Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Shelby. This amendment calls for increased transparency and disclosure at the Federal Reserve Bank in order to understand better the risks the Fed is taking onto its balance sheets. It also calls for a further evaluation of the costs of the existing Federal Reserve Bank system, which has not been done before. Our colleagues from Vermont and Kentucky will offer an amendment after our amendment is offered. There is a distinction between these two. The amendment offered by the Senators from Vermont and Kentucky goes one step further than ours. Presently--and it has been the case for years and years--you do not reveal the names of the companies that show up at the discount window. There is a reason for that. The reason is obviously to avoid potential runs on those institutions. Our amendment does not require the disclosure of those companies names. We call for transparency, disclosure of the items I mentioned, the collateral that the Fed is taking, but we stop short of insisting upon naming the people who show up at the discount window. That is a fundamental distinction which our colleagues will have to decide on which course to follow. We think there is some danger in going the route our colleagues from Vermont and Kentucky are proposing. If we end up naming those names, you could well trigger runs on those institutions, and that could end up costing the taxpayer a lot more. The Dodd-Shelby amendment improves disclosure and transparency at the Federal Reserve but does not risk the problems associated with the other amendment. We urge our colleagues to support our amendment. I call up the amendment.

Mr. DODD. I do not see Senator Shelby in the Chamber.

Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 875

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am in strong support of the Dodd- Lieberman-Collins amendment. A decade ago, many of us in this body worked together to create the FIRE Grant Program--the goal of which was simple, but essential: It gives local fire departments the ability to purchase new equipment and initiate education and training programs. Soon after we wrote that bill, we were reminded why it was so desperately needed--the Worcester Cold Storage blaze on December 3, 1999, that left 17 children without their fathers. That story reminds us of the price our fire fighters pay every day to keep our communities safe. We also wrote the SAFER Act to put an additional 75,000 firefighters on the job. Today, the FIRE Act provides the single largest stream of Federal funding to communities to train and equip firefighters. Along with the SAFER Act, it has already provided more than $3 billion in grants to help hire, train, and equip firefighters. In essence, these historic pieces of legislation have made the Federal Government a partner with our Nation's firefighters. But to make that partnership as strong as it needs to be to keep our communities safe, we need to ensure that the Federal Government provides the necessary resources. We need to fund those programs. In fiscal year 2009, the FIRE and SAFER Programs were funded at $565 million and $210 million respectively. FIRE is authorized through this fiscal year and will be reauthorized later this year, while SAFER is scheduled for reauthorization next year. Our amendment will simply ensure there is adequate funding for the FIRE and SAFER Programs for fiscal years 2010 to 2014. Economic recovery depends on safe and secure communities. Just recently, East Hartford was forced to eliminate 19 municipal jobs, including firefighters. Farmington is trying to budget for replacing decade old fire engines, while Torrington and Greenwich are deciding whether they will be able to repair and build a new firehouse. This is happening in fire departments across my State. We already made great strides with the economic recovery package providing $210 million to help America's first responders. But with this amendment, we can ensure that one thing that will not be left behind during this economic downturn is the safety of our communities. And so I thank my colleagues and urge them to support this amendment. amendment no. 874

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, very briefly, I gather Senator Mikulski has already addressed this point, but I see my very good friend from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, here as well, the author of the amendment. I commend him for it. I know this is going to sound awkward because there is going to be a procedural issue we are going to vote on shortly. My colleague should understand the procedural differences should not reflect substantive differences at this point. We agree with what he is trying to achieve. There is an issue here involving a budget point of order, as well as a determination, I know, by the authors of this bill--Senator Mikulski, Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch, Senator Enzi, the principal authors--to try to achieve a bill that can move quickly dealing with national service. But the underlying amendment by Senator Crapo is one that I think is universally supported--there may be some who disagree, but I do not-- that this has a lot of merit and we need to deal with it in conjunction with other matters, with which my colleague from Idaho is very familiar, dealing with the FTC, some safe harbor provisions from Senator Martinez dealing with the foreclosure issue, and several other points as well. We are trying to include these as an overall package which we are working on and hopefully can complete maybe before the recess. I don't want to commit to that but certainly quickly because there is a sense of importance to these matters. I want my colleagues to know, particularly my friend from Idaho, that supporting a motion dealing with a budget matter here is not a reflection of the substance of his amendment. We talked privately about this issue, but I wanted to say so publicly as well, and that as chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, we will move as quickly as we possibly can to deal with this and related matters. Again, I wish my colleagues to know that as well, but that is the rationale behind this particular moment. Again, I thank my colleague from Idaho for raising this important issue. He is a valued member of the committee and made a very worthwhile suggestion, certainly one we will, in my judgment, incorporate as part of this larger package. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Tennessee having very good ears in all of this. I can't dictate what all is going to be included in the amendment. My colleague, of course, is aware that there are a number of our colleagues who are very interested in the cram-down--as you call it--provision dealing with the bankruptcy law and primary residences. So I cannot give the assertion that a final package will or will not include that. That will largely depend on how these negotiations proceed. That is the reason we are not prepared today to go forward with this proposal, along with others as part of this package. And I know there are strong feelings on both sides of that question in this Chamber. So I know I have been asked to give that assertion, which I cannot give, obviously, any more than I could give an assertion that other pieces Members are interested in would be excluded or included at a moment like this. What I have said to my colleague--and I will repeat to my good friend from Tennessee, with whom I enjoy a very good relationship--is that this is a very important matter my friend has raised. I agree with him on the substance of it. It needs to be done expeditiously. It is a serious issue. There are others, dealing with the Federal Trade Commission and others, which need to be a part of a package that our bankers--particularly our community bankers--are very interested in. I also know there are strong feelings about the cram-down provisions. But as I have said to my colleague from Idaho and others, I cannot today stand here and dictate the outcome of a matter on which there are strong feelings and opinions in this Chamber. We will deal with that as we normally do, through the normal process, one way or the other. At this particular moment, given the fact that we need to deal with this in a more complete fashion, there is a budget point of order on this matter and, clearly, the authors of this bill, the pending matter, would like to move this matter without having extraneous material added to it. So for all those reasons, I will be supporting the motion of the Senator from Maryland so we can move along with the matter. But that is the answer to the question of my good friend from Tennessee.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with Senator Orrin Hatch the Best Buddies Empowerment for People with Intellectual Disabilities Act of 2009. The bill we are introducing would help to better integrate individuals with intellectual disabilities into their communities, improve their quality of life and promote the extraordinary gifts of these individuals. I am proud to introduce this bill with my good friend Senator Hatch. He has been a long time leader in the cause of Americans with disabilities. We, as a society, have an obligation to do all we can to better include individuals with disabilities within our communities and help them to reach their full potential. Yet, as one study on teen attitudes notes: ``Legal mandates cannot, however, mandate acceptance by peers, neighbors, fellow employees, employers or any of the other groups of individuals who directly impact the lives of people with disabilities.'' People with intellectual disabilities have indeed gained many rights that have improved their lives; however, negative stereotypes abound. Social isolation, unfortunately, is the norm for too many people with intellectual disabilities. Early intervention, effective education, and appropriate support all go a long way toward helping individuals with intellectual disabilities achieve the best of his or her abilities and lead a meaningful life in the community. I would like to tell you about the accomplishments of Best Buddies, a remarkable non-profit organization that is dedicated to helping people with intellectual disabilities develop relationships that will provide the support needed to help them reach their potential. Founded in 1989, Best Buddies is the only national social and recreational program in the United States for people with intellectual disabilities. Best Buddies works to enhance the lives of people with intellectual disabilities by providing opportunities for friendship and integrated employment. Through more than one thousand volunteer-run chapters at middle schools, high schools and colleges, students with and without intellectual disabilities are paired up in a one-to-one mentoring friendship. Best Buddies also facilitates an Internet pen pal program, an adult friendship program, and a supported employment program. Approximately 7,000,000 people in the U.S. have an intellectual disability; every one of these individuals would benefit from the kind of relationships that the Best Buddies programs help to establish. The resulting friendships are mutually beneficial, increasing the self- esteem, confidence, and abilities of people both with and without intellectual disabilities. The legislation we introduce today would allow the Secretary of Education to award grants to promote the expansion of the Best Buddies programs and to increase participation in and public awareness about these programs. The bill authorizes $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 and such sums as necessary through fiscal year 2014. If passed, this legislation would allow Best Buddies to expand their valuable work and offer programs in every state in the America, helping to create a more inclusive society with a direct and positive impact on more than 1.2 million citizens. I thank my colleague Senator Hatch for working with me on this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this legislation that will make a positive--and needed-- difference in the lives of individuals with intellectual disabilities and in the lives of those with whom they develop relationships through the Best Buddies program. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with Senator Orrin Hatch the Best Buddies Empowerment for People with Intellectual Disabilities Act of 2009. The bill we are introducing would help to better integrate individuals with intellectual disabilities into their communities, improve their quality of life and promote the extraordinary gifts of these individuals. I am proud to introduce this bill with my good friend Senator Hatch. He has been a long time leader in the cause of Americans with disabilities. We, as a society, have an obligation to do all we can to better include individuals with disabilities within our communities and help them to reach their full potential. Yet, as one study on teen attitudes notes: ``Legal mandates cannot, however, mandate acceptance by peers, neighbors, fellow employees, employers or any of the other groups of individuals who directly impact the lives of people with disabilities.'' People with intellectual disabilities have indeed gained many rights that have improved their lives; however, negative stereotypes abound. Social isolation, unfortunately, is the norm for too many people with intellectual disabilities. Early intervention, effective education, and appropriate support all go a long way toward helping individuals with intellectual disabilities achieve the best of his or her abilities and lead a meaningful life in the community. I would like to tell you about the accomplishments of Best Buddies, a remarkable non-profit organization that is dedicated to helping people with intellectual disabilities develop relationships that will provide the support needed to help them reach their potential. Founded in 1989, Best Buddies is the only national social and recreational program in the United States for people with intellectual disabilities. Best Buddies works to enhance the lives of people with intellectual disabilities by providing opportunities for friendship and integrated employment. Through more than one thousand volunteer-run chapters at middle schools, high schools and colleges, students with and without intellectual disabilities are paired up in a one-to-one mentoring friendship. Best Buddies also facilitates an Internet pen pal program, an adult friendship program, and a supported employment program. Approximately 7,000,000 people in the U.S. have an intellectual disability; every one of these individuals would benefit from the kind of relationships that the Best Buddies programs help to establish. The resulting friendships are mutually beneficial, increasing the self- esteem, confidence, and abilities of people both with and without intellectual disabilities. The legislation we introduce today would allow the Secretary of Education to award grants to promote the expansion of the Best Buddies programs and to increase participation in and public awareness about these programs. The bill authorizes $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 and such sums as necessary through fiscal year 2014. If passed, this legislation would allow Best Buddies to expand their valuable work and offer programs in every state in the America, helping to create a more inclusive society with a direct and positive impact on more than 1.2 million citizens. I thank my colleague Senator Hatch for working with me on this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this legislation that will make a positive--and needed-- difference in the lives of individuals with intellectual disabilities and in the lives of those with whom they develop relationships through the Best Buddies program. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking my colleague from Delaware for his generous comments. He has been an advocate and strong supporter of the notion of service, and for that I thank him. I also commend my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, as well as Senator Hatch, Senator Ted Kennedy, and Senator Enzi, who have all been strong supporters, over the years, of the idea of providing venues and opportunities for people to serve our country in one capacity or another. I rise this afternoon to offer my support for the Kennedy-Hatch Serve America Act. Four and a half decades ago, I was with my parents on a very cold January 20, not very far from where I am standing today, watching a young man by the name of John F. Kennedy, at the age of 43, become the President of the United States on the east front of the Capitol. It was a bitter cold day--we had a terrible snowstorm on the day before that January 20, 1961. As a very young boy of 12 or 13 years of age, I listened to the President excite a generation to get involved in things larger than ourselves. I was so motivated by his remarks, as were millions of others, that a few years later when I finished college, I joined the Peace Corps. I traveled to the Dominican Republic, not far from the Haitian border, where I spent 2 years in the mountains of that country working with the people in the small village of Benito Moncion in the province of Santiago Rodriguez. It was a life- changing experience. I came back from that experience a very different person than when I had left. I was joined by millions of others, who went off and joined VISTA, the military, and community action organizations all across the country. I have been asked so many times over the years why I joined the Peace Corps. Why did other people go into the Marine Corps, the Justice Department, and serve their country? The reason I have given over these last four and a half decades is, because an American President asked me to. It's not any more complicated than that. Someone asked me to serve, and the thought that someone believed I could do something to make a difference was a form of flattery, I suppose, but it also provided the opportunity for me to meet that challenge. It did so by creating the structures that allowed us to step into a program that gave us the opportunity to serve. That is what we are doing again here today: providing the structure that will allow for people today--who are no different from any other generation of Americans over our two centuries as a Republic--to be asked to serve. People today want to serve, and they have the same desires and ambitions to make a difference for our country in their local communities, in our States, and in our Nation. What Senator Mikulski, Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch, and Senator Enzi have done with this bill is to create the architecture by which when we ask people to serve, they have a place to come. We have a spot for you. We have a place where you can make a difference in our country. That is the brilliance of this idea. This bill expands opportunities not only to college graduates or to those out of graduate school; we actually begin in this bill by offering you the opportunity to serve as a middle school student, a high school student, or someone who does want to go on to higher education. Maybe most exciting of all, we offer these opportunities to people who perhaps have the most to give--the retirees in our country. The individuals who have been at work providing for their families, engaged in business practices by which they developed their wisdom and expertise over the years, and who have now reached a point in their lives where they would like to share that. What a wonderful opportunity for our country to reach out to that generation of retirees and say: Here is an opportunity for you to continue to make a difference. After I finished the Peace Corps, I came back and served for 6 years in the Army Reserves, the National Guard. That was a good experience. It was very different, obviously, to go off to basic training at Fort Dix, NJ, but nonetheless a very worthwhile experience. So service covers a wide range of activities. In my case, it was the Peace Corps, then it was the Army Reserves, and then it was Big Brothers Big Sisters. I was a Big Brother in my State of Connecticut. So service has been a major part of my life. I would like to think today that to the extent I have made a difference in this job, it was affected certainly by my family, first and foremost, but also by the people, whose names will never be known by others, who had a huge influence on me. People in that small village in the Dominican Republic, people in my community in Connecticut, people I met in the military service--all have shaped me and taught me the lessons of how serving each other, making a difference in each other's lives, can make a significant difference for many more. In Connecticut, community members, both young and old, are giving their time. In Hamden, CT, older Americans such as Mozelle Vann, a retired social worker, are working to make sure elementary school students don't fall through the cracks--one example, one woman, making a difference, affecting the lives of students who are going to be enriched and lead better lives because Mozelle Vann is giving something back. High school students in Waterbury, CT, are giving back to their communities by taking part in the Youth Health Service Corps created by the Connecticut Area Health Education Center. This organization works with disadvantaged high school students interested in pursuing health careers. Lord knows we need people to move into professions relating to health care. These students complete rigorous training and dedicate their time to working with nursing home residents. So these high school students, in the midst of determining what their futures will hold, are being offered the opportunity to learn about health care services, making a difference in a nursing home that is most likely shorthanded, and serving people in that community. This past year, residents worked with students to create a Martin Luther King, Jr., commemorative quilt and together discussed Dr. King's impact on our Nation. There are as many examples as there are communities and individuals whom we represent of people who want to serve and want to give something back. Senators Thad Cochran of Mississippi, my good friend, and I have offered four ideas to this bill, and I am very grateful to Senator Mikulski, Senator Hatch, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Enzi as well, for their willingness to accept these ideas. Representative Rosa DeLauro, the Congresswoman from New Haven, CT, is the author of these ideas in the House of Representatives. The first of these we call the semester of service, giving students a chance to give something back, learning early the benefit and the value of volunteering, of stepping up and serving your community. The Semester of Service Act is one that will allow the opportunity for children within the educational system to serve our communities. This service-learning will take place right alongside math problems and book reports. With a semester of service, we ask our students to not only consider themselves residents in their communities but resources to them. Just as mine did, I have no doubt that the younger generation will respond to that call. The Summer of Service Act is also a large part of the bill. The bill provides our middle and high school students unique opportunities to serve during the summer months. Already in Connecticut, more than 5,500 students take part in community service activities linked to academic achievement. With this legislation, that is something we will be able to do across the country. The bill also includes many parts of the Encore Service Act, a bill Senator Cochran and I authored to help harness the enormous experience and wisdom older Americans have to offer in their communities, as I mentioned a moment ago. We have all heard about the challenges posed by the 78 million baby boomers nearing retirement age. Yet Americans are living longer and healthier lives than at any time in our history, and it is time to look at that growing population of experienced, capable Americans of different professions and backgrounds as the asset it is, and to realize what a difference it can make in our country. Together, the programs included in this bill will encourage older Americans to serve communities with the greatest need, whether through AmeriCorps or through the Silver Scholars Program. The legislation also offers Encore Fellowships for older Americans who have already had full, successful careers to lend their professional expertise and experience to the cause of community and public service. It expands the capacity and builds on the success of current senior programs. So I again commend my colleagues for including that language. And finally, we can't talk about expanding service opportunities without talking about the AmeriCorps program, which is the heart of national service in our country. The Serve America Act will expand AmeriCorps to include 250,000 members, allowing many more Americans to serve each other. Last year alone, 75,000 AmeriCorps members gave back to their communities, and they brought reinforcements. Those 75,000 members--and this statistic can't be repeated often enough--those 75,000 AmeriCorps members recruited 2.2 million community volunteers. You talk about a ripple effect--having 75,000 people across our country in AmeriCorps who then went out and recruited 2.2 million people in their communities to get deeply involved and serve those communities. That is the benefit. Some discuss the cost of the 75,000 AmeriCorps members, but the fact that they were able to attract 2.2 million people to also serve is tremendously worthwhile. Which is why I am pleased that in this bill, we increase the AmeriCorps education award and peg its increases to the Pell Grant. I again thank the authors of this bill, of which I am proud to be a leading cosponsor, for the accomplishments they have achieved. As I said a moment ago, this bill is creating the opportunity for Americans to serve. Just as when I was standing on the steps of the east front of the Capitol, 45 or 46 years ago, and heard an American President not only ask us to serve, but provided with opportunities to do so, today we need to provide that same structure, that same ability for people to serve. They want to. People are anxious to. It is something all Americans take pride in, and it transcends party, partisanship, politics and ideology. People want to serve our country. We are benefitting from it in ways we can't even imagine. We need to see to it that this generation is going to achieve or have the same opportunities to fulfill that desire as well. For all of the reasons I have mentioned, this bill is very worthy of our unanimous support, and I hope it will enjoy that. This is one of those moments when I think all of us, despite our political differences from time to time, recognize the value of this. Whether it is in faith- based organizations, whether it is in community organizations, we are a richer, stronger, more vibrant nation because people have the opportunity to serve each other. There is nothing more gratifying, nothing you will ever do that will give you a greater sense of gratification than knowing you have helped another human being. Particularly in times such as these when people are struggling--losing jobs, homes, savings--they want to know if anybody can help. Every single one of us can make a difference in the life of somebody else. Providing that opportunity today, with the structure that Senator Mikulski, Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch, and Senator Enzi have created, is just what we need. So I commend them for it. Let me mention as well that I know Mike Crapo, the Senator from Idaho, my good friend and a very valuable member of the Banking Committee, came to the floor and has offered an amendment, a proposal to deal with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Let me say that I support what Senator Crapo wants to do. This is an idea that I believe is necessary. The problem here is twofold. One is, obviously, for this bill, we are hoping to move through without amendments. Members have worked very closely together to construct this bipartisan bill. That in no way diminishes the point Senator Crapo is making. In fact, we are working on another bill that includes more than just the Crapo amendment, which will be an important addition over the next number of days. We are trying to work it out. I hear there are some differences. I would say respectfully to my colleague from Idaho that I would hope he might reconsider offering the amendment on this bill for the reasons I have mentioned, not because his idea lacks merit--I support the idea--but if we add amendments to this bill, then it is going to make it that much more difficult to get it done. Secondly, there is more to do than just what the Crapo amendment would suggest, and that is going to require a little more time to put that together. There is no immediate emergency here. I have been guaranteed by the FDIC, that although they would like it to get done, it is not something--I have been told--that in the next number of days or so that unless we act, there is a catastrophic event that could occur. But clearly we need to move on this. He and others have my commitment that we are going to achieve that, but at this hour, at this moment on this bill, I would respectfully urge my colleagues, if required, to table this amendment and preferably to have the amendment withdrawn so we wouldn't have to be in that situation. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield.

Mr. DODD. I thank him for his gracious comments about this young woman. My nephew graduated from college a few years ago and was in Africa for approximately a year and a half. He spent 6 months in Guyana working with the people there, increasing awareness on issues such as HIV/AIDS. These are wonderful examples, like the young woman the Senator described, of people who make a difference. The great thing about the Peace Corps is not just helping people in a struggling country get back on their feet but it is the experience of returning home from service. It is the lessons learned that we bring back to our communities. There are 180,000 of us who are returned volunteers since the first group left from the south lawn of the White House to go to Ethiopia, and how blessed we are with the richness of opportunities here and the lessons learned. I commend my colleague for being at that ceremony and reflecting on the impact this one individual made, this young woman, in service of our country. I can't think of a more compelling argument on why this bill being offered by our colleagues deserves our unanimous support. Again, I thank the Senator for his comments.

Mr. DODD. It is also not widely known--Senator Isakson mentioned President Bush and the Thousand Points of Light Program, which he sponsored--that President Ronald Reagan was a strong supported of the Peace Corps, increasing the budget significantly. Loret Ruppe was the director. I served with her husband, who was a Congressman from Michigan. She was a magnificent director of the Peace Corps. Every year of Ronald Reagan's Presidency, he supported the Peace Corps program. So it is a joy to see the bipartisan support that my colleague has mentioned.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch, in introducing the National Pain Care Policy Act of 2009. This important legislation would make significant strides in the understanding and treatment of pain as a medical condition. Pain is the most common symptom leading to medical care and a leading health issue. Yet people suffering through pain often struggle to get relief because of a variety of issues. This is why we are introducing this important legislation. Each year pain results in more than 50 million lost workdays estimated to cost the United States $100 billion. Beyond the economic impact, pain is a leading cause of disability, with back pain alone causing chronic disability in 1 percent of the population of this country. In the U.S. 40 million people suffer from arthritis, more than 26 million, ages 20 to 64, experience frequent back pain, more than 25 million experience migraine headaches, and 20 million have jaw and lower facial pain each year. It is estimated that 70 percent of cancer patients have significant pain as they fight the disease. Half of all patients in hospitals suffer through moderate to severe pain in their last days. As with many medical conditions, this is a problem that is likely to become worse as the baby boom generation approaches retirement and the population ages. Sadly, though most pain can be relieved, it often is not. Many suffering patients are reluctant to tell their medical provider about the pain they are experiencing, for fear of being identified as a ``bad patient,'' and concern about addiction often leads patients to avoid seeking or using medications to treat their pain. But even if patients were more forthcoming about their condition, few medical providers are equipped to do something about it. Often they have not been trained in assessment techniques or pain management, and are unaware of the latest research, guidelines, and standards for treatment. There is also concern among most providers that prescribing treatment for pain will lead to greater scrutiny by regulatory agencies and insurers. But we can do something about these barriers and help individuals suffering from pain. The National Pain Care Policy Act would lead to improvements in pain care across the country. The legislation would call for an Institute of Medicine conference on pain care to increase awareness of this issue as a public health problem, identify barriers to pain care and determine action for overcoming those barriers. A number of years ago, my good friend Sen. Hatch helped establish a Pain Consortium at the National Institutes of Health to establish a coordinated pain research agenda. This legislation will codify that consortium and update its mission. The bill addresses the training and education of health care professionals through new grant programs at the Agency for Health Research and Quality, AHRQ, and the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA. And finally this legislation creates a national outreach and awareness campaign at the Department of Health and Human Services to educate patients, families, and caregivers about the significance of pain and the importance of treatment. I want to thank Senator Hatch for his leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to join us on this important effort to help the millions of Americans suffering from severe pain.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch, in introducing the National Pain Care Policy Act of 2009. This important legislation would make significant strides in the understanding and treatment of pain as a medical condition. Pain is the most common symptom leading to medical care and a leading health issue. Yet people suffering through pain often struggle to get relief because of a variety of issues. This is why we are introducing this important legislation. Each year pain results in more than 50 million lost workdays estimated to cost the United States $100 billion. Beyond the economic impact, pain is a leading cause of disability, with back pain alone causing chronic disability in 1 percent of the population of this country. In the U.S. 40 million people suffer from arthritis, more than 26 million, ages 20 to 64, experience frequent back pain, more than 25 million experience migraine headaches, and 20 million have jaw and lower facial pain each year. It is estimated that 70 percent of cancer patients have significant pain as they fight the disease. Half of all patients in hospitals suffer through moderate to severe pain in their last days. As with many medical conditions, this is a problem that is likely to become worse as the baby boom generation approaches retirement and the population ages. Sadly, though most pain can be relieved, it often is not. Many suffering patients are reluctant to tell their medical provider about the pain they are experiencing, for fear of being identified as a ``bad patient,'' and concern about addiction often leads patients to avoid seeking or using medications to treat their pain. But even if patients were more forthcoming about their condition, few medical providers are equipped to do something about it. Often they have not been trained in assessment techniques or pain management, and are unaware of the latest research, guidelines, and standards for treatment. There is also concern among most providers that prescribing treatment for pain will lead to greater scrutiny by regulatory agencies and insurers. But we can do something about these barriers and help individuals suffering from pain. The National Pain Care Policy Act would lead to improvements in pain care across the country. The legislation would call for an Institute of Medicine conference on pain care to increase awareness of this issue as a public health problem, identify barriers to pain care and determine action for overcoming those barriers. A number of years ago, my good friend Sen. Hatch helped establish a Pain Consortium at the National Institutes of Health to establish a coordinated pain research agenda. This legislation will codify that consortium and update its mission. The bill addresses the training and education of health care professionals through new grant programs at the Agency for Health Research and Quality, AHRQ, and the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA. And finally this legislation creates a national outreach and awareness campaign at the Department of Health and Human Services to educate patients, families, and caregivers about the significance of pain and the importance of treatment. I want to thank Senator Hatch for his leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to join us on this important effort to help the millions of Americans suffering from severe pain.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, earlier this week the Senate voted down amendment No. 668 offered by my colleague Senator Enzi by a vote of 42 to 53. I strongly opposed this amendment and am pleased that my colleagues defeated this harmful amendment. The amendment, if passed, would have cut more than $983,000 in Ryan White Part A funding to the city of Hartford, CT, and more than $770,000 in funding to the city of New Haven, CT, in fiscal year 2009. The Enzi amendment would have forced these cities to absorb a combined cut of more than 35 percent to their Ryan White Part A grant in 1 year. During floor debate on the Enzi amendment, the amendment was represented as a proposal that would simply cut funding from San Francisco. That is not the case and if the Enzi amendment had become law, thousands of individuals living with HIV/AIDS in the State of Connecticut would have been denied direct medical services for the treatment of their disease. Cuts in funding as envisioned under the Enzi amendment would have deprived individuals living with HIV/AIDS in Connecticut access to medications, clinics would have to turn away patients, and programs would have to make drastic cuts to counseling, transportation, and nutrition assistance. In fact, 13 cities in Florida, California, New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and Connecticut would have seen huge funding cuts under the Enzi amendment. For the information of my colleagues, the State of Connecticut was severely disadvantaged because of the way the last reauthorization was handled. Despite receiving assurances and seeing numbers that told a different picture, the 2006 reauthorization bill has led to more than $3 million in annual losses to Connecticut. The funding provided in the omnibus is essential to restoring these cuts. It is my sincere hope that we can address the problems underlying the cuts to Connecticut when we reauthorize this program which expires this year. I find it regretful that the senate had to take up this funding fight yesterday because reauthorizations of the Ryan White CARE Act program have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. I want to thank Senators Harkin and Inouye for including the largest increase in Part A of Ryan White in 8 years in the fiscal year 2009 omnibus bill. With the defeat of the Enzi amendment, cities under Part A will receive a total increase of more than $25 million. I thank my colleagues for defeating this harmful amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to highlight the Executive order signed today by President Obama that will bring hope to millions of patients and their loved ones and relief to scientists and researchers throughout the country. With this Executive order, President Obama has overturned the harmful restrictions on scientific discovery established by President Bush and his administration. And with his Presidential memorandum, President Obama has set our country on a path where science, not politics or ideology, will guide public policy and Government decisionmaking. Today's Executive order will help our Nation's scientists perform promising stem cell research that may one day provide relief to the more than 100 million Americans suffering from Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal cord injury, ALS, cancer, and many other devastating conditions for which there is still no cure. Several of my Senate colleagues, led by Senators Harkin, Specter, Kennedy, Hatch and Feinstein, and I, tried to allow embryonic stem cell research to go forward with the passage of the Stem Cell Research Research Enhancement Act in both the Senate and the House, but these efforts were consistently blocked by President Bush's veto. I am joining my colleagues again on this legislation because we need to codify the protection of embryonic stem cell research in order to guard against the possibility that a future President might seek to undo the tremendous step taken today by President Obama. In my own State of Connecticut, we lost a great pioneer in the global effort for stem cell research last month with the untimely death of Dr. Xiangzhong ``Jerry'' Yang. Since he came to the United States from China, Dr. Yang devoted his life's work to furthering science and working toward curing deadly and debilitating diseases. Dr. Yang was a brilliant and prescient reproductive biologist at the University of Connecticut who conducted some the world's leading work in the 1990's to refine the cloning of cows and bulls through the use of adult cells in order to improve the efficiency of cloning technology and improve the availability of cloned cattle for size and weight, high milk production, and other favorable genetic traits. Dr. Yang collaborated with Japanese scientists in 1998 to clone a prize bull with cells scratched from the animal's ear. While at the University of Connecticut, Dr. Yang organized researchers to help found the university's Center for Regenerative Biology in 2001. As the center's director, Dr. Yang continued his work toward producing tissue to be used in heart surgery, organ replacement, and other medical procedures. He was a leading force behind the Connecticut State Stem Cell Research Program which was signed into law in 2005. This $100 million initiative to support stem cell research earned Connecticut the moniker ``Stem Cell Central'' by the New York Times. Dr. Yang will be missed, but with today's announcement by President Obama, the fruits of his persistence will inform generations of stem cell scientists to come who will now be able to conduct their work without the arbitrary restrictions put in place by President Bush. Today is a momentous day for patients and their loved ones as well as researchers and scientists throughout the country. To the thousands of parents in the State of Connecticut whose children live every day with juvenile diabetes or who watched and suffered as their loved one succumbed to ALS, cancer, or Parkinson's disease, today's announcement can't bring that loved one back or immediately provide a cure to their disease but it will mean that future generations of Americans may not have to suffer as they did. Today's announcement brings hope that not only can future discoveries be possible, but they are possible right here in the United States. I applaud the President for his actions today in support of science and hope. And I congratulate the many advocates and researchers in Connecticut and around the country for their persistence in making this hard-fought victory for science a reality.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I cosponsor this concurrent resolution with the Senator from Washington to congratulate the sailors of the United States submarine force upon their completion of 1,000 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine deterrent patrols. Ballistic missile submarines serve as our Nation's primary and most secure nuclear deterrent. This milestone is a testament to the hard work and dedication of the sailors who provide our security against the rising threats that are permeating the globe. I stand here today to urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this concurrent resolution in honor of all those who made this milestone possible. The strategic deterrence capability provided by the Ohio class remains as critical to our national security today as it did when we commissioned the first Ohio-class submarine in 1981. As result of the rapid advancements in the information and technology industries, our adversaries across the globe are developing weaponry at a much faster rate than they were two decades ago. Because of this, we must always be prepared for the next generation of threats. No other weapon can provide deterrence against these threats like the ballistic missile submarine. It is imperative that we continue to fund the research and development to maintain this fleet, thereby ensuring the future of ballistic missile submarines in our naval force. I, along with many of my colleagues, am committed to improving and embracing new technologies that will allow us to maintain and operate the finest submarine force in the world. The successful completion of 1,000 patrols is a testament to the achievements and hard work of the sailors who support and operate this incredible fleet of submarines. At the same time, we realize that this security is not provided without cost and sacrifice. Thousands of submariners in our Navy spend months and possibly years of their lives underneath the sea to ensure our safety and our freedom. Additionally, we must remember the countless hours spent by Connecticut laborers to design and construct the Trident submarines, also made possible by vendor support from all around the country. It is extremely important that we take the time to thank those service members and those American workers for their sacrifice and their service to our great Nation. Again, my sincerest congratulations go to all the sailors who made the successful completion of 1,000 deterrent patrols possible. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution in their honor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, very briefly--and I say this because I happen to agree with, and I think most of our colleagues agree with, the intent of the Senator from Arizona--this has been a matter before the Banking Committee. In fact, in the last session of Congress, by a vote of 19 to 2, the Banking Committee--with Senator Shelby as ranking member--approved Comprehensive Iran sanctions legislation, that went far beyond the scope of the amendment proposed by the Senator from Arizona. But when the legislation was sent to the Senate floor, it was blocked by the Senate minority. I thank my colleagues on the committee who supported it. Right now, however, the administration is conducting a policy review on Iran at the very time we are gathering here to engage in this debate. I think before considering new legislation, it would be wise to have some hearings, after the administration completes its review and decide the appropriate course of action, in consultation with the appropriate federal agencies. Clearly, sanctions dealing with Iran's energy sector, as Senator Kyl pointed out, have great merit, as Congress has determined in years past. But I think there is a time and a place for deciding major changes in our sanctions policy--probably not this evening at 7 o'clock, at the end of a long debate on this omnibus bill, when so much is at stake. Such changes should not be added to this underlying bill. Speaker Pelosi has made clear she would pursue a year-long Continuing Resolution if this bill is changed in any way the day before funds for the government expire. If that happens, the amendment would essentially kill or potentially delay critical funding, including an additional $5 million slated for the Department of the Treasury's Terrorism and Financial Intelligence unit to enforce our sanctions against Iran. I say respectfully, while there is no disagreement that something must be done to stop Iran's efforts to promote terrorism and proliferate weapons of mass destruction, we must do so in close coordination with the new Administration, much as we worked with the Bush administration in fashioning our sanctions bill last year. Let the Obama Administration's Iran review be completed. Once we have an opportunity to examine it, we may then consider a new approach to our Iran policy. At that time, I look forward to working with my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle to address these critical matters. I therefore, urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I seek time of my own time. My colleague is exactly right and I thank him immensely for his involvement. We thank Senator Inouye as well as others who were part of this exchange, a colloquy which we will submit for the Record, which explains exactly what the Senator from Idaho has described. He has it exactly right. This is an expanded removal of jurisdiction from one area to another. There are a lot of very serious questions raised by it. Our intent is at the earliest possible time we will have legislation to correct what is in this bill and change that. I thank him for his cooperation on this. I thank Senator Inouye and the staff and other people who could have objected to this. Senator Dorgan and others have had some strong views on this and I am very grateful to him as well, understanding our concerns on this matter. We will have a chance to come back to it. I again thank my colleague who helped us craft this colloquy which allowed us to move beyond this particular point. There may be others who want to object to what we want to do, but we feel strongly about the language of the amendment that Senator Crapo has crafted here and we will hopefully get to that quickly.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I seek clarification from the Senator from North Dakota and the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee about the intent and effect of section 626 of Division D of the bill. Will the Senators confirm that section 626 was designed to enhance the FTC's ability to impose new standards only on those mortgage industry participants that are currently subject to the FTC's rulemaking jurisdiction?

Mr. DODD. With respect to the provisions granting the states authority to take enforcement action, is it your intent the states limit their enforcement actions under the new mortgage standards promulgated by the FTC, or under TILA, only to those mortgage industry participants that are not currently supervised by the federal banking agencies or are not Federal credit unions?

Mr. DODD. I ask the Senators to work with me to add an amendment to the next appropriate legislative vehicle that clarifies the scope of this provision to reflect the gentlemen's intent and that provides appropriate participation by state attorneys general in enforcement of federal mortgage standards.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have been approached, along with my colleague Senator Shelby and leaders of the House Financial Services Committee, by the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Sheila Bair, with a request to increase substantially the FDIC's borrowing authority from Treasury from the current $30 billion to $100 billion, for use by the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund and for temporary additional borrowing authority to help weather the economic crisis. In response to her request, I am introducing the Depositor Protection Act of 2009, which provides this authority. We are taking this step out of an abundance of caution and to meet any contingencies that the fund may face in the coming months. The FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund DIF absorbs losses that result from the corporation's obligation to protect insured deposits when FDIC- insured financial institutions fail. Insured financial institutions pay premiums that support the DIF and under current law those premiums can be increased to cover any losses to the fund. Today, the House passed legislation to substantially and permanently increase this borrowing authority as part of H.R. 1106, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. Last month, Treasury Secretary Geithner and Chairman Bernanke of the Federal Reserve Board wrote to me to underscore their support for the FDIC's increased borrowing authority. Since the FDIC's borrowing authority was last increased in 1991, the asset size of banks has tripled. Even more important, the financial system is under considerable stress, and the level of thrift and bank failures has been rising. This line of credit is designed strictly to serve as a backstop to cover potential losses to the DIF. Though this statutory borrowing authority has historically never been tapped, and Chairman Bair has made clear she does not anticipate doing so, I agree with Chairman Bair, Secretary Geithner, and Chairman Bernanke that under current economic circumstances such an increase in borrowing authority is both prudent and necessary. It is important that we increase this line of borrowing authority so that the FDIC has the funds available which might be needed to meet its obligations to protect insured depositors and to reassure the public that the Government continues to stand firmly behind the FDIC's insurance guarantee. Additionally, on Friday, February 27, the FDIC Board voted to impose a one-time special assessment of 20 basis points on insured depository institutions because of concern about the level of the DIF. This special assessment is in addition to the regular premiums, which were increased on February 27 to a range of 12 to 16 basis points. The DIF is significantly below the statutory minimum reserve ratio of 1.15. As of December 31, 2008, the DIF ratio stood at .4. The FDIC has informed us that with the increased borrowing authority provided in this legislation, it believes it can reduce the size of the special assessment while still maintaining appropriate assessments at a level that supports the DIF with funding from the banking industry. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.