Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Refugees, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2009, Can We Do It and How?'' on Thursday, April 30, 2009, at 2 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate office building.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 30, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``National Security Reform: Implementing a National Security Service Workforce.''

Mr. DODD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. DODD. I would like to, if I may, spend a few minutes addressing that issue. I rise in strong support of Governor Sebelius. Let me thank the people of Kansas. This is a remarkable nominee. I know she has served the people of Kansas well during her tenure as Governor, insurance commissioner, State representative, and we are fortunate indeed that President Obama has asked the Governor of Kansas to come to our Nation's Capital to serve as the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We owe her a debt of gratitude as well for being willing to accept this responsibility at a time that, with the exception of some 15 years ago, only the second time in more than half a century, this institution and this city will grapple with one of the compelling issues of our day; that is, to deal with a national health care crisis in America. Governor Sebelius has demonstrated a willingness to take on a very large issue which is highly complicated and brings out passionate responses from people across the political spectrum. So we are grateful. I am grateful to her for taking on this challenge. I am appreciative of the President for asking her to do so. I would hope our colleagues would come together. There is always too much delay in a lot of nominations. I have been a Member of this body for many years. I think I can count on one or two hands the number of times, in more than two decades, that I have opposed nominees of either party. I have always been of the view that Presidents and elections mean things. If you are elected President of the United States, then a President ought to have an opportunity to carry out the mandates or the promises they have made as a candidate. So those of us who are in the opposition from time to time, other than disagreeing with or deciding to vote against someone because maybe there is some serious problem that underlies that nomination--but I have never felt the views of a nominee ought to necessarily decide my vote in favor of or against them; that Presidents ought to be able to have people they believe will help carry out their wishes and campaign promises; that if we in the opposition try to guarantee that people who share our views are going to be in the Cabinet, that seems to be contrary to the will of the American people who have made a different choice on election day. I know that is disappointing to people from time to time. I know that when I have supported various nominees of President Reagan, President Bush, No. 41, and George Bush, his son, No. 43, voted in support of those nominees, there were those who were disappointed that I would cast a ballot for the nominee. But my answer always was that they were elected--obviously a very controversial election in the case of George W. Bush in 2000, but nonetheless ultimately he was the choice to be our President and as such deserved to be able to have the nominees in his Cabinet, the people he thought would best serve the country. There were occasions when I did vote against some nominees but never on the basis of what their views were. There may have been some other disqualifying factor, but there were very few over the years. So at this hour, it has been since March 2 that the President nominated Kathleen Sebelius to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We are now ending the month of April and going into the month of May. We have been told as a nation over the last several days that we are now potentially facing a pandemic issue in the swine flu problem. Having a Secretary of Health and Human Services, which is the job that would necessarily coordinate and lead the efforts both at home and working with Secretary of State Clinton and others, coordinate the effort internationally on this matter--it is time to move along. While I know there are those who have very strongly held views about various matters that will come before the Department of Health and Human Services, elections have consequences. President Obama won the election. This is his choice to lead that agency and to deal with the myriad of other problems we must grapple with as a country. I think it is time for this body to discuss these matters over the appropriate period of time and then to move along and to not delay for as long a time as we have seen already a nomination of this importance. The HELP Committee, on which I serve--the Health Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--and the Finance Committee held hearings on Governor Sebelius back at the end of the last month, and the majority leader attempted to get unanimous consent to move her nomination almost a week ago. Those efforts have been blocked by the minority party here. Now we find ourselves in the midst of what appears to be a global crisis, as I mentioned, and for no apparent reason that I can determine, other than maybe some politics, we still do not have the Secretary of Health and Human Services confirmed. I believe most Americans, regardless of political party, would like to see someone leading this agency and helping us grapple with these issues. I do not think they are going to be pleased, even if they disagree with the politics of the nominee, to have that spot vacant at a time when we need leadership, particularly someone as highly qualified as Governor Sebelius is. Again, I commend the Obama administration for its handling of the swine flu threat so far. It is clear that the various agencies in Government are working closely and collaboratively. As a result of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and many of my colleagues in the Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, we were able to pass and fund what was called the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act and the predecessor bioterrorism legislation. The country as a whole has made great strides in surveillance, coordination, communications, and treatment capabilities. Let me specifically thank several of our colleagues, because I was deeply involved in those negotiations on that legislation many years ago--well, several years ago. They include Richard Burr of North Carolina, a Republican Member, our colleague, who is deeply involved in the issue; then-Majority Leader Frist of Tennessee was very involved; Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, and myself are the four, along with Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, involved from time to time in trying to craft that legislation dealing with the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act and some of the bioterrorism legislation. My colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, put that together. Richard Burr was very deeply involved in that question, and we ought to thank him for his insistence so many years ago. So we have been involved in these issues on a bipartisan basis, and I would hope, again, this nomination can go forward on a similar basis. The U.S. response to this current global threat is evidence that those efforts taken some years ago are paying off. But the lead agency in all of this, and other possible health threats, is the Health and Human Services Department. That Department lacks a leader today, and that is the reason we are still here a week later debating whether this nominee of incredibly impeccable credentials is being held up for as long as she is. Having served on the so-called HELP Committee for many years, I cannot recall another time when the challenges facing the Secretary of Health and Human Services were so complex. I have already addressed some of those issues. Our economy is in the worst shape it has been in for decades. We have a health care system that is broken, impacting families, businesses, and our competitiveness as a nation. The Department of Health and Human Services and the agencies within its purview are in need of attention and leadership. It is critical that the Department once again base its decisions on the best available science, not the political ideology of the moment. President Obama has already made tremendous progress in this respect with the signing of an Executive order overturning the previous administration's harmful restrictions on embryonic stem cell research and the signing of a Presidential memorandum on scientific integrity. I commend him for it. He has moved quickly to appoint highly qualified candidates such as Governor Sebelius to key positions within the Department, such as the FDA Commissioner and the head of the Health Resources and Services Administration. Governor Sebelius brings a wealth of experience I have referenced already, working in a bipartisan fashion to improve the lives of families in her State. The outpouring of support, on a bipartisan basis, ought to be welcome and celebrated. Rarely do you see someone bring that much support across the political spectrum that Governor Sebelius has to this, the nomination to head this Department. The knowledge and expertise she gained as Governor, the insurance commissioner of her State, and the State representative will be instrumental in achieving comprehensive health care reform--reform that at long last will bring affordable quality health care, we hope, to all Americans. The case for reform of our health care system has never been stronger or more urgent, and I happen to be one who is optimistic about the prospects of achieving health care reform this year under the leadership of Max Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee; Senator Ted Kennedy, the chairman of the HELP Committee; and the respective leadership on the House side along with, obviously, President Obama; the participation of other people--our colleagues, such as Orrin Hatch, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, certainly Chuck Grassley, the Republican former chairman of the Finance Committee, now the Republican ranking member, and many others with whom we have had extensive meetings already trying to achieve what our majority leader has called for, and that is a strong, bipartisan effort here to put together a national health reform package. So a lot of good people are already buying in, trying to achieve that result. What we have been missing in all of this is the head of the Health and Human Services Department, to help pull that piece of the puzzle together for us as well. We are in such a different place than we were 15 years ago on this issue. Then we had a host of opposition lined up. Today, those who organized to torpedo those efforts 15 years ago, frankly, are at the table today anxious for us to share and put together a proposal that would enjoy that kind of support I mentioned a moment ago. The economics of our country are certainly in a much different place than they were in 1993 and 1994. Today, health care accounts for over 16 percent of the gross domestic product of our country--health care costs. According to the Office of Management and Budget, by the year 2018--not that far away--national health spending, if unabated, could account for a fifth, more than 20 percent of our gross domestic product. There are those who believe that within 10 years that figure of 16 percent could double to more than 30 percent of our gross domestic product. That is unacceptable. If you are not motivated by the morality and ethics of having 45 million Americans without any health care, of which 9 million in that number are children, today we rank among the lowest scores or the worst scores of infant mortality among industrialized nations. There are 100,000 people a year who die in this country from avoidable medical errors. Those are not the kinds of statistics we want to associate with our great country. So, in addition to the moral, the health care issues, the ethical questions, the economics of this issue demand attention. If you are not impressed by any other motivation on why we ought to achieve universal, quality, affordable health care, founded on the notion of prevention, then the economic justification ought to persuade you. The health care system we have today puts personal finances at risk, threatens our global competitiveness. General Motors, to give you one example, estimates that health care costs add over $1,500 to the selling price of each automobile it produces, and it paid $5.2 billion in health benefits in 2004. That is more than it paid for steel. That will give you an idea why that company is facing as much pressure as it is, as well as other automobile manufacturers. Look at the foreclosure issue. There are 10,000 people today who will be at risk of losing their homes. That is true every day in our country in the midst of this major economic crisis. There are 20,000 people a day, on average, who are losing their jobs in the United States. So when you are losing your job, you may lose your home and retirement. Remember this: Almost half of all of those foreclosures that will occur today are partly caused by the financial crisis stemming from medical costs. I will repeat that. Almost half--50 percent of those 10,000 foreclosures that will occur today are partly caused by the financial crisis stemming from health care costs. As chairman of the Banking Committee and a 26-year veteran on the HELP Committee, I share the President's belief that fixing the health care crisis is essential to fixing our economy. We can talk about all the other issues dealing with availability of credit and what is happening to banks and to the financial stability of the Nation, but we cannot have a conversation about all that and disregard the issue of health care. Twenty-eight million Americans who work for small businesses are without health care. Premiums on average are 18 percent higher than they were a few years ago. In Connecticut, premium costs have gone up 42 percent in 8 years. Imagine what that has done at a time when wages and salaries have not increased anything remotely close to that. Premiums and out-of-pocket costs for health care and individuals continue to skyrocket. Chairmen Kennedy and Baucus of the respective HELP and Finance Committees are working closely together on this process, trying to fashion a timeline and policy that will fit together. Both chairmen have stated a shared goal of marking up health care legislation in early June. I strongly believe that timetable is achievable. But we need to have a Secretary of Health and Human Services, if we are going to mark up a bill in June. We have had this nomination pending for more than a month, have spent a week debating it, and we are in the month of May. Most Americans want the petty politics put aside and the people in place we need to lead this effort. They care about health care. They understand what happens: When one loses their job, they lose their health care. Last year one in three Americans, between 2007 and 2008, had a gap where they had no health care for one reason or another. Lord forbid someone is in that gap and something happens to them or their spouse or a child and they end up having to pay out-of-pocket expenses for the care of that individual. That is a fear everyone has who faces that possibility or is in that situation today. I say this respectfully. It is time to get the people in place who can help us get this job done. Delaying this nomination because you don't agree with everything that Kathleen Sebelius says or supports is not justification for denying this administration and, more importantly, the American people a leader at the Department of HHS to move forward. I wish to say a quick word about the comparative effectiveness research which has been mentioned as a reason for holding up the nomination. This effort is about expanding Americans' access to health care, not restricting it. We also want to give patients and their doctors the tools they need to make the right decisions about care. That is what comparative effectiveness research is all about, empowering patients and medical providers. It is not about rationing care. Comparative effectiveness research is about helping patients and providers figure out together which therapies and treatments work best for them. It is not about restricting or limiting health care options but, rather, about helping them understand their health care better and more accurately chart a course of treatment. The President has made such research a high priority by having invested in it through the recovery act's $10 billion for the National Institutes of Health and $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research. I support the President and Governor Sebelius in this effort to inform patients and providers. This is the moment for health care reform. Failure is not an option for our Nation. I look forward to working with Governor Sebelius to make meaningful, lasting change to our Nation's health care system. While health care reform is a top priority, I also wish to address quickly another vitally important issue to the responsibility of the department; that is, early childhood education and development. This is an issue that has long been near and dear to my heart, since 1981, when I started the children's caucus in the Senate almost 30 years ago with Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who was a new Senator as well that year, along with people such as Patrick Moynihan, Bob Dole, and Bill Bradley. Each brought a deepening interest in what was happening to one out of four Americans who are children. As a result of our efforts over the years, we have made a difference. I am encouraged by the commitment of President Obama to early childhood education. I look forward to working on new proposals as well as strengthening current programs such as Head Start and the CCDBG for childcare to benefit children and families. An investment in our youngest Americans pays off in their readiness for school, their health, and job creation now and in the future and the need for fewer social services later in the child's life. Now is the time to put partisan politics aside, confirm Governor Sebelius so we can have the kind of leader most Americans are looking for and provide the guidance the Department of Health and Human Services will need if we are going to succeed in this effort. I urge confirmation of this remarkable individual who has offered her services to the country, who is making the kind of sacrifice to come forward and serve our Nation at a critical moment. That is to be celebrated. That is patriotism. I hope my colleagues will quickly confirm this nominee and allow us to begin the critical work of fashioning a national health care reform package. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I will.

Mr. DODD. I will.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 comes out of the Judiciary Committee. Senators Leahy and Grassley and their colleagues have worked hard to put together a strong bipartisan bill to deal with fraud. In fact, I am told that for every dollar we invest in this effort, there is roughly $15 that would accrue to the benefit of American taxpayers. I commend them for their efforts on this important piece of legislation. However, this Judiciary Committee bill is sort of turning into a Banking Committee bill as most of the amendments being offered are within the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. I understand the appetite of my colleagues to address some of these questions. Some of them are very good ideas, ones that I will mention in a moment and that I can support. Others are very complicated and have are technical issues, but they also could do great damage to the effort we are all principally engaged in and desirous of achieving, and that is to restore confidence and optimism in order to get our economic system back on its feet. I thought it might be valuable, as chairman of the Banking Committee, to run through the amendments that affect the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee and to share some of my observations on ones I would be willing to support, which means we could possibly have voice votes on them and accept them as part of this bill, and others which are of concern to me and which I would oppose for reasons I will briefly explain. On a positive note, Senator Coburn has offered amendment No. 983. This amendment would require the examination of what happened with the GSEs, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Banks. Yesterday, we adopted a proposal, offered by Senators Isakson, Conrad, and myself, to establish a commission to examine thoroughly how we got into the situation we find ourselves in. There has been a debate about whether we ought to do that with an outside commission or within the Congress. There is a legitimate debate about that. My colleague from North Dakota proposed a select committee, which was adopted last evening. Whether we adopt the select committee approach or an outside commission, in either case, the GSEs would be a part of that examination. I make the case that the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma may be duplicative or unnecessary. But rather than have an extended debate about that, I recommend we accept the amendment. The issues surrounding the GSEs are clearly going to be a part of the look-back. So rather than have extended debate about that, let's just accept the amendment and move on. Then the commission or the select committee can make those specific determinations. I urge that a voice vote be acceptable on that issue. Senator Kohl has offered amendment No. 990. That amendment is designed to offer additional protections to older Americans from misleading and fraudulent marketing practices within the financial area. I commend my colleague for his amendment. We all know elderly Americans are some of the most--if not the most--vulnerable to the marketing scams that go on, either through direct mail operations or telemarketing operations. People who are alone and vulnerable in many ways are incredibly susceptible to some egregious marketing techniques. The Senator has offered an amendment that would provide additional security for those in retirement, and we can all applaud him for that effort. The amendment has been endorsed by the North American Securities Administrators, financial planners, the Consumer Federation of America, and many others. I commend Senator Kohl for that amendment and again urge my colleagues to accept it, if that is acceptable to the Senator from Wisconsin. Senator Schumer has offered amendment No. 1006 which would add $20 million of authorization to the Securities and Exchange Commission in funding for 2010 and 2011. All of us can appreciate the need for additional support for the Enforcement Division. Americans are painfully aware of the Madoff scandal as well as the Stanford Ponzi schemes. We have had these agencies before our Banking Committee with hearings on how that happened, whether or not people were doing their jobs. Senator Schumer has suggested we provide additional resources. Earlier this year, I requested, along with members of my committee, a billion dollars a year for the SEC in 2010, a level which we still will not reach with this additional $20 million. Many of us agree that the Securities and Exchange Commission has to have the tools and the staff to do the job. There are an awful lot of scams going on. We don't want to hear about Americans being victimized by them any longer. While there is no guarantee that with additional resources and personnel we will stop all of them, we certainly know that with additional resources and tools, we can minimize the problems that emerged with the Madoff and Stanford scandals. Senator Schumer has offered a very good amendment, and I urge that it be accepted. Those three amendments are ones we can accept, and hopefully we will in order to assist our colleague from Vermont and others in moving this bill along. Let me mention a couple of amendments with which I have some difficulty. First, the Coburn amendment No. 982. This amendment would authorize the use of TARP funds to cover the cost of this bill. I have many problems with this amendment. First, there is a point of order against this amendment. But aside from the point of order, the purpose of TARP, which Congress passed last year, was to provide assistance to unlock our frozen financial markets in order to provide credit for small businesses; to purchase securities backed by loans from small businesses; to provide capital to banks so they can continue to make loans, although not many of them are doing so, but that was the idea behind the program; and to fund the Making Home Affordable Programs, which modifies mortgage loans, either reducing principal or interest, so that we can mitigate the 10,000 people a day who are entering into foreclosure and for whom modifying those loans is critically important. If we start going around and deciding we will use TARP funds for every idea and every bill that comes to the floor we will deprive the Treasury and others of the tools necessary to get our economy moving again. If we start spreading TARP resources in areas that have little or nothing to do with the underlying economic crisis we will be taking a step in the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to vote against amendment No. 982 for those reasons. If we start down this path, it will be more and more difficult to get our economy back on its feet again. I know that many of my colleagues disagreed with the TARP, but that is what Congress adopted. There were those who objected to using TARP money for the auto industry and believed that was wrong. There may be other areas where some have disagreed with the use of TARP funds. But to have it become a funding mechanism for every bill that comes along would undermine the very purpose of those programs. The next two amendments I urge my colleagues to pay attention to and I believe are matters of concern are the amendments from our colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter, No. 991, and Senator DeMint from South Carolina, amendment No. 994. Let me explain both of the amendments and why I have concerns about each of them. The Vitter amendment has to do with the issue of warrants. It is a complicated subject matter, but let me briefly explain it. What would be the effect of this amendment? This amendment is basically a favor to banks and minimizes help for taxpayers. That is what it comes down to. This amendment would take away the discretion of regulators and the Treasury to impose additional capital requirements or any other requirements on a TARP recipient that could benefit taxpayers or protect the financial system. Under this amendment, the financial institutions would have the discretion to act on their own in areas where they currently can not. It is quite clear that when they receive, in many cases, billions of dollars in taxpayer money to shore up their position, to salvage these institutions, that to then turn around and allow them unilaterally to make decisions which could harm the taxpayer and cause even further delay of financial system recovery is exactly the wrong direction in which we ought to be going. The amendment would allow the TARP recipient, rather than Treasury, to determine when its warrants would be repurchased. The amendment would not permit Treasury's discretion to determine when warrants may be executed and would allow the recipient to indefinitely defer exercise of the warrants. In addition, it could harm the taxpayers by eliminating the requirement that Treasury pay market price for these warrants. So under this amendment, we are reducing the power of the regulators at the very critical moment we want them to exercise that influence rather than allow the recipients themselves to allow what is in their best interest. They are the ones who have received billions of taxpayer money. It seems to me having a leash on all that and allowing the best decision to be made on behalf of the overall economy is what we ought to be doing. The amendment would empower the banks, which may act in their individual interests--and I understand that--but having received so much taxpayer money, it seems to me we ought to make sure we are not going to allow that unilateral self-interest to trump the interests of the larger concern; and that is the American taxpayer and the overall restoration of our economic well-being. So I say respectfully to my colleague, and a member of our committee, Senator Vitter, this amendment, I think no matter how good his intentions, may actually do a lot more damage and harm if it were to be adopted at this critical moment when we see that glimmer of light that our economy is beginning to show some signs of recovery. This amendment could set us back at the very moment we may be heading in the right direction. The last amendment I will address at this moment is one offered by our colleague from South Carolina, Senator DeMint. I am not in any way disparaging the intentions of my colleagues here. I have great respect for all whom I serve with, and their intentions, I am sure, are motivated by their own framework of how they see these issues. But this amendment concerns me as well in a similar vein. It is a different subject matter, but a similar approach. Here is what I mean by that. The DeMint amendment also allows a lot of discretion to be left in the hands of the financial institutions, the institutions which have received, of course, tremendous support from the American taxpayer. This amendment would deprive the Treasury of the ability to convert preferred stock to common stock. That conversion could allow banks to basically shore up their balance sheets. That is what some are considering to do. This would limit their ability to do that. It would say you could not do that. You could not have that kind of conversion. If we limit that ability to make that kind of a discretionary decision, then this could mean that more small business lending would be curtailed, more mortgage lending would be curtailed, more lending for commercial real estate, all of which may be absolutely critical in the coming weeks. Preferred stock does not increase bank capital in a similar manner as common shares do. The Senator's amendment could lead to the very real consequence that lending is constricted significantly more than we see currently. That would mean more businesses closing for lack of capital, which means more job losses across our country. It means more foreclosures of homes. Madam President, as I mentioned earlier, 10,000 homes a day is a staggering number already. I cannot imagine watching that number increase further. Yet the adoption of that amendment could achieve that result. It could also mean foreclosed homes staying on the market longer, another result that we do not want to see. In short, the amendment means a lot more economic hardship. Some TARP recipients may not be able to pay a dividend in connection with preferred shares. It would be counterproductive to deprive the Treasury of their discretion to convert its preferred shares to common shares under those circumstances. At a very time you want to shore up balance sheets by allowing for that conversion, this amendment would prohibit that conversion. It seems to me to constrict that kind of action is exactly the wrong direction to be going in at this very moment. The Government's upside potential could be much greater with common shares in some instances, and to deny the ability of our Treasury and others to make that kind of conversion I think could be harmful. Allowing conversion from preferred shares to common shares would permit the Treasury to provide additional flexibility and assistance to financial institutions and, maybe most importantly, would limit the use of additional taxpayer funds. Let me emphasize that point. I think we are all painfully aware that with about $100 billion left of TARP funds, if you restrict the ability to move from preferred shares to common shares, you increase the likelihood of having to come back here. I do not know of a single Member of this body who welcomes coming back here seeking additional TARP funds. That may very well occur, but it will occur a lot more rapidly if you adopt the DeMint amendment. So while, again, I respect my colleague from South Carolina, a member of our committee--and I do not question at all his motivations in all of this--I say in this case as well, as with the Vitter amendment, you are restricting the ability of the people we have charged with managing this. If we end up having Congress--535 Members of Congress--deciding on a daily basis how to micromanage this program, and with all due respect to my colleagues, this is above our pay grade in many ways. We in Congress do a lot of things well. Micromanaging this program, such as these two amendments suggest, I think sends us in the wrong direction. Again, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to please look at these two amendments and understand the potential danger were they to be adopted. It would certainly curtail our ability, in my view, to engage in exactly the activities that need to be at the top of our agenda: loosening up that credit market; getting a hold of the foreclosure issue, and trying to go in the opposite direction of where it is going today; making it possible for small businesses to get back on their feet; and allowing banks to start lending again in this country. If you adopt these two amendments you achieve the opposite result. So I urge, on both the Vitter amendment and the DeMint amendment, they be rejected. And for the reasons I offered on, the second Coburn amendment, that are that we cannot turn the TARP program into a slush fund for every program that comes through here, as it was specifically designed to deal with the economic crisis, and that ought to be the purpose for which these funds are used. I urge my colleagues to reject that amendment as well. Unfortunately, Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has had his bill turn into a Banking Committee bill with all of these amendments. So I felt obligated in some sense to come over and share with my colleagues at least my observations on these amendments: the ones I think we can accept--and I applaud my colleagues who have offered amendments that I think are significant and can contribute; even the first Coburn amendment, which I disagree with because you do not need it as a result of the earlier amendments which we adopted cover the issues of his amendment. But I think all of us recognize that the GSES issues have to be part of that look-back, so I would find it difficult to oppose his amendment. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support that amendment, along with the Kohl amendment and the Schumer amendment that have been offered. With that, I see my colleagues from North Dakota and Utah who are anxious to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will my colleague yield?

Mr. DODD. I wish to thank my colleague from North Dakota. This is a very valuable contribution my colleague has made. It may only be one individual, one family, but I think when we speak up on behalf of an individual such as Mr. Gao, we do so for a lot of other people across the globe who face the same kinds of restrictions he is going through. I wish to join with him in expressing our concern. I urge my colleagues to maybe craft a letter of some kind we might be able to send to the Ambassador here in Washington or to the appropriate governmental personalities or agencies in China to express our collective concern about this. I am the second-ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I have a deep interest in what he is talking about. I thank him immensely for taking a few minutes this afternoon to address this issue. As the Senator points out, we are not allowed to recognize people who are in the Chamber, but let it be said that there is an individual who is with us during these remarks who is the wife of this individual. We thank her for her courage, her family's courage, and we will do everything we can to support the efforts of our colleague from North Dakota.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me, first of all, commend our colleague from Vermont for his work on the underlying subject matter, which is of great importance not only to the Senate but to the American people, to deal with issues of fraud and related matters. I think it is tremendously helpful. I was not on the floor. I apologize to my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, and to Senator Conrad, with whom I have joined in offering their proposal to establish a commission to examine, as the Senator from Arizona has accurately pointed out, and the Senator from North Dakota pointed out, the most serious economic crisis in the last 100 years of our Nation. This is a matter that not only deserves our attention, in terms of what steps we take as legislators to avoid the kind of problems we are witnessing today, but also, I think importantly, to look back as to how we ended up in this situation over the last several years. Going back, it all didn't begin a year ago or 2 years ago, but decisions that were made as many as 20 years ago--15, 10 years ago--had an awful lot to do with the problems that emerged, particularly in the area of residential mortgage foreclosures that became the root cause of the economic collapse. There is no debate about whether we ought to look back. At least I don't see any. I think it is critically important, as other Congresses at other moments in our Nation's history when confronted with other crises have done. Whether it was the great Civil War, the sinking of the Titanic, the so-called Pecora Commission--which was named for the legal counsel of the Senate Banking Committee during the Great Depression, looking back, obviously, the 9/11 Commission. There is example after example. The only question that remains for us to decide here is what is the best way to do this. Senator Isakson, Senator Conrad, myself, and others who may join us, believe the outside commission is probably the best alternative, given the magnitude of the problem that must be examined. I think it will take a significant amount of hard work by some very talented and knowledgeable people over the next year, year and a half or so to do the job. Or do we engage in the same effort internally in this body with a select committee made up of Members of the Senate who would have to pretty much dedicate almost their entire time, in my view, to that subject matter at the very time we are trying to step forward with some answers that will provide some solutions as to how we avoid pitfalls. Obviously, we were not waiting in the Banking Committee. Senator Shelby and I, my very able and competent former chairman of the committee and today ranking member, have already had, I think, some 15 or 16 hearings just since the end of January on the subject matter--the Presiding Officer is a distinguished member of our committee--on how we create the architecture to go forward and fill in the gaps so we don't end up with the same kind of problems that created the situation we are in. We cannot wait until the next Congress to do that. I believe it incumbent on us to come up with some answers to that in this Congress. We are working very hard on exactly that effort. There are some other matters we have to pay attention to, but that, I would argue, is the principal job of our committee in this the 111th Congress. I know other committees are deeply involved. The Finance Committee is deeply involved in health care. Senator Max Baucus and Senator Chuck Grassley are going to be spending virtually every waking hour over the next several months, along with Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi, on the Health and Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, not to mention others, dealing with that issue. We have the climate change issues. We have the budgetary matters. Senator Conrad and his committee, along with Judd Gregg from New Hampshire, are deeply involved in the budgetary questions. When you start talking about forming a select committee made up of Members of this body, some of the very people on the Finance Committee, the Banking Committee, the Budget Committee, are already consumed with major responsibilities. The likelihood that a group of ourselves here could dedicate the time and the effort that needs to be dedicated to the examination of this issue while simultaneously trying to get our economy back on its feet again, I think is asking an awful lot. My disagreement with my very good friend, and he knows this, my close friend from North Dakota, along with John McCain, with whom I have had a very good and positive relationship over the years, is not about whether we ought to do this--there is no debate about that--but where is the best venue for this to occur. Let me make a second argument to my colleagues. This has already been a pretty acrimonious debate regrettably, but it has turned into that. There was a lot of finger-pointing going on. None of us may like that individually, but it is what it is. I think to the extent we can ask the body, that is a political body in nature, to kind of do the job without engaging in some of that ``blame the other guy for the problems we have'' is unavoidable. I don't think any of us objectively believe that is a very good way to proceed. We are not going to get very much out of it if that becomes what happens in these select committees, making sure someone else gets responsibility for the difficulty. Believe me, there is a lot of responsibility to go around. But I believe if you end up having that kind of framework you are inviting that kind of environment and I think the last thing this body needs at this hour is to be seen as engaging in nothing more than the politics of the blame game. I argue, again, that an outside commission made up of people who are knowledgeable, coming from the world of finance, academia, labor, consumers, others, who could dedicate the time and effort along with a competent staff to work with them and reporting back to us, the committees that have jurisdiction, as they uncover evidence or ideas that would help us fill in these gaps that we need to do legislatively, makes more sense. For that reason, I commend Senator Isakson, who is the principal author of this. Senator Conrad has joined him, as I have and my staff. We worked together over the last number of days. Senator Shelby's staff has also been tremendously constructive and positive trying to put together this idea that would make sense to our colleagues. That is the difference. Do we go with a select committee made up of ourselves--and certainly every committee that has some jurisdiction on this would want some members on the committee. The idea that we would ask a group of us who have nothing to do with the subject matter to become part of the select committee also works counter to what we are trying to achieve, and so the Members who have jurisdiction, I assume, would insist on being a part of it. Which subcommittee chairs it? How do you decide how big that committee is? All these are matters which could end up dividing us, when our job ought primarily to be to find out what went on and utilize a means that would help us achieve that and then, more importantly, to do our jobs to make sure the very problems and gaps that existed to allow this problem to emerge are taken in so we plug those, in effect, or mend those in a way and help create that architecture that would allow our economy to grow, the confidence to be restored, and the sense of optimism to come back to our country. I am very complimentary of my colleague from North Dakota for talking some weeks ago. He is not a Johnny-come-lately to the issue. He argued for this idea of looking back. I thought about it a lot and have been trying to determine which way is the best for us to proceed. It is always with some regret when you disagree with a friend--not about the goals. In that there is an absolutely common interest. But which of the methods should we use to help us achieve those goals? I believe our colleague from Georgia and our colleague, ironically, from North Dakota as well--the two Senators from North Dakota are kind of on opposite ideas of this issue. Not on the issue of what we ought to achieve but rather----

Mr. DODD. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. I stand corrected on that point. I appreciate my colleague making that correction. That is my case, basically. I don't know what my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, or my colleague, Senator Conrad, had to say about this, about how this might have to be constructed, but this may be a choice we have to make in the coming half-hour or an hour or so, as to which of these ideas we will use. The idea that we do both gets a little complicated but, nonetheless, sometimes as an institution we are inclined to take the course or the path of least resistance on these matters, which sometimes can even add to more difficulties down the road. But I urge my colleagues to support the Isakson-Conrad-Dodd proposal. We think it makes a great deal of sense to achieve that very important goal while simultaneously allowing this institution to perform the function many would expect us to fill and that is to start crafting the structures that would allow the modernization of our financial institutions in a responsible and thoughtful manner. That work alone, as the Presiding Officer knows, is going to be almost all consuming in the coming weeks. With that, I yield the floor and thank my colleagues for their attention on this matter.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me begin by complimenting the authors of the bill before the Senate today. The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, or FERA, provides important tools to the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and Housing and Urban Development to investigate and prosecute mortgage fraud. I am afraid that our government must be particularly vigilant today, as criminals seek to exploit people's economic hardships, and as some persons harmed by the downturn resort to fraud as a desperate measure. This problem is grave, and it is getting worse by the day. Last year, financial institutions reported that mortgage loan fraud increased by 44 percent from the previous year. And this year, mortgage loan fraud is reportedly increasing even more--26 percent over last year. And still, disappointingly, many incidents of fraud go unnoticed. While this bill appropriately addresses the problem by providing additional resources to bring criminals to justice, including 400 new prosecutors and agents, I believe that efforts to arrest this alarming trend must also focus on preventing frauds from even being perpetrated in the first place. Fortunately, the Obama administration is doing just that. Earlier this month, a new initiative was announced targeting mortgage loan modification fraud and foreclosure rescue scams. This effort, led by the Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement and Network, or FinCEN, is coordinating efforts across Federal and State governments as well as the private sector to share intelligence and identify criminal enterprises and deceptive schemes. Once such scams were identified, FinCEN is issuing ``early warnings'' to law enforcement, regulatory agencies, and the consumer protection community to watch for tell-tale signs of such scams. Already, FinCEN reports that this information is providing critical leads to protect consumers from falling victim to fraud. In addition, FinCEN is helping private industry perform their own due diligence, issuing advisories to alert financial institutions to the risks of emerging schemes by describing what they call ``red flags,'' that typify loan modification or foreclosure rescue scams. Banks, in turn are thus advised on how to file suspicious activity reports to Treasury, to ensure that law enforcement authorities may stay up-to-date in tracking potential fraud activity. As the industry publication, American Banker, reported last week, increases in the filing of suspicious activity reports this year may be demonstrating a rise in fraud. In any case, in my estimation, these filings indicate that cases of fraud are being taken very seriously both by the government and industry. For that reason, I believe that, if implemented appropriately, the FinCEN-led Foreclosure Rescue Scams & Loan Modification effort will help both law enforcement combat fraud and consumers avoid scams. I appreciate the Obama administration's efforts, and I urge every law enforcement agency, including the Department of Justice, to coordinate with FinCEN as we attempt to safeguard our financial system from fraud and prosecute those who break the law. I support the bill currently before the Senate, which I believe will greatly complement Treasury's programs to combat financial crimes. Anti-Money Laundering

Mr. DODD. I appreciate Senator Levin's and his subcommittee's hard investigative work on this very difficult subject matter. I share his conviction that America's regulatory system must be reformed to address challenges posed by business practices surrounding 21st century financial products. The United States cannot afford to have investment vehicles used to engage in abusive practices of fraud, illicit activity, and tax evasion. As the Banking Committee undertakes a comprehensive effort to modernize the securities and banking system, I will look forward to engaging the senior Senator from Michigan on issues of particular importance to him, including anti-money laundering measures.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 21, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Improving the Ability of Inspectors General to Detect, Prevent, and Prosecute Contracting Fraud.''

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 21, 2009, at 10:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Counternarcotics Enforcement: Coordination at the Federal, State, and Local Level.''

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 21, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate office building.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 21, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate office building.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 21, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Empowering Workers to Rebuild America's Economy and Longer-Term Competitiveness: Green Skills Training for Workers'' on Tuesday, April 21, 2009. The hearing will commence at 10:30 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate office building.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 21, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting National Security and Civil Liberties: Strategies for Terrorism Information Sharing'' on Tuesday, April 21, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate office building.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise today with my colleague and friend, Senator Lieberman, to congratulate the University of Connecticut Women's Basketball team for winning the 2009 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Tournament. I know that I speak for the entire Connecticut Congressional Delegation when I say how proud I am to be able to stand here and acknowledge the accomplishments of this magnificent group of young women. I have had the privilege of coming to the floor on numerous other occasions to applaud the Huskies for winning the NCAA Division I Tournament. In fact, this is the sixth time that the University of Connecticut Women's Basketball team has won this championship, the second highest number of wins in all of women's Division I history. As they did in 1995 and 2002, the Huskies went the entire 2009 season undefeated. In addition to this incredible achievement, this year's team added another accomplishment that is truly unique in the history of the NCAA, as it has never before been achieved by any NCAA basketball team--they bested each and every one of their challengers by double digits. This tremendous accomplishment undoubtedly means that this year's team is not only among the best to play at UCONN, but one of the best college teams ever. Numerous factors contributed to the Huskies' historic win, not the least of which is the steadfast dedication and well-honed skills of the individual players. Every player deserves special recognition for her work, and I would like to take a moment to specifically point out the achievements of the impressive trio of stars that led this year's team. Sophomore Maya Moore, senior point guard Renee Montgomery, and junior center Tina Charles all played critical roles in UCONN's victory. In recognition of their efforts, all three women have won numerous awards. Maya Moore was chosen as the Naismith Award winner, the Wooden Award winner, the State Farm Wade Trophy winner, the United States Basketball Writers Association player of the year, and the Associated Press player of the year. For her part, Renee Montgomery was chosen as the winner of the Nancy Lieberman award, an honor that is reserved for the top point guard in the Nation. And Tina Charles, who had a staggering 25 points and 19 rebounds in the championship game, was honored as the Women's Final Four Most Valuable Player. All three players were named State Farm First Team All-Americans and members of the Final Four First All Tournament Team. These are impressive awards and acknowledgments, but none of this could have been done without the other members of the team. These women, all of whom could be starters or stars at other programs, helped to deliver this year's national championship to UCONN. They are without question an impressive squad who have left an indelible mark upon the history of the Huskies basketball program. I would be remiss if I didn't take a moment to acknowledge the great play and important role that these women played. They are: Heather Buck; Lorin Dixon; Caroline Doty; Jacquie Fernandes; Meghan Gardler; Kalana Greene; Tiffany Hayes; Cassie Kerns; Jessica McCormack; Kaili McLaren; and Tahirah Williams. In addition to the impressive talents of the young women who make up the team, one must not forget Geno Auriemma, who has led the Huskies to six national championships and three undefeated seasons during his tenure as head coach. For his efforts, Coach Auriemma has once again been picked as the Associated Press Coach of the Year, a well-deserved honor for such an accomplished and hard-working coach. And to add another honor to his impressive resume, Coach Auriemma was just named head coach of the U.S. Women's Olympic Team. I am sure he will bring the same dedication and skill to bringing us another gold medal as he has to UCONN. Also, Chris Dailey, associate head coach; Jamelle Elliott, assistant coach; and Shea Ralph, assistant coach, contributed immensely to the success of the team. However, I firmly believe that the most important factor that led the UCONN women to victory this year is the character of each of the team's players. Make no mistake about it, these young women are very dedicated, and have worked extremely hard to get to where they are now. However, their tireless dedication and perseverance extend well beyond the basketball court. You may be interested to know that the UCONN women's basketball program has a 100-percent graduation rate among 4- year players. This statistic is truly astounding given the amount of time each of these women must spend meticulously perfecting her skills on the court. Clearly, each of these women possesses an unquenchable desire to succeed in everything she attempts, a characteristic that makes the team's triumph all the sweeter. Madam President, thank you for the opportunity to speak about the accomplishments of the Huskies, a committed group of young women, whom, it is safe to say, are the pride of the State of Connecticut. Nothing demonstrates this better than the parade that was held in Hartford recently to honor the Huskies on their victory. A staggering 25,000 people came out to thank the coaches and team for their season. In Connecticut, the Huskies are as beloved, if not more so, than any other sports team. We are so proud of their victory and all these impressive young women have accomplished both on and off the court. So from all the fans of the UCONN Huskies in Connecticut and throughout the country and indeed the world, I say congratulations on a tremendous season and a wonderful accomplishment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to state my support for the three nominees that the Senate confirmed earlier today. Due to weather delays, I was unavoidably absent from the Senate during the votes on the three nominees to be Assistant Attorneys General in the Department of Justice. Had I been present I would have voted yea for all three nominees. All three individuals are eminently qualified and I believe will be superb additions to President Obama's administration. Let me briefly talk about these well-qualified individuals. Tony West will be the next Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. He served previously in the Department of Justice as a Special Assistant to two Deputy Attorneys General during the Clinton administration. He also served in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California as a prosecutor. Mr. West is a graduate of Harvard University and Stanford University Law School, where he served as president of the Stanford Law Review. Lanny Breuer received both his undergraduate and law degree from Columbia University. After law school, he worked as an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan. During the Clinton administration, he served as Special Counsel in the White House. He has also worked at the law firm Covington & Burling. Mr. Breuer will serve as the next Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. Finally, Christine Varney will serve as the next Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division. I believe she is uniquely qualified for this position. A graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center, Ms. Varney served as a U.S. Federal Trade Commissioner and, later, as an assistant to President Clinton and Secretary to the Cabinet. Again, had I been present I would have voted yea on these nominations and I am pleased that all three nominees were approved overwhelmingly in the Senate today. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)