coverage Act. The FAIR Overdraft Coverage Act will rein in abusive fees, give customers greater choice, and bring greater transparency to overdraft coverage programs. For too long, some in the financial services industry have gotten rich by taking advantage of consumers. Earlier this year, in a 90-5 vote, this body passed legislation to crack down on credit card companies who were charging excessive fees and indiscriminately raising customers' rates. Those practices were wrong, and I was proud to lead the charge to put a stop to them. Today, I hope to rally my colleagues' support to curtail another abusive practice: overdraft fees. Let me be clear, people have a responsibility to spend within their means. However, too often, banks take advantage of their customers under the guise of providing the ``service'' of overdraft protection, a service that the customer may not want and may not even know has been applied to his or her account. The Financial Times recently reported that banks stand to collect a record $38.5 billion in overdraft fees this year. According to the Center for Responsible Lending, nearly $1 billion of that will come from young adults. Another $4.5 billion will come from senior citizens like Mario Livieri of Branford, Connecticut. Mario is a 75-year-old retired homebuilder who accidentally overdrew his account by approximately $2, and was charged $35 by his bank. The bank took several days to notify him that the account was overdrawn, and in the meantime, he made three additional minor purchases for which he was charged three additional $35 fees--a total of $140. When Mario protested, the bank waived one of the four $35 charges. They told him there was nothing more he could do to fight the fees, because this practice was perfectly legal. Mario Livieri is no longer a customer at that bank, and this prevalent practice should no longer be perfectly legal. Slow-walking notifications to consumers when their accounts are overdrawn is just one way in which banks try to run up the score on overdraft fees. Sometimes, they even re-arrange the order in which they process your purchases, charging you for a later, larger purchase first and then they charge you repeated overdraft fees for earlier, smaller purchases. Worst of all, so-called ``overdraft protection'' is often added to customers'' accounts without their permission, or even their knowledge. Customers who don't know that this feature is attached to their accounts think their purchases will just be denied if they don't have sufficient money in their accounts. Instead, their depository institutions will let these purchases go through and charge a $35 flat fee for each purchase that overdrafts the account--no matter how small the purchase. And there generally is no limit on the number of fees that a customer can be charged in a single day. That is just wrong. Families in my State of Connecticut and across the country are already struggling to make ends meet--and these unfair and excessive charges are making it even harder. Over the past few weeks, I've worked with consumer groups and listened to folks like Mario who have been the victims of these abusive practices. Those discussions resulted in the bill I present to you today. Here is how the bill works. First and foremost, no consumer should be enrolled in a program like this without their knowledge. My bill will establish an opt-in rule for overdraft protection for ATM and debit transactions so that customers will have to consent before they can be charged an overdraft coverage fee. You will recall that the credit card bill we passed earlier this year had a similar approach to over-the-limit fees. If you do choose to opt into an overdraft coverage program, the bill will limit the number of overdraft fees banks can charge you--one per month, and no more than six per year. And that fee will be required to be proportional to the cost of processing the overdraft--no more $40 charges for $2 cups of coffee. My legislation will also put a stop to the practice of manipulating the order in which transactions are posted, and require banks to warn customers if they are about to overdraw their account, giving them a chance to cancel the transaction. Finally, it will require banks to notify customers promptly when they've overdrawn an account--through a means the customer chooses, from e- mail to text message to letter--so that they can quickly restore their balance and avoid unnecessary fees. Abusive overdraft policies are unfair, and the banks know it. After it came out in the press that I was working on this legislation, a few of the big banks took steps towards responsible reform. We will see whether these few are truly committed to reform. America's consumers deserve better--and this legislation will make sure they won't continue to be victims of greedy banks looking to line their pockets at the expense of hard-working families. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senators Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Jack Reed, Sherrod Brown, Carl Levin, Jeff Merkley, and Robert Menendez in support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous Consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fairness and Accountability in Receiving Overdraft Coverage Act, The FAIR Overdraft Coverage Act. The FAIR Overdraft Coverage Act will rein in abusive fees, give customers greater choice, and bring greater transparency to overdraft coverage programs. For too long, some in the financial services industry have gotten rich by taking advantage of consumers. Earlier this year, in a 90-5 vote, this body passed legislation to crack down on credit card companies who were charging excessive fees and indiscriminately raising customers' rates. Those practices were wrong, and I was proud to lead the charge to put a stop to them. Today, I hope to rally my colleagues' support to curtail another abusive practice: overdraft fees. Let me be clear, people have a responsibility to spend within their means. However, too often, banks take advantage of their customers under the guise of providing the ``service'' of overdraft protection, a service that the customer may not want and may not even know has been applied to his or her account. The Financial Times recently reported that banks stand to collect a record $38.5 billion in overdraft fees this year. According to the Center for Responsible Lending, nearly $1 billion of that will come from young adults. Another $4.5 billion will come from senior citizens like Mario Livieri of Branford, Connecticut. Mario is a 75-year-old retired homebuilder who accidentally overdrew his account by approximately $2, and was charged $35 by his bank. The bank took several days to notify him that the account was overdrawn, and in the meantime, he made three additional minor purchases for which he was charged three additional $35 fees--a total of $140. When Mario protested, the bank waived one of the four $35 charges. They told him there was nothing more he could do to fight the fees, because this practice was perfectly legal. Mario Livieri is no longer a customer at that bank, and this prevalent practice should no longer be perfectly legal. Slow-walking notifications to consumers when their accounts are overdrawn is just one way in which banks try to run up the score on overdraft fees. Sometimes, they even re-arrange the order in which they process your purchases, charging you for a later, larger purchase first and then they charge you repeated overdraft fees for earlier, smaller purchases. Worst of all, so-called ``overdraft protection'' is often added to customers'' accounts without their permission, or even their knowledge. Customers who don't know that this feature is attached to their accounts think their purchases will just be denied if they don't have sufficient money in their accounts. Instead, their depository institutions will let these purchases go through and charge a $35 flat fee for each purchase that overdrafts the account--no matter how small the purchase. And there generally is no limit on the number of fees that a customer can be charged in a single day. That is just wrong. Families in my State of Connecticut and across the country are already struggling to make ends meet--and these unfair and excessive charges are making it even harder. Over the past few weeks, I've worked with consumer groups and listened to folks like Mario who have been the victims of these abusive practices. Those discussions resulted in the bill I present to you today. Here is how the bill works. First and foremost, no consumer should be enrolled in a program like this without their knowledge. My bill will establish an opt-in rule for overdraft protection for ATM and debit transactions so that customers will have to consent before they can be charged an overdraft coverage fee. You will recall that the credit card bill we passed earlier this year had a similar approach to over-the-limit fees. If you do choose to opt into an overdraft coverage program, the bill will limit the number of overdraft fees banks can charge you--one per month, and no more than six per year. And that fee will be required to be proportional to the cost of processing the overdraft--no more $40 charges for $2 cups of coffee. My legislation will also put a stop to the practice of manipulating the order in which transactions are posted, and require banks to warn customers if they are about to overdraw their account, giving them a chance to cancel the transaction. Finally, it will require banks to notify customers promptly when they've overdrawn an account--through a means the customer chooses, from e- mail to text message to letter--so that they can quickly restore their balance and avoid unnecessary fees. Abusive overdraft policies are unfair, and the banks know it. After it came out in the press that I was working on this legislation, a few of the big banks took steps towards responsible reform. We will see whether these few are truly committed to reform. America's consumers deserve better--and this legislation will make sure they won't continue to be victims of greedy banks looking to line their pockets at the expense of hard-working families. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senators Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Jack Reed, Sherrod Brown, Carl Levin, Jeff Merkley, and Robert Menendez in support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous Consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today Senator Grassley and I have submitted a resolution designating the third week of October as National Character Counts Week. In the past, my good friend Senator Domenici and I worked together on the issue of character education, and I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Grassley in continuing to designate a special week to this cause. I hope that with this resolution we may highlight the importance of character building activities in schools not only this week but all year long. Since 1994, when the Partnerships in Character Education Pilot Project was first established, I have worked to commemorate National Character Counts Week. Character Counts was founded on a simple notion: our core ethical values aren't just important to us as individuals-- they form the very foundation of democratic society. We know that in order to face our challenges as communities and as a Nation, we need our children to be both well-educated and trained--and that begins with instilling character in our children. Trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship--these are the six pillars of character. Character education provides students a context within which to learn those values and integrate them into our daily lives. Indeed, if we view education simply as the imparting of knowledge to our children, then we not only miss an opportunity, but as also jeopardize our future. Children want direction--to be taught right from wrong. Young people yearn for consistent adult involvement, and when they get it, we know they are less inclined to use illegal drugs, to vandalize or commit suicide. The American public wants character education in our schools, too. Studies show that approximately 90 percent of Americans support schools teaching character education. Character education programs work. Currently, there are character education programs across all 50 States in rural, urban and suburban areas at every grade level. Schools across the country that have adopted strong character education programs report better student performance, fewer discipline problems, and increased student involvement within the community. This renewed focus on character sends a wonderful message to Americans and will help reinvigorate our efforts to get communities and schools involved. With this resolution, it is my hope that even more communities will make character education a part of every child's life. I hope that my colleagues will support this important effort.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution on behalf of myself, Senator Durbin and Senator, Cardin, aimed at putting the Senate on the record in support of empowering and strengthening the U.S. Agency for International Development. This is a simple and straightforward resolution, but I believe it speaks volumes about the current situation of U.S. overseas development policy. USAID has been without an administrator for nearly 10 months. It is critical that this position is swiftly filled by an individual who can serve as a strong advocate for the agency in national security and foreign policy deliberations within the U.S. Government. The Administrator must also work urgently to strengthen, empower and revitalize the agency itself. This essential position must be filled if the U.S. is to take on the myriad of foreign policy challenges that exist in a holistic and sustainable manner--because for nearly all of the challenges we face as a Nation, development will play a key role in helping us solve them. This resolution also recognizes the tremendously important role development plays in foreign policy, and puts the Senate on record as supporting an empowered USAID. I believe USAID should be a strong and independent voice in high-level U.S. foreign policy debates. If U.S. development policy and, by extension, U.S. foreign policy, is to succeed in the long run, USAID must be an independent body that can advocate for what it knows best--how to effectively deliver and implement U.S. foreign assistance, at the highest level. It must have a serious seat at the table. Our foreign policy will neither be comprehensive nor sufficient to meet the challenges of the 21st century, without serious and unbiased input from America's development experts. Finally, this resolution recognizes that USAID must be empowered to fulfill its mandate with a robust staff that understands both the needs of the international community as well as the strategic value of development. It has long been understood that international development is a critically important aspect of our foreign policy. It is high time we matched this reality with a real and meaningful commitment. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important resolution to empower and improve USAID.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it may feel like Ground Hog Day for some of us. We soundly defeated a similar amendment proposed by the Senator from Arizona last week, by a vote of 34-64. The reasons are clear, and have remained unchanged. The C-17 has proven its worth to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, to our taxpayers that foot the bill, and to the workers that labor day in and day out to provide our military with these critical planes. Our need for these planes is not shrinking--in fact, it is growing. Since the last formal assessment of our military's airlift requirements 4 years ago, our forces have been expanded by 92,000 troops. Our overseas commitments have dramatically increased, resulting in many C-17s flying nearly double the flight hours that were planned for. Why? Because the C-17 is the most versatile and capable airlift plane in our arsenal. Despite these facts, the Senator from Arizona insists that we extend the life of our 40-year-old C-5 fleet, at a high cost to our taxpayer. Over the administration's objections, he coauthorized a bill recently that was approved by this body that actually prohibits the military from retiring C-5s. According to the Air Force, the C-5B has already reached 147 percent of planned life expectancy. This is a fleet we must begin to replace. I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating amendment No. 2580, for the sake of our troops, our taxpayers, and America's workers.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to discuss a very important amendment that was adopted by the Senate. This amendment, which I was proud to cosponsor, expresses the sense of the Senate that the joint surveillance target attack radar system, known as Joint STARS, is one of the most effective and heavily tasked intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets in our Air Force. These aircraft provide critical imagery of tens of thousands of square miles to our troops every day, helping to protect the lives of our troops who are protecting our country so bravely overseas. The Joint STARS fleet, although only 17 aircraft in size, has demonstrated immeasurable success in Iraq and Afghanistan. So far, they have flown over 55,000 combat hours, tracking the location and movement of enemy troops and discovering hundreds of improvised explosive devices. These aircraft consistently provide our troops on the ground with critical intelligence that helps them prepare for their missions in enemy territory. The Joint STARS fleet has been protecting our troops for decades, and with that service has incurred expected wear and tear. With no aircraft being designed to replace them, it is absolutely critical that we provide the military with the funds they need to keep up with their heavy deployment cycles. These aircraft are in dire need of new engines, which are now more than 40 years old. Failure to do so will cost the taxpayer billions of dollars in maintenance and operating costs. According to Air Force estimates, however, replacing the engines will pay for itself within 8 years. This is the only sensible solution. Workers in Norwalk, CT, have been working on the radar for this aircraft for years. This unique technology provides overall images of the battle space, ensuring our troops receive the most complete and accurate intelligence possible, from camouflaged insurgent camps and enemy vehicles to incoming cruise missiles. It is an incredible product which lends itself to some of the most industrious and dedicated workers in the field. There are hundreds of workers across the country like those in Norwalk that labor day in and day out to ensure that the Joint STARS fleet is able to continue to protect our brave men and women in uniform. Our troops cannot afford a lapse in the critical surveillance capability provided by our Joint STARS fleet. Our warfighters depend on this cutting edge technology every day, and we must ensure that we do not deny our troops the intelligence they need to successfully and safely execute their missions overseas.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor the memory of U.S. Army Reserve CAPT Benjamin Sklaver, who was killed on October 2, when his patrol came under attack in Muscheh, Afghanistan. He was 32 years old. Captain Sklaver personified the values and qualities of a U.S. Army officer, and dedicated himself to improving his country and helping those most in need, both in uniform and as a private citizen. As a U.S. Army captain, Benjamin Sklaver distinguished himself as a capable and talented leader; and as an employee of the CDC and FEMA Captain Sklaver used his skills to help Americans prepare for and recover from disaster. Perhaps the most inspiring chapter of his life came after a 2007 deployment to the Horn of Africa, where Captain Sklaver saw how hard it was for rural Ugandan villagers to obtain clean drinking water. Upon his return to the United States, Sklaver helped found the ClearWater Initiative to help bring access to clean water to war torn regions. In just 2 short years, Captain Sklaver's Initiative provided access to clean, potable water to over 6,500 people in Africa, where his charity work earned him the nickname ``Moses Ben.'' Guided by a deep sense of patriotism and the Jewish principle of Tikkun Olam, or fixing the world, Captain Sklaver touched the lives of thousands, and his contributions to his country and to those he helped around the world will not soon be forgotten. All of us owe a deep debt of gratitude to Captain Sklaver and his family. I extend my deepest condolences to Captain Sklaver's parents Gary and Laura, his brother Samuel, his sister Anna, his fiance Beth Segaloff, and to all those who knew and loved him. Specialist Justin Pellerin

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am prepared to go right to the heart of the underlying amendment rather than go through this point of order, but let me just point out that there are those who have supported a provision in the fiscal year 2010 Defense Authorization bill that would prohibit the Defense Department from retiring the 40-year-old C-5As. These are the people who are now promoting this amendment to kill the C-17. In effect, the proponents of the McCain amendment are tying the hands of the Air Force, by requiring the Pentagon to upkeep a fleet of C-5s--aircraft that are outdated, costly to operate, and are less capable than the C-17. The Air Force should be allowed to replace them with C-17s and not be forced to waste hundreds of millions of dollars to extend the life of the C-5. It is less costly to build a C-17 than it is to repair a C-5. That is the reality. If we are looking for cost savings and deficit reduction, then what the committee has advocated actually makes more sense fiscally to do. But instead, the McCain amendment in effect promotes a 40-year-old aircraft, getting older by the day, rather than an aircraft like the C-17 that has the capability of landing almost anywhere on the globe for that matter, highly versatile. We have nearly 100,000 new troops who have been added to our armed services in 4 years. We need to have an airlift capacity that meets our larger force's needs. I urge the rejection of the McCain amendment.

Mr. DODD

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

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from Arizona that could wipe out a highly skilled American workforce. It would irreparably damage our combat readiness, deprive our troops in the field of critical resources and threaten our national security. Those are strong words, but that is what is involved if the amendment being offered by the Senator from Arizona is adopted. I wish to introduce my colleagues to three workers at Pratt & Whitney in Middletown, CT. We see three individuals working on this engine. They are removing test equipment after completing testing on a powerful, cutting-edge engine, preparing it for delivery to the U.S. Air Force. The man on the left is Doug. He has been working for Pratt & Whitney for 24 years. He is married with three children, 8-year-old twins and a 4-year-old. The man in the middle is Steve. He spent 4 years in the Air Force before coming to Pratt & Whitney and boasts a quarter of a century in aviation experience. On the right is his coworker Michael, with 15 years of experience on the floor and 8 as a supervisor at this facility. If we effectively lay off these workers and the 30,000 Americans like them in 43 States who build the C-17, we will be causing tremendous pain and financial hardship at a time when our communities can least afford it. In my home State of Connecticut--29th in total population, but 6th in total aerospace employment--we just received word that Pratt & Whitney is going to close maintenance facilities in Cheshire, CT, and East Hartford, CT, costing 1,000 jobs. If this amendment prevails, my State's largest private employer tells me that they will stand to lose another 3,000 jobs. That means the loss of decades of experience and expertise that has allowed us to maintain not parity with the world, but superiority, in the aerospace industry. Perhaps my colleagues aren't persuaded by the imminent loss of thousands of jobs in my state or even their own. Perhaps some might be tempted to threaten the livelihoods of 30,000 people at a time when we can ill afford it. To them I say, think about these three individuals are doing for our troops. According to the Air Force, over the last 3 years in the military's Central Command alone, the C-17 has flown more than 100,000 airlift sorties, moved more than 2 million personnel, delivered nearly 300,000 tons of cargo, and executed nearly 2,000 air drops. According to the Government Accountability Office, C-17s have delivered more than 2.4 million tons of cargo to Iraq and Afghanistan alone. That is 2.4 million tons of supplies--everything from critical gear to large vehicles--sustaining our troops on the battlefield. The Government Accountability Office also notes that this aircraft has ``drawn praise during combat operations''--listen to this--with an 86-percent readiness rate, compared to the 53-percent readiness rate of the 40-year-old C-5 fleet that shares the cargo lift mission with the C-17s. The C-17 is the most reliable airlift plane in our arsenal, and it is also the most versatile. Unlike any other aircraft we have, the C-17 can complete combat, humanitarian, and other transport missions all over the world, thanks to its unique ability to take off and land in difficult environments, in remote airfields, or in situations where runways are shortened or degraded. The Air Force reports that the C-17 is able to take off and land on 65 percent of the world's soils, whereas older airlift planes can only land on 6 percent. This incredible versatility makes the C-17 vital to the success of counterinsurgency, humanitarian, and research missions the world over. It can operate not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in places such as Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan, and even Antarctica. But today I feel this versatility is taken for granted. Our commitments overseas, especially since 2001, have imposed far greater burdens on these aircraft than we had originally planned for. The Congressional Research Service reports that the C-17 was designed to fly 1,000 hours per year, with an expected lifespan of 30 years. But as our overseas commitments have grown since 2001, the fleet has averaged 1,250 hours per aircraft and some have even reached 2,400 flying hours in a single year. GEN Arthur Lichte, the Air Force's air mobility commander, has said that at this rate, the C-17s may have a lifespan as short as 22 years. When a mission-critical aircraft is due to retire 8 years earlier than intended, as this one may be, we who are charged with equipping our troops in the field must address our procurement plans and we must do it now. Some of our newest C-17s are already 15 years old. I wish to remind my colleagues that last July the Senate voted 93 to 1 to authorize the expansion of the Army by 30,000 soldiers. I, along with nearly all of my colleagues, supported that increase to meet our growing security demands and relieve the combat burden on our already overstretched forces. When we took that vote, we incurred an obligation as well to provide those troops with the support they will need in order to do their jobs. Chairman Inouye and the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee have demonstrated incredible foresight by acting quickly to prevent these future shortfalls in this very important fleet. If this amendment to undo their good work prevails, we are doing a disservice to our troops. We are also doing a great disservice to our taxpayers. The author of this amendment has said we should kill the C-17 now and wait for a government study down the road to see whether we need more of these aircraft. Well, if we kill the C-17, we will lose our only wide-body assembly line in the United States. According to the Government Accountability Office, it will cost up to $1 billion to restart the line when it inevitably dawns on us that we need additional military cargo planes to support our troops in the field. If we hand these three individuals and the 30,000 of their fellow workers around the country pink slips in the next few days, who do we think is going to build those planes down the road? By the way, if we choose to try to make up the capability by extending the lives of the C-5As, we would need to overhaul and repair seven of them at a cost of nearly $1 billion to equal the capability we would get from buying just one additional C-17 at a cost of $276 million. This amendment would hurt our workers, our troops, and our national security. It is a massive expenditure disguised as a short-term savings. It is the very definition of cutting off our nose to spite our face when it comes to the critical needs of our troops in the field. Whatever views one may have on Afghanistan or Iraq, we want to make sure that our troops, wherever they are, receive the support they need. Today, when the vote occurs, I urge my colleagues to support the committee and reject the amendment to cut out these critical aircraft. With that, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to move to a matter other than the one I just discussed as in morning business.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it has been a tumultuous year in Iran. The Iranian regime has continued to pursue its nuclear ambitions, fund terrorist activities throughout the Middle East, and repress its own people. The world watched this repression play out in the wake of this summer's illegitimate elections, when brave and peaceful protestors were violently attacked. If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons capability, it would pose a significant threat to peace and security in the Middle East, especially to our close ally Israel and others in the region. For years, the Iranian regime has refused reasonable requests by the international community. And it has failed to meet its obligations under international nonproliferation rules. That is a threat to both national security and global stability, and it cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. President Obama has undertaken an aggressive dual-track approach. He has offered high-level engagement with Tehran, but has matched that carrot with the stick of sustained pressure through economic sanctions. As the President has warned, Iran won't be allowed to run out the clock. As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, I intend to introduce legislation that will arm the administration with the ability to impose tough, targeted sanctions if Iran does not respond to our final diplomatic efforts in the coming weeks. We must confront Iran's government with its long record of duplicity and deception on the issue of its nuclear facilities. Last week, President Obama revealed that Iran is building a secret uranium enrichment facility in violation of international rules. The President and our allies have rightly insisted that IAEA inspectors be allowed to access this facility promptly. And over the weekend, Iran moved forward on provocative missile tests. In two days, the United States and our allies will begin key talks with Iran's leaders. Unfortunately, Iran's President has already suggested that appropriate limits to his country's nuclear enrichment program are off the table. Clearly, in light of this growing threat, there is cause for great concern and prompt action on our part. But there is also cause for hope that Iran might be forced to change course. We have received renewed support from our allies. We have been encouraged by the strong international rejection of election abuses. And we have seen tensions within the Iranian regime begin to break into the open. It is not too late for a proper resolution. But the road ahead is difficult. It will require sustained diplomatic effort to ensure all of our strategic partners--the Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians and moderate Arab states throughout the Middle East join this effort. We will only succeed if Iran is confronted by the prospect of sustained, progressively intensifying multilateral economic and diplomatic pressure on its government including tougher sanctions. This week's negotiations should confront Iran's leaders with a clear choice: end its illegitimate efforts to enrich uranium, halt its proliferation efforts, and stop supporting terrorists around the world--or continue to deepen this regime's isolation, and ruin the Iranian economy. The administration is right to attempt engagement with Iran even as we make clear that biting sanctions will follow if international demands for greater transparency continue to meet with stubborn refusal. Administration officials have outlined to me a menu of additional tough multilateral sanctions that they are considering imposing. Congress must equip President Obama with a full range of tools to deal with the threats posed by Iran. In the last Congress, the Banking Committee approved comprehensive legislation to impose tough new sanctions on the Iranian regime; authorize investors to divest from companies active in Iran's energy sector; and combat black-market networks spreading weapons around the world. Unfortunately, floor consideration was repeatedly blocked by a small minority. Given the rising stakes, I intend to work with my committee colleagues, including Ranking Member Senator Shelby, to press forward similar sanctions legislation in the next few weeks. I want to congratulate Senators Lieberman and Bayh for their leadership on this issue, including their legislation to impose further sanctions on entities involved in importing gasoline to Iran or in assisting Iran's efforts to expand its domestic refining capacity. Iran's energy sector is a key source of revenue to the government-- and Iran is especially susceptible because of its dependence on imported gasoline. I will integrate these critical provisions into the legislation. Our legislation will be targeted and strategic, maximizing the economic leverage of the U.S., our partners and allies, and investors while avoiding the risks of a more indiscriminate approach. The bill would also expand coverage under the Iran Sanctions Act to include financial institutions, underwriters, guarantors, and other business entities, and extend the applicability of sanctions to oil and gas pipelines and tankers. It would impose a broad ban on direct imports from Iran to the U.S. and exports from the U.S. to Iran of those few items still able to be so shipped, exempting food and medicines. It will strengthen existing authority to freeze the assets of Iranians active in weapons proliferation or terrorist activity, and make it clear that U.S. entities who establish a subsidiary to get around sanctions laws will be held liable for the activities of their subsidiaries. Finally, it would impose new requirements that the President actually make a determination, and report every 6 months to Congress, regarding the sanctionability of eligible investments in Iran's energy sector. In addition to expanding U.S. sanctions, the bill would also establish a simple formula authorizing divestment from firms which invest significant amounts in Iran's energy sector, with provisions patterned after the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act enacted 2 years ago. Many of us believe that Americans should be able to divest from energy firms doing business with the Iranian regime whose policies they abhor, and which indirectly help to prop up the regime. They should be given the tools they need to make socially responsible decisions. And investors who choose to divest--States, large pension and mutual funds, and others should be held harmless for these decisions. Investing in Iran is risky business, and investors should be fully informed of those risks going in. The bill does not require divestment; it simply permits it. Finally, this bill will provide incentives for countries to strengthen their export control systems to stop the illegal diversion of sensitive dual-use technology to countries like Iran, and impose tough new licensing requirements on those who refuse to cooperate. As we confront the realities of a global marketplace, with manufacturers assembling parts of complex machinery such as aircraft and computers from a supply chain spanning the globe, and as regimes like Iran, North Korea, and Syria trawl various trans-shipment hubs for such parts to assemble high-tech weapons, it makes sense to address this problem head-on. We have developed a way to do this, with an array of carrots and sticks to prod unwilling countries to get serious about developing and implementing tough, comprehensive export control rules and systems. Our allies continue to work closely with the US to increase economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran. I believe our legislation will complement and reinforce those ongoing diplomatic efforts, and send a clear signal to Iran's government of what's in store if they continue to flaunt the will of the international community. Congress will be moving forward on the same timetable that the President and our allies have set for this fall, to underscore to Iran's leaders the huge price they will pay economically, politically, diplomatically, and otherwise if they do not change course. The government of Iran must come clean on its nuclear program, which as President Obama observed last week represents a direct challenge to the basic foundation of the international nonproliferation regime. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting efforts in the coming weeks to make clear to the Iranians that we in Congress stand with President Obama in our determination to confront this problem forcefully, and urgently, before it is too late. Mr. President, we will have our hearing on October 6 in the Senate Banking Committee. My intention is to, shortly thereafter, a week or so, combine the proposals offered into one strong, comprehensive sanctions bill. I, as well as others, believe we should take no options off the table and that we understand the implications of the statement. Most of us agree every effort ought to be made to resolve this matter short of the use of military force. Obviously, that option remains. I believe we are proposing a sanctions regime, along with the needed cooperation of other nations around the world, that will send an unequivocal message--and nothing would be more important at this hour than to send that clear united message from this body and the other body--of our determination to use all the tools available to us to bring about the desired change we seek. By adopting this strong legislation, my hope is they will understand how serious we are in our determination to achieve the common goal sought by the administration and us in this body. With that, I yield the floor.