Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, 100 years ago this winter, history was made at the old Mory's Bar on Temple Street in New Haven, CT, as Denton Fowler, James Merriam Howard, Carl Lohmann, Meade Minnigerode, and George Pomeroy formed an a cappella singing group known as the Whiffenpoofs of Yale University. The Whiffenpoofs, as every Yalie knows, are unsurpassed in talent and tradition. They are now the oldest continuously functioning collegiate a cappella singing group in the United States. Their history is rich and vibrant. During World War II, the brave men of the U.S. Army Air Force's Black Sheep Squadron adopted ``The Whiffenpoof Song'' as their theme song. And over the course of the 20th century, that famous tune has been recorded by such legendary artists as Bing Crosby, Ella Fitzgerald, Louis Armstrong, and Elvis Presley. The Whiffenpoofs have inspired a cappella singing groups at colleges and secondary schools across America--in fact, there are now more than 1,200 such groups entertaining audiences. But their influence is not limited by our borders. Each year, the Whiffenpoofs embark on an international tour, visiting foreign capitals and tiny villages, great palaces and humble churches, and U.S. Embassies around the world, spreading song and good will on behalf of Yale University and America's college students. Next month, Whiffenpoofs alumni from around the world will descend upon Yale to convene with the current group in celebration of the Whiffenpoofs' centennial. It is sure to be an occasion filled with good cheer, great music, and tremendous fellowship--the trademarks of this beloved Connecticut institution. Mr. President, I congratulate the Whiffenpoofs of Yale University on their centennial, I thank them for their many contributions to our Nation, and I look forward to another century of song and friendship.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 2359. Our colleague Senator Landrieu spoke at length last night about the reasons she opposes this amendment, which is targeted to her city of New Orleans. I am here as the chairman of the Banking Committee, to share with you some of the reasons I believe this legislation could have benefitted from a more thorough vetting through the authorizing process. While superficially an attractive effort to be tough on crime, the proposed amendment is likely to have serious unintended consequences while providing no apparent increase in public safety. The proposed amendment is overly broad, burdensome, and would present great difficulties for Federal, State, and local administrators to actually implement. Representatives of public housing agencies have raised concerns about implementing this legislation. Advocates for low income families oppose this amendment. Needless to say, we want to ensure the security of families receiving housing assistance. That is why current law already provides tools for denying or terminating assistance for drug-related and violent crimes and activities in public housing and section 8 assistance, which appears to be the amendment's objective. I have other concerns about things that may or may not have been the objective of the amendment. This provision only applies in New Orleans, raising questions about equal protection and the unfortunate possibility of federal law that changes from city to city. It is a vast expansion of current Federal law. While Senator Vitter describes the amendment as applying to rebuilt public housing, it is actually very broad. The bill extends far beyond public and assisted housing into all forms of federal housing assistance, including homeless assistance, loans, loan guarantees, or other assistance provided under a HUD housing program. It is administratively burdensome. The legislation would put additional screening burdens on housing providers, banks, nonprofits, and others who are not currently required to, nor do they have the resources to, conduct criminal background checks. These could include cities administering CDBG, a homeless shelter whose clients vary night by night, or banks processing FHA loans. It has unintended consequences, and I will provide some examples. It erects barriers to helping the homeless: The language would appear to apply to homeless shelters, whose clientele change from night to night. Running checks on clients that may only be there for one day or sporadically is nearly impossible, and a waste of scarce resources. Do we really mean to prohibit assistance for these individuals--many of whom are veterans or children--because shelters won't be able to run background checks? It puts new burdens on banks and homeowners. Every bank originating an FHA loan would have to do a criminal background check on the family buying the home, or refinancing a home. Can you imagine the burden that would create for community banks and homebuyers? It puts new burdens on small businesses and State and local government CDBG programs. The language could actually require that State and local CDBG programs conduct background checks on small business owners receiving economic development assistance to ensure that they were not a) offenders and b) not residing in federally- subsidized housing. It provides no room for rehabilitation. The amendment bars someone from ever getting housing assistance, including FHA loans, if they were ever convicted of selling drugs or were a member of a gang, without consideration of rehabilitation. What if that happened 15 years ago? This amendment would run counter to the goals of the Second Chance Act, which this body approved under unanimous consent to help ex-offenders get the services they need to become productive members of society. In sum, this amendment is superficially attractive. I understand that. But the policy is ill-considered. It will unintentionally hurt homebuyers, veterans, and children without necessarily providing any additional protections. It will create very serious administrative burdens for the public and private sector, with no way to pay for those burdens. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment--let's approach this issue in a more thoughtful way.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, on behalf of myself and Senator Lieberman, there is no debate about whether the brownfields redevelopment program ought not to exist. It is duplicative and cut out. This is under the economic development initiative program, which supports a wide range of programs to encourage economic redevelopment, including polluted, contaminated, blighted properties. In Waterbury, CT, home of the brass capital of our country, dating back to the early 19th century, most of the business was military related during the Civil War. There were no pollution requirements back then. Today those properties are virtually worthless because of the contamination. This is a city with a 13-percent unemployment rate. It is a hard-working blue-collar town where people put in hard labor every day. This is a chance for that community to get back on its feet. That is why it is under the economic development program. I urge my colleagues to be supportive of a hard-working community so we can let them get back on their feet. We urge defeat of the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, several of my colleagues offered amendments that would prohibit funding for individual transportation and housing projects in the underlying bill, including several important projects for Connecticut. I question the judgment of my colleagues who attack specific programs without regard for the purpose these projects serve or the impact they will have in the commuunity. I also question the notion that Washington knows better than the communities and States which projects will provide critical services, stimulate their local economies, and preserve jobs. I would like to take this opportunity to explain some of the critical funding for Connecticut in this important legislation. In my State of Connecticut, home to some of America's most frustrating traffic congestion, transit is the future of transportation. Investments in sustainable development have resulted in the creation of job centers and residential communities built around transit stations, all the while serving to clear space on the roads. This transportation funding bill includes $4 million for improvements to the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield rail line, which would establish both faster intercity and commuter rail service between New Haven, Hartford, and Springfield, provide residents of central Connecticut with better access to southwest Connecticut, New York City, western Massachusetts, and Vermont. It also includes nearly $10 million in transit-related projects across the State, including the development of the Thompsonville Intermodal Transportation Center in Enfield, a passenger rail station in West Haven, the Bridgeport Intermodal Center, and expanding transit services and access in Stamford. Transit projects such as these connect Connecticut residents with jobs and make it possible for the regional economies to grow. Sustainable development and livable communities depend on helping towns and regions across Connecticut invest in their transportation, housing, land use, and economic development needs. That is, for example, this bill includes $1.5 million in funding for the city of Waterbury for the development of brownfield properties and the Naugatuck River Greenway. This community faces a 12.7 percent unemployment rate and millions of square feet of unused, factory space contaminated by generations of brass production and industrial uses. Funding for development of former brownfield sites in Waterbury has been a target on this Senate floor. An amendment was offered to strip away this project's funding. For Members of this body who have never visited Waterbury, I welcome them to walk the streets of this city and question whether this community needs Federal assistance to redevelop properties that have been long-contaminated, abandoned, and blighted. There have been investments on the local and State level to provide this city with the tools they need to thrive. It is only just that the Federal Government do the same. Our ability to foster economic growth through sustainable development in Connecticut depends on our ability to have affordable housing and assist homeowners struggling to keep their homes in this financial downturn. By providing the resources to keep people in their homes and assistance to communities to expand affordable housing, we can truly strengthen our economy. That is why this bill includes critical funding for housing and foreclosure programs across Connecticut. The bill makes investments in regions, including funds for the Southeastern Connecticut Housing Alliance in Norwich to provide technical assistance to communities in New London County to increase affordable housing and support for the Urban League of Southern Connecticut to provide for foreclosure prevention assistance programs to all of Connecticut. In central Connecticut, funding will support foreclosure prevention and homeownership initiatives in Middletown. This bill provides nearly $17 million for the State of Connecticut, representing investments in critical programs and services to help the people of my State. This bill supports local officials and organizations that know best the needs of their communities. It represents jobs and economic growth and I am proud to support it. Madam President, I was pleased to join with my colleagues Senator Murray and Senator Bond to provide much-needed funding to avoid terminations of section 8 housing voucher assistance to families across the country. The Census Department's recently released poverty figures show that in 2008--before the full brunt of the current recession-- nearly one in five American children lived in poverty. Given the challenges confronting the economy and our families, housing assistance programs like section 8 vouchers could not be more important. Senators Murray and Bond have worked hard in recent years to ensure that the section 8 voucher program is adequately funded. Unfortunately, initial budget estimates that they received from the Bush administration last year proved to be too low to accommodate the needs of the program. In recent months, we have seen newspaper accounts of section 8 funding shortfalls in communities around the country, with families worried that they would have their housing assistance reduced or terminated altogether. The funds provided by this amendment will help ease the minds of many families. I am also pleased that these funds have been identified from within the section 8 voucher account itself, so this solution is also budget- neutral. I would be remiss if I did not thank Senators Murray and Bond for their good work in assembling this challenging bill. The Transportation-HUD appropriations bill is responsible for funding our national transportation infrastructure, vital housing assistance and funding to combat homelessness, and aid to our hard-pressed cities and towns. In this bill, the Senators have been able to provide valuable HUD funding increases for priorities such as public housing, section 8 assistance, and community development block grants. I also appreciate the bill's strong funding for transportation, and particularly public transportation programs. Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues for the $100 million they provided for competitive capital grants to transit agencies seeking to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Senator Shelby and I worked with the managers to include these grants in the economic recovery bill earlier this year. We appreciate their continued support for this initiative.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise at a moment when our Nation is enduring its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. This crisis began in the financial sector, but it has impacted every sector of our economy. And perhaps one of the hardest-hit has been our manufacturing sector, which was already reeling even before this crisis. Over the last decade, we have lost an average of 40,000 manufacturing jobs per month. In Connecticut, we lost nearly 16,000 manufacturing jobs in the last year alone more than 8 percent of our manufacturing sector, gone. These figures represent the loss of American livelihoods, the economic security of thousands of families. And they represent a clear and present threat to our national security. We rely on key domestic industries to supply critical goods and services in a timely fashion when our nation faces an emergency. In wartime and in the aftermath of natural disasters, factories in my state of Connecticut and around the country are relied upon for everything from raw metal to military vehicles and power generators. These products are essential to supporting our war efforts, maintaining critical infrastructure, and protecting our homeland. Connecticut, although it is 29th in total population, ranks 6th in total employment in the military and aerospace sector. Tens of thousands of residents of my State work in this industry. When this industrial base is threatened, our military and emergency preparedness suffer. Six decades ago, President Harry Truman sought to bolster this critical bulwark of security by signing the Defense Production Act, or DPA, into law. The DPA allows the government to tap industrial resources to meet domestic energy supply, address emergency preparedness, protect infrastructure, and help civilian agencies and the military respond to crisis situations. In the 1950s, the DPA served to address our new national security realities in the wake of the Cold War. In the ensuing decades, beginning with the Korean War, the DPA kept production lines humming, military supply lines fully stocked, and our country prepared in case of emergency. Congress has reauthorized this Act every few years, but has only sporadically sought to update its provisions to meet changing conditions. And thus, according to independent analyses, Federal agencies' understanding and use of the tools provided by this act have become inconsistent. Thus, we have proposed bipartisan legislation to make critical reforms to our national defense industrial policy. The Dodd-Shelby bill reflects the contributions of DPA practitioners from a variety of agencies, particularly the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. And I would like to express my appreciation for the work of two civil servants who worked especially hard to help us develop this legislation: Larry Hall, DPA Director at FEMA, and Mark Buffler, DPA title III Program Manager at DOD. The bill responds to the analysis of two landmark studies completed last year, as required by my amendments to the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act and the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, which directed DHS and the GAO to report to Congress on how the DPA is being used. In its report, DHS conceded that several agencies authorized to use DPA tools don't take advantage of them. And the GAO report echoed those findings, recommending greater coordination and pro-active use of key DPA authorities. For instance, under title I of the DPA, the President is empowered to require companies to set aside their commercial business obligations and fulfill government contracts first in order to meet national defense needs. However, although a wide range of Departments and agencies are directed to use this authority, only Defense, Homeland Security, and Energy are doing so. The Pentagon has used it to require companies to set aside other work until production of mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles was complete. FEMA, in coordination with Commerce, has used it to expedite the delivery of power generators and transfer switches needed to restore railroad operations in New Orleans after Katrina. But other agencies that could, and should, be taking advantage of title I, aren't. Moreover, the GAO found that, unlike DOD, FEMA doesn't even prepare title I contingency plans, which means that it takes longer for DPA provisions to be implemented even after they are enacted. Therefore, our bill, at the GAO's recommendation, requires that every authorized agency establish a priorities and allocation system similar to that in place at the Pentagon and to coordinate with other agencies in its implementation. It also sets up a new interagency body that will elevate DPA policy discussions to Cabinet-level posts, so that administrations going forward will be able to reassess the law's provisions and applications, and never lose sight of the importance of coordinating with critical segments of our industry to meet national defense needs. The President will designate a chairperson to lead this committee, which will be composed of Cabinet officials and agency heads authorized to use DPA tools, as well as the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. And the President will also appoint a Deputy Assistant Secretary to coordinate high-level dialogue among relevant government agencies. This elevated discussion will prove particularly essential in the implementation of title III of the DPA, which allows the President to provide financial incentives including direct capital purchases, loans, and loan guarantees--for U.S. firms to expand domestic production of critical industries. These authorities are critically important--and underused. Title III is used when the U.S. is overly reliant on foreign sources for a critical product, or when there is otherwise insufficient domestic supply of the product. Unlike other Federal assistance, title III is managed by industry experts. And it is designed to assist companies capable of meeting specific requirements: that the firms can't meet government needs on their own, and that the assistance will lead to commercial viability in the long term. Today, we have strong evidence that defense companies all along the supply chain--particularly in the third and fourth subcontractor tier-- are being denied access to credit. Machine tool and parts manufacturers in defense and dual-use industries are having a hard time getting capital--not because demand is down, but because bank lending is down. Government loan and loan guarantee authorities in title III would help--but, the government isn't using those tools. Therefore, our bill modernizes those powers and brings them into compliance with the 1990 Federal Credit Reform Act. Accordingly, under our bill, such loans and loan guarantees are allowed only to the extent that an appropriations act provides budget authority in advance. As frozen credit markets continue to hurt our industrial base, it is critical that we revitalize our factories. According to the Department of Commerce, manufacturing now makes up 13 percent of the U.S. economy a quarter of what it was three decades ago. And foreign-made products have risen from a tenth to a third of what we consume over that same time. We are at risk of becoming overly dependent on foreign sources of critical goods, materials, and technology and losing our manufacturing facilities and workforce. A non-partisan think tank, the Lexington Institute, recently wrote: If the erosion of U.S. manufacturing persists, America will become more dependent on offshore sources of goods and the nation's trade balance will weaken. That will undercut the role of the dollar as a reserve currency and diminish U.S. influence around the world. The economy will be less capable of supporting major military campaigns and less resilient in the face of market reverses. Most profoundly, America will become poorer relative to other nations, a trend that the National Intelligence Council says is already under way in its most recent assessment of global trends. This bill isn't a silver bullet to address all of these problems. But it's an important first step towards making more effective one of our best tools to strengthen our manufacturing base. Our bill also makes these efforts more transparent, requiring notification to Congress and a 30-day waiting period for larger projects. As we look to expand DPA use, we are also working to make it more accountable to taxpayers. As the GAO reported: Since the DPA was last reauthorized in 2003, there has been little use of its authorities for areas other than defense. Lessons learned from catastrophic events have emphasized the importance of ensuring that needed capabilities and contracts for key items are in place in advance of a disaster. Congress didn't intend for such inertia. And now, more than ever, we need dynamic government action to reinvigorate our manufacturing base. It is time for the executive branch to take heed of the warning signs, repair the vulnerabilities in our industries, and restore our manufacturing capacities in the name of our national and economic security.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before concluding our discussion about the 2009 Defense Production Act Reauthorization, I would like to pay tribute to two of my colleagues who have worked diligently on this legislation. First, my friend and ranking member of the Banking Committee, Senator Shelby. Nobody understands the complexities of national security policy and its nexus with economic affairs better than the senior Senator from Alabama. Given the importance of reauthorizing and updating the law prior to its expiration on September 30, I appreciated his good counsel and sincere effort to expedite approval of this important legislation today. I would also like to thank Senator Brown for his work, particularly as chairman of the Economic Policy Subcommittee. The Senator from Ohio has proven to be both an expert on U.S. manufacturing and a skillful surveyor of how the current credit crisis is affecting America's national defense industrial base.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I could not agree more. And I appreciated the leadership that Senator Brown demonstrated in highlighting these important facts during his hearing. In fact, I expressed a similar sentiment in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in February, which I will ask to be made part of the Record. With this legislation in place, not only do we expect the current and future administrations to apply these newly updated authorities when appropriate, but I hope that they will take care to use them in a creative and appropriate manner in response to ongoing problems that threaten the long-term health of our industrial base--namely the credit crisis' impact on U.S. manufacturing. My colleague from Ohio has played a key role in raising awareness of these important matters and ensuring that the current administration work with Congress to address our concerns. In particular, I appreciated his ongoing contact with the administration regarding his subcommittee's findings.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 264, submitted earlier today.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I wish to take a second and thank, first of all, the majority leader, Senator Reid, for his support in this effort. I recognize as well our colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, who is my lead cosponsor in this effort and a very close and dear personal friend of Ted Kennedy for many years. And I thank our colleagues. We are joined by the presence of our colleague from the other body, Senator Ted Kennedy's son Patrick, who serves with great distinction in the other body. I am pleased he is here with us at this moment to watch this resolution be adopted. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I also want to rise this morning to share some brief thoughts about our colleague from Massachusetts. I want to commend John Kerry and Jeff Bingaman for their comments capturing the good qualities of the Senator from Massachusetts. This is a hall noted for a robust amount of noise, and it seems quiet today because Teddy is not here. So we gather to share a few thoughts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some remarks I made at the memorial service for Senator Kennedy at the John F. Kennedy Library.

Mr. DODD. I was very honored to be asked by Mrs. Kennedy and her family to share some thoughts that evening, and I was proud to do so. I commend my colleague from Rhode Island, Patrick Kennedy, for his comments at his father's funeral, and Teddy's son Edward Kennedy, as well, who made wonderful comments about their father at that funeral service. A few short thoughts this morning, and a proposal I wish to make to our colleagues as we recognize the contribution of Senator Kennedy. When we consider how to pay tribute to our colleagues, we often try to devise monuments, to celebrate the work of those who served here and made a significant contribution to our country. It is not an easy task. I have tried to think about what would be an appropriate way to celebrate, in some concrete way, the work of Ted Kennedy. He certainly has been, as our colleagues and others have pointed out over these last couple of weeks, one of the greatest Members to ever serve in this body. I had the distinction and honor of serving as the chairman of the Rules Committee a few years ago. I was asked to complete some of the ovals in the reception room. For those who have not been to Washington, or to the Capitol, there is a room a few feet from where I am speaking here this morning called the reception room. It was designed by the great artist, Brumidi, and he intended that work to celebrate the work of the Senate. In the mid-1950s, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, then a freshman Senator from Massachusetts, was asked by the leadership of this body to form a committee to identify the five most significant Senators who had served up until the 1950s. Then-Senator John Kennedy of Massachusetts went to work, reviewing the contributions of the people who served in this body since the founding of our Republic in 1789. He concluded there were five Members who deserved recognition. The first three were the obvious ones: Clay, Calhoun, and Webster. The last two, Senator LaFollette of Wisconsin and Senator Taft of Ohio, were more controversial, but were accepted as fine contributions to that room that celebrates those who have contributed the most to this body and our country. I was asked a couple of years ago to help add a couple more names to that honor roll of renowned Members of this body. We concluded that Senator Vandenberg, who made such a contribution to the post-World War II foreign policy of our Nation, along with Senator Wagner of New York, who back in the 1920s and 1930s and 1940s was the author of much of the social legislation that we celebrate in this country today, were fine additions to those who had already been recognized in this reception room just off the floor of the Senate. One day it will be appropriate to add our colleague and friend from Massachusetts, who deserves to be in that hall of celebrated heroes, having made a significant contribution to this institution and to the people of our country. But there are other ways to celebrate him as well. I suspect that Senator Kennedy, if he had a chance to weigh in on how he would like to be recognized and remembered, might choose other means. There are very few issues over the last half century on which Senator Kennedy did not leave his mark, and a good many of the most significant pieces of legislation that passed this Senate in his time not only bear his mark but bear his name as the author. That, in a sense, is a monument, one with a meaning far broader than anything we might inscribe on any wall. Across America there are people who might have lacked for an advocate had Ted Kennedy not stood up for them, people who can now stand up for themselves with dignity and hope and a chance to make it in America because they had a friend by the name of Edward Moore Kennedy. These Americans are also a monument that I think Senator Kennedy might say is fitting enough--that there are people today doing better, living more secure lives, growing up with a sense of confidence and optimism about their future and the future of our country because of his contribution. That in itself is a great monument. Perhaps we could consider the flood of tributes that have come from across the aisle as well as across the globe, from those who shared in his crusade for social justice and those who spent their careers opposing him, and those who never enjoyed the privilege of working alongside him. All understood how important Senator Kennedy was, not only to this Nation but to millions of people around the globe who today lead better lives because he stood up for them even though they were not citizens of our own country. He understood that the Founders of our Republic, when they talk about inalienable rights, were not limiting those rights in our minds to those who happen to enjoy the privilege of being citizens of our country but knew that they were God-given rights that every human being is endowed with upon birth, regardless of where they live. Ted Kennedy understood that intuitively, deeply, and passionately. That in itself, I suppose, could be a great tribute, knowing there are people whom he never met, never even knew what he looked like, who lead better lives today because of his contribution. Then perhaps we might consider these tributes offered by our colleagues here and others, the literally thousands who lined up in those long hours to pay tribute to their Senator from Massachusetts at the John F. Kennedy Library, the more than 50,000 people in Massachusetts who had known and respected, elected and reelected and reelected and reelected, over and over again, their Senator. They appreciated him immensely for the work he did for them and their Commonwealth for almost 50 years. In itself that is a great tribute. It would be enough, I think, for many of us, being recognized by the people of your State for having fought on their behalf. Teddy's monument can be found in his talented and wonderful family as well. Joe Biden talked about this in the memorial service in the John Kennedy Library. When you consider this remarkable family of Senator Kennedy and those of his brothers, their children, their nieces and nephews, it is a source of inspiration when you think of what each of them has done, the contributions they have made. A few short weeks prior to Teddy's passing, he lost his sister Eunice, who was a wonderful friend of mine over many years. She did remarkable things as an individual. To think, millions of people who suffer from mental disabilities enjoy a greater respect today because of one individual, Eunice Kennedy Shriver. Teddy's brother Joe lost his life in World War II, defending our country and fighting for freedom. His sister Jean has done a remarkable job with the very special arts in her contribution to the country. And then look at his wonderful wife Vicki, who was such an incredible source of strength and inspiration for him during their life together and particularly over the last 15 months. There is no doubt in my mind Teddy lived as long as he did with brain cancer because Vicki was at his side and took such nurturing care of him and has done a remarkable job providing all of us the opportunity to celebrate his life as we all wished to do. His children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews all are following Teddy's example by making a difference in this country. His son Patrick I mentioned already, serves in the other body. His son Teddy is a great friend of mine, lives in Connecticut and is making a significant contribution as citizen of our State. He holds no office, doesn't have any title. He and his wife make a wonderful difference on many issues in our State every single day, and his daughter Kara, for whom he has such great affection, has also made her contributions as well. That in itself can be a monument. How many would say if your children and family do well and stand up and make a difference in the lives of other people, what better tribute; what higher form of compliment could you have, or form of flattery, than to know that your children, your family, your nieces or nephews, your sisters and brothers are out making a difference in the lives of others? In a way, it is hard to decide what is an appropriate way to celebrate the life of someone who filled the room on so many occasions, not only with his booming voice--as we all are familiar with here, particularly the staff of the Senate who would, many times, be the only ones in this room as Ted Kennedy would be pounding that podium back in that corner, expressing his passionate views about some great cause of the country. But we remember also his determination that this country live up to its expectations, that it become the more perfect union that our Founders described more than two centuries ago. Today, I wish to make a suggestion to my colleagues. I talked to the leadership about it and to the Republican leadership as well. Never before in the history of this country have three brothers served in this Chamber: Jack Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and, of course, Teddy Kennedy. That has never happened before in the history of our Nation. One of the rooms that has been of similarly historic significance to our Nation is the caucus room in the Russell Office Building. It has been the site of remarkable hearings and meetings. Since its building almost a century ago, that room has been very important. The hearings on the Titanic were held in that room; the Watergate hearings, going back years ago, were held in that room. It is there that we have commemorated tragedies. We have met to celebrate triumphs in that room. We have gathered as Members with our spouses from time to time to share some quiet moments with each other as we reflected on our responsibilities here as Senators. We have held some of the greatest debates that have ever occurred in that room. It is there that Senator Kennedy's Health Committee, in which I was privileged to act as sort of a fill-in for him over the last number of months, held 5 weeks of hearings and debate and markup of a bill that concluded in the adoption of the health care reform legislation that he authored. It is in that room that Senator Kennedy's brothers each announced their candidacies for the Presidency of the United States. Both Jack Kennedy and Robert Kennedy, in that very room, announced that they intended to seek that office. And it is there that I propose we affix the Kennedy name, not just as a monument to the things these three brothers did as Senators and as colleagues of ours here, but in the spirit of compassion and compromise, the fierce advocacy and tender friendship that Teddy and his brothers brought to this body. This was Teddy's wish and desire. I asked him what could we do to recognize him, and he said, I would like to have you recognize my brothers as well for their contribution. Ted Kennedy believed in impassioned debate. He believed in pounding that podium when it was appropriate. But he also believed that at the end of the day we best serve the people of our great Nation when we respect each other and work together in common cause to solve the problems of our day. Whatever history is made in the caucus room of the Russell Senate Office Building in the next century, I would like to believe it will be guided by that spirit of respect and good humor that Teddy Kennedy brought to this institution for almost a half century. Thus, may the Kennedy Caucus Room stand as one monument to the contribution of a family what has made such a difference to our country. They devoted their considerable talents and energy and their lives to serving our Nation that they loved and that loved them back. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak about my friend and colleague, Mel Martinez, who is leaving the Senate this week. Senator Martinez has a story unlike that of any of us who serve in this body. He came to this country from Cuba without his parents at age 15 as part of a humanitarian effort. And as the first Cuban-American Senator, he has always maintained a thoughtful and unique perspective on Cuba policy, one that I have always enjoyed hearing and considering. As chairman of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, I was pleased to have Senator Martinez as part of that panel. It is not often you get a Secretary of Housing and Urban Development sharing his expertise in a Senate committee. He worked tirelessly to address the crisis of homelessness, and I have been proud to work alongside him on some of the housing measures we have passed over the past couple of years. He has been enormously helpful and cooperative as a member of my committee, and we will miss his perspective. Senator Martinez and I didn't agree on every issue, or even most issues. What we shared was a deep love for this amazing country, a deep respect for this institution, and a strong working relationship. Wherever Senator Martinez's remarkable life takes him next, I know that the citizens of his beloved Florida are grateful for his service and will join me in wishing him and his family nothing but the best.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the attached letter of support from the March of Dimes for the nomination of Francis Collins to be Director of the National Institutes of Health be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise to address the Vitter amendment. The Senator from Louisiana has offered an amendment that would end the so-called TARP program on December 31 of this year and remove the Secretary of the Treasury's discretion to extend the deadline until October of next year. I can understand why that might be a popular idea, but I think it is important to point out that we are far from being out of the woods in terms of the economic difficulties we face. Members don't need to hear that from me. We still have about 20,000 people a day losing their jobs. We have around 10,000 people a day getting foreclosure notices on their homes. We know there is still an emerging problem with commercial real estate that has yet to be addressed. It is looming out there and demanding some attention. The housing market is stagnant, even though there have been Herculean efforts offered by our colleague from Georgia, who just spoke, for first-time home buyers on which I joined him to provide some incentives for people to move forward, including his most recent proposal. Losses on bank balance sheets are increasing still despite the fact that there are very positive signs. I don't deny that, in fact, there seems to be an improvement, an ever so slight improvement in the right direction. But at this juncture, anyone who can say there is no longer any reason for us to take what funds remain within the TARP program, this is not adding to the funds. This is merely a question of whether the program ought to be terminated at the end of this year or extended for about 7 or 8 months into next year. I urge my colleagues not to, at this juncture--without anyone being clairvoyant--anyone who sits here and tells you there is no longer any need for this, I do not think is listening very carefully or watching very carefully what is occurring in the economy. So while we would all like the crisis to be behind us, and we would all like to stand here and say there is no longer going to be any need for any of these additional funds within the TARP program as they exist, I do not know of any one of us who could say with certainty what the future holds. I believe it is very important we have this authority extended beyond the 31st of December into October of next year to give us the opportunity to respond, should we need to, with some additional support to various sectors of our economy that could help us avoid what we have avoided so far; and that is, a deepening and further economic crisis. With that, when the vote occurs on the Vitter amendment, offered by our colleague from Louisiana, I would urge our colleagues to reject this amendment, not because we do not want to end the program--we do-- not because we are in favor of more resources going to TARP. That would be a hard vote. This merely says: Does the program get to extend beyond the 31st of December of this year? There is no request here for additional funding--merely having the funds that exist and to extend it for another 8 or 10 months to give us the opportunity to respond, should the facts require it. I do not think we want to look back, in January or February, and have to go back through reigniting or starting all over again another program, given the difficulties I think we would face trying to achieve that result. It is better to keep the program that has been in place and has been working and which has made a difference over these past many months than to abandon the program at this juncture when the program very well may be needed. With those thoughts in mind, I would urge our colleagues at the appropriate time to reject this amendment. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, will my colleague yield for a moment?

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I inquired--and I appreciate the Senator's comments--I inquired how much in resources are remaining in the TARP program. I suspect it is a question where my colleagues would like to know what remains or what has come back. As a result of a number of financial institutions having paid the money back, I am now told we have something around $170 billion left in the TARP program or that is what remains of the $700 billion. There is every anticipation there will be resources continuing to flow back in. So I want to provide some assurance to our colleagues that I do not see any circumstance in which, at this juncture, there would be a request for additional TARP funds. I think that is probably on people's minds. So by extending the program into October of next year, it is very important my colleagues understand we are not asking for any additional funds. The funds that are in the program and that will come back could be used--hopefully will not need to be used--for any emergency that occurs after December 31. But there are adequate resources there that should make it unnecessary for this body to come back and to seek additional funds in the TARP program. I think it is an important point to make for our colleagues. Madam President, I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this amendment would terminate the program at the end of this year. While there are certainly very positive signs that the economy is improving, all of us are painfully aware of how much further we have to travel before the economy is truly back on its feet. The foreclosure rate and the unemployment rate are still troubling. This is not a request for additional money. There is about $170 billion left in the TARP program. It would be premature and unwise for us to terminate a program without knowing yet that we have actually come out of difficult times. I urge colleagues to reject this amendment. What this does is sustain the program beyond December 31 of this year into October of next year. Then, hopefully, we won't need these resources. Hopefully, we won't have to use another nickel of this money. But I don't think we want to come back in February and March and all of a sudden have to restart a program such as this because we haven't achieved all the success we would like in getting our economy back on its feet. I say respectfully to my friend from Louisiana, I urge colleagues to reject the Vitter amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to speak, if I can, for a few minutes this evening on the health care bill. I suppose today or tomorrow will be the last time before we return in September to address the issue of health care reform, and I thought it might be worthwhile this evening-- in the waning hours--to give our colleagues and others who are interested an idea of where we are in this debate and what options have been proposed. As many have heard us say already, the committee for which I have been hired as sort of a pinch-hitter for Senator Kennedy--the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, on which I am proud to serve-- and I must say once again, with deep regret, that the chairman, Senator Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts, has not been able to be with us over the last number of weeks. I will tell you this. He is watching very carefully every meeting and markup and gathering that occurs, because he has invested so much of his public life and career to trying to reform the health care system of our Nation. So I was asked to step in for him, temporarily, until he gets back on his feet and can join us in this effort. We have spent a long time over the last number of weeks and months on this debate. We have spent a tremendous amount of time in the committee, even a lot of time before the actual markup in preparing for the legislation. So this evening I wish to talk about sort of where we are with that bill, what is in that bill in very practical terms, and how it would affect individuals. I also want to give my colleagues some opportunity to appreciate what will happen while we are away for 5 weeks in terms of those who will lose their insurance, as they will, between now and September. I have made the point over and over again that 14,000 people a day in our Nation lose health care coverage. Those are terrible numbers. They are more significant in some States than in others, but there is that erosion of coverage every day. As long as nothing happens, as long as no health care crisis affects them or their families, they may be able to survive all of that until they find a job or find some other means by which they can afford health care coverage. If, unfortunately, they are caught--as so many are--with that unexpected accident, that unexpected health care crisis, that unexpected diagnosis of a major health care problem while they are in that period without coverage, the implications can be staggering, and not just because they lack the coverage that might allow them to take care of that emergency accident or injury. But if they are diagnosed with something in the absence of a health care plan, under the present circumstances, there is very little likelihood that they are going to be able to get a health care plan that will be within their means to afford it because they will have that preexisting condition once the diagnosis occurs. So the health care costs go right up through the ceiling. So again, 14,000 a day, as we gather here, find themselves in that shape. I thought it might be worthwhile to get graphic about this, because by the end of the August recess, when we return, 756,000 of our fellow citizens will have lost their health insurance--while we are away over the next 4 or 5 weeks--and that is a staggering number. Some may find a means to get it back. Some may have a spouse who gets a job that provides coverage. But those are the numbers if you take every day the loss of health care coverage. My patient here, with these numbers, you can see the thermometer is now exploding. He is even having some beads of perspiration here because he is now worried that he or his family could be caught in that free fall, without the means to protect themselves against economic ruin. It could happen. So as we begin a short discussion this evening of where we are, I thought it might be important to share with my colleagues that while we leave with the full confidence of a very good health care plan as Members of Congress, that should an accident, a diagnosis, a problem occur to any one of us--while we don't want that to happen--there is no likelihood we are going to be put in economic difficulty because of it. Certainly we will probably get good care because of who we are, what we do, but no worry about the sort of economic ruin that this crowd of 756,000 Americans may face if they are caught in a similar situation. I have hope that all my colleagues have a good recess, that they will get around their States and districts. I also hope they will get an annual physical this year, as I hope everyone does. We provide an opportunity, under our health care plan, to do that at little or no cost. That is how I discovered earlier this summer, in June, that I have early stage prostate cancer, and I will be going through a procedure in the next few weeks to deal with that matter, and I am confident, since I caught it in this early stage, that I will come out fine. I have had a chance to talk to people who have gone through this or had a family member and I know about the various options that are available. It is early stage. It hasn't metastasized. I am not going to be in tough shape. I believe I am going to come out of this fine. But that is what you get when you get an annual physical. You find out these things. There are people who, of course, don't do that. We even have had colleagues who didn't. A wonderful man I served with in this body for many years by the name of Spark Matsunaga from Hawaii did not discover it early enough, and he lost his life to prostate cancer. Almost 30,000 people in our country die every year of prostate cancer. In many instances, if not most, it is because it wasn't diagnosed early enough. It is very slow growing. There is ample time to respond to it, but you need to find out about it. So when you get that physical, and I hope each of my colleagues remembers that if they do that and they find out they have a health issue, or if something happens in an accident to them, or if anybody in their family suffers a health crisis, they will be able to focus their attention on getting well because there is absolutely no risk that any Member of the Congress, or the millions of Federal employees who have the options--more than 20 of them each year, by the way--to choose what plan serves us best--no risk they will lose their economic security because they got sick or they had a bad diagnosis or they got hurt. Because as I said a moment ago, we all have great health insurance and we are not going to lose it any time soon. But tens of millions of Americans have insurance that does not allow them to get the care they need. It is not just the uninsured; it is people with insurance I want to focus on this evening--people who have insurance when they need it, with the doctor of their choice, and while we are gone, nearly half a million of them will lose that coverage. I understand we are all going to be patient on this effort of health care reform. It takes time to get it right. I acknowledge that. But 70 years is long enough. That is how long we have gone in our Nation without addressing in a holistic way the health care issues that must be addressed. By the time we return from our recess, the number of Americans, I pointed out, who will have lost health insurance since our committee, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, passed the Affordable Health Choices Act more than 3 weeks ago, will be over three-quarters of a million people. While a bill that will improve the quality and affordability of health care for every American sits waiting for action, as I said, 756,000 of our fellow citizens are going to lose that insurance before we come back from our recess. Let me take a moment and show my colleagues what that means in their States. I have broken this down State by State so you get some idea of what the implications are because sometimes these numbers can be daunting. It may be hard for people to see this, but I have broken it down. I will run it down very quickly. Alabama, 5,760 people will lose their health insurance over the next 5 weeks; Alaska, 640; Arizona, 8,960; Arkansas, 2,560; California, 70,080 people will lose their health care coverage before we reconvene in early September; Colorado, 3,200. I know the Presiding Officer has been working hard on this issue. I commend him for this effort. I know he will be meeting with a lot of his constituents. In fact, Colorado and Connecticut lose the same number of people, 3,200 as well. In Delaware, 960; in Florida, 27,200; Georgia, 13,760; Hawaii, 1,600; Idaho, 2,240; Illinois, 8,640; Indiana, 15,360 will lose health care coverage; Iowa, 2,240; Kansas, about the same number. In Kentucky it is 7,360; Louisiana, 5,760; Maine, 2,240 lose health care coverage; in Maryland, 7,360; Massachusetts, over 13,000 people, close to 14,000 people will lose health care coverage over the next 5 weeks; Michigan, 19,840; Minnesota, 6,080; Mississippi, 4,160; Missouri, 6,720; Montana, 960 people; Nebraska, 1,280; Nevada, over 7,000 people will lose health care coverage; New Hampshire, 960; New Jersey, 20,800 people will lose health care coverage; New Mexico, 2,560; New York, 38,080 people will be dropped from the health care rolls; North Carolina, over 16,000; North Dakota, 320; Ohio, 12,480; Oklahoma, 1,600; Oregon, 8,640; Pennsylvania, 16,320 people; Rhode Island--our colleague, Sheldon Whitehouse is here from Rhode Island. He was such a valuable resource in our HELP Committee over the last number of weeks, and I commend him for his contribution, he and Jack Reed both making significant contributions to our Affordable Health Choices Act. South Carolina, over 10,000 people will lose their health care coverage, South Dakota, 960; Tennessee, 12,800; Texas, 15,040; Utah, 3,840; Vermont, 960; Virginia, 10,560 people; in West Virginia, 960; Wisconsin, 7,360; Wyoming, 320. I apologize for taking that time but sometimes you mention 14,000 and we don't break it down State by State. These are the projected losses in terms of health care coverage. They will not have the same degree of security that we do during the next 5 weeks. When we leave here, I, of course, hope none of us suffer any kind of a diagnosis or any kind of an accident, but as I said a moment ago, as painful as that may be, none of us will suffer the pain of wondering whether you can afford to have your child covered, your spouse covered, or have the means to take care of yourself if something happens. The people in these numbers, hopefully, will never have that problem, but if they do it is a major catastrophe. Roughly 65 percent of all bankruptcies in the last year have been caused because of a medical crisis--about 65 percent of all bankruptcies. Your first thought might be, as mine was, that is probably the uninsured who ended up in that shape. They didn't have insurance, they ended up with a serious problem and got drained of whatever few assets they had left and took the bankruptcy act to get out of trouble. Mr. President, 75 percent of the people who were affected by bankruptcy as a result of the health care crisis have insurance; three out of four people who have insurance had ended up in bankruptcy. It was not the uninsured, it was the insured. This evening--I know they are always out there marketing this idea that this bill we are talking about is not designed to help the insured, only the uninsured. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our major efforts are to try to bring down the costs of the insured. Many have such high deductibles and out-of-pocket deductibles they never get to engage their insurance policies. At any rate, these are the numbers. I think it is important for my colleagues to look at it. To my colleagues, think about constituents you are going to see over the recess facing these problems. Imagine a small business owner paying $1,000 a month on premiums with a $6,000 deductible. It is not an uncommon event for small businesses. Imagine this small businessman telling you that his insurance company dropped his daughter's coverage when their doctor suggested surgery to remove noncancerous tumors, forcing him to get a separate, more expensive policy for her. It doesn't have to be this way. These facts happen all the time. Under our bill, under the bill we passed 3 weeks ago, this small business owner would be able to choose an affordable plan that he or she could rely on, wouldn't be denied coverage for the preexisting condition of their daughter, and that coverage would not be taken away once the policy is issued. That is the difference between the status quo, as it is today, and what we propose in our legislation we spent so much time crafting. Imagine, if you would, a small business owner who offers health coverage to his 20 employees. He is paying about 60 percent of the cost of the premiums but unable to afford family coverage. Imagine that small business owner telling you that one of his employees have left for a job that provides family coverage. It doesn't have to happen. In fact, this case is one I am very familiar with. This was the case of a small employer in Hartford, CT, who employs not 20 people but about 10, and very loyal employees. I think most of them have been there 20 years. He had an employee the other day literally almost in tears, if not in tears, announcing to his employer that he had to leave because his wife, who had the health care coverage, lost her job. So they were without health insurance. He then went and took a job that paid 30 percent less than the job he had for more than 20 years in order to get the coverage. That would not happen under our bill. That does not have to happen. That family, if you will, small business, would be able to find affordable coverage for their employees using the same strong bargaining power and broad risk pooling that large businesses enjoy. This is one of the major problems for small business. The average small business pays 18 percent more in premiums than large businesses-- 18 percent more--and they get a lot less coverage as a result of it because they don't have the opportunity to pool as much, come together. Our bill gives that small businessperson the same access, the same opportunity to that gateway, that place where these policies exist that they can shop for and determine what is best for them--what they can afford and what they want to have for their employees. That does not exist today. Unless we change the law, that small business operator is going to be faced with rising premium costs and less and less coverage for their employees. We change that. We fix that. That is important for people, I think. Let me mention a third scenario. Imagine a single mother, self- employed, paying more than she can comfortably afford for an insurance plan--not uncommon--that has high copays and a high deductible, not uncommon at all. Imagine her telling you she rarely sees a doctor for preventive screenings for herself or well-child visits for her son because her plan doesn't cover those visits. It doesn't have to be that way. Under our proposal this single mother would be able to find a plan that she can afford that covers important preventive care items at little or no cost. Our bill provides preventive screenings like mammograms or annual physicals at little or no cost. That is in the affordable health choices bill. That idea of making sure she is going to be OK, that her child is getting those vaccinations and so forth that they need--that is covered by our proposal. Our bill would ban discriminatory pricing based on gender because that ban does not exist today. There can be a huge differential. If you are a woman getting health care coverage, you often pay a lot more than men do. Our bill eliminates insurance rating based on gender entirely. Men and women are treated equally going in, in terms of their health care coverage. If we do not change the law, those policies do not change. The inequity goes on. Mary, in this case, wouldn't have to pay more than others her age in her area would, rather than just paying more because of gender. Finally, imagine a woman who bought the best coverage she could afford based on monthly premiums because she knew going without insurance was a bad idea. Imagine her telling you she was just diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 25, and only then realized her policy was inadequate. Imagine her telling you she now has more than $40,000 in medical debt. Under our bill, this young woman would be able to stay under her parents' coverage through her 26th birthday, what we call the young invincibles, between the age of 21, when you are dropped from your parents coverage, and you are on your own. That is a very significant percentage of our population. A lot can happen. This woman was diagnosed with breast cancer late. But had she been in the same circumstances physically, with the adoption of our legislation she would have qualified for that young adults coverage, which is very reasonable in cost, or stay under her parents' plan until she was 26 and never have to worry about being denied because of a preexisting condition, which of course now she has. Having been diagnosed with breast cancer, those premiums for that woman will go through the ceiling, even as young as she is, because she has that preexisting condition. We asked our colleagues to imagine these cases because they are so incredibly common. These are not extraordinary cases. They are rather routine in many cases. We will see people in these situations--I know my colleagues will, during the break we are on, real people who can suffer by our inaction. Let me take a minute, if I can, to talk about what health reform means in my State of Connecticut as well. In the last month, an insurance company in my State proposed to raise rates by 32 percent on people buying insurance in the individual market. This news was shocking, given the debate going on at the Federal level, but the company went ahead with the proposed rate hike for Connecticut families. Today I received word that the Connecticut Insurance Department went ahead and approved a modification to the company's proposal that will raise the premiums for the residents of my State by up to 20 percent--a 20-percent increase. I don't know many people in Connecticut who got a 20-percent pay raise in the last year. I suspect very few. People are going to struggle because of the rate hike. People are going to struggle across the Nation, of course, until we take action because the rates continue to go up. Consider, if you will, what has happened in the last few years: an 86-percent increase in premiums, in rates since 1996. In my State they have gone up about 46 percent in 6 years, and that was before the news of this latest company increase. We have a bill--again, that would reduce the cost for Americans, the Affordable Health Choices Act, which we adopted in our committee, which in fact addresses this very issue. I want to encourage all my colleagues to spend a little time looking at the bill we wrote over this August break. I will take just a minute this evening to talk about how costs would be lowered under our proposal. Many ask the question: How do you lower costs? I will use my own State as an example. According to America's Health Insurance Plans, which is the trade association for the health insurance industry, in Connecticut in 2007, the average monthly premium on the individual market for single coverage was $277 and the average monthly premium on the individual market for family coverage was $646. I ask unanimous consent to be able to proceed for an additional 10 minutes.

Mr. DODD. Those are the numbers: monthly payment, individual market, $277; family premiums, family market, $646. Keep those numbers in mind, if you will. These numbers were for 2007. I presume in 2009 they have gone up a bit, but those are the latest numbers I could find from this trade association. They reflect what an individual making about $21,000, on average, paid in 2007. That is a lower income individual, but there are a lot of people who have incomes at that level working in our country. You try to pick up the cost of $277, or $646 a month with an income like that. You know the outcome. You are not going to be able to afford it. You could not come near it. Under our legislation, a low-income worker at $21,000 would now pay $20 a month in health care premiums for individuals. That is $277 a month under the status quo, $20 a month under the Affordable Health Choice Act--from $277 to $20. That person now--even at $21,000, that $20 a month becomes very affordable health care. That is a person who would now be able to shop for a plan in the insurance gateway and could have options in choosing health care to allow them to stay out the hospital, stay healthier, be able to keep working, take care of their family. That is the difference. That is the real difference. For family coverage, a family of four who makes two times the Federal poverty level--approximately $44,000 a year--pays $646 each month for family coverage, as I mentioned earlier in my statement. Under our bill, that family would now pay $40 a month for their health care premiums; that is $646 under the status quo, $40 a month under the Affordable Health Choices Act. When people say it does not make any difference, you are not bringing down costs, you tell that to that individual making around $21,000 a year or that family making $45,000 a year. That is a significant reduction in their health care premiums. That is the real difference between the status quo and what our legislation offers. That is affordable coverage. What is not captured in the numbers under the status quo is the fact that that family in Connecticut has no guarantee they will even be offered a policy. For that matter, they have no guarantee, if they are issued the policy, they will not see it cancelled or rescinded because they file a claim. And they have no guarantee that policy will be renewed the following year. Our bill changes all of that. Connecticut families and families across the country can at long last be assured they will be able to choose among quality, affordable health care plans. Before my colleagues depart, let me say this: Let's come back to work here in September, come back ready to offer our thoughts and suggestions and constructive criticism. We are going to pass a bill this fall, and we are going to do it with the help of any Senator willing to contribute and be a part of the solution. But we are not going to continue to wait for the sake of waiting until the politics get right. Between adjournment tonight and when we return around September 5 or 6, there are 756,000 people who will fall into the category of the uninsured. These are insured people. We ought to be doing everything we can reasonably and thoughtfully to put the brakes on this kind of hemorrhaging that is occurring in our country. It is bad for individuals and their families, and it is bad for the economy of our Nation. It is shameful that the wealthiest Nation on the face of this Earth takes the insured population of our Nation and puts them at such risk, and their families, wiping them out, as happens too often with financial ruin. We have coverage. We are fortunate to have it. We ought to be able to do everything in our power to see to it that every American, regardless of their economic status, ought not to play roulette with their future and that of their families because they lack the economic security that others who are more fortunate financially have. That is not right. Health care ought not to be a choice only for those who can afford it, decent health care by the accident of birth. That you are born into a family who lacks the economic means should not place your child in a different situation than mine or someone else's because of those circumstances. That is not America. That is not America in the 21st century. We ought to be able to do better than that. The demagogues out there, chirping away about government-run health care or socialized medicine--that is baloney from top to bottom, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves. In a nation as strong as we are, we place this many insured people at risk because we do not have the courage to stand up and do what needs to be done. In our proposal we have crafted, we spent a lot of time working at it to provide relief and support on wellness and prevention and quality of care and to bring those costs down to the point I have described here this evening. Again, there may be other ideas and other ways of doing this. We think we have done a good job with our bill. But I wanted people across the country to know there are ideas out there. There were 23 of us who worked on that bill. We spent 5 weeks, 60 hours, 23 sessions--the longest markup of a bill in the history of that committee and, we are told by some, maybe the longest markup in the history of the Senate on a single bill. We had 800 amendments filed, and 300 were actually considered. Some 160 amendments of my friends on the Republican side were agreed to and included in our bill, making it a better bill and a stronger bill. I welcomed their participation. But here we are, 3 weeks later, still stymied, unable to come together and shape a bill that would provide the relief so many people seek in our country. I thank my colleagues for their efforts, particularly grateful to Senator Harkin, who did a terrific job on the prevention parts of our bill; Senator Mikulski, who wrote the quality provisions; Senator Jeff Bingaman, who worked on coverage issues; Senator Patty Murray, who worked on the workforce issues in the bill; and people such as Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who joined our committee and did a fabulous job with Kay Hagan, our new colleague from North Carolina, along with Sherrod Brown of Ohio, to shape the public option that is included in our bill, which I am certain my friend from Rhode Island may describe in some detail this evening about what we have done. This was so creative that the Blue Dogs on the House side adopted our proposal on the public option as part of the House-passed bill. Of course, Jack Reed and Bernie Sanders, as well as Jeff Merkley on our committee and Bob Casey did a great job in helping us shape the legislation. I thank all of the members of the committee. I thank Mike Enzi, my colleague from Wyoming, the ranking Republican member, along with his colleagues on the Republican side. They did not vote for the bill in the end. I regret that. But they made contributions that made it a stronger and better bill. But let's come back in September and get the job done. That is why we are here this evening in the closing hours of our session here before this break begins, so that we can highlight this most important issue that the President has committed his administration to, and that I believe the overwhelmingly majority of Americans--when you get sick at home and your child is in trouble, you do not wake up and wonder what party you belong to or what your political leanings are; what you want to know is, Do we have a plan that covers this? Is someone going to see my child or my spouse? Are they going to get good care? Am I not going to go into economic ruin from this? You do not wonder whether you are in a blue State or red State or what political party is in power. What you want to know is, Does anybody give a darn, and are they doing anything about it? I am in trouble, my family is in trouble, and are you helping us out to get us back on our feet? And that is what we tried to do in this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank our colleague from Rhode Island. He has been very eloquent in talking about the historical framework of this debate, going back, even predating the 1950s, when we determined the need for a national health plan in this Nation, not only to deliver health care to people but also to deal with the economic problems associated with health care costs. I thought it might be worthwhile to invite my colleague to share some additional thoughts on this view. Today, as I am told, we are spending about 17 percent of the gross domestic product on health care costs. I am told, by those who are economists looking at this, that if we don't alter anything but merely sort of stumble along, that percentage of our gross domestic product will jump from 17 percent to 34 percent of the gross domestic product, which is a staggering amount when we consider how expensive that would be and the result, in practical terms, to the very premium costs the Senator from Rhode Island has identified. I also talked the other day to a leading businessman in our country, the former chief executive officer of Pitney Bowes, a well-known, established company, headquartered in my home State of Connecticut but has facilities in many States across the country. It employs thousands of people. The former CEO is a man named Mike Critelli. He is no longer the CEO, but he was the CEO who was responsible for bringing a wellness plan to Pitney Bowes. I think my numbers are pretty accurate on this point. I think their premium reduction, as a result of putting a wellness plan in place there, reduced those costs by around 30 or 40 percent. They decided to alter the lifestyles of their employees by offering them incentives--the opportunity to reduce weight, quit smoking, improve diets, all these things. Talking to Mike Critelli, he did it because, one, he thought it was the right thing to do. Certainly, improving the quality of the health of your employees is a decent thing to do. But Mike Critelli also pointed out to me that in addition to being the decent thing to do, it was a very sound practice for business. Very simply, he said: If I could increase the productivity of my workers, which is the critical element, if the United States is going to compete in the 21st century, if wage rates are not going to drop down to Third or Fourth World country levels, we are going to have higher wage rates. We are going to have higher costs to produce our products. The one advantage we bring over third-rate and fourth-rate nations that don't pay as much for employment is the productivity of the American worker, which historically has exceeded that of almost any other worker anywhere in the world. Mike Critelli's point is that having a good wellness plan in place increases the productivity of that worker, and that is our edge in a global economy. So we need to start thinking in these terms. I hear people in the business community say we can't afford to do this. We can't afford not to do it. You can't have 34 percent of your gross domestic product be consumed with health care costs. Our advantage is productivity. As Mike Critelli points out, if your workers are sick, if they are obese, if they have diabetes, if they have chronic illnesses at a young age, as many do today, then the ability of that worker to produce those products and services is going to be curtailed and we suffer. So there needs to be some lights turned on for some in the business community about this debate. Some are having sort of a Pavlov's dog response to it. If you mention health care reform, they reach back decades to the age-old bromides and responses to this issue without thinking about what this means in the 21st century, freeing up the ability of workers to produce better products in a highly competitive marketplace. Let me mention one other thing I do not think we have talked about. Forty-four years ago from last week, Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law. Last week was Medicare's birthday. Medicare was signed into law 44 years ago, in 1965. Obviously, that was a great benefit to people over the age of 65, and what a difference it made. It took that population, which was the poorest sector of our population, the elderly, and put them on a standard of living that allowed them to lead decent lives after productive years of working. So with prescription drugs, doctors visits, and the like, put aside the problems today with Medicare we know exist and we have to deal with, it did something else I do not think we have paid enough attention to. It was a source of relief and stability to a family. Because all of a sudden those parents--which a younger generation had to put aside resources to provide for that crisis that was inevitably going to happen to those aging parents--became less of a burden because Medicare existed. The cost of prescription drugs, the visits to the doctor, the hospitalizations--all of a sudden, magically, 44 years ago from last week, a good part of that burden was lifted off the shoulders of the children of Medicare recipients. And it unleashed a level of investment that allowed our economy to prosper and grow. For other reasons too, but not the least of which, all of a sudden, there was that security in a family. They were not going to face financial ruin because, all of a sudden, their parents had a crisis they were going to have to pay for out of their pockets. I do not know if there are any economic models that examined that, but I do not think we attribute enough of Medicare's success to the contribution it made to the overall economy of our Nation 44 years ago because of that stability and certainty and security in a family, where your parents--that aging population--at least had a safety net that would protect them against that financial ruin that can befall a family. I think we are missing a point in this debate in that what people are really worried about is that lack of certainty, that lack of stability. People are socking away money today because: If I lose my job, if I end up with a preexisting condition, if we move, I could lose my health care coverage, and all of a sudden my kids, my wife, myself are put in the danger of economic ruin. That uncertainty, that lack of stability, that lack of security has a negative impact on the consumer choices people make. I might like to buy that second car. We may need it but-- do you know what--756,000 people are going to lose their health insurance in the next 5 weeks. I might be one of them. And if something happens, how do I pay for that problem? So--do you know what--we are going to delay that purchase or this other thing we might have done because I don't have the stability, the certainty, and the security there is a safety net there. Lord forbid a crisis hits my family. So while there is the comparison between Medicare's recent birthday 44 years ago and what we are trying to achieve--we are thinking about it in a very small context: How much does that doctor visit cost? How much is that prescription drug? There are benefits to this that exceed the parameters of what we are trying to achieve because of the investments we are making that I think have a larger impact on the overall economy of our Nation. So I wanted to say to my colleague from Rhode Island, by talking about these rising costs--and no end in sight, by the way--unless we find some way to put the brakes on all of this and begin to reduce the problems--how do you do that? If all of a sudden you have a child who is getting good dental care at an early age, that child is less likely to have a problem as they get older. If we can convince children and families to eat better because we make the incentives to do so--3,500 children today started smoking in the United States, and 3,500 start smoking every single day. And every single year, 400,000 people die because of tobacco-related illnesses--400,000 die--not to mention the number of people who have lifelong illnesses and die prematurely. Of the 3,500 who start smoking today, 1,000 become addicted. You do not have to have a Ph.D. in medicine to know that if you are a user of tobacco products, you are consuming a product with 50 carcinogens in each cigarette. Here we know if we can begin to change that lifestyle, which we have done, by the way--and, again, I thank my colleagues because, for the first time in 50 years since the Surgeon General pointed out that tobacco could kill you, only a few weeks ago we did what we have never been able to do before: Tobacco marketing, sales, and production are now under the control of the Food and Drug Administration. By the way, the Food and Drug Administration regulates mascara, lipstick, and pet food. But we could not get the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products. Now that has changed as a result of the actions of this Congress. But that is an example of what I am talking about. If we can stop a child from smoking, then that child grows up with a far greater likelihood they are going to reach retirement age in far better shape, which means far less usage of that Medicare dollar and that hospital or that doctor's visit. So you may not see the benefits of some of this immediately but over the longer term we will. And that is bending that curve. We are all talking about bending that curve of cost. We can do that making these kinds of investments. I am told only 2 percent of hospitals in this country have complete electronic medical records--2 percent. Yet we know that we lose about 100,000 people a year from medical errors in the United States. It is the fourth leading killer of Americans. Electronic medical records reduce those numbers significantly because you have clarity in the records, you have portability of those records as people move around, you have the opportunity to determine what other conditions a patient may have, and you avoid the kinds of errors that produce the tragedy of a lost life. That savings alone in lives and dollars, we are told by some, could be as much as $500 billion. Electronic medical records-- that one issue--could produce those kinds of savings and results. So when we have these debates and people talk about these things in such simplistic terms, without understanding the larger economic implications--and if we do not, the numbers our friend from Rhode Island have shown us, if history is any indicator of where we are going, those numbers will continue to skyrocket and skyrocket to the point that it will bankrupt and break this country financially. What an indictment of a generation: Faced with a reality and the predictability of a situation, we are spending days around here with the inability to come together and make the tough, hard decisions the American people have elected us to do. That is the tragedy in some ways. I respect the fact we need a break and people are going home, but it is so troubling to me we are going to do this at a time and leave these issues hanging in the balance.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield to my colleague.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will do the same. And, again, my thanks to Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. He has just been a stellar advocate of the kind of change we need. I know the Presiding Officer, as well, as a new Member of this body, has spent an inordinate amount of time on these questions, as well, in his own State and has listened to people in Colorado talk about this issue and what we can do together to get it right. I welcome his participation immensely as well. I wish all of my colleagues a very healthy and safe break in the month of August, as I do for all Americans. But I hope my colleagues will keep in mind, I did not recite these numbers to put anyone on the spot. But sometimes we need to talk about numbers that are real to people, and these are real numbers that will potentially affect many of our fellow citizens. So we need to come back here with a renewed commitment to get this done. We have the capability. We have good people here who care, I know, about these issues. And none of these decisions we can make are going to necessarily predict with absolute certainty that everything is going to work as well as we hope they would. But you have to begin. And we have to take a chance and work forward and hope these ideas we put on the table work. And to the extent they do not, you modify and change it, as will certainly be the case in the years ahead. But inaction, just saying no, is unacceptable. The answer ``no'' to health care ought to be rejected by every citizen in this country. This is a difficult problem, but being too difficult is an excuse that history will never forgive us for. It will never tolerate that excuse: This was too hard to do. When you think about previous generations and hard choices and difficult decisions, we wouldn't be here today if those generations had quit because it was too hard. We are here today because they made hard choices, they made the difficult decisions, and we have no less of a responsibility as a generation to do it on this issue. This is hard and it is difficult, but that will never be an acceptable answer to future generations if we bankrupt our country because we couldn't figure out how to solve this problem. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, for too long, tenants have been the innocent victims of the foreclosure crisis. Countless tenants across the country have been forced to leave their homes simply because their landlords were unable to pay their mortgages. Too often, these tenants had no idea that the property was even under foreclosure until the authorities arrived at their door to inform them that they must vacate the property immediately. I was pleased to work with Senator Kerry to include the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 in the recently enacted Helping Families Save their Homes Act. This new law protects tenants facing evictions due to foreclosure by ensuring they can remain in their homes for the length of the lease or, at the least, receive sufficient notice and time to relocate their families and lives to a new home. The full Senate approved the bill on May 6, 2009, and President Obama signed it into law on May 20, 2009. These protections are so important that my colleague Senator Kerry and I want to ensure that families and mortgage holders know their rights and obligations under the law. Under the new law, all bona fide tenants who began renting prior to transfer of title by foreclosure of their rental property must be given at least 90 days' notice before being required to vacate the property. In addition, these bona fide tenants are allowed to remain in place for the remainder of any leases entered into prior to the transfer of title by foreclosure. These leases may be terminated earlier only if the property is transferred to someone who intends to reside in the property and only if the tenants are given at least 90 days' notice of the fact of such sale. Successors in interest to properties with section 8 housing choice voucher tenants automatically assume the obligations of the former owner under the housing assistance payments contract. These basic protections are the law for tenants in every State, unless States have laws or practices that provide greater protections. I want to ask Senator Kerry, the original author of the act, if I have correctly expressed the intent of this legislation.

Mr. DODD. I agree with Senator Kerry. Again, I thank the Senator for bringing the original legislation forward and working with me to enact it. I look forward to working with Senator Kerry and all my colleagues to ensure that families' rights under the law are known and protected.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Livable Communities Act. Our communities are growing and changing. And the way we plan for their futures needs to evolve, as well. At stake is whether or not we will be able to enjoy the places where we live and work without excessive traffic, skyrocketing fuel costs, and sprawling development patterns that eat up our open space. As our communities grow, people are living farther from jobs, commuting longer distances on more crowded roadways, paying more at the pump at a time when family budgets are stretched thin and putting more greenhouse gases into the air at a time when climate change has emerged as an urgent threat. We are losing our rural land and open spaces. Transportation costs are making housing less affordable. Even though our communities are growing in size, we are losing the community spirit that makes American towns and cities so great. It is clear that current trends simply cannot continue. Sustainable development will cut down on the traffic that has long plagued my home State of Connecticut and connect people with good- paying jobs. Done right, it will protect the environment and help us meet energy goals; protect rural areas and green spaces; revitalize our Main Streets and urban centers; create and preserve affordable housing; and make our communities better places to live, work, and raise families. But does that mean sustainable development is a transportation issue? An energy issue? A housing issue? An environmental issue? The answer, of course, is ``all of the above,'' and unfortunately, that tends to short some circuits here in Washington. Our policy has long been stovepiped within the various agencies responsible for each of the issues affected by planning and development. In February, I wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to establish a White House Office of Sustainable Development to coordinate housing, transportation, energy, and environmental policies. I felt confident I would find a partner in the White House. The President has been a strong leader on these issues, and he has shown a willingness to shake up a Federal Government that hasn't always succeeded when it comes to thinking outside the box and addressing related issues in a comprehensive, effective way. Sure enough, last month I brought together Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson at a Banking Committee hearing--three public servants who don't often find themselves in the same hearing room at the same time. They brought with them a pledge that the administration would work across agency lines to take a holistic look at development policy--and a firm commitment to livability principles that would serve as the foundation for that policy going forward. The administration's principles demonstrate a true understanding of the best way forward. Sustainable development, as grounded in these principles, provides more transportation choices for families, expands access to affordable housing, enhances economic competitiveness by connecting families with jobs and services, targets funding towards existing communities to spur revitalization and protect our open spaces, values the unique character of both our cities and our small towns, and improves collaboration between different government agencies to better leverage our investments. As Secretary LaHood said at the hearing, we are now all working off the same playbook. But now it is time to snap the ball and move down the field. Last month the White House announced the selection of Shelley Poticha to head up these efforts. If the Livable Communities Act becomes law, as I hope it will, Ms. Poticha will head a new HUD Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities. This new office will serve as a clearinghouse for best practices, so that successful initiatives can be easily replicated. And it will give HUD Secretary Donovan, Deputy Secretary Ron Simms, and Ms. Poticha the tools and authority they need to really dig in and become a partner to our communities in creating a sustainable future. One successful play from our playbook could be modeled after a project in my home State of Connecticut. It links housing and transportation policy, encourages smart land use, generates economic growth, and will reduce our carbon footprint around what's known as the Tri-City Corridor in Connecticut. This proposal would provide commuter and 110-mile-per-hour intercity rail service between New Haven, Hartford, and Springfield, MA, and feature 12 stops, creating ``transit villages'' and revitalizing local economies. Already, we are seeing how this proposed service is serving as a catalyst: attracting new business, commuters, and residents, and transforming struggling local economies. Along the corridor is Meriden, a small city of nearly 60,000 residents located roughly halfway between New Haven and Hartford. In anticipation of a commuter stop on the rail line, the city would like to transform 15 acres of brownfields into new commercial and residential developments, including a public green that doubles as a flood buffer. Immediately north of that site is the Mills Memorial public housing complex, providing 140 units of affordable housing to low income residents. By linking transit, housing, and commercial planning, the city of Meriden will be able to transform its downtown into a bustling economic center ready to support a wide range of residents. The vision of Meriden and so many communities throughout the country needs the support and planning tools to take these initiatives from idea to action. So, today, I offer for your consideration legislation that encourages communities across the country to begin planning for more prosperous and livable futures. In addition to creating the new HUD Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities I mentioned earlier, this bill creates a competitive grant program that States and localities can use to better integrate transportation, housing, land use, and economic development when making long-term planning decisions. In addition, it provides funding for communities to implement these comprehensive regional plans through a challenge grant program. This program will help communities invest in public transportation, affordable housing, complete streets, transit-oriented development, and redeveloping brownfields. Finally, this bill creates an Interagency Council on Sustainable Communities to break down the ``stovepiping'' that exists within the Federal Government and coordinate Federal policies to encourage sustainable development. In my home State of Connecticut, integrated planning and sustainable development is critical to growing stronger communities. We have a state-level program called HOMEConnecticut that provides grants to plan Incentive Housing Zones. In these zones, mixed-income housing is built near jobs and transit centers, in downtowns and in redeveloped brownfields. More than 50 cities and towns have either applied for grants or already received them. The investment will pay off in affordable homes, good jobs, and more livable communities. Like bragging on Connecticut, but I would love to see this success replicated in communities around the Nation. The Obama administration has indicated its commitment to encouraging sustainable development and helping local authorities build a better future. It is time for us to do the same. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.