Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I have 2 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. DODD. Madam President, first of all, let me begin where I did a few moments ago; that is, with my great respect for Carl Levin and John McCain and for their work in this area. Let me begin with a point my friend from Arizona has made. There is nothing more important than the national security of our Nation. It is that very argument which brings those of us on this side of the table in support of this program and in opposition to this amendment. This program is a critically important program to maintain superiority--not parity but superiority--which has always been our goal in protecting our national security interests. It was the very Pentagon itself which advocated we move forward with this program only 36 months ago. Obviously, people can change their minds. But over the months, when they were preparing for the needs of our Nation, it was the Commission on the Future of Aerospace, authorized by this Congress, which concluded the following. They said that ``the Nation immediately reverse the decline in and promote the growth of a scientifically and technologically trained U.S. aerospace workforce,'' adding that ``the breakdown of America's intellectual and industrial capacity is a threat to national security and our capability to continue as a world leader.'' It was the Pentagon, only 36 months ago in their Quadrennial Review, that said the following--and they said in this report--that: The F-22 production should be extended through fiscal year 2010 with a multiyear acquisition contract to ensure the Department does not have a gap in fifth-generation stealth capabilities. There are reports that the F-35 could be delayed an additional 11 months--what we have already heard about. That creates a gap of 5 years that we are talking about. The danger of losing not just any jobs, anywhere from 25,000 to 90,000 aerospace workers is not insignificant. Four days ago, we were warned there has been in excess of a 15- percent decline in our industrial capacity in the aerospace industry. This will hit us even further. The ability to have a workforce capable of building these aircraft we need in the 21st century is at risk. That is why the issue not only of the technical capability of the aircraft but the workforce to produce it is at stake with this amendment. And I say that respectfully. But we have this gap in production, which we have been warned about now by the Pentagon--not by the industry itself, by the Pentagon, by the very Commission this Congress authorized to determine what our capacities were and the industrial capacity in aerospace. We are defying both reports and both recommendations by canceling this program at this number and placing at risk the future generation of superior aircraft that we need in the 21st century. So again, Madam President, I urge my colleagues, respectfully, to reject this amendment. There is a compromise, in my view, available to end up with a number far less than the originally projected numbers. But to cancel the program prematurely and create the gap in our production capabilities is a great danger for our Nation, not to mention these jobs which are critically important to our Nation and its future. For those reasons, I urge the rejection of the amendment.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Madam President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. DODD. And that is the Defense authorization bill; is that correct?

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I wish to spend a couple of minutes talking about one of the issues we are going to be debating and voting on in the next number of days, and that is the consideration of the F- 22 Raptor. I, first of all, want to inform my colleagues, as I have on previous times, of my interest in the subject matter. I am not a member of the Armed Services Committee. I have great respect for Carl Levin, one of my dearest friends, chairman of the committee, and John McCain, who is the ranking Republican on the committee, and my colleague Joe Lieberman serves on this committee, and many others who worked hard, I know, on the Defense authorization bill. One of the matters that is going to be the subject of some debate, as I mentioned, is the consideration of the additional F-22 fighters that were voted on by the committee, in a narrow vote, a 13-to-11 vote, I am told. Now Senator Levin and Senator McCain have offered an amendment that would strike the $1.75 billion for these additional aircraft. I want to address that subject matter. My State is going to be adversely affected. Somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 jobs will be jeopardized if this amendment carries. Obviously, that is of great concern to us in Connecticut. It is an argument I hope will have some weight with our colleagues as we are all faced with these matters from time to time. I know just making a Connecticut argument to 99 Senators is not necessarily going to prevail. I hope my colleagues will consider what we are doing. Our Nation leads the world in aerospace. There is no one even close to our ability to produce the most sophisticated aircraft in the world. The F-22, without any doubt, is the most sophisticated aircraft in the world. But we are told the Chinese and the Russians are quickly developing fifth generation technology to compete with our F-22. My concern is, if we end up doing what the Levin-McCain amendment does--and that is to terminate this program prematurely--we end up with a number of F-22s that will hardly provide the kind of security that will be required. And for that $1.75 billion in this budget, we help sustain 25,000 jobs nationwide. I cannot help but notice that over the last few months the federal government provided $65 billion to prop up a failing automobile industry. Chrysler and GM have gone through bankruptcy. A lot of people lost their jobs. I was supportive of the effort to try and make a difference there. The industry had failed in many ways. They had not modernized and had fallen behind world competition. So taxpayers provided $65 billion and acquired significant equity stakes in the companies to prop up our domestic automobile industry. Here we are talking about $1.75 billion to support an important segment of the aerospace industry that helps to provide jobs to thousands of American workers. And we are about to say to our workers that the resulting production gap is acceptable, at a time when unemployment rates are expected to exceed 10 percent. But for some reason, some of my colleagues insist that we should not sustain part of the most sophisticated and advanced aerospace industrial base in the world for $1.75 billion. In contrast, as I mentioned we are devoting $65 billion to the automobile industry, which to many is a different matter. I don't understand that logic. This is the very same government that says our domestic auto industry is worth saving, and I joined with my colleagues on that issue. As chairman of the Banking Committee, I led the fight to help save that industry in the Senate, an industry run into the ground by shoddy management and no business plan whatsoever. While the government is picking winners and losers, I have to ask my colleagues: Do we truly believe that the domestic auto industry is more worth saving than a critical portion of America's aerospace industry? Because that is what we are talking about. A government-mandated commission on the future of the U.S. aerospace industry recently recommended that ``the Nation immediately reverse the decline in and promote the growth of a scientifically and technologically trained U.S. aerospace workforce,'' adding, ``the breakdown of America's intellectual and industrial capacity is a threat to national security and our capability to continue as a world leader.'' Here we are with unemployment rates going through the ceiling, and for $1.75 billion--and it is expensive; I am not saying it is not--but we are not in any situation to allow any more American jobs to be lost. These job losses are entirely preventable; it is within our power to protect the jobs of thousands of workers across the country. And if the Levin-McCain amendment prevails, I am afraid that some day people will look back, and say: What in the world were we thinking? What in the world were we thinking of, with jobs at risk and talented people--engineers, machinists--whom we rely on every day to maintain our superiority in this area. Madam President and my colleagues, we are about to face a 3-year production gap between the F-22 and F-35. During that time, we will see many of our most skilled and experienced industry workers walk away. And it will be incredibly difficult, in fact I am not sure it is possible, to reconstitute this type of workforce. So either today or sometime next week we are going to, once again, consider legislation to strip this provision of the bill--the provision that would keep the most advanced fighter jet production lines humming. Before that vote, I hope my colleagues will ask themselves a very simple question: At a time of heightened security concerns and economic uncertainty, is it in our interest to cancel this program? According to the F-22's prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, the F-22 directly employs 25,000 people across the Nation and an additional 70,000 in indirect jobs. With over 1,000 suppliers in 44 States, it has an economic impact of over $12 billion. The decision to kill the F-22 will have further ramifications. With this decision, America's production lines of advanced tactical aircraft will grind to a halt, and we are not expected to ramp up again for another 3 years. What happens to that workforce? I know what happens to it. If my colleagues vote for this amendment, they will be voting against our tactical aircraft industry. They will be saying that the government can no longer support these 95,000 skilled workers across our Nation. And to me, it doesn't add up. The other day I went through a chart explaining the capabilities of this aircraft versus those that exist in nations around the world. We are going to put ourselves at some risk, I would say to my colleagues. And that is not my conclusion alone. Listen to General Corley, who heads up the Air Combat Command, and listen to General Wyatt, the director of the Air National Guard. They have warned us about this very issue. This is a very critical and dangerous decision we are making. We have spent billions of dollars to develop this plane--billions. We were supposed to build 381 of them. Now we have reduced that number to 187. In doing so, we are committing ourselves to ending the production line. Terminating the program will eliminate the opportunity for us to explore the merits of developing an export model of the F-22. We have allies that would benefit from purchasing a modified version of this technology. By offering them this capability, we would enhance our shared commitment to protecting global security. But this option will not be available if we adopt the Levin-McCain amendment. I urge my colleagues to consider this issue. I know Members are facing a great deal of pressure from all sides of this issue. But I think, as Members, we have an obligation, obviously, to respond to the calls we get, but I would argue that we have a higher responsibility to analyze the implications of a vote such as this. The implications of this vote, I think, are profound and serious for our country in terms of not only the economic and national security impact, but, for the thousands of American jobs that are sustained by the F-22. $1.75 billion is small in comparison to the $65 billion we have spent already to prop-up an industry that, frankly, should have shown far more leadership. The industries involved in this are not failing. These are solid, sound businesses. Yet they are going to be damaged as a result of a vote that is quite frankly, not in the interest of our national security or our economy. I would urge my colleagues, over the next several days, to think through this issue, to examine some of these facts before coming here to cast a ballot that will jeopardize both American jobs and our position as the global leader in aerospace industry. With that, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 1511

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise this evening to express my opposition to the Levin-McCain amendment which would cut short the production of the F-22 fighter. I understand my position on this puts me at odds with our President, President Obama, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, both fine public servants for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect and with whom I have worked on numerous occasions, and I look forward to doing so in the future once we get beyond this. I also think I have a duty to stand up for an airplane built by constituents of mine. I wouldn't make the case strictly on job loss in an individual State. That is not a legitimate argument to make to 99 of my colleagues from around the country. If we made the case that job losses would occur in our own respective districts or States, obviously it would lead to chaos and we wouldn't have a situation like that. My argument in support of this F-22 goes far beyond the potential job losses in my State, although that is not insignificant. Some 2,000 jobs could be lost potentially in Connecticut. More important than the job loss, as important as that is, is the potential loss of the industrial base that is absolutely critical to maintaining the ability to produce the superior engines that we historically have been able to produce at the Pratt & Whitney Division of United Technologies, a corporation in my home State. The work being done by machinists and engineers and technicians in my State and others all across the country not only produce quality work but also make a significant difference in saving lives and in giving us the superior ability to deal with potential threats that our Nation faces. That has been a hallmark of every generation that has come before us, not to achieve parity with potential adversaries but to be in a superior position to potential adversaries. So let me begin with my concerns over this amendment's potential impact on our national security. Since the advent of modern warfare, military strategists have sought the highest ground on the battlefield to gain technical advantage. In the age of the fighter jet, that means commanding the skies. In a modern era, air superiority has become a cornerstone of American strategy. The F-22 is the reason we can lay claim to this superiority at this critical time. It is a fast plane, reaching speeds of mach 1.5 in 90 seconds. That is without thrusters. It is stealthy. It also has the ability to engage targets before it can be detected. It is highly equipped with advanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance tools. As an instrument of air superiority, the F-22 Raptor is unmatched by any foreign competitor, including the much heralded MiG-29, the Russian-built MiG-29 flown by various militaries around the world. I am going to point to this particular chart I have, which is rather difficult to read even from where the Presiding Officer is, given it is a map, obviously, of the world, and there are a series of color-coded dots on this map. Let me explain what the dots are, and then I will explain what we are looking at in existing technologies in the fourth generation of development of aircraft technology and what is being done on a fifth generation by nation states, particularly the Russians and the Chinese. The countries in red on this chart indicate those nations that already operate or have ordered fourth generation fighters, and there are a number of countries around the world in that category. The yellow coded areas are expected to order by the year 2010, these fourth generation fighters. You get an idea in the Middle East, some of the North African States, and some out in the Far East as well. The red dots themselves operate or have ordered advanced surface-to-air missiles. Again, this is critical technology that has the capacity to take out our aircraft. Then the yellow dots, the round dots, they are ordering or are considering advanced surface-to-air missiles. So we get some idea of what is occurring. This over here: Air dominance is not guaranteed, is the point I wanted to make with this chart. According to the information on this map sanctioned by the Air Force, there are Russian-made aircraft known as SU-27s, which have air-to-air capability, more of the dogfight kind of capability. Those planes are operated already by Algeria, Belarus, China, Eritrea, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, the Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, and Vietnam. And then there is the MiG-29, which is both an air-to-air and an air-to- ground fighter. It is also a Russian-built aircraft, and is capable of challenging our current fleet of F-15s and F-16s. The MiG-29 is operated by the militaries of Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bulgaria, Cuba, Eritrea, Hungary, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Myanmar, North Korea, Peru, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Yemen. Again, widespread globally, that air-to-ground capability and air-to-air capability. Today, there is a fifth generation being developed that will be highly competitive with the F-22 and the F-35. That fifth generation fighter is currently being developed by Russia and China to challenge the F-22 and the F-35. So that gives us some sense of where we are today. These are very sophisticated aircraft operating today. The surface-to-air missiles are very sophisticated and in countries today that can take out, in fact, our existing technology in many areas. Of course, the fifth generation is what we are talking about being ready for the midpart of this century. Our air superiority has not gone unnoticed by others in many ways, as identified by this map. All the countries in red, as I have pointed out, have an air capability comparable to the MiG. That means they are all on a par with our current aircraft technology; specifically, the F-15 and F-16 fighters known as the fourth generation of jets. So our F-15 and F-16 are very competent, very good, and they are on parity--they are not superior but on parity--with these aircraft. To give my colleagues some idea of what I mean by the comparison of generations, an exercise was conducted in January 2007, in which the F- 22 was matched up against the F-15 and F/A-18, to demonstrate how each aircraft would fare in actual dogfights with one another. The F-22 in comparative battles beat the F-15 and F/A-18, 144 to 0--144 to 0--to give my colleagues an idea of how much more superior the F-22 can be in command of the airspace as opposed to what is comparable to the F-15 today. So the F-22 is a very important piece of technology when it comes to regaining the superior capabilities that are absolutely essential. According to the Air Force, what is more, this map shows that 30 nations are at parity with or exceeding the capabilities of the F-15 and F-16, and that puts our missions and the lives of our pilots at risk. On top of that, Russia and China are currently both developing their own fifth generation of fighter to counter the F-22 and the F-35. There are a dozen nations around the world, marked by these red dots, that are today operating surface-to-air missile launchers capable of shooting down the F-15 Strike Eagles that the F-22 would replace. The yellow dots indicate other countries considering the purchase of such weapons, and I pointed those out as well. Our current fourth generation fighter jets are vulnerable to these threats because they don't have the stealth technology found in the F- 22. Regrettably, we witnessed this danger during Operation Desert Storm when 37 of our nonstealthy aircraft were shot down and 40 more were damaged, and an early stealth fighter, the F-117, as well as the F-16, were brought down during the 1999 Kosovo operations by rudimentary Serbian surface-to-air missiles. These are risks that we shouldn't have to take and don't have to take. These are risks we don't have to force upon our pilots. These are risks that are entirely preventable if we arm ourselves with the next generation, and that is why the F-22 is so critically important. If this amendment is being offered to strike and eliminate the F-22, then we cannot guarantee America's continuing air dominance. Our allies will not always look like those we faced in Afghanistan in 2001 or Iraq in 2003, enemies whose air defenses were in tatters. We do not always choose when and where our battles are going to be fought. We must be prepared and we must retain our competitive edge for the sake of our national security and the lives, obviously, of our troops. If the pending amendment is approved, our F-22 fleet will be limited to 187 aircraft. According to military officials, such a figure is simply not enough to address the current capabilities of our military's competitors. I have a letter dated June 9 of this year from GEN John Corley who is currently in charge of Air Combat Command for the Air Force. In this letter he reiterated his perception. I think my colleagues will understand as well that when we have a general serving in charge of air combat and command missions for the Air Force who disagrees with the Secretary of Defense in a public way, we get some idea of the depth of feeling that occurs with a matter like this. Let me quote: At Air Combat Command, we have held the need for 381 F-22s. . . . In my opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of our current national security strategy at high risk in the near to mid term. To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy. Air Combat Command analysis, done in concert with Headquarters Air Force, shows a moderate risk force can be obtained with an F-22 fleet of approximately 250 aircraft. General Corley, responsible for the aircraft readiness of the U.S. Air Force, says we will incur moderate risk with even 250 aircraft, and the command needs 381 aircraft to be fully capable. Yet we insist on giving them only 187. That is deeply troubling. I think we owe to it our troops to give them what they need to protect our Nation as well. Our security also depends on a robust manufacturing base, and the proposed amendment could be devastating to our critical aerospace industrial capabilities. If this amendment we are talking about passes, the F-22 assembly will halt at 2011, and fighter jet production lines will run down until 2014, when the F-35 manufacturing begins in earnest. What does this mean for the aerospace industry in this Nation? In Connecticut, we are blessed to have a large contingent of skilled aerospace workers who keep our country safe and produce, of course, magnificent engines. They are highly skilled engineers, machinists, and technicians and, on average, they are in their mid to late forties. They may retire, obviously, they may pack up and relocate, they may leave the trade entirely; but they won't sit idle for 3 years. Our Nation cannot afford to lose them. That is represented by this area here on the chart. To lay these people off and then to once again rehire them--in many cases, they will be in their midfifties--is unrealistic. That synergy that is critically important is going to be lost. The Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry recently recommended ``that the Nation immediately reverse the decline in and promote the growth of a scientifically and technologically trained U.S. aerospace workforce . . .'' adding that ``the breakdown of America's intellectual and industrial capacity is a threat to national security and our capability to continue as a world leader.'' The Commission also stated that resolving the crisis will require government, industry, labor, and academia to work together to reverse this trend. I am afraid this amendment does the opposite of what we are being warned to try to stop. According to the Aerospace Industry Association, the industry faces impending retirements and a shortage of trained technical graduates, a situation already expected to worsen within the decade. Some companies address this issue by outsourcing work around the globe. In aerospace and defense, however, security requirements dictate that most design work on military systems must be done by U.S. citizens. Thus, the need for U.S.-developed technical talent is particularly acute if we want to ensure a world-class aerospace workforce ready to lead in a global economy of the 21st century. On this chart, this is the F-22 production, which ends in 2011, marked by this point here. This is the F-35 production, which begins in 2014. This gap represents hundreds of jobs at Pratt & Whitney--as many as 2,000 in Connecticut--and it represents tens of thousands of jobs across the nation. You can take those numbers--and I cannot speak for other places around the Nation, but you end up with that kind of loss in an economy that our people are already struggling with. That is not the only argument that I make, but we ought to keep people working on a new defense system. The most important issue is our national security. You ought to understand that even if you decide to ramp up F-35 production after 2014, because F-22 production will prematurely end under this amendment, you will lose a workforce that is critical, and it gets harder and harder to reconstitute. In fact, the Defense Department recognized this gap years ago. In the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, published by the military to identify the needs and strategy of our Armed Forces, they stated that F-22 production should be extended ``through fiscal year 2010 with a multiyear acquisition contract, to ensure the Department does not have a gap in fifth generation stealth capabilities.'' That is a direct quote from the Quadrennial Defense review report in 2006. The military identified in 2006, the most recent published report of this type, that our Nation would suffer a loss in aerospace manufacturing capabilities if fighter production doesn't have a seamless transition. Yet, for some reason, we find ourselves in the very position the military had, only 3 years ago, realized we should avoid. In addition to our national security and the readiness of our aerospace production industry, this amendment would have a negative impact on jobs. Our unemployment rate is at 9.5 percent, and we continue to face the worst economic conditions in decades. That is why the administration and this Congress have taken unprecedented steps to put Americans back to work. It is why the government has stepped in to save critical manufacturing sectors, such as the domestic automobile industry. This amendment suggests that the same government doesn't believe our tactical aircraft manufacturing sector warrants similar treatment. In my State, where the impact of the Recovery Act is just beginning to be felt, the success of this amendment would be a devastating blow. I am determined to do everything I can to see that we can avoid it. I don't want to see America's aerospace workers--among the finest workers in the world--remain under assault. Allow me to introduce two such workers, Frank Lentini and Rocco Marone. They are workers at the Pratt & Whitney plant in Middletown, CT, which manufactures the engine for the F-22. They are both engine test mechanics. In this picture, the two of them are preparing an F-22 engine for testing by attaching instrumentation used to collect data as the engine goes through a series of computerized tests. The highly advanced nature of this engine requires countless hours of testing and retesting, inspection and reinspection, to ensure that when it is shipped to the assembly plant, it operates flawlessly. These workers understand that a mistake on their part could cost the lives of our American forces. That is why it is so important that these gentlemen have years of experience to ensure that only the best quality engines are put on these aircraft. These are the same workers who will build the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's engine--but only if the F-22 production is allowed to continue for the next 4 years. Frank, the one in the blue shirt, has worked in the Middletown plant for 31 years, starting on the assembly line, finally rising to his current job on the test line for the plant's most advanced engine, the F-22. He is married, with two sons, ages 17 and 12, whom he hopes to send off to college. The prospect of cutting the F-22 production makes him worry every day about his sons' futures, not only about whether he will be able to send them to college but also whether there will be any jobs for the next generation of children in Connecticut's aerospace industry. Rocco Marone--known as Rocky--has worked at the Pratt & Whitney engine facility in Middletown for 34 years. Like Frank, he is an engine test mechanic. He trains and works with the younger mechanics and imparts his experience to them, both from his time on the assembly line and working in the test cell. It is workers such as these two men at the Middletown plant in Middletown CT--with a combined 65 years, taking that knowledge they have acquired and building the finest engines in the world for the past 80 years--the plant has. It is these seasoned workers who, by training the next generation, will ensure that the trade secrets of engine building are never lost. This amendment puts all of that at risk. As I mentioned, if the F-22 is canceled in 2011 at 187 aircraft--the numbers we are now talking about--then these two individuals and tens of thousands of others in our country will face very difficult odds. These highly skilled, quality control experts will be left wondering what lies ahead for them and their families. Will they retain their jobs? How many of their colleagues will be signing on to the unemployment rolls? What other opportunities exist for workers with such highly refined but specialized skill sets? If we end the F-22 before 2014, we will all be wondering something as well: When these gentlemen walk out the door, and take decades of experience and skills with them, will we ever get them back again? I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment being offered by the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. I have tremendous respect for both these individuals, but I think it is important not just on a parochial basis--I couldn't stand here and ask my colleagues merely to vote for this program because of jobs in my State. I also want them to understand what happens to people. This isn't just numbers we are talk about. There are lives, skill sets, and there is a valuable resource at risk when we cast our votes on whether to continue this program and allow for that seamless transition that will maintain the superiority and effectiveness necessary for our aircraft in the 21st century. On the chart I showed you of these nations around the world--others are not sitting idly by. They are developing surface-to-air missiles and the fifth generation of fighters to challenge us. We find ourselves in a situation where we might be taking a backseat at a time when I think we can least afford it. This is not inexpensive to do this. Senator Chambliss provided an offset in committee for the cost of continuing this program until 2014. That is an important consideration. I respect the members of the committee who wrestle with these issues. I wished to share with my colleagues this information, and particularly what it means in a State such as mine that has an 80-year history of producing these terrific engines, and workers such as the two individuals I have introduced to you this evening, whose talents and abilities we will potentially lose as a result of this decision. It is one of great importance to our country, to our national security, and to the people who provide the wonderful skill sets that give us these remarkable engines. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator. That number of 144, I suspect people won't believe that number, but that is a real number. Pilots don't always necessarily comment on these matters. I am told by those who have been interviewed, pilots who fly the F-22 use superlatives to describe that aircraft they have never used about any other aircraft, including the ability to reach the speed of Mach 1.5 in 90 seconds, the stealthy quality, the maneuverability, and the agility exceeds anything else that exists anywhere else in the world. There is a generation coming along in nations with whom we have pretty good relationships, but we can never predict what is going to happen. We have seen what happened with the SU-27 and the MiG 29, where those are widely disseminated worldwide now. They pose a parity with the aircraft we have. We need to have that superior quality. I thank my colleague. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, yesterday I was unable to be here for the consideration and final passage of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act because of a death in my family, but I would like to submit my support for this important legislation for the Record. Whether it is a natural disaster or an act of terrorism, we must maintain the ability to respond quickly and efficiently to security challenges. No job is more important than keeping our citizens safe, and no one does that job better than our front line public safety officials. This legislation provides them with the resources they need. My fellow Connecticut residents and I know first hand how important it is to be prepared. Just last week, officials from FEMA and DHS toured Farmington and Wethersfield after tornadoes toppled trees and utility lines, damaging buildings and closing roads. The worst of the storm hit Wethersfield square-on, severely damaging 70 houses and leaving several to be condemned. It is rare that a tornado touches down in Connecticut, but it reminds us that disaster can happen anytime, anyplace, anywhere. At these moments of crisis, we must be assured that our communities have the first-responder personnel, training, and equipment necessary to keep families safe. That is why I authored and continue to support the Assistance to Firefighters, FIRE, Grant Program to help equip and train firefighters, and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response, SAFER, Grant Program to increase the number of firefighting personnel. We have made the Federal Government a partner to our Nation's firefighters and because we did, we have delivered more than $55 million to Connecticut communities in the last decade. This year's bill includes $420 million in SAFER grants--double the amount appropriated last year. This funding will help to stem the tide of layoffs so that our communities can be protected by an adequate number of dedicated firefighters. In addition, I was pleased that the Senate accepted an amendment I offered that provides an additional $10 million to the FIRE Grant Program. This increase will help more local fire departments equip and train first responders in Connecticut and across the country. The bill also provides $300,000 for the Coast Guard Academy in New London to begin work on Eagle Pier, which will be the permanent home of the EAGLE, the historic tall ship seized from Germany during World War II. For more than 60 years, Eagle Pier was the home of the Coast Guard Training Vessel EAGLE, but in recent years, as the aging pier has fallen into disrepair, the EAGLE has been homeported at a pier at Fort Trumbull. The EAGLE is a Connecticut icon and one of only two remaining commissioned sailing vessels in American Government service, the other being Boston's USS Constitution. In addition to showcasing a rich history, the EAGLE serves as a modern day seagoing classroom for Coast Guard Cadets, providing hands- on maritime instruction to supplement the students' rigorous classroom workload. This bill makes important investments in our domestic security, first responders, and the State of Connecticut, and I am proud to support it. Amendment No. 1430

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, just before we left for the Fourth of July work period, U.S. diplomats hosted a forum in Washington to bring together representatives from 33 countries, a host of nongovernmental organizations, and others interested in Sudan. The purpose of the gathering was to reiterate their support for Sudan's 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, CPA, and to develop an effective way forward on Sudan. During the forum, leaders from Sudan's southern region and the Khartoum Government agreed to a joint communique highlighting ``the importance of credible, peaceful and transparent nationwide elections'' in 2010 and to holding a referendum on the south's secession in 2011. While this appears to be a positive step on north-south relations, like many of my colleagues, I remain deeply concerned about the situation in the south and about the policies of Sudanese President Omar Bashir in the Darfur region--policies that have led to the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. So while I appreciate the significance of the communique I remain skeptical of the Khartoum Government's commitment to the north-south peace process, and to fair elections, and hope the Obama administration will maintain pressure on the government of President Bashir and hold that government accountable for a change in direction and real results. Following up on this event, I wish to discuss the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 and to update my colleagues on its recent implementation. In October of 2007, after months of consulting with interested stakeholders, I was joined by Ranking Member Shelby in introducing a bill that empowered our country's State and local governments to divest from companies with business operations in Sudan. My colleagues, particularly Senators Durbin and Brownback, and I were very concerned about the ongoing violence in Sudan, especially in the southern and western regions such as Darfur where the Sudanese Government arms the militias which have ravaged communities and killed many innocent people. The international community has condemned President Omar Bashir for his role in authorizing this genocide, and he has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for these crimes. Given the developments in Sudan and a worsening situation there, we thought it was imperative that we help strengthen the growing movement in the United States of those interested in divesting from Sudanese businesses whose presence serves to bolster and support Sudan's Government, enabling its security forces, and those militias responsible to them, to continue to commit these atrocities. By the time this bill was brought to the floor, 20 U.S. States had initiated some form of divestment from Sudanese firms, and divestment campaigns were underway in many other States. However, a Federal district court in Illinois had held the State's divestment law unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement. The Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act was written partly in response to these complications and designed to provide States and local governments, as well as businesses and investors, the authority and legal framework to proceed with divestment. The Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent, the House took it up and adopted it several days later, and the President signed it into law on December 31, 2007. The law was deliberate in targeting four specific economic sectors widely recognized as key sources of revenue for the Sudanese Government: oil, power production, minerals, and military equipment. According to one former Sudanese Finance Minister, 70 percent of the Khartoum Government's share of oil profits was spent on military equipment used to bolster militias like the janjaweed. According to the Sudan Divestment Task Force, since the enactment of our legislation, five more States have passed divestment laws targeting Sudan, with many State and local retirement funds divesting hundreds of millions of dollars in assets. Four States have prohibited contracting with corporations that provide support to the Sudanese Government, demonstrating broad-based support for the divestment movement. The law also serves to enable acts of conscience in the private sector, allowing businesses and investors the right to divest from Sudan-related assets without violating their normal fiduciary responsibilities. The number of universities, companies, and investment funds, as well as international and religious organizations, engaged in divestment is growing. For example, shareholders of Vanguard and Fidelity funds and pensioners from TIAA-CREF recently assembled to ask their managers to withdraw investments from Sudan. Finally, the act requires Federal Government contractors to certify that they are not conducting business operations in Sudan that bolster the Sudanese Government's capabilities. This provision was meant to ensure that U.S. taxpayers' money is not aiding, even indirectly, a regime that systematically murders its own population. Even so, some critics have suggested that the law's implementation at the Federal level has come up short, particularly regarding limits on U.S. Government procurement. It is critical that the U.S. Government enforces a fair and appropriate certification process on companies that are conducting certain business sanctionable under the act. Additionally, updated information must be maintained by relevant contracting agencies. Such a process requires a concerted, interagency effort, not an ad hoc approach. Some work remains to be done to coordinate such a policy. I have been in contact with various Federal agencies to address these concerns and will continue to work with them to get this right. Meanwhile, various nonprofit organizations such as the U.S.-based Genocide Intervention Network and its newly initiated Conflict Risk Network are providing innovative solutions to investors who feel motivated to divest out of moral and prudential obligations. Thanks to such efforts, investors can make well-informed assessments of Sudan's conflict zones and understand the political and reputational risks associated with investments in Sudan. Moreover, States and local governments now have more credible information on which to base their divestment decisions. Save Darfur, another nonprofit organization, continues to educate millions of people around the world about the ongoing atrocities in Sudan and provides activists with effective tools and resources. Others are following suit. In the end, these efforts are being made to maintain pressure on the Sudanese Government and to effect positive change there. But much work remains to be done. Actions, not words, must be the true test of progress there. As State and local governments, businesses, and private investors continue to press the government in Khartoum through their divestment efforts, they should be applauded. But we must maintain the pressure and closely monitor the situation. And the Obama administration must stay actively and assertively involved. The President understands this, and I am pleased that he has appointed a new special envoy to Sudan, retired general Jonathan Scott Gration, to coordinate U.S. policy on Sudan. I look forward to working with him on these important issues. I hope that the many ways the international community is seeking to press the Sudanese Government for real change, and the many ways our government is joining that effort--including by tough and thoroughgoing implementation of the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act--will begin to bring critical change to this troubled region and to its suffering people.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Harold Koh to serve as Legal Adviser to the Department of State. My one and only regret in offering my enthusiastic support for this nomination is that it will take from my State of Connecticut a pillar of our academic community and a mentor to countless young legal minds at the Yale Law School, where Harold Koh has served as a member of the faculty since 1985 and dean since 2004. Dean Koh is a man of extraordinary intellect, unquestioned patriotism, and great accomplishment. He is a former Marshall Scholar, a graduate of Harvard Law School, the recipient of 11 honorary degrees, and the author of 8 books. He has appeared before appellate courts and the Congress on countless occasions, won many awards and accolades as a human rights advocate, and served his country under Presidents of both parties. In his most recent service, he was unanimously approved by this body to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, where he served with tremendous distinction for 3 years. In short, Dean Koh is exactly the sort of public servant we need at the State Department at a time when our Nation is seeking to restore its standing in the world by renewing our commitment to traditional American values like respect for all people and adherence to the rule of law. After all, we confront global challenges as complex as they are numerous. Nuclear proliferation and international terrorism threaten our national security, and issues like genocide and human trafficking test our leadership on the world stage. Our foreign policy must be rooted in an understanding of American and international law, as well as a firm commitment to not only our Constitution, but also the underlying moral values from which it was created. No one understands these issues better than Harold Koh. He is the child of parents born in South Korea who grew up under Japanese colonial rule. They lived through dictatorship and unrest before coming to America. Their son Harold chose to study law because he understood that, as he once stated in an essay, ``freedom is contagious.'' Dean Koh wrote movingly of his time with the State Department: Everywhere I went--Haiti, Indonesia, China, Sierra Leone, Kosovo--I saw in the eyes of thousands the same fire for freedom I had first seen in my father's eyes. Once, an Asian dictator told us to stop imposing our Western values on his people. He said, ``We Asians don't feel the same way as Americans do about human rights'' I pointed to my own face and told him he was wrong. Our Nation will be safer and stronger, and the world will be freer, with Harold Koh at the State Department once again. I suspect that many of my colleagues who have raised concerns about this nomination understand fully just how qualified Dean Koh is for this position. Unfortunately, some are too willing to play politics with our foreign policy. Let's be clear. To suggest that Dean Koh does not understand or appreciate American sovereignty or the supremacy of our Constitution is an insult. Dean Koh has done important and valuable work exploring the tenets of international law and comparisons between the legal systems of different countries, work I hope he will continue when his nomination is approved. He does not wish to subjugate our legal system to that of any other nation, or to international law, and claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate and unfair. Indeed, while some have been tempted by the prospect of opposing a talented legal scholar nominated by a President of the opposing party, Dean Koh's nomination has been endorsed by serious legal minds on both sides of the ideological spectrum. John Bellinger, who served in this position under President George W. Bush, wrote: ``I do think Harold Koh is well qualified and should be confirmed.'' Kenneth Starr, the well-known Republican attorney who has opposed Dean Koh in court on many occasions, calls him ``not only a great lawyer, but a truly great man of irreproachable integrity.'' Conservative legal legend Ted Olson agrees, calling Dean Koh a ``brilliant scholar and a man of great integrity.'' He also makes the very salient point that ``the President and the Secretary of State are entitled to have who they want as their legal adviser.'' Serious people, people who understand the importance of this position to our foreign policy and the nature of the man President Obama has nominated to fill it, have been able to look past political considerations and judge Dean Koh fairly. They support him. I support him. I urge my colleagues to support him. And I look forward to his confirmation, his service, and his continued friendship.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Dodd pertaining to the introduction of S. 1382 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my fellow New Englander, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, in introducing the Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Prevention, Education, and Research Act of 2009. As families in New England look forward to outdoor fun this summer-- and as families around the country look forward to vacationing in New England--they might not be thinking about the risks and dangers associated with hiking, camping, and other outdoor activities. But every year, tens of thousands of Americans working or playing outdoors are bitten by ticks. For most, a tick bite is nothing more than a minor annoyance. But approximately 20,000 Americans contract Lyme disease each year, and the numbers are rising. And because Lyme disease is difficult to diagnose, many experts believe the true number of cases each year could be as much as 10 or 12 times the reported number. Worst of all, it is our children who are most at risk. Lyme disease was first described in my home State of Connecticut, and we still have the unfortunate distinction of being ten times more likely to contract Lyme disease than the rest of the Nation. But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has received reports of new cases from 46 States and the District of Columbia. According to some estimates, Lyme disease costs our Nation more than $2 billion in medical costs each year. Lyme disease can affect every part of the body. Tens of thousands of Americans suffer through pain, severe fatigue, sleep disturbance, and cognitive difficulties, among many other symptoms. Some of these victims are able to lead normal lives, finding ways to cope with the disease. But many more find the disease significantly disrupts their lives, preventing them from everyday experiences that we all take for granted. The legislation we offer today directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a Tick-Borne Diseases Advisory Committee at HHS to coordinate efforts and improve communication between the federal government, medical experts, physicians, and the public. It will improve diagnostic efforts, establish a national clearinghouse for research and reporting, and require that scientific viewpoints on this often-frustrating disease be disseminated in a balanced way. It contains tools for researchers, physicians, and the public to improve awareness and treatment. Finally, it requires the Secretary to prepare and submit to Congress an annual report tracking developments related to Lyme disease, its spread, its treatment, and its impact on families in Connecticut and around the country. Lyme disease is a frustrating puzzle for physicians, a burden on our Nation's health care system, and most importantly, a threat to American families enjoying our beautiful outdoor spaces. I want to specifically mention and thank the organization from my home State of Connecticut that worked closely with me to develop this legislation, Time for Lyme. The co-presidents and founders of Time for Lyme, Diane Blanchard and Debbie Siciliano, are tireless advocates for the patients struggling with chronic Lyme disease. This is not their job. They are parents whose children suffer from this disease. They work to find time in their busy schedules to make a difference. This is their mission and they give me hope that we can get this done. I also want to thank my good friend, Senator Collins, for her leadership on this issue. I want to thank Senators Reed, Lieberman, Cardin, and Whitehouse for their support for this bill. Whether it is fishing on the Housatonic River or exploring Gillette Castle State Park near my home in East Haddam, Connecticut families enjoy a variety of outdoor activities. But Lyme disease remains a persistent and dangerous risk for my constituents, for Senator Collins's constituents, and for those across the country. With leadership from this body and better coordination from federal agencies, we can more effectively combat this disease, better protect our children and families, and make our outdoor spaces safer places to work and play. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Collins and myself in support of this legislation and thank them kindly for their consideration.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation--and not just any old piece of legislation, I might add, because this organization I am about to talk about had as much to do with the formation of who I am as my family did: the Peace Corps Improvement and Expansion Act of 2009. I would point out that some 35 years ago a young man from Massachusetts and an equally young man from Connecticut were elected to the House of Representatives. A fellow by the name of Paul Tsongas and myself were the first two former Peace Corps volunteers to be elected to the Congress. Paul Tsongas went on to be elected to the Senate, I think, in 1978. He is no longer with us. He died tragically a number of years ago. His wife Niki is now a Member of the House of Representatives from Massachusetts. Paul Tsongas and I were great friends and enjoyed sharing stories with each other for many years about our respective Peace Corps experiences. Paul Tsongas served in Ethiopia--one of the earliest programs, if not the earliest program, in that country. I served in the Dominican Republic from 1966 through 1968 as a Peace Corps volunteer up in the mountains of that country, not far from the Haitian border. The Peace Corps experience for me was as formative, as I said at the outset of these remarks, as anything else in my life, with the exception of my own family; growing up with wonderful five brothers and sisters in Connecticut and a family who was deeply involved in public service. The Peace Corps experience was formative, and so over the years, I have expressed a great deal of interest in the organization and the various administrations that have served in Washington since the late 1970s through the 1980s and 1990s and this decade. So my interest in the organization is strong. The contribution of the Peace Corps has been remarkable over the years. It is one of the few Federal agencies that enjoys almost universal support from the American public. It has had greater moments of celebration and public awareness than at others, but it has been consistent in the minds of most Americans. This organization sends mostly younger Americans, but not always younger Americans, to serve in underprivileged nations, nations that are struggling, including Third World nations, to make a difference in the lives of others. It has been a unique contribution to the world. There are many other volunteer organizations--some in our own country, some in other nations--but I think the Peace Corps holds a special place in the minds not only of our own fellow citizenry but also millions of people around the world who have come to know those Peace Corps volunteers--as I said, mostly younger people but not always younger people--who serve and spend 2 years working with them in their villages or urban areas, not only making a difference in their daily lives but also getting to know them, getting to know us. People who would never have the chance to come to America got to know America because they got to know that young American who was learning their language and spending time with them and making a contribution to improve their lives. Well, for 48 years, the Peace Corps has stood as a uniquely American institution. I know other nations make contributions. This is not a unique idea for ourselves. But what other great nation would send its people abroad not to extend its power or intimidate its adversaries, not to kill or be killed, but to dig, to teach, to empower, and ask for nothing in return. For 48 years, those men and women--180,000 of us-- have returned, as stronger, wiser, and more inspired people prepared to live our American lives of service. For a half century, the Peace Corps has shaped our lives and the identity of all Americans; who we are as a people and what we hope to achieve, not only for our own Nation but also for others who share this planet with us. Today I rise to offer a piece of legislation for one simple reason, Mr. President: I want the Peace Corps to continue playing that role that it has for the last half century for another half century to come. But before we consider how the Peace Corps can grow going forward, I think it might be worth remembering just how it came into being. Where did it all start? How was it created? Like an awful lot of groundbreaking ideas, Mr. President, the Peace Corps might not have survived a board meeting or a subcommittee hearing where the idea was first proposed. It was a wild notion in many ways, so breathtakingly outrageous that it could only have been born out of idealism, youthful energy, and--perhaps a key element--too much caffeine. For you see, the Peace Corps was born at 2 in the morning. It was October 4, 1960, and a then young Senator from Massachusetts by the name of John F. Kennedy was running for the Presidency. He was running hours late, as candidates often do, for a campaign stop at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. John Kennedy assumed that most of the crowd would have gone home by that late hour. But when he arrived at the student union, at the campus in Ann Arbor, he found 10,000 students waiting outside in the frigid dark to greet him. As public officials and holders of elective office, I think we can sympathize with then-Senator Kennedy at that hour, having endured months of late nights on a campaign trail, uncomfortable beds, and a bad diet along the way. I suspect he might have been sorely tempted at that late hour--as all of us have been from time to time--to offer a perfunctory thank-you to the Michigan students for hanging around all that long, recite a memorized stump speech--having given it on countless occasions, he would know it from memory--and send them home and retire himself. But something besides a chill was in the air that night in Ann Arbor. Floodlit and shivering, the crowd began to chant his name as he climbed the steps to the student union, and Senator John Kennedy realized this was something special. He realized he owed these students more than just that perfunctory set of remarks. So at 1:30 or 2:00 in the morning, on a frigid night in Michigan, he challenged them as a candidate, as a United States Senator, and he asked: How many of you, who are going to be doctors, are willing to spend your days in Ghana? Technicians or engineers, how many of you are willing to work in the Foreign Service and spend your lives traveling around the world? I believe, Mr. President, that challenge is the Peace Corps' founding document. It didn't begin with a white paper or a TV ad. It began with a simple question. In the days that followed the Kennedy rally at the student union in Michigan, students drafted a petition, circulating it to colleges all across the State, and within a couple of weeks across the country, presenting several scrolls ultimately to John Fitzgerald Kennedy containing thousands upon thousands upon thousands of names. Some 30,000 letters flooded his office asking him to continue with this idea. So I think it is fair to say, Mr. President, the answer to that question--are you willing to serve your country by serving the world?-- was an overwhelming yes by a generation almost 50 years ago. Of course, several other pressing questions also followed: How do you build an organization around that raw energy? How do you pay for that? What do you even call that idea or organization? John Kennedy's top advisers were already working on those issues. After all, they had decided, if we don't start doing our part for the developing world, they were concerned--and rightfully so--the Communists around the world would. At a time much like today, when our Nation faced conflicts with people who knew as little of America as we knew of them, this case for a Peace Corps could be made not only in the lofty rhetoric of idealism but in the cold hard language of realpolitik. The notion that service could be a part of our foreign policy--indeed that it could be a powerful weapon in the Cold War--was truly a radical idea. It suggested that there could be more measures of strength than caliber or tonnage. It argued that the world needed to see our ideals not just in ink but incarnate in the person of Americans with dirty hands working under a hot foreign sun. It said: You cannot hate America if you know Americans. The skeptics quickly descended upon John Kennedy's idea. Richard Nixon called the Peace Corps ``a haven for draft-dodgers.'' Former President Dwight Eisenhower called it ``a juvenile experiment.'' Even those old foreign policy hands who supported Kennedy's idea thought it was a fine idea, as long as it was kept small. Academics and State Department officials agreed: Proceed with caution, they urged. Start with just a few hundred volunteers. Don't create a fiasco, they said. Don't let this experiment get out of hand. If they had gotten their way, I suspect the Peace Corps might not even exist today. But just as a late-night burst of exuberance gave birth to the Peace Corps in Ann Arbor, a similar bolt of sleepless inspiration kept it alive. In a hotel room in downtown Washington--not far from where I am on the floor of the Senate--with only a few typewriters and a stack of blank papers, two aides--only two of them; one named Sergeant Shriver and the other named Harris Wofford, who turned out many years later to be a colleague of ours in the Senate-- comprised the entirety of the Peace Corps staff that had been tasked with figuring out how to put this outrageous idea into practice. The one thing the two of these men knew, Sergeant Shriver later told us, was that the conventional approach then in vogue wouldn't work. America would only have one chance to get it right. So it was that Sergeant Shriver happened to be in the office at 3 o'clock in the morning--not unlike the hour at Ann Arbor--reading a paper prepared by a State Department employee who had sent along some ideas. His name was Warren Wiggins. Warren Wiggins called his paper ``The Towering Task,'' a reference to JFK's first State of the Union Address, where the young President said: The problems are towering and unprecedented and the response must be towering and unprecedented as well. Warren Wiggins called for a towering and unprecedented Peace Corps. He wrote: One hundred youths engaged in agricultural work of some sort in Brazil might pass by unnoticed, but 5,000 American youths helping to build Brasilia might warrant the full attention and support of the President of Brazil himself. Where a handful of young people might present a nuisance to a foreign ambassador, an army of motivated young Americans could make a real difference. Besides, wasn't it a moment for great ambition? At 3 o'clock in the morning, Sergeant Shriver read Warren Wiggins's conclusion: The Peace Corps needed to begin with a ``quantum jump,'' and it needed to begin immediately, by Executive order, with as many as 5,000 to 10,000 volunteers right away. By 9 o'clock that same morning, Warren Wiggins himself was sitting alongside Sergeant Shriver in that very hotel room drafting a report for the President of the United States. Within a month of that date, President John Kennedy had created the Peace Corps by Executive order. Within 2 years, more than 7,000 young Americans were serving across the globe, and that number had more than doubled by 1966, the year that I joined the Peace Corps. One of those young Americans--as I mentioned, the person speaking to you this afternoon--was a 22-year-old English major at Providence College who arrived in the small village of Moncion in the Dominican Republic. As a young person, I spoke barely any Spanish. I had little idea I was doing, and I certainly didn't have a clue that more than 40 years later I would be standing on the floor of the United States Senate explaining that the Peace Corps gave me the richest 2 years of my life. I owe those 2 years, and the impact they had on all of my years since, to John Kennedy's 2 a.m. question and Warren Wiggins paper that Sergeant Shriver read at 3 in the morning. From the story of the Peace Corps, and my own story, we can learn three things: First, the Peace Corps works, Mr. President. Besides simple labor and goodwill, every American we send abroad brings with him or her another chance to make America known to a world that often fears and suspects us and our motives. Every American who returns to our country from that service comes home as a citizen strengthened with the knowledge of the world in which he or she has just lived. As Sargent Shriver said, ``Peace Corps Volunteers come home to the USA realizing that there are billions--yes, billions--of human beings not enraptured by our pretensions, or our practices, or even our standards of conduct.'' Second: size matters. The perils of a small, timid Peace Corps are just as clear today as they were in 1961. Just as then, advocates of a stripped-down mission make the same arguments: sending untrained, untested students only aggravates our host countries and raises the chance of a mishap--so let's send a few experts instead. And just as in 1961, our response is fundamentally the same, and still fundamentally correct: of course we need volunteers of the highest quality. But we need the highest quantities, too. Third: size comes at a cost. The bigger any organism grows, the slower it gets. The Peace Corps that charted its course in a hotel room with a staff of two now enjoys a staff of over a thousand and a fine office building close to the White House. But even the most groundbreaking ideas must all make, in good time, what the philosopher Gramsci called ``the long march through the institutions.'' And where President Kennedy once predicted that, within a few decades, our Nation would have more than one million returned volunteers, today fewer than 200,000 have had the opportunity to serve. The legislation I offer today is designed to help the Peace Corps not only grow--and I have joined the many voices calling for it to grow dramatically--but also reform. To those who know and love the Peace Corps, reform is an uncomfortable subject. After all, we don't want to destroy what has made this institution so remarkable and unique. There wouldn't be a Peace Corps if JFK had stuck to the script in Ann Arbor. There wouldn't be a Peace Corps if thousands of students, acting on their own initiative, hadn't caught his attention with their movement. There might not be a Peace Corps if Sargent Shriver had listened to the respectable voices of caution in the early days of 1961. The Peace Corps is unlike any other organ of our government because of its uniquely grassroots origin. And we can't treat it like any other organ of our government for those reasons. So the Peace Corps Improvement and Expansion Act of 2009 does not include a list of mandates. It does not micromanage. Instead, it asks those who have written this remarkable success story--from the Director to managers and country directors to current and returned volunteers--to serve once more by undertaking a thorough assessment of the Peace Corps and developing a comprehensive strategic plan for reforming and revitalizing the organization. Just as JFK's question to those Michigan students sparked the Peace Corps, asking questions today, some 50 years later, I believe will strengthen it. How can volunteers be better managed? How can they be better trained? Can we improve recruiting? Are we sending our volunteers to the right countries? Why do we have volunteers in Samoa and Tonga, but not in Indonesia, Egypt, or Brazil? Are we still achieving the broader goals of the Peace Corps and helping our country meet 21st century challenges? Most of all: How can we strengthen and grow this remarkable organization without losing the spark--the ambitious sense of the possible that led JFK to stay up late dreaming with those students in Ann Arbor and Sargent Shriver to stay up even later reading Warren Wiggins's paper? Warren Wiggins died 2 years ago at the age of 84. His obituary quoted Harris Wofford: ``I think he embodied the watchwords that were once given to me: We must be more inventive if we're going to do our duty.'' Inventiveness and duty: two qualities that don't often go together. But the Peace Corps is the result of just such a combination. It has strengthened our Nation, improved the world, and stands today as one of the signal accomplishments of the 20th century. It has been supported by Republican and Democratic administrations over the last 50 years. As I said at the outset of these remarks, except for my own family, nothing has meant more in my life--or in the lives of so many others-- than the experience I enjoyed so many years ago. Today we honor the accomplishment of this organization. But let us commit to strengthening and expanding the Peace Corps by passing this legislation which I will send to the desk momentarily. Let us strive to inspire future generations to walk the path of service and exploration, the one that led me and thousands of our Nation's citizens to nations such as the Dominican Republic or Ethiopia, where Paul Tsongas served, and then years later to arrive at this institution, which I cherish and love as well. And let us never lose that spirit, that idealism, that ambition that led a young President of a young nation to ask a generation to serve.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my fellow New Englander, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, in introducing the Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Prevention, Education, and Research Act of 2009. As families in New England look forward to outdoor fun this summer-- and as families around the country look forward to vacationing in New England--they might not be thinking about the risks and dangers associated with hiking, camping, and other outdoor activities. But every year, tens of thousands of Americans working or playing outdoors are bitten by ticks. For most, a tick bite is nothing more than a minor annoyance. But approximately 20,000 Americans contract Lyme disease each year, and the numbers are rising. And because Lyme disease is difficult to diagnose, many experts believe the true number of cases each year could be as much as 10 or 12 times the reported number. Worst of all, it is our children who are most at risk. Lyme disease was first described in my home State of Connecticut, and we still have the unfortunate distinction of being ten times more likely to contract Lyme disease than the rest of the Nation. But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has received reports of new cases from 46 States and the District of Columbia. According to some estimates, Lyme disease costs our Nation more than $2 billion in medical costs each year. Lyme disease can affect every part of the body. Tens of thousands of Americans suffer through pain, severe fatigue, sleep disturbance, and cognitive difficulties, among many other symptoms. Some of these victims are able to lead normal lives, finding ways to cope with the disease. But many more find the disease significantly disrupts their lives, preventing them from everyday experiences that we all take for granted. The legislation we offer today directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a Tick-Borne Diseases Advisory Committee at HHS to coordinate efforts and improve communication between the federal government, medical experts, physicians, and the public. It will improve diagnostic efforts, establish a national clearinghouse for research and reporting, and require that scientific viewpoints on this often-frustrating disease be disseminated in a balanced way. It contains tools for researchers, physicians, and the public to improve awareness and treatment. Finally, it requires the Secretary to prepare and submit to Congress an annual report tracking developments related to Lyme disease, its spread, its treatment, and its impact on families in Connecticut and around the country. Lyme disease is a frustrating puzzle for physicians, a burden on our Nation's health care system, and most importantly, a threat to American families enjoying our beautiful outdoor spaces. I want to specifically mention and thank the organization from my home State of Connecticut that worked closely with me to develop this legislation, Time for Lyme. The co-presidents and founders of Time for Lyme, Diane Blanchard and Debbie Siciliano, are tireless advocates for the patients struggling with chronic Lyme disease. This is not their job. They are parents whose children suffer from this disease. They work to find time in their busy schedules to make a difference. This is their mission and they give me hope that we can get this done. I also want to thank my good friend, Senator Collins, for her leadership on this issue. I want to thank Senators Reed, Lieberman, Cardin, and Whitehouse for their support for this bill. Whether it is fishing on the Housatonic River or exploring Gillette Castle State Park near my home in East Haddam, Connecticut families enjoy a variety of outdoor activities. But Lyme disease remains a persistent and dangerous risk for my constituents, for Senator Collins's constituents, and for those across the country. With leadership from this body and better coordination from federal agencies, we can more effectively combat this disease, better protect our children and families, and make our outdoor spaces safer places to work and play. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Collins and myself in support of this legislation and thank them kindly for their consideration.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation--and not just any old piece of legislation, I might add, because this organization I am about to talk about had as much to do with the formation of who I am as my family did: the Peace Corps Improvement and Expansion Act of 2009. I would point out that some 35 years ago a young man from Massachusetts and an equally young man from Connecticut were elected to the House of Representatives. A fellow by the name of Paul Tsongas and myself were the first two former Peace Corps volunteers to be elected to the Congress. Paul Tsongas went on to be elected to the Senate, I think, in 1978. He is no longer with us. He died tragically a number of years ago. His wife Niki is now a Member of the House of Representatives from Massachusetts. Paul Tsongas and I were great friends and enjoyed sharing stories with each other for many years about our respective Peace Corps experiences. Paul Tsongas served in Ethiopia--one of the earliest programs, if not the earliest program, in that country. I served in the Dominican Republic from 1966 through 1968 as a Peace Corps volunteer up in the mountains of that country, not far from the Haitian border. The Peace Corps experience for me was as formative, as I said at the outset of these remarks, as anything else in my life, with the exception of my own family; growing up with wonderful five brothers and sisters in Connecticut and a family who was deeply involved in public service. The Peace Corps experience was formative, and so over the years, I have expressed a great deal of interest in the organization and the various administrations that have served in Washington since the late 1970s through the 1980s and 1990s and this decade. So my interest in the organization is strong. The contribution of the Peace Corps has been remarkable over the years. It is one of the few Federal agencies that enjoys almost universal support from the American public. It has had greater moments of celebration and public awareness than at others, but it has been consistent in the minds of most Americans. This organization sends mostly younger Americans, but not always younger Americans, to serve in underprivileged nations, nations that are struggling, including Third World nations, to make a difference in the lives of others. It has been a unique contribution to the world. There are many other volunteer organizations--some in our own country, some in other nations--but I think the Peace Corps holds a special place in the minds not only of our own fellow citizenry but also millions of people around the world who have come to know those Peace Corps volunteers--as I said, mostly younger people but not always younger people--who serve and spend 2 years working with them in their villages or urban areas, not only making a difference in their daily lives but also getting to know them, getting to know us. People who would never have the chance to come to America got to know America because they got to know that young American who was learning their language and spending time with them and making a contribution to improve their lives. Well, for 48 years, the Peace Corps has stood as a uniquely American institution. I know other nations make contributions. This is not a unique idea for ourselves. But what other great nation would send its people abroad not to extend its power or intimidate its adversaries, not to kill or be killed, but to dig, to teach, to empower, and ask for nothing in return. For 48 years, those men and women--180,000 of us-- have returned, as stronger, wiser, and more inspired people prepared to live our American lives of service. For a half century, the Peace Corps has shaped our lives and the identity of all Americans; who we are as a people and what we hope to achieve, not only for our own Nation but also for others who share this planet with us. Today I rise to offer a piece of legislation for one simple reason, Mr. President: I want the Peace Corps to continue playing that role that it has for the last half century for another half century to come. But before we consider how the Peace Corps can grow going forward, I think it might be worth remembering just how it came into being. Where did it all start? How was it created? Like an awful lot of groundbreaking ideas, Mr. President, the Peace Corps might not have survived a board meeting or a subcommittee hearing where the idea was first proposed. It was a wild notion in many ways, so breathtakingly outrageous that it could only have been born out of idealism, youthful energy, and--perhaps a key element--too much caffeine. For you see, the Peace Corps was born at 2 in the morning. It was October 4, 1960, and a then young Senator from Massachusetts by the name of John F. Kennedy was running for the Presidency. He was running hours late, as candidates often do, for a campaign stop at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. John Kennedy assumed that most of the crowd would have gone home by that late hour. But when he arrived at the student union, at the campus in Ann Arbor, he found 10,000 students waiting outside in the frigid dark to greet him. As public officials and holders of elective office, I think we can sympathize with then-Senator Kennedy at that hour, having endured months of late nights on a campaign trail, uncomfortable beds, and a bad diet along the way. I suspect he might have been sorely tempted at that late hour--as all of us have been from time to time--to offer a perfunctory thank-you to the Michigan students for hanging around all that long, recite a memorized stump speech--having given it on countless occasions, he would know it from memory--and send them home and retire himself. But something besides a chill was in the air that night in Ann Arbor. Floodlit and shivering, the crowd began to chant his name as he climbed the steps to the student union, and Senator John Kennedy realized this was something special. He realized he owed these students more than just that perfunctory set of remarks. So at 1:30 or 2:00 in the morning, on a frigid night in Michigan, he challenged them as a candidate, as a United States Senator, and he asked: How many of you, who are going to be doctors, are willing to spend your days in Ghana? Technicians or engineers, how many of you are willing to work in the Foreign Service and spend your lives traveling around the world? I believe, Mr. President, that challenge is the Peace Corps' founding document. It didn't begin with a white paper or a TV ad. It began with a simple question. In the days that followed the Kennedy rally at the student union in Michigan, students drafted a petition, circulating it to colleges all across the State, and within a couple of weeks across the country, presenting several scrolls ultimately to John Fitzgerald Kennedy containing thousands upon thousands upon thousands of names. Some 30,000 letters flooded his office asking him to continue with this idea. So I think it is fair to say, Mr. President, the answer to that question--are you willing to serve your country by serving the world?-- was an overwhelming yes by a generation almost 50 years ago. Of course, several other pressing questions also followed: How do you build an organization around that raw energy? How do you pay for that? What do you even call that idea or organization? John Kennedy's top advisers were already working on those issues. After all, they had decided, if we don't start doing our part for the developing world, they were concerned--and rightfully so--the Communists around the world would. At a time much like today, when our Nation faced conflicts with people who knew as little of America as we knew of them, this case for a Peace Corps could be made not only in the lofty rhetoric of idealism but in the cold hard language of realpolitik. The notion that service could be a part of our foreign policy--indeed that it could be a powerful weapon in the Cold War--was truly a radical idea. It suggested that there could be more measures of strength than caliber or tonnage. It argued that the world needed to see our ideals not just in ink but incarnate in the person of Americans with dirty hands working under a hot foreign sun. It said: You cannot hate America if you know Americans. The skeptics quickly descended upon John Kennedy's idea. Richard Nixon called the Peace Corps ``a haven for draft-dodgers.'' Former President Dwight Eisenhower called it ``a juvenile experiment.'' Even those old foreign policy hands who supported Kennedy's idea thought it was a fine idea, as long as it was kept small. Academics and State Department officials agreed: Proceed with caution, they urged. Start with just a few hundred volunteers. Don't create a fiasco, they said. Don't let this experiment get out of hand. If they had gotten their way, I suspect the Peace Corps might not even exist today. But just as a late-night burst of exuberance gave birth to the Peace Corps in Ann Arbor, a similar bolt of sleepless inspiration kept it alive. In a hotel room in downtown Washington--not far from where I am on the floor of the Senate--with only a few typewriters and a stack of blank papers, two aides--only two of them; one named Sergeant Shriver and the other named Harris Wofford, who turned out many years later to be a colleague of ours in the Senate-- comprised the entirety of the Peace Corps staff that had been tasked with figuring out how to put this outrageous idea into practice. The one thing the two of these men knew, Sergeant Shriver later told us, was that the conventional approach then in vogue wouldn't work. America would only have one chance to get it right. So it was that Sergeant Shriver happened to be in the office at 3 o'clock in the morning--not unlike the hour at Ann Arbor--reading a paper prepared by a State Department employee who had sent along some ideas. His name was Warren Wiggins. Warren Wiggins called his paper ``The Towering Task,'' a reference to JFK's first State of the Union Address, where the young President said: The problems are towering and unprecedented and the response must be towering and unprecedented as well. Warren Wiggins called for a towering and unprecedented Peace Corps. He wrote: One hundred youths engaged in agricultural work of some sort in Brazil might pass by unnoticed, but 5,000 American youths helping to build Brasilia might warrant the full attention and support of the President of Brazil himself. Where a handful of young people might present a nuisance to a foreign ambassador, an army of motivated young Americans could make a real difference. Besides, wasn't it a moment for great ambition? At 3 o'clock in the morning, Sergeant Shriver read Warren Wiggins's conclusion: The Peace Corps needed to begin with a ``quantum jump,'' and it needed to begin immediately, by Executive order, with as many as 5,000 to 10,000 volunteers right away. By 9 o'clock that same morning, Warren Wiggins himself was sitting alongside Sergeant Shriver in that very hotel room drafting a report for the President of the United States. Within a month of that date, President John Kennedy had created the Peace Corps by Executive order. Within 2 years, more than 7,000 young Americans were serving across the globe, and that number had more than doubled by 1966, the year that I joined the Peace Corps. One of those young Americans--as I mentioned, the person speaking to you this afternoon--was a 22-year-old English major at Providence College who arrived in the small village of Moncion in the Dominican Republic. As a young person, I spoke barely any Spanish. I had little idea I was doing, and I certainly didn't have a clue that more than 40 years later I would be standing on the floor of the United States Senate explaining that the Peace Corps gave me the richest 2 years of my life. I owe those 2 years, and the impact they had on all of my years since, to John Kennedy's 2 a.m. question and Warren Wiggins paper that Sergeant Shriver read at 3 in the morning. From the story of the Peace Corps, and my own story, we can learn three things: First, the Peace Corps works, Mr. President. Besides simple labor and goodwill, every American we send abroad brings with him or her another chance to make America known to a world that often fears and suspects us and our motives. Every American who returns to our country from that service comes home as a citizen strengthened with the knowledge of the world in which he or she has just lived. As Sargent Shriver said, ``Peace Corps Volunteers come home to the USA realizing that there are billions--yes, billions--of human beings not enraptured by our pretensions, or our practices, or even our standards of conduct.'' Second: size matters. The perils of a small, timid Peace Corps are just as clear today as they were in 1961. Just as then, advocates of a stripped-down mission make the same arguments: sending untrained, untested students only aggravates our host countries and raises the chance of a mishap--so let's send a few experts instead. And just as in 1961, our response is fundamentally the same, and still fundamentally correct: of course we need volunteers of the highest quality. But we need the highest quantities, too. Third: size comes at a cost. The bigger any organism grows, the slower it gets. The Peace Corps that charted its course in a hotel room with a staff of two now enjoys a staff of over a thousand and a fine office building close to the White House. But even the most groundbreaking ideas must all make, in good time, what the philosopher Gramsci called ``the long march through the institutions.'' And where President Kennedy once predicted that, within a few decades, our Nation would have more than one million returned volunteers, today fewer than 200,000 have had the opportunity to serve. The legislation I offer today is designed to help the Peace Corps not only grow--and I have joined the many voices calling for it to grow dramatically--but also reform. To those who know and love the Peace Corps, reform is an uncomfortable subject. After all, we don't want to destroy what has made this institution so remarkable and unique. There wouldn't be a Peace Corps if JFK had stuck to the script in Ann Arbor. There wouldn't be a Peace Corps if thousands of students, acting on their own initiative, hadn't caught his attention with their movement. There might not be a Peace Corps if Sargent Shriver had listened to the respectable voices of caution in the early days of 1961. The Peace Corps is unlike any other organ of our government because of its uniquely grassroots origin. And we can't treat it like any other organ of our government for those reasons. So the Peace Corps Improvement and Expansion Act of 2009 does not include a list of mandates. It does not micromanage. Instead, it asks those who have written this remarkable success story--from the Director to managers and country directors to current and returned volunteers--to serve once more by undertaking a thorough assessment of the Peace Corps and developing a comprehensive strategic plan for reforming and revitalizing the organization. Just as JFK's question to those Michigan students sparked the Peace Corps, asking questions today, some 50 years later, I believe will strengthen it. How can volunteers be better managed? How can they be better trained? Can we improve recruiting? Are we sending our volunteers to the right countries? Why do we have volunteers in Samoa and Tonga, but not in Indonesia, Egypt, or Brazil? Are we still achieving the broader goals of the Peace Corps and helping our country meet 21st century challenges? Most of all: How can we strengthen and grow this remarkable organization without losing the spark--the ambitious sense of the possible that led JFK to stay up late dreaming with those students in Ann Arbor and Sargent Shriver to stay up even later reading Warren Wiggins's paper? Warren Wiggins died 2 years ago at the age of 84. His obituary quoted Harris Wofford: ``I think he embodied the watchwords that were once given to me: We must be more inventive if we're going to do our duty.'' Inventiveness and duty: two qualities that don't often go together. But the Peace Corps is the result of just such a combination. It has strengthened our Nation, improved the world, and stands today as one of the signal accomplishments of the 20th century. It has been supported by Republican and Democratic administrations over the last 50 years. As I said at the outset of these remarks, except for my own family, nothing has meant more in my life--or in the lives of so many others-- than the experience I enjoyed so many years ago. Today we honor the accomplishment of this organization. But let us commit to strengthening and expanding the Peace Corps by passing this legislation which I will send to the desk momentarily. Let us strive to inspire future generations to walk the path of service and exploration, the one that led me and thousands of our Nation's citizens to nations such as the Dominican Republic or Ethiopia, where Paul Tsongas served, and then years later to arrive at this institution, which I cherish and love as well. And let us never lose that spirit, that idealism, that ambition that led a young President of a young nation to ask a generation to serve.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I see my friend from Ohio, Senator Brown, who has been a champion of this issue, not only as a Member of this body but as a former Member of the other body. He has spoken eloquently on this already. I will defer to him whatever time he may wish to use. I am told Senator Enzi will be here shortly. We will go back and forth between now and 2:30.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Ohio for his remarks and for his efforts over the years. This has been a long journey. It goes back 50 years. Back then, the Surgeon General of the United States warned of the health effects of smoking--a half century ago. I know we will have a big vote at 2:30, and that is great news. Sometimes a large vote such as this minimizes the impact of the decision. This has been a very long battle. Somebody told me the other day the issue to ban smoking on airplanes only passed the Congress by one vote. Imagine today if somebody tried to restore the right, or privilege, to smoke on airplanes. I doubt you would find one vote in favor. Even smokers object to smoking on airplanes today. So only by a one-vote margin did Congress vote to ban that practice. On Monday, we had a cloture vote. People can vote for a lot of different reasons. I don't suggest that everybody who voted against cloture was in favor of continuing to allow the tobacco industry to be unregulated. But by a 1-vote margin, basically, 61 votes, on a bipartisan basis, we terminated that debate, which is bringing us to the vote in 20 minutes. While it may seem like another vote on this day, June 11, 2009, it is a significant vote. I don't know of another vote in the last number of years as important as this one. We are going to start a markup in the next week--my friend from Wyoming has been involved in this and is passionate about the issue of smoking. We are going to mark up bills and fashion a major health care reform debate in this country. What better way to begin that debate than by the vote we are going to take in a few minutes. For the first time in the history of our country, we will insist that tobacco products be regulated by the FDA. To put this into perspective, the FDA regulates not only all the food and other products we ingest, it regulates cosmetics, mascara, lipstick, and all sorts of products that we not only ingest but that we also use on our bodies. It also controls the products your pets consume, such as cat food, dog food, hamsters, and whatever else; the FDA has the power to regulate that. But for 50 years, the tobacco industry has successfully fought the ability to regulate tobacco products. Yet 3,000 to 4,000 kids start smoking every day in this country; 400,000 a year die, as you have heard from Senator Brown. It is incredible to me that for more years than many want to believe or count, we have had an industry that has gone basically unregulated. Of course, the idea that you can put cherry flavors and strawberry flavors in a cigarette and use cartoon figures to market it, that is not aimed at the 30- and 40-year-old tobacco user, it is aimed at children. One thousand of those children become addicted every day, and one-third that number will die prematurely from smoking. I will guarantee you there is not an adult smoker who wishes their child would begin smoking. I guarantee you that virtually 100 percent of adult smokers have many wishes for their children and one is that their children never start the habit that they did. We are told by health officials, experts, that the average person who smokes and tries to quit, tries seven times before effectively kicking the habit. I am a former smoker. Let me tell you, it is hard. I know others have not smoked, and my colleague from Wyoming talks about his own family smoking. He never did, but he grew up in a family that did. My mother smoked cigarettes and my father smoked cigars and pipes in our house with six children. Many of my siblings smoked growing up, all of whom have stopped. But it is hard. Today, in the name of my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, who for four decades championed this, as well as Henry Waxman in the House, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, and many others who have fought this battle, we will vote at 2:30. It will go through overwhelmingly, and we will go on to the next matter. Our leader, Harry Reid, insisted we stay on this matter. That is leadership. He could have easily said let's move on to another issue, it is taking too long--3 weeks to get it done. But because Harry Reid and Dick Durbin and Mike Enzi stayed with us and insisted we go through a normal process, which is right to do in our committee, with the good staff people who have worked hard on this, we are going to get this done today. We might move on to the next issue then. For the first time, we will make a difference by requiring that the FDA regulate the production, the sale, and the marketing of these products. That is history. I cannot tell you how proud I am to be involved in it, in the name of Ted Kennedy and the others who came before us, including Mike DeWine of Ohio, Tom Davis, Henry Waxman and many others and the thousands of organizations that joined us in this effort today.

Mr. DODD. Yes.