Christopher Dodd

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.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will be very brief. Senator Leahy described the situation very well. One name that was not mentioned in the discussion here was Jim Talent, a former colleague of ours from Missouri, a former Republican Member of this body who was the principal author of the Emmett Till legislation. I was his cosponsor, and when he left, I became the lead sponsor and others joined on both sides of the aisle to adopt this legislation to pursue unsolved civil rights cases. I say to my friend from Oklahoma, I am pleased we resolved it. He had some problems not so much with the idea of investigating unsolved matters. His concern was, if I recall, whether the matter ought to be authorized without having an offset at the time. As I recall, that was the debate. We went a year, maybe longer, while this was held up and we were not able to adopt it. The argument is that had we done so, when it finally passed unanimously in this body, it was after the Commerce-Justice- Science appropriations bill was adopted. So it was too late to get the funding in that proposal. As a result, we ended up with an authorization. As Senator Leahy has pointed out, Eric Holder has testified, in fact, I think, in response to questions of my friend from Oklahoma, whether there would be funding for this program during either his confirmation hearing or an appearance before the committee. He responded there was adequate funding. He said--I think his quote was at the time he would ``figure out ways to try to move money around'' to investigate and prosecute these crimes. Of course, under this omnibus bill before us, Department of Justice funds can be used to investigate unsolved civil rights crimes. The money includes $123 million for the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice responsible for investigating cold cases, which is $7 million more than the fiscal year 2008 levels. There is an additional $30 million for competitive funds for State and local governments. Eligible activities include expenses associated with investigating and prosecuting civil rights violations that are criminal in nature. Obviously, as Senator Leahy and others have pointed out, it is critically important we get this omnibus bill done or funding altogether will be eliminated. I say it is time we move forward. This has been an important matter, the fact that we received unanimous support on this effort back a few months ago. Jim Talent, who came up with the idea, thought we ought to pursue these matters. I thought it was a worthy one. That is why I joined him in it. On a bipartisan basis, we stepped forward. It would be unfortunate at this hour to take this omnibus bill, which has resources to do that, to reject this and obviously send the whole matter into conference, which would delay the funding that is appropriated in this bill. With that, I respectfully say to my friend from Oklahoma that I appreciate his support of the underlying concept and bill, that we pursue these matters of unsolved civil rights cases. I welcome his participation in that. I strongly urge my colleagues respectfully to reject the amendment so we can move forward and provide the funding necessary for the bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I send to the desk a private relief bill to provide permanent resident status to Juan and Alejandro Gomez, and ask that it be appropriately referred. Juan, 20, and Alejandro, 21, are natives of Colombia who came to the U.S. with their parents in August 1990 on B-2 visitors visas and reside in Miami, FL. Their parents were deported on October 30, 2007. Their initial departure date was September 14, 2007, but because of legislation introduced last Congress that date was extended. However, now they have been ordered to report for deportation on March 15, 2009. Juan and Alejandro have lived continuously in the U.S. for the last 18 years. They have both graduated from Miami Killian High School. Juan is a student at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. Alejandro is a student at Miami Dade Community College and works at the Biltmore Hotel in Miami. They have the strong support of their community. It would be an extreme hardship to uproot Juan and Alejandro from their community, which has wholeheartedly embraced them, to send them back to Colombia where there lives could be in serious danger. We all know that the circumstances of Juan and Alejandro are not unique. Just like many other children here illegally, they had no control over their parents' decision to overstay their visas a number of years ago. Most of these young people work hard to complete school and contribute to their communities. Cases like Juan's and Alejandro's are the reason why the so called DREAM Act was attached to the comprehensive immigration reform legislation that the Senate attempted to pass last Congress, only to face a filibuster from opponents of any comprehensive immigration reform proposal. The DREAM Act has broad partisan support and is not the reason that the immigration bill stalled in the Senate. I would hope that consideration could be given to delinking the DREAM Act from the larger bill so that we can put in place a legal framework for dealing with young people similar in circumstances to Juan and Alejandro who are caught in this unfortunate immigration status. But that is not likely to happen soon enough to address the problems confronting Juan and Alejandro. That is why I have decided to reintroduce a private bill on their behalf. I will also be writing to Senator Charles Schumer, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration to request, pursuant to the Subcommittee's Rules of Procedure, that the Subcommittee formally request an expedited departmental report from the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services regarding the Gomez brothers so that the Subcommittee can then move forward to give consideration to this bill as soon as possible. I have had the opportunity to meet Juan and Alejandro. They believe that America is their home. They love our country and want to have an opportunity to fulfill their dreams of becoming full participants in this country. Passage of the private bill would give them that opportunity. I look forward to working with the Subcommittee to facilitate its passage.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I send to the desk a private relief bill to provide permanent resident status to Juan and Alejandro Gomez, and ask that it be appropriately referred. Juan, 20, and Alejandro, 21, are natives of Colombia who came to the U.S. with their parents in August 1990 on B-2 visitors visas and reside in Miami, FL. Their parents were deported on October 30, 2007. Their initial departure date was September 14, 2007, but because of legislation introduced last Congress that date was extended. However, now they have been ordered to report for deportation on March 15, 2009. Juan and Alejandro have lived continuously in the U.S. for the last 18 years. They have both graduated from Miami Killian High School. Juan is a student at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. Alejandro is a student at Miami Dade Community College and works at the Biltmore Hotel in Miami. They have the strong support of their community. It would be an extreme hardship to uproot Juan and Alejandro from their community, which has wholeheartedly embraced them, to send them back to Colombia where there lives could be in serious danger. We all know that the circumstances of Juan and Alejandro are not unique. Just like many other children here illegally, they had no control over their parents' decision to overstay their visas a number of years ago. Most of these young people work hard to complete school and contribute to their communities. Cases like Juan's and Alejandro's are the reason why the so called DREAM Act was attached to the comprehensive immigration reform legislation that the Senate attempted to pass last Congress, only to face a filibuster from opponents of any comprehensive immigration reform proposal. The DREAM Act has broad partisan support and is not the reason that the immigration bill stalled in the Senate. I would hope that consideration could be given to delinking the DREAM Act from the larger bill so that we can put in place a legal framework for dealing with young people similar in circumstances to Juan and Alejandro who are caught in this unfortunate immigration status. But that is not likely to happen soon enough to address the problems confronting Juan and Alejandro. That is why I have decided to reintroduce a private bill on their behalf. I will also be writing to Senator Charles Schumer, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration to request, pursuant to the Subcommittee's Rules of Procedure, that the Subcommittee formally request an expedited departmental report from the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services regarding the Gomez brothers so that the Subcommittee can then move forward to give consideration to this bill as soon as possible. I have had the opportunity to meet Juan and Alejandro. They believe that America is their home. They love our country and want to have an opportunity to fulfill their dreams of becoming full participants in this country. Passage of the private bill would give them that opportunity. I look forward to working with the Subcommittee to facilitate its passage.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I had intended to speak briefly yesterday on a very important piece of legislation, S. 160, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009, but I was delayed by meetings and so wanted to have an opportunity to address this bill today. S. 160 provides the people of our Nation's capital with permanent voting representation for the first time in over 200 years. Legislation on this matter has been bottled up for many years in the Senate, and I am hopeful that this year it will finally be enacted. Despite our Nation's great progress over the years toward removing unnecessary and irrelevant voting restrictions--including those based on race, sex, wealth, property ownership, and marital status--about half a million U.S. citizens are effectively unrepresented in the U.S. Congress. Major decisions in domestic and foreign policy are made in these citizens' backyards, but they have no one to represent their concerns as a voting Member of Congress. As a recent New York Times editorial stated, ``Washington's lack of representation is profoundly undemocratic. Its residents are American citizens who pay taxes, vote for the president and serve and die in the military. Although the city is relatively small, it is more populous than Wyoming and nearly equal to those of Vermont and Alaska.'' DC residents pay the second highest per capita Federal income taxes in the country but have no vote on how the Federal Government spends their money. The famous phrase, ``no taxation without representation,'' that ignited the American Revolution and launched the original Thirteen Colonies on their quest for independence is still displayed prominently on DC license plates today. It is ironic that the city most closely associated with our democratic Government is the very place that U.S. citizens remain without a voice or a vote in Congress. In the words of Thomas Paine: ``The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected.'' It is, in fact, the right on which all others in our democracy depend. The Constitution guarantees it, and the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly underscored that it is one of our most precious and fundamental rights as citizens. I know that some opponents argue that the reasons the Founders made the Nation's Capital a separate district, rather than locate it within a State, remain sound, and therefore we should not tinker with their work, even at the cost of continued disenfranchisement of DC's citizens. That argument ignores the commitment we all must have to extending the full franchise to all Americans and to ensuring their representation in Congress. And it ignores the fact that article I of the Constitution explicitly gives Congress legislative authority over the District ``in all cases whatsoever.'' The courts have over time described this power as ``extraordinary and plenary'' and ``full and unlimited,'' and decades of legislative and judicial precedents make clear that the simple word ``states'' in article I--which provides that the House of Representatives ``shall be composed of members chosen by the people of the several states''--does not trump Congress's legislative authority to grant representation in the House to citizens of the District. Even so, to address the concerns of some, section 2(a)(2) of the bill states that ``The District of Columbia shall not be considered a State for purposes of representation in the United States Senate.'' The current bipartisan compromise embodied in this bill would increase the number of seats in the House of Representatives from 435 to 437. It would provide one seat for a voting Member representing DC that is predominantly Democratic and one at-large seat for Utah in a district that is predominantly Republican-leaning and which was next in line for congressional representation in the House according to 2000 census data. This legislation strikes the appropriate balance by allowing additional representation for both DC and Utah without disadvantaging either national political party. It embodies a reasonable compromise and allows for a responsible reassessment during the next reapportionment effort. Congress has never granted the DC Delegate full voting rights in the House. Whether such a Federal law is constitutional has never been placed squarely before the courts. While no one can respond to the constitutionality question with certainty until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a binding decision directly on point, a bipartisan group of academics, judges, and lawyers have concluded that Congress has the authority to provide for voting representation for the District's people. Upon review of the arguments on both sides, I agree. I believe that the Constitution vests in Congress broad power to regulate national elections and plenary authority over DC under article I, section 8, clause 17, known as the ``District clause,'' to address this problem legislatively without the need for a constitutional amendment. When even conservative legal scholars--from Judges Ken Starr, former U.S. Solicitor General appointed by President George H.W. Bush, to former Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh appointed by President George W. Bush--have done exhaustive legal analyses which outline the positive case for Congress granting representational rights to citizens of the District, you know there is a strong case to be made. In any event, it is clear to me that these important constitutional questions should ultimately be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, and enactment of this bill would enable us to do just that. If opponents of the bill are so certain of their constitutional arguments, they should, it seems to me, allow those arguments to be tested in the full light of day, in the courts, and be resolved once and for all. If it were to be enacted and then struck down because of constitutional infirmities, it would then be clear that a constitutional amendment is the only viable alternative left to DC citizens. This bill provides for expedited review by the courts of the constitutionality of the law, a prudent step in my view. Mr. President, I would like to briefly address the issue of the fairness doctrine, which was the subject of two votes yesterday. This doctrine, enforced by the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, for over 30 years, required broadcast licensees to cover issues of public importance in a fair, balanced manner. The fairness doctrine was established to ensure that there would be a diversity of views available to the public in the limited media market available at the time of its adoption. At the time of its establishment, there were just three major television networks and a far smaller number of radio stations. However, in 1987, the FCC rescinded the policy after concluding that the doctrine was no longer necessary given the abundance of media outlets available to the public. I have been supportive of the fairness doctrine in the past because a well-informed citizenry is of fundamental importance to our democracy. However, given the incredible communications innovations just over the last decade and the explosion of new news sources, I believe that reinstating the fairness doctrine could prove unnecessary and unmanageably complex. Today, citizens can get their news from the major broadcast television networks, a growing number of 24-hour cable news networks, dozens of radio stations, and hundreds or thousands of Internet news outlets and blogs. I supported the amendment offered yesterday by Senator DeMint because, in my view, such a fundamental issue as how the public gets its news deserves a larger forum for debate than the FCC provides. The DeMint amendment ensures that only Congress would have the authority to reinstate the fairness doctrine. While the FCC will continue to play a critically important role in regulating telecommunications, as the elected representatives of the people, the Members of this body and the House of Representatives must be involved in whether to reinstate such a far-reaching policy. Mr. President, what is at stake with the DC voting rights legislation is nothing less than a fundamental issue of fairness in voting. Every eligible citizen, regardless of where he or she lives, has a constitutionally guaranteed right to be represented in Congress by a voting Member. This bill is another step forward in our efforts to ensure that all Americans are represented equally before this Government. It is the right thing to do, and this century is the right time to do it. In fact, it is long past due. I commend my colleague from Connecticut, the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, for bringing this important measure before the Senate and for getting it adopted by the Senate yesterday, even with the unnecessary and unwise addition of the gun provisions, which I hope will be stripped from the final bill. I hope the House will act favorably on it next week and that we will soon have a conference report before us to vote on. The President has made clear he would sign it, and I hope it will be enacted soon. The people of the District have waited much too long for that happy day.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Mark Twain Commemorative Coin Act. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Lieberman, Boxer, Schumer, McCaskill, and Bond in cosponsoring this legislation, which authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to mint 100,000 five-dollar gold coins and 500,000 silver dollar coins in a design emblematic of the life and legacy of Mark Twain. Samuel L. Clemens, better known by his pen name ``Mark Twain,'' was born in 1835 in Florida, Missouri, and died in 1910 while residing in my home State of Connecticut. As many of us know from having read his works, Twain is an iconic author who has left an indelible mark on our Nation's history. Two of his most renowned works, ``The Adventures of Tom Sawyer'' and ``Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,'' have become a central part of the American literary canon and are still widely read in schools and universities across the country. Another enduring work, entitled ``The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today,'' satirized the excesses of the age during which it was written, and solidified Twain's reputation as a fierce but subtle social critic. His writings evoke discussions of race, politics, and economic inequality, all issues with which our nation continues to struggle as we become a ``more perfect union.'' This bill will allow the Treasury to mint and issue coins in commemoration of Mark Twain's lasting contributions to America's literary tradition and cultural heritage. A portion of proceeds from surcharges of $35 and $10 applied to each gold and silver coin sold to the public will be distributed by the Treasury to support four institutions critical to the mission of promoting Mark Twain's legacy: The Mark Twain House & Museum in Hartford, CT; the Mark Twain Project at the Bancroft Library of the University of California, in Berkeley, CA; the Center for Mark Twain Studies at Elmira College, in New York; and the Mark Twain Boyhood Home & Museum in Hannibal, MO. The Mark Twain House and Museum in Hartford, CT, is a national historic landmark. Each year, over 60,000 visitors flock there, many of them from outside my home State. This site offers a unique experience to all who visit, and serves as a center for educating young and old alike about Mark Twain's life and legacy. However, as recent news articles have reported, the Mark Twain House and Museum has--not unlike many other nonprofit entities across the country in the midst of the economic downturn--struggled to cover operating costs solely on private donations, and the financial challenges it currently faces are substantial. Passing this legislation will help to support the continued operation and restoration of the Mark Twain House, and promote its goals by honoring Mark Twain with a commemorative coin desirable to coin collectors as well as enthusiasts of American history and literature. Congressman John Larson of Connecticut is introducing companion legislation today in the House of Representatives. As a procedural matter, the House Financial Services Committee requires no less than 290 cosponsors for any commemorative coin bill to come under committee consideration, and similar cosponsorship rules are in place for the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Moreover, the House adheres to a tradition of interpreting commemorative coin bills as ``revenue-raisers'' subject to the origination clause of the U.S. Constitution. Passing the Mark Twain Commemorative Coin Act through both Houses will require no small amount of effort, but today marks an important first step as we put this legislative proposal forward and begin to generate broad public support for the effort. Once Congressman Larson's companion bill meets the necessary requirements and is adopted by the full House, I intend to press it forward here in the Senate. The legislation I am introducing will require broad bipartisan support to meet the high threshold for commemorative coin legislation established by the rules of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, so I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and join me in supporting the life and legacy of Mark Twain, as well as the important places in our Nation that promote further study and education on his significant contributions to American history. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Mark Twain Commemorative Coin Act. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Lieberman, Boxer, Schumer, McCaskill, and Bond in cosponsoring this legislation, which authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to mint 100,000 five-dollar gold coins and 500,000 silver dollar coins in a design emblematic of the life and legacy of Mark Twain. Samuel L. Clemens, better known by his pen name ``Mark Twain,'' was born in 1835 in Florida, Missouri, and died in 1910 while residing in my home State of Connecticut. As many of us know from having read his works, Twain is an iconic author who has left an indelible mark on our Nation's history. Two of his most renowned works, ``The Adventures of Tom Sawyer'' and ``Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,'' have become a central part of the American literary canon and are still widely read in schools and universities across the country. Another enduring work, entitled ``The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today,'' satirized the excesses of the age during which it was written, and solidified Twain's reputation as a fierce but subtle social critic. His writings evoke discussions of race, politics, and economic inequality, all issues with which our nation continues to struggle as we become a ``more perfect union.'' This bill will allow the Treasury to mint and issue coins in commemoration of Mark Twain's lasting contributions to America's literary tradition and cultural heritage. A portion of proceeds from surcharges of $35 and $10 applied to each gold and silver coin sold to the public will be distributed by the Treasury to support four institutions critical to the mission of promoting Mark Twain's legacy: The Mark Twain House & Museum in Hartford, CT; the Mark Twain Project at the Bancroft Library of the University of California, in Berkeley, CA; the Center for Mark Twain Studies at Elmira College, in New York; and the Mark Twain Boyhood Home & Museum in Hannibal, MO. The Mark Twain House and Museum in Hartford, CT, is a national historic landmark. Each year, over 60,000 visitors flock there, many of them from outside my home State. This site offers a unique experience to all who visit, and serves as a center for educating young and old alike about Mark Twain's life and legacy. However, as recent news articles have reported, the Mark Twain House and Museum has--not unlike many other nonprofit entities across the country in the midst of the economic downturn--struggled to cover operating costs solely on private donations, and the financial challenges it currently faces are substantial. Passing this legislation will help to support the continued operation and restoration of the Mark Twain House, and promote its goals by honoring Mark Twain with a commemorative coin desirable to coin collectors as well as enthusiasts of American history and literature. Congressman John Larson of Connecticut is introducing companion legislation today in the House of Representatives. As a procedural matter, the House Financial Services Committee requires no less than 290 cosponsors for any commemorative coin bill to come under committee consideration, and similar cosponsorship rules are in place for the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Moreover, the House adheres to a tradition of interpreting commemorative coin bills as ``revenue-raisers'' subject to the origination clause of the U.S. Constitution. Passing the Mark Twain Commemorative Coin Act through both Houses will require no small amount of effort, but today marks an important first step as we put this legislative proposal forward and begin to generate broad public support for the effort. Once Congressman Larson's companion bill meets the necessary requirements and is adopted by the full House, I intend to press it forward here in the Senate. The legislation I am introducing will require broad bipartisan support to meet the high threshold for commemorative coin legislation established by the rules of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, so I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and join me in supporting the life and legacy of Mark Twain, as well as the important places in our Nation that promote further study and education on his significant contributions to American history. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rules of procedure for the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce four bills today: The AmeriCorps: Together Improving Our Nation (ACTION) Act, the Semester of Service Act, the Summer of Service Act, and the Encore Service Act-- legislation that would offer Americans the opportunity to serve their communities and work to improve their Nation. As we have discussed time and time again, the challenges facing America are mounting--from a struggling economy, to a broken health care system, to challenges in our schools that put our children's futures at risk. These are problems that countless Americans have lived and struggled with--that we here in this institution have debated for years, decade even. We can disagree amongst ourselves about how to solve them--and we certainly have. But what we can all agree on is the impact citizens can make when it comes to facing some of our biggest challenges. We know the extraordinary things ordinary citizens can accomplish for our communities when given the opportunity--the difference they can make in our schools and nursing homes, in veterans' hospitals and in helping those living on fixed incomes. With these four important pieces of legislation, we are offering citizens of all ages even more opportunities to be involved. We already harness the enormous power of a dedicated group of individuals looking for ways to serve their communities is through the remarkably successful AmeriCorps program. Last year alone, 75,000 AmeriCorps members gave back to our communities, serving in over 4,000 schools, faith-based and community organizations, and nonprofits across the country. They also brought reinforcements--recruiting another 1.7 million community volunteers to work alongside them. Because of AmeriCorps, our communities have been strengthened, and our democracy fortified. Unfortunately, as the hours AmeriCorps Members have contributed to our communities have increased, the Segal AmeriCorps Education Award created to help members pay for their college tuition has remained flat at $4,725. Meanwhile, the average college tuition has skyrocketed. The education award previously paid for two years of college, but currently it does not even cover the cost of single year. I am introducing the AmeriCorps: Together Improving Our Nation, ACTION, Act, in part, to update the education award to keep pace with 15 years of tuition increases. The ACTION Act will raise the education award to $6,585 and increase the award annually to match the average tuition at a 4-year public university. That figure, $6,585 is the average cost of tuition at a four-year public university according to the College Board. The Act will also make the education award tax exempt to ensure that alumni are able to use their entire award to advance their education. The Summer of Service bill would reach the youngest Americans interested in giving back to their communities, fostering a commitment to service that will last a lifetime. The Summer of Service Act would create a competitive grant program that would enable states and localities to offer middle school students an opportunity to participate in a structured community service program over the summer months. It would employ service-learning to teach civic participation skills, help young people see themselves as resources to their communities, expand educational opportunities and discourage ``summer academic slide.'' Providing tangible benefits to their communities, Summer of Service projects would direct grantees to work on unmet human, educational, environmental and public safety needs and encourage all youth, regardless of age, income, or disability, to engage in community service. The program would also grant participants with an educational award of up to $500 which can later be used to pay for college. The Semester of Service Act also engages students in service-learning at the high school level. We talk so much about ways to improve academic performance in our schools. Well, when service is integrated into our students' curricula at school, young people make gains on achievement tests. Service-learning results in grade point averages going up, and feelings about high-school are that more positive. And the benefits of service-learning go well beyond the classroom. When young people participate in service activities they feel better able to control their own lives in a positive way. They are less prone to engage in risky behavior, more likely to engage in their own education, and far more aware of the career opportunities before them. Indeed, research shows that for every dollar we spend on a service- learning project, $4 worth of service is provided to the community involved. That means by authorizing $200 million for fiscal year 2009, as the Semester of Service Act does, our country will save more than half a billion dollars in service performed. This legislation works by creating a competitive grant program that gives school districts, or nonprofits working in partnership with local school districts, the opportunity to have students participate in a semester of service in their junior or senior year for academic credit. These students are required to perform a minimum of 70 hours of service learning activities over 12 weeks, with at least 24 of those hours spent participating in field-based activities--outside of the classroom. By engaging both the public and private sector, Semester of Service teaches civic participation skills and helps young people see themselves not merely as residents in their communities--but resources to them. Perhaps, the greatest untapped resource in our communities are older Americans. No one is more ready or more poised to make a difference--in our communities and throughout our country--than the gaining Baby Boomer generation. In the next decade alone, the number of Americans 55 years and older is expected to grow another 22 percent. But for all the well-publicized challenges that growth presents, it is time we also recognize something else: The opportunities it offers--if we seize them. More than half of those considered a part of the Baby Boomer generation are interested in providing meaningful service to their communities. Countless older men and women who have given so much to their country throughout their lives want to serve as they enter their later years. They are living longer, healthier lives than any generation in history. And they recognize something elemental: Life doesn't end at retirement. For many, it is only beginning-- leading perhaps to a second career in the public or nonprofit sector. We have so much to learn. Indeed, there can be no greater gift passed on to future generations than the lessons of the past. But the truth is, we too often fail to draw upon the experience, knowledge and ideas of previous generations. What is missing is the opportunity. Giving older Americans those opportunities is what the Encore Service Act is all about. It creates an Encore Service Program that provides Americans 55 years and older with opportunities to serve communities with the greatest need--to volunteer in our nation's schools, to help keep our neighborhoods clean, safe and vibrant, and so much more. In return for their service, which may include extensive training and a significant commitment of time, they can receive a stipend and education award, much like AmeriCorps does for younger generations. Best of all, that stipend can be transferred to children or grandchildren. Imagine what that means for a grandmother or a grandfather who could literally put thousands of dollars into their newborn grandchild's college savings fund as a result of this program-- funds that can only be used after the child turns 18 and can be kept for up to 20 years. Of all the new ideas in this legislation, perhaps this one is the most exciting. This legislation also creates an Encore Fellows program that places older Americans in one-year management or leadership positions in public or private not-for-profits. These year-long fellowships not only increase the capacity of public service organizations already doing tremendous work in our communities, they also promote those who have already had full, successful careers, perhaps in the private sector, to lend their expertise and experience to the cause of community or public service. The Encore Service Act also creates a Silver Scholars program that awards older Americans with an education scholarship of up to $1,000 in exchange for volunteering with public agencies or private nonprofits between 250 and 500 hours a year. As with the Encore Service Program, they can use these awards for themselves or transfer them to children, grandchildren or other qualified designees. Lastly, this legislation expands the capacity and builds on the success of current Senior Programs by raising the authorization funding levels for the Foster Grandparent, Senior Corps and RSVP programs. We all know that seniors and these programs have already made a remarkable difference in our communities. That is why our legislation raises program eligibility levels from 125 to 200 percent above poverty and ensures that all programs will be open to any individual 55 years and older. Contrary to what some suggest, I believe the American people are starved for opportunities to serve--and stand at the ready not just in times of crisis, but every day. Americans are simply waiting to be asked to serve something greater than themselves, as they originally were by President John F. Kennedy. In introducing this legislation today, we once again remind all Americans of that call to serve.

Mr. DODD

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

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak on behalf of Congresswoman Hilda Solis to be our new Secretary of Labor. Before I begin, on behalf of all of us, regardless of which side of the proverbial aisle we sit on, I know we wish Senator Ted Kennedy the very best. He will be back in a matter of days and once again will be involved in the daily business of the Senate. Were he here at this moment, he would be adding his very strong and vibrant voice in support of this excellent nominee to be the new Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis. We all know these are tough economic times. It hardly needs to be said. The American people are living it every minute of every day. Too many are facing--within minutes or hours--the loss of a job, the loss of a home, or the total evaporation of their retirement accounts. This was showcased by one family I met over the weekend in my home State. They saved for years and years to provide their children with the opportunity to get a higher education, just to see it all wiped out in a matter of days. And with their children reaching the cusp of higher education, they are left wondering what will happen. Despite all the commitments they had made to those children and all their efforts to make sure they were financially prepared, today they find themselves in a very different position. Unemployment is rising. Incomes are stagnating, while the costs of health care and housing and education are skyrocketing. In my State, unemployment rates have risen from 4.8 percent in January of 2008 to 7.1 percent this past December. Every indication is these numbers are going to go up before they come back down again. Hopefully, they will come back down soon again. I know this evening we are all anticipating the remarks of our new President as he addresses the joint Houses of Congress in his first State of the Union Message. I have gotten to know President Obama well. We served together in this body. We served on two committees together, and we campaigned for the Presidency both with each other and against each other for a brief period of time. I can tell you, he is an optimistic, positive, confident President; a reflection of who we are as a people. This evening you are going to hear, in my view, a confident, optimistic President looking ahead to our future with hope, full of the aspirations I know we all share as Americans. But the difficult problems we have in front of us make the need to confirm a Secretary of Labor more pressing than ever. The Department of Labor enforces the laws and regulations dealing with fair wages and hours, job training, workplace safety and health standards, unemployment, and family and medical leave--each absolutely essential to a productive, healthy workforce and economy. Unfortunately, over the last 8 years, many of us have watched the Department of Labor with some concern as its focus moved away from the protection of employees in too many cases and focused more effort on protecting employers and denying workers their right to organize. I do not view this as the Department's role, and I know Congresswoman Solis does not either. It certainly was not the intention of Congress when it created the Department in 1913 and wrote in the authorizing language, and I quote: The purpose of the Department of Labor shall be to foster, promote and develop the welfare of the wage earners of the United States, to improve their working conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment. Let me say, as an aside, the departing Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao, is a good friend of mine, and I have known her for a long time. Of course, her husband is our distinguished minority leader. She was, I think, the only Cabinet officer to serve all 8 years of the Bush administration. Her job was, of course, to reflect the Bush administration's policies and judgments. I am not suggesting she disagreed with them, though I believe that from time to time she might have taken us on a different path, had she been in a position to solely decide what direction the country would go in. So when I express my disappointment over the direction of the Department of Labor over the last few years, I do not want it to reflect on the competency and the contribution Elaine made to our country. However, looking at some of the decisions of the Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board under the last Administration-- such as the outrageous overtime pay rules and the Kentucky River decisions that stripped tens of thousands of workers of the right to organize--I find it hard to believe they were made with the charter in mind that I described to you. At this moment of such wrenching economic turmoil, it is essential that the Department of Labor recommit itself to protecting the rights of workers, and we need a strong leader such as Hilda Solis at the helm to do that. The Department of Labor faces many challenges, not only in correcting what, in my view, were mistaken actions taken by the Bush administration but also in advancing the cause of workers' rights. One of the most important is the administration of the Family and Medical Leave Act, which will mark its 16th anniversary this month. Since becoming law, the Family and Medical Leave Act has helped more than 60 million Americans take time off to care for a newborn or adopted baby, to help a parent through an illness, to get better themselves, to keep an eye on their children, knowing that their job will be there when the family problem diminishes. I cannot think of how many occasions we have watched and supported one of our colleagues here in the Senate who has missed votes and committee hearings, for days or weeks on end, to recover from an illness or care for a spouse or a child who needed their attention. I think of my wonderful friend, the new Vice President of our country, and the Presiding Officer who spent years working with him. When tragedy struck Joe Biden's family at the outset of his Senate career, he spent a lot of time, as he should have, at home with his children, making sure they could get through that difficult time. He was applauded, and properly so, by his colleagues and others. No one ever suggested that Senator Joe Biden should not have his job back because he had missed work to be with his family. I remember Jake Garn, my good friend and a former chairman of the Banking Committee, who donated a kidney to one of his daughters. He spent days away from here in order to take care of that child and to get back on his feet himself. No one suggested Senator Garn of Utah had done anything but what a father should do in those circumstances. His job was never in jeopardy. His pay and his pension were not put at risk. Yet, prior to the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act, millions of our fellow citizens struggled through similar situations every single day without the security that their jobs would be there when they came back. As the author of the Family and Medical Leave Act 16 years ago, I take as much pride in that bill as anything I have done here in 30 years. Nothing is healthier for a family, during a time of crisis, than to be together. These families deserve to get the support and backing they need. I have worried over the past 8 years about the efforts of the Department of Labor to water down, to minimize, to create obstacles in the path of those who seek the family and medical leave protections. FMLA has also benefitted businesses. With lower turnover and a boost to morale, 90 percent of employers told the Department of Labor in 2000 that the Family and Medical Leave Act had a neutral or positive effect on profits. No one should be forced in a crisis to make the impossible choice between work and family. Which is why I am so excited about the prospect of Congresswoman Solis leading the Department of Labor. She is a forceful advocate for working families and will bring to the job a genuine understanding and passion for the issues that affect families so deeply. I am also particularly encouraged by Hilda Solis's knowledge and enthusiasm for green job training. In the House of Representatives, where she served with distinction, she authored the Green Jobs Training Act, which will help train American workers for jobs in the renewable energy and energy-efficiency industries. I share her belief that the creation of good-paying, green-collar jobs is critical to both our economic and energy security. My own State of Connecticut is home to a number of exciting green energy companies, including world leaders in the design and manufacture of hydrogen fuel cells. I know the Congresswoman will bring her experience to the creation of new programs at the Department of Labor, within the Job Corps and elsewhere, to create a new generation of professionals. These programs will be critically important to our Nation's ability to transform and reinvigorate our economy. These are but a few of the many challenges that will face the Department of Labor in the coming days. Others include revitalizing and restoring the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, modernizing unemployment insurance, and preventing wage theft, which results in as many as 2 to 3 million workers not being paid minimum wage and millions more being denied the overtime pay that they rightly deserve. I would like to briefly conclude these remarks by addressing some of the issues being raised by some of my friends who have been critical and may, in fact, oppose this nomination. There have been questions about Congresswoman Solis's responsiveness to HELP Committee inquiries and about her work in an unpaid position on the board of a nonprofit workers advocacy organization. Congresswoman Solis has been very forthright and candid about all those issues. She has fully answered more than 140 questions from committee members, including 121 from my colleagues on the minority side. Congresswoman Solis is a highly respected public servant, an eminently qualified nominee to be Secretary of Labor, and, in my view, deserving of support from every Member of this body. In these challenging times, we need a Secretary of Labor as soon as possible. The workers of our country need a strong leader at the Department to fight for them and to protect their rights. Hilda Solis is that leader. I urge all my colleagues to support for this nomination and to vote for her when the vote occurs later this afternoon. I yield the floor. The Economy

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce four bills today: The AmeriCorps: Together Improving Our Nation (ACTION) Act, the Semester of Service Act, the Summer of Service Act, and the Encore Service Act-- legislation that would offer Americans the opportunity to serve their communities and work to improve their Nation. As we have discussed time and time again, the challenges facing America are mounting--from a struggling economy, to a broken health care system, to challenges in our schools that put our children's futures at risk. These are problems that countless Americans have lived and struggled with--that we here in this institution have debated for years, decade even. We can disagree amongst ourselves about how to solve them--and we certainly have. But what we can all agree on is the impact citizens can make when it comes to facing some of our biggest challenges. We know the extraordinary things ordinary citizens can accomplish for our communities when given the opportunity--the difference they can make in our schools and nursing homes, in veterans' hospitals and in helping those living on fixed incomes. With these four important pieces of legislation, we are offering citizens of all ages even more opportunities to be involved. We already harness the enormous power of a dedicated group of individuals looking for ways to serve their communities is through the remarkably successful AmeriCorps program. Last year alone, 75,000 AmeriCorps members gave back to our communities, serving in over 4,000 schools, faith-based and community organizations, and nonprofits across the country. They also brought reinforcements--recruiting another 1.7 million community volunteers to work alongside them. Because of AmeriCorps, our communities have been strengthened, and our democracy fortified. Unfortunately, as the hours AmeriCorps Members have contributed to our communities have increased, the Segal AmeriCorps Education Award created to help members pay for their college tuition has remained flat at $4,725. Meanwhile, the average college tuition has skyrocketed. The education award previously paid for two years of college, but currently it does not even cover the cost of single year. I am introducing the AmeriCorps: Together Improving Our Nation, ACTION, Act, in part, to update the education award to keep pace with 15 years of tuition increases. The ACTION Act will raise the education award to $6,585 and increase the award annually to match the average tuition at a 4-year public university. That figure, $6,585 is the average cost of tuition at a four-year public university according to the College Board. The Act will also make the education award tax exempt to ensure that alumni are able to use their entire award to advance their education. The Summer of Service bill would reach the youngest Americans interested in giving back to their communities, fostering a commitment to service that will last a lifetime. The Summer of Service Act would create a competitive grant program that would enable states and localities to offer middle school students an opportunity to participate in a structured community service program over the summer months. It would employ service-learning to teach civic participation skills, help young people see themselves as resources to their communities, expand educational opportunities and discourage ``summer academic slide.'' Providing tangible benefits to their communities, Summer of Service projects would direct grantees to work on unmet human, educational, environmental and public safety needs and encourage all youth, regardless of age, income, or disability, to engage in community service. The program would also grant participants with an educational award of up to $500 which can later be used to pay for college. The Semester of Service Act also engages students in service-learning at the high school level. We talk so much about ways to improve academic performance in our schools. Well, when service is integrated into our students' curricula at school, young people make gains on achievement tests. Service-learning results in grade point averages going up, and feelings about high-school are that more positive. And the benefits of service-learning go well beyond the classroom. When young people participate in service activities they feel better able to control their own lives in a positive way. They are less prone to engage in risky behavior, more likely to engage in their own education, and far more aware of the career opportunities before them. Indeed, research shows that for every dollar we spend on a service- learning project, $4 worth of service is provided to the community involved. That means by authorizing $200 million for fiscal year 2009, as the Semester of Service Act does, our country will save more than half a billion dollars in service performed. This legislation works by creating a competitive grant program that gives school districts, or nonprofits working in partnership with local school districts, the opportunity to have students participate in a semester of service in their junior or senior year for academic credit. These students are required to perform a minimum of 70 hours of service learning activities over 12 weeks, with at least 24 of those hours spent participating in field-based activities--outside of the classroom. By engaging both the public and private sector, Semester of Service teaches civic participation skills and helps young people see themselves not merely as residents in their communities--but resources to them. Perhaps, the greatest untapped resource in our communities are older Americans. No one is more ready or more poised to make a difference--in our communities and throughout our country--than the gaining Baby Boomer generation. In the next decade alone, the number of Americans 55 years and older is expected to grow another 22 percent. But for all the well-publicized challenges that growth presents, it is time we also recognize something else: The opportunities it offers--if we seize them. More than half of those considered a part of the Baby Boomer generation are interested in providing meaningful service to their communities. Countless older men and women who have given so much to their country throughout their lives want to serve as they enter their later years. They are living longer, healthier lives than any generation in history. And they recognize something elemental: Life doesn't end at retirement. For many, it is only beginning-- leading perhaps to a second career in the public or nonprofit sector. We have so much to learn. Indeed, there can be no greater gift passed on to future generations than the lessons of the past. But the truth is, we too often fail to draw upon the experience, knowledge and ideas of previous generations. What is missing is the opportunity. Giving older Americans those opportunities is what the Encore Service Act is all about. It creates an Encore Service Program that provides Americans 55 years and older with opportunities to serve communities with the greatest need--to volunteer in our nation's schools, to help keep our neighborhoods clean, safe and vibrant, and so much more. In return for their service, which may include extensive training and a significant commitment of time, they can receive a stipend and education award, much like AmeriCorps does for younger generations. Best of all, that stipend can be transferred to children or grandchildren. Imagine what that means for a grandmother or a grandfather who could literally put thousands of dollars into their newborn grandchild's college savings fund as a result of this program-- funds that can only be used after the child turns 18 and can be kept for up to 20 years. Of all the new ideas in this legislation, perhaps this one is the most exciting. This legislation also creates an Encore Fellows program that places older Americans in one-year management or leadership positions in public or private not-for-profits. These year-long fellowships not only increase the capacity of public service organizations already doing tremendous work in our communities, they also promote those who have already had full, successful careers, perhaps in the private sector, to lend their expertise and experience to the cause of community or public service. The Encore Service Act also creates a Silver Scholars program that awards older Americans with an education scholarship of up to $1,000 in exchange for volunteering with public agencies or private nonprofits between 250 and 500 hours a year. As with the Encore Service Program, they can use these awards for themselves or transfer them to children, grandchildren or other qualified designees. Lastly, this legislation expands the capacity and builds on the success of current Senior Programs by raising the authorization funding levels for the Foster Grandparent, Senior Corps and RSVP programs. We all know that seniors and these programs have already made a remarkable difference in our communities. That is why our legislation raises program eligibility levels from 125 to 200 percent above poverty and ensures that all programs will be open to any individual 55 years and older. Contrary to what some suggest, I believe the American people are starved for opportunities to serve--and stand at the ready not just in times of crisis, but every day. Americans are simply waiting to be asked to serve something greater than themselves, as they originally were by President John F. Kennedy. In introducing this legislation today, we once again remind all Americans of that call to serve.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act of 2009. I want to thank Senators Alexander, Whitehouse, Lautenberg, and Kerry for joining me for this introduction. Food allergies are an increasing food safety and public health concern in this country, especially among young children. I know first- hand just how frightening food allergies can be in a young person's life. My own family has been personally touched by this troubling condition and we continue to struggle with it each and every day. Sadly, there is no cure for food allergies. The number of Americans with food allergies is on the rise. From 1997 to 2007 the prevalence of food allergies among children increased by 18 percent. Today, 3 million children in the United States have a food allergy. While food allergies were at one time considered relatively infrequent, they now rank third among common chronic diseases in children under 18 years of age. Peanuts are among several allergenic foods that can produce life-threatening allergic reactions in susceptible children. Peanut allergies doubled among school-age children from 1997-2002. Clearly, food allergies are of great concern for school-age children nationwide, and yet, there are no federal guidelines concerning the management of life-threatening food allergies in our nation's schools. I have heard from parents, teachers and school administrators that students with severe food allergies often face inconsistent food allergy management approaches when they change schools. Too often, families are not aware of the food allergy policy at their children's school, or the policy is vastly different from the one they knew at their previous school, and they are left wondering whether their child is safe. In 2006, Connecticut became the first State to enact school-based guidelines concerning food allergies and the prevention of life- threatening incidents in schools. I am very proud of these efforts, and I know that the parents of children who suffer from food allergies in Connecticut have confidence that their children are safe throughout the school day. I had the opportunity to visit with students and parents at Washington Elementary School in West Haven, CT, last May who shared with me their schools' comprehensive plan for its students with food allergies. Nine other States, including Massachusetts, Tennessee, Vermont, New Jersey, Arizona, Michigan, New York, Washington, and Maryland have enacted statewide guidelines. But too many States across the country have food allergy management guidelines that are inconsistent from one school district to the next. The result is a patchwork of guidelines that not only may vary from State to State, but also from school district to school district. In my view, this lack of consistency underscores the need for enactment of uniform, federal guidelines that school districts can choose to adopt and implement. For this reason, my colleague Senator Alexander and I are introducing the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act of 2009 today to address the growing need for uniform and consistent school-based food allergy management policy. I thank Senator Alexander for his hard work and commitment to this important legislation. Mr. President, the bill we are introducing today closely mirrors legislation I introduced last Congress which was cosponsored by 41 of my colleagues. Last May, I, along with Senator Alexander, chaired a hearing in our Children and Families Subcommittee exploring the current state of food allergies and the challenges parents of children with food allergies face. Since that hearing, Senator Alexander and I have been working with members on both sides of the aisle to address any concerns they had with the legislation. As a result, the legislation we are introducing today reflects many excellent suggestions and changes offered by my colleagues. It is my sincere hope that the Senate will move quickly on this bipartisan legislation this year. The legislation does two things. First, it directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, to develop and make available voluntary food allergy management guidelines for preventing exposure to food allergens and assuring a prompt response when a student suffers a potentially fatal anaphylactic reaction. The guidelines developed by the Secretary are voluntary, not mandatory. Under the legislation, each school district or early childhood education program across the country can voluntarily choose to implement these guidelines. The intent of the legislation is not to mandate individual school policy, but rather to provide for consistency of policies relating to school-based food allergy management by providing schools with consistent guidelines at the federal level. Second, the bill provides for incentive grants to school districts to assist them with adoption and implementation of the federal government's allergy management guidelines in all K-12 public schools. I would like to recognize the leadership of Congresswoman Nita Lowey who is introducing companion legislation today in the House of Representatives. She has been a longstanding champion for children and for awareness of the devastating impact of food allergies. I also wish to acknowledge and offer my sincere appreciation to the members of the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network for their commitment to this legislation and for raising public awareness, providing advocacy, and advancing research on behalf of all individuals who suffer from food allergies. This legislation is supported by the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network, the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, and many others. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act of 2009. I want to thank Senators Alexander, Whitehouse, Lautenberg, and Kerry for joining me for this introduction. Food allergies are an increasing food safety and public health concern in this country, especially among young children. I know first- hand just how frightening food allergies can be in a young person's life. My own family has been personally touched by this troubling condition and we continue to struggle with it each and every day. Sadly, there is no cure for food allergies. The number of Americans with food allergies is on the rise. From 1997 to 2007 the prevalence of food allergies among children increased by 18 percent. Today, 3 million children in the United States have a food allergy. While food allergies were at one time considered relatively infrequent, they now rank third among common chronic diseases in children under 18 years of age. Peanuts are among several allergenic foods that can produce life-threatening allergic reactions in susceptible children. Peanut allergies doubled among school-age children from 1997-2002. Clearly, food allergies are of great concern for school-age children nationwide, and yet, there are no federal guidelines concerning the management of life-threatening food allergies in our nation's schools. I have heard from parents, teachers and school administrators that students with severe food allergies often face inconsistent food allergy management approaches when they change schools. Too often, families are not aware of the food allergy policy at their children's school, or the policy is vastly different from the one they knew at their previous school, and they are left wondering whether their child is safe. In 2006, Connecticut became the first State to enact school-based guidelines concerning food allergies and the prevention of life- threatening incidents in schools. I am very proud of these efforts, and I know that the parents of children who suffer from food allergies in Connecticut have confidence that their children are safe throughout the school day. I had the opportunity to visit with students and parents at Washington Elementary School in West Haven, CT, last May who shared with me their schools' comprehensive plan for its students with food allergies. Nine other States, including Massachusetts, Tennessee, Vermont, New Jersey, Arizona, Michigan, New York, Washington, and Maryland have enacted statewide guidelines. But too many States across the country have food allergy management guidelines that are inconsistent from one school district to the next. The result is a patchwork of guidelines that not only may vary from State to State, but also from school district to school district. In my view, this lack of consistency underscores the need for enactment of uniform, federal guidelines that school districts can choose to adopt and implement. For this reason, my colleague Senator Alexander and I are introducing the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act of 2009 today to address the growing need for uniform and consistent school-based food allergy management policy. I thank Senator Alexander for his hard work and commitment to this important legislation. Mr. President, the bill we are introducing today closely mirrors legislation I introduced last Congress which was cosponsored by 41 of my colleagues. Last May, I, along with Senator Alexander, chaired a hearing in our Children and Families Subcommittee exploring the current state of food allergies and the challenges parents of children with food allergies face. Since that hearing, Senator Alexander and I have been working with members on both sides of the aisle to address any concerns they had with the legislation. As a result, the legislation we are introducing today reflects many excellent suggestions and changes offered by my colleagues. It is my sincere hope that the Senate will move quickly on this bipartisan legislation this year. The legislation does two things. First, it directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, to develop and make available voluntary food allergy management guidelines for preventing exposure to food allergens and assuring a prompt response when a student suffers a potentially fatal anaphylactic reaction. The guidelines developed by the Secretary are voluntary, not mandatory. Under the legislation, each school district or early childhood education program across the country can voluntarily choose to implement these guidelines. The intent of the legislation is not to mandate individual school policy, but rather to provide for consistency of policies relating to school-based food allergy management by providing schools with consistent guidelines at the federal level. Second, the bill provides for incentive grants to school districts to assist them with adoption and implementation of the federal government's allergy management guidelines in all K-12 public schools. I would like to recognize the leadership of Congresswoman Nita Lowey who is introducing companion legislation today in the House of Representatives. She has been a longstanding champion for children and for awareness of the devastating impact of food allergies. I also wish to acknowledge and offer my sincere appreciation to the members of the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network for their commitment to this legislation and for raising public awareness, providing advocacy, and advancing research on behalf of all individuals who suffer from food allergies. This legislation is supported by the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network, the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, and many others. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak about the agreement that was reached a day or so ago by conferees on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the inclusion of two priorities of mine in particular. Before I give the substance of my remarks, let me commend the leadership of the Senate and the House as well as the Members on both sides of the so-called political divide in this Chamber and elsewhere who helped put this together. I know there were many who obviously did not want this bill to pass and who have spoken against it. Most, I believe, feel that inaction is unacceptable. We may have significant disagreements about what should have been included in this package-- whether it is stimulative enough; whether the size of the package itself will provide the necessary jolt to our economy to have us moving in a better direction than the one we are obviously in. I happen to believe we are doing the right thing by doing this. I don't take any great joy or pleasure in the fact we are doing it, any more than I did when we had the vote last fall on the emergency economic stabilization effort. That was no great moment of joy either. Normally when we pass legislation, we are directly helping some group or helping the country in some way. These efforts obviously help, but they help us get out of a mess we are in, one that, in my view, could have been avoided. This was not a natural disaster that occurred in our country; this was a manmade disaster--inattention, misfeasance, malfeasance that allowed this country to watch the greatest economy in the history of mankind evaporate in the pockets of many overnight. Job losses--20,000 a day--with our fellow citizens finding themselves without an income. Nine thousand to ten thousand homes a day are foreclosing in our country. Retirements are evaporating within minutes. People who have spent years accumulating, to be able to enjoy the latter years of their lives in some peace and comfort and security, knowing they can take care of themselves and their loved ones as they step out of the workforce and enjoy a well-deserved period of retirement, are now in jeopardy. People may have to stay at work, if they can find work, at an older age in our country. So while I am pleased this bill is going through and pleased that my State will be the beneficiary of some help at this particular hour, I don't take any great pleasure in this moment at all; quite the contrary. It saddens me that it has come to this. So with that as a framework, I wish to share some thoughts about what is in this bill and why I think it can be of some help to get us moving in the right direction. Most Americans I think are aware now that our economy has been in a recession for the last 14 months or so and has impacted every State differently. My State of Connecticut is no exception. While the effects of the recession took a bit longer to hit my State than others, economists believe Connecticut may take longer to recover for a variety of unique reasons, including the kinds of jobs we provide and the like. We have lost about 125,000 jobs in my State. Close to 20,000 homes have been foreclosed on. One of my cities alone, the city of Bridgeport, has had 1,100 foreclosures--one city, 1,100 foreclosures. That means our efforts to get our economy moving in this bill are going to be important to families all across the country, and certainly my State is no exception. We are addressing many priorities with this economic recovery package, providing urgent help to communities who are struggling in the midst of this recession while making a downpayment on long-term needs as the new President, President Obama, has articulated in Indiana, in Florida, and in Illinois, where he has spoken in townhall meetings about this over the last several days, as he did in his first nationally televised press conference. At a time when layoffs are increasing the rolls of the uninsured, this bill provides $24 billion in health care premium assistance to 7 million unemployed workers. I can't begin to tell my colleagues how important that is. I have held two townhall meetings in my State in the last two weeks on health care. I had one at 8:30 on a Monday morning, which is a dreadful time to hold a townhall meeting, obviously. We anticipated maybe 75 people might show up at the small community college on the banks of the Connecticut River outside of Hartford. Well, 700 people showed up at 8:30 in the morning to talk about health care and to talk about what they are going through. The discussion was supposed to be about coverage. Specifically, we had three themes: one on coverage, one on costs, and one on prevention. But the conversation was far beyond the issue of coverage. Seven hundred people showing up at 8:30 in the morning. These are people who either didn't have coverage--most had coverage, but couldn't afford the 42-percent increase in premiums they have seen in the last 6 years. Then, last Saturday at Western Connecticut State University at 2:30 on a Saturday afternoon--not exactly, again, an optimum time for a townhall meeting--500 people showed up to express their views and to listen to some professionals in the field talk about what they thought ought to be included in a comprehensive universal health care program, one I hope that will be charting a course and moving forward very quickly. I know my great friend from Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee, Max Baucus, is already deeply involved. Senator Ted Kennedy has been a champion of this issue for decades. While he is struggling with his own health issues, he is on the phone every day, talking to everybody, and he wants his committee to be deeply involved in this effort as well. But in the midst of it, until that gets done, more and more people-- the 20,000 a day who lose their jobs--if they had health care are losing that as well. So the fact that we are providing $26 billion to help out unemployed workers at a time such as this, I think most Americans--most; not all, but most Americans--would say that is the right thing for our country to do for hard-working people who, through no fault of their own, may find themselves on an unemployment line today, tomorrow, or next week, to know of the fear and fright that you may have a health care crisis with you or your family and all of a sudden don't have the capacity to deal with it. These people didn't lose their jobs because of something they did wrong and should not be put in a position where their ability to take care of their families regarding their health care needs will be disregarded. To ensure that people have safe, affordable shelter during these tough economic times, there is a $4 billion downpayment on an estimated $30 billion backlog for capital repair needs in public housing. A lot of people are falling behind out there. That will put people to work, and that is the major goal here. As we see families struggling to make ends meet, I am proud and pleased that people in Connecticut will receive over a billion dollars in Medicaid assistance. Every State in the country and every Governor has asked for assistance in this area. We have a program called the HUSKY Program--our Medicaid Program. It is strongly supported across the political spectrum. This assistance will help out in that area. I am glad we were able to include assistance for our fire first responders. Fire departments in my State are reporting they are turning down awarded what they call SAFER grants--funds used to put additional people on these rigs. You ought to have at least four people in a rig when going out to deal with these fires and problems they have to face. Those numbers are dwindling. This bill provides assistance and support for first responders. I am pleased to say that is the case. We included $8.8 billion in stabilization funds to States to provide for public safety and other critical services. That was a change--a welcome one. Across our State, from city to town, communities faced with budget deficits are crunching the numbers to maintain critical education, police, firefighter jobs, and services. In East Hartford, CT, the town was forced to lay off 8 municipal employees and eliminate 11 positions that were vacant or will be vacant because of retirements--including firefighters and police officers. The city of Stamford was counting on $500,000 in State assistance that was eliminated in the State budget in the last several days for the city's $16 million overhaul of their police and fire radio systems, and that interoperability will get help. The communities of Farmington and Colchester are trying to replace decade-old fire engines. These stabilization funds will help communities in my State, and others across the country, to prevent layoffs of first responders, firefighters and police officers, which are so critical to the well- being of our communities. Our communities' safety must not get left behind during this economic downturn. While the comprehensive economic recovery package before us today will provide critical support for a broad range of additional needs, there are three issues I want to focus on today. First, I wish to highlight an amendment I authored to restrict executive compensation and bonuses. I have to thank the majority leader, his staff, and others, for making its inclusion a priority. On executive compensation, let me say that when the American people wake up in the morning and see some institution just received billions of dollars and you have a headline that 700 employees received income in excess of a million dollars, people ask themselves: What are you thinking of? The idea that we continue to pour billions of dollars into institutions that are still awarding their employees massive amounts of income is infuriating--and that hardly describes the reaction of the American people. This is about trying to save an economy in our country, with 20,000 people losing their jobs every day. I promise you that the overwhelming majority of these people are making nothing like a million dollars a year or $500,000 a year. They are earning $40,000, 50,000 to raise a family of four. When they see their tax dollars going out the door and into institutions that are then, in some cases, not lending but are hoarding and doing other things, I cannot begin to describe the anger we hear. Then we turn around and say to that taxpayer that we need to have them step up and do more because the economy needs assistance. The American public really reacts to this. If you have hope of convincing the public we are on the right track-- I see my colleague from Alaska, and I know she has time constraints. I am digressing from the text, but, again, I find it incredible that people are calling up and bellowing about this, how upset they are that we have asked for some constraints in this area. Do they have any idea what is going on? I am mesmerized that people are calling up and bellowing because somehow they are going to be asked to be restrained from providing these exorbitant incomes for some people. This country is hurting. This is the deepest financial crisis we have had in many years in America, and they are worried about their pay. Our system of economy is at risk these days, and we will be judged by history as to whether we can respond intelligently to it. To be preoccupied over whether someone is going to get a bonus of--whatever it is, is misplaced energy and attention. It is stunning that the very people in the communities who are directly involved in this and the conception are the ones calling about that issue. The stories we have seen in recent weeks about CEOs giving themselves bonuses and spa vacations on the taxpayer dime after they have been rescued by the taxpayer infuriate the public, and they ought to. Families in Connecticut have lost everything as a result of this financial crisis. They don't have jobs, health care, their retirement, and they may have lost their homes. When they hear about the complaints coming out of these towers of financial success--about pay cuts--after all these people have gone through, they deserve better than having to put up with the behavior from some of the most fortunate among us, who have made many of the decisions that got us into this crisis. I have said again and again that if your institution is receiving funds through TARP and at the same time paying out lucrative bonuses, we should look at every possible legal means to have that money come back and ban the practice outright for high-paid executives going forward. As a result of the inclusion of this language in the legislation, it will prohibit bonuses to the 25 most highly paid employees of the large companies that receive TARP funding--and severely limit other performance-based bonuses as well. It will empower the Treasury Secretary to get back bonuses or compensation paid to an executive at these companies based on false earnings reports or anything else later found to be materially inaccurate or misrepresentative of what was occurring. It will also give shareholders the right to vote on executive pay at these firms. And it will strictly prohibit golden parachutes to senior executives of companies that receive taxpayer help. Because of this bill, we now will provide far more safeguards than exist today--measuring whether executive compensation plans pose risk to the financial health of the company and preventing the manipulation of earnings reports. The President told the world a few weeks ago that a new era of responsibility had begun--it is time our executives in those companies understood that message. The second issue I wish to discuss is transit. The bill dedicates some $8.4 billion to transit issues. Connecticut alone will receive $137 million, which will meet many important needs, reducing congestion in our State. Route 95 through Connecticut and other arteries of transport are under tremendous congestion. Transit assistance and support is long overdue. This bill provides that needed assistance. The American Public Transit Association has said that $48 billion worth of transit projects are to be completed over the next 2 years; therefore, jobs will be created, putting people back to work. That is valuable not only in the short term but for the long-term economic growth in investments for transit. That is not only about being shovel- ready, it is also future ready. Ridership is already at record levels. Traffic congestion in metropolitan areas is getting worse, and our population is going to grow by another 50 percent by 2050. I am pleased that the legislation includes $100 million to establish and implement a program to provide assistance to transit agencies to become more energy efficient as well. This is a very important part of this bill. There are a number of other provisions that provide that kind of assistance. Public transit saves over 4 billion gallons of gasoline annually and reduces carbon emissions by some 37 million metric tons a year--that is the equivalent to the electricity used by almost 5 million households. The need to repair our highways, roads and bridges is obvious, and I am pleased the bill includes $302 million in highway funds for my State of Connecticut. But the most effective way to reduce congestion is to provide transportation options that take cars off the road. Investing in transit creates jobs, it addresses climate change and reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and makes our economy competitive in the 21st century. Third is an area where I think we fell short in this bill--the failure to include the amendment I offered with Senator Martinez of Florida, which would require the administration to use $50 billion of the TARP money to attack the root cause of the economic crisis: foreclosure. It would have gone a long way toward dealing with the safe harbor so we can avoid the kind of litigation that may slow down some of these workouts. That was a mistake. We are trying to get to the root cause of the problem, the foreclosure issue. Senator Martinez had a very good idea that was adopted unanimously, and it had no cost of any measurable amount. I don't understand why it was taken out, but it is gone. That will create problems in terms of addressing the foreclosure issue. Clearly, we wanted the $50 billion used for foreclosure prevention. In 2001, this body approved $1.3 trillion in tax cuts at a time when unemployment was 4 percent and our economy was in fairly good shape. Today, with an unemployment rate of 7.6 percent and headed upward and as many as 8 million foreclosures potentially on the horizon, we are dedicating $800 billion to jump-starting our economy. Meanwhile, nearly 10,000 families enter into foreclosure every day, as I mentioned earlier. In December alone, there were 2,000 foreclosures in Connecticut. Other States, such as California, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida, have many more than we do. Eight million homes are underwater, with mortgages that exceed the value of their homes. Perhaps the most important step we could have taken in this bill is to require Treasury to spend some of the TARP money Congress previously released to modify home loans. By providing the Treasury with the authority and funds in this bill to design and implement a loan modification program in consultation with FDIC, HUD, and the Federal Reserve, we could have ensured we would help nearly 2 million families. Some 16,000 families in my State of Connecticut would have avoided losing their home, moving them out of these unaffordable, exploding and often predatory mortgages that are strangling our economy and into mortgages they can afford. While I am disappointed we didn't codify this requirement into law, I am pleased that the Treasury Secretary has pledged to dedicate at least $50 billion to preventing foreclosures--and I believe that is in no small part due to the strong support this body expressed for this amendment last week. Quite frankly, that is a step which should have been taken months ago in the previous administration. There was no interest in it despite the fact that expert after expert warned that unless you get to the bottom of the residential mortgage market, the economic crisis will persist. They are right. I hope we will see a change in direction and resources committed to the underlying problem of our economic issues. While we will hold this administration's feet to the fire, I believe they recognize that unless we act now to stop foreclosures and put a tourniquet on the crisis, the hemorrhaging will get worse--the number of layoffs will increase, more businesses will shutter their doors, and more Americans will suffer. With this bill, we begin to get our economy moving again. This is not a moment of great joy, as I said. We should not have had to have been in this moment to talk about this, but we are here. While I know many have said they are going to vote against this, I think they bear a responsibility of having offered some alternative ideas because just saying no is not enough, in my view. That is the conclusion of almost every economist who has analyzed this issue over the last number of weeks and months. Again, I commend the efforts of Senator Reid, the majority leader, Nancy Pelosi, and the efforts made by Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter, who have agreed to work with us and come up with this package. We would not be at this point without them. I appreciate their efforts. Lastly, some of my colleagues are concerned that some of their amendments were dropped as well. Senator Sessions mentioned one, the E- Verify Program. E-Verify is currently authorized through March. When we take up the omnibus spending bill in 2 weeks, I am told it will include a provision to extend that until September 30, 2009. This is a program that, when fully funded, will be operational for hires funded by the stimulus bill for companies participating in the program. I see my friend and colleague from Alaska, who I know wants to express her thoughts on this. I thank those who put this together. We need to get back on our feet again. Obviously, unleashing the clogged-up credit market is a critical issue, but also providing that jolt this stimulus package will provide is also necessary if we are going to complete the effort to do what we can to improve the economic conditions in our country. For those reasons, I will be supportive of the bill. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and celebrate the 100th anniversary of the National Association of the Advancement of Colored People--the NAACP--and thank my colleagues for unanimously adopting H. Con. Res. 35, introduced by my friend, Congressman Al Green, of Texas. I was honored to introduce companion legislation in the Senate. Yesterday we were reminded once again of the historic nature of the work the NAACP has done over the last century as our Nation's first African-American President came to the United States Capitol to pay tribute to President Abraham Lincoln on his 200th birthday. When we reflect on how far we have come in this country, we must acknowledge the crucial role the NAACP has played in making so many of those steps possible. Founded on February 12, 1909, in New York City by a small multiracial group of activists that included Ida Wells-Barnett and W. E. B. Dubois, the NAACP spent decades working to eliminate discrimination in schools and throughout our society at the grassroots. Nearly a half century later, it would make itself known to the world with one of our Nation's greatest legal victories, the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education. In 1955, the Secretary of the NAACP's Montgomery, AL, branch suffered humiliation and unwarranted arrest for refusing to give up her front seat on a segregated bus in Montgomery, AL. Rosa Parks' simple yet powerful action would ignite the largest civil rights grassroots movement in the history of this country, reminding us once again of the difference that even one American can make to change the course of history. The NAACP also played an essential role in ensuring the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964. Though the right to vote was declared to be a basic human right under the U.S. Constitution, persons of color, especially African Americans, were historically--and shamefully--denied this fundamental right. The NAACP played a substantial role pushing for the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, partnering with the likes of Cesar Chavez. While the NAACP's political work is extraordinary, its community service efforts deserve recognition as well. In 2005, it created the Disaster Relief Fund to provide assistance for Hurricane Katrina victims in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Florida, and Alabama at a time when they needed it most. As President Obama said, ``A nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.'' The NAACP has reminded us of those words for a century. For all this achievement symbolizes to Americans and the world, the NAACP still recognizes the importance of remaining vigilant in our fight for equality, never allowing the past to be forgotten. I am honored that it has supported the passage of the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act that I introduced last Congress, in commemoration of the unspeakably brutal and unjustified murder of an African-American youth, ensuring that criminals of the unsolved hate crimes of the civil rights struggle are brought to justice and that its victims can finally find peace. And I am pleased that this legislation has become law. Much progress has been made in the lives of persons of color because of the NAACP and its tireless, life-risking, and never-ending work. As Thurgood Marshall, who a dozen years after arguing Brown v. the Board of Education before the Supreme Court would become the first African American to serve on our nation's highest court, said: In recognizing the humanity of our fellow beings, we pay ourselves the highest tribute. Today, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives return that tribute to the NAACP and everyone who has been associated with its achievements and advocacy for this last century. May its work to ensure equality for all American citizens continue as each of us in this institution and across our country commit to diminishing its necessity.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to mark the 75th anniversary of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, this country's official export credit agency. Its mandate is to create and support jobs here in the United States by financing U.S. exports that might otherwise be lost because private sector financing is unavailable or to meet the competition of foreign governments' export credit agencies that are supporting their exporters to secure the deal. Obviously, the work of Ex-Im Bank is especially relevant in difficult economic times such as we are currently experiencing, because U.S. exports equal U.S. jobs. The Export-Import Bank falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, and I am aware of the many positive effects it has had for U.S. manufacturers. In the past 5 years, it has helped at least 75 companies in 43 communities in Connecticut finance over $700 million in exports. These export sales create and sustain high-paying manufacturing and other jobs related to exports. Ex-Im Bank is also accustomed to stepping in when times are hard. It was founded on February 12, 1934, in order to help facilitate exports during the Great Depression. Since then, it has supported over $400 billion in U.S. exports that would not have gone forward without it-- exports that support U.S. jobs. Just after World War II, Ex-Im Bank became a precursor of the Marshall Plan, authorizing over $2 billion for the reconstruction of Europe. In more recent times, Ex-Im Bank has stepped in to assist U.S. exporters during the Mexican debt crisis of the 1980s and the Asian debt crisis of the 1990s. Don't confuse this with foreign aid. Ex-Im Bank charges for its services and is self-financing, and is therefore not a drain on U.S. taxpayers. Ex-Im Bank makes credit judgments on the basis of reasonable assurance of repayment, and has a historical default rate under 2 percent. Over 80 percent of Ex-Im Bank's transactions directly benefit small businesses, which are the most effective generators of jobs in our economy. Over the past 75 years, Ex-Im Bank has responded in difficult times to the problems of U.S. exporters. In this time of economic hardship, we need government institutions like the Ex-Im Bank to provide strong leadership in responding effectively and efficiently to the challenges facing U.S. exporters, large and small. I am happy to join with leaders from across the political spectrum in wishing the Export-Import Bank of the United States well on its 75th anniversary.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be reintroducing comprehensive credit card legislation that would reform credit card practices and prohibit card issuers from continuing policies that are threatening the financial security of American consumers and their families. The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act, Credit CARD Act, will help to end the practices that cost American families billions of dollars each year. This is a time of serious hardship for American families. As losses mount as a result of the economic crisis, lenders are squeezing consumers, often unfairly and without adequate notice, by raising credit card rates and tightening repayment terms. Credit card delinquency rates are inching higher, and repayment rates are dipping. At a time when Americans are becoming increasingly reliant on credit cards, credit card companies are being more aggressive about finding ways to charge their customers. Over $17 billion in credit card penalty fees were charged to Americans in 2006--a ten-fold increase from what was charged just ten years ago. These penalties are contributing to the avalanche of credit card debt under which many American consumers increasingly find themselves buried. In my travels around Connecticut, I hear frequently about the burden of these credit card practices from constituents. Connecticut has the third- highest median amount of credit card debt in the country--$2,094 per person. Non-business bankruptcy filings in the State are increasing, and in the second quarter of last year, credit card delinquencies increased in 7 of the 8 counties in the State. In December, the Federal Reserve, Office of Thrift Supervision, and National Credit Union Administration finalized unfair and deceptive acts and practices rules aimed at curbing some of these practices. For example, for customers in good standing the new rules will prevent issuers from applying interest rate increases retroactively to credit card debt incurred prior to the interest rate increase. They will also help ensure that issuers apply payments fairly, and extend the time that consumers have to make their credit card payments. The rules are a good first step in providing needed consumer protections in some areas. They fall short in other important areas, however, failing to address issues including universal default, ``any time any reason'' repricing, multiple overlimit fees, and youth marketing, which I'll explain in a moment. In anticipation of rules going into effect in July of 2010, issuers are raising their interest rates and cutting lines of credit even on consumers with a long and unblemished history of good payment, thereby underscoring the need for this legislation. That is why I am reintroducing the Credit CARD Act. This bill will help to reform credit card practices that drag so many American families further and further into debt, and prevent banks from taking advantage of consumers through confusing, misleading, and unfair terms and procedures. It strengthens regulation and oversight of the credit card industry and prohibits the unfair and deceptive practices that in far too many instances keep consumers mired in debt. Among its other provisions, the CARD Act will eliminate imposition of excessive fees and penalties; universal default provisions that permit credit card issuers to increase interest rates on cardholders in good standing for reasons unrelated to the cardholder's behavior with respect to that card; ``Any time any reason'' changes to credit card agreements--the bill prevents issuers from unilaterally changing the terms of a credit card contract for the length of the card agreement; and retroactive interest rate increases, unfair payment allocation practices, and double-cycle billing. The Credit Card Act also contains additional critical consumer protections. Among other things, the bill would: allow customers who close their accounts to pay under the terms existing at the time the account is closed; ensure that cardholders receive sufficient information about the terms of their account; require issuers to lower penalty rates that have been imposed on a cardholder after 6 months if the cardholder meets the obligations of the credit card terms; and enhance regulators' ability to protect consumers against unfair credit card practices by giving each federal banking agency the authority to prescribe regulations governing unfair or deceptive practices by the institutions they regulate. The bill also reins in irresponsible lending through a number of provisions aimed at protecting young consumers who lack the ability to repay substantial credit card debt. This legislation incorporates several key concepts included in the legislative proposals put forth by some of my colleagues, notably Senators Levin, Menendez, Akaka, and Tester. Each is a cosponsor of this legislation, as are Senators Reed, Schumer, Brown, Merkley, Kerry, Leahy, Durbin, Harkin, McCaskill, Whitehouse, and Casey. This bill has the support of a wide array of consumer advocates and labor organizations, including the Center for Responsible Lending, Connecticut Public Interest Research Group, the Connecticut Association for Human Services, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Demos, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the NAACP, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, the National Council of LaRaza, the Service Employees International Union, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. The bill also has the support of the National Small Business Association. As the U.S. economy tightens, financially vulnerable families need the protections of the Credit CARD Act more than ever. That is what the American people and the people of Connecticut are demanding. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring, and eventually in enacting the Credit CARD Act.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be reintroducing comprehensive credit card legislation that would reform credit card practices and prohibit card issuers from continuing policies that are threatening the financial security of American consumers and their families. The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act, Credit CARD Act, will help to end the practices that cost American families billions of dollars each year. This is a time of serious hardship for American families. As losses mount as a result of the economic crisis, lenders are squeezing consumers, often unfairly and without adequate notice, by raising credit card rates and tightening repayment terms. Credit card delinquency rates are inching higher, and repayment rates are dipping. At a time when Americans are becoming increasingly reliant on credit cards, credit card companies are being more aggressive about finding ways to charge their customers. Over $17 billion in credit card penalty fees were charged to Americans in 2006--a ten-fold increase from what was charged just ten years ago. These penalties are contributing to the avalanche of credit card debt under which many American consumers increasingly find themselves buried. In my travels around Connecticut, I hear frequently about the burden of these credit card practices from constituents. Connecticut has the third- highest median amount of credit card debt in the country--$2,094 per person. Non-business bankruptcy filings in the State are increasing, and in the second quarter of last year, credit card delinquencies increased in 7 of the 8 counties in the State. In December, the Federal Reserve, Office of Thrift Supervision, and National Credit Union Administration finalized unfair and deceptive acts and practices rules aimed at curbing some of these practices. For example, for customers in good standing the new rules will prevent issuers from applying interest rate increases retroactively to credit card debt incurred prior to the interest rate increase. They will also help ensure that issuers apply payments fairly, and extend the time that consumers have to make their credit card payments. The rules are a good first step in providing needed consumer protections in some areas. They fall short in other important areas, however, failing to address issues including universal default, ``any time any reason'' repricing, multiple overlimit fees, and youth marketing, which I'll explain in a moment. In anticipation of rules going into effect in July of 2010, issuers are raising their interest rates and cutting lines of credit even on consumers with a long and unblemished history of good payment, thereby underscoring the need for this legislation. That is why I am reintroducing the Credit CARD Act. This bill will help to reform credit card practices that drag so many American families further and further into debt, and prevent banks from taking advantage of consumers through confusing, misleading, and unfair terms and procedures. It strengthens regulation and oversight of the credit card industry and prohibits the unfair and deceptive practices that in far too many instances keep consumers mired in debt. Among its other provisions, the CARD Act will eliminate imposition of excessive fees and penalties; universal default provisions that permit credit card issuers to increase interest rates on cardholders in good standing for reasons unrelated to the cardholder's behavior with respect to that card; ``Any time any reason'' changes to credit card agreements--the bill prevents issuers from unilaterally changing the terms of a credit card contract for the length of the card agreement; and retroactive interest rate increases, unfair payment allocation practices, and double-cycle billing. The Credit Card Act also contains additional critical consumer protections. Among other things, the bill would: allow customers who close their accounts to pay under the terms existing at the time the account is closed; ensure that cardholders receive sufficient information about the terms of their account; require issuers to lower penalty rates that have been imposed on a cardholder after 6 months if the cardholder meets the obligations of the credit card terms; and enhance regulators' ability to protect consumers against unfair credit card practices by giving each federal banking agency the authority to prescribe regulations governing unfair or deceptive practices by the institutions they regulate. The bill also reins in irresponsible lending through a number of provisions aimed at protecting young consumers who lack the ability to repay substantial credit card debt. This legislation incorporates several key concepts included in the legislative proposals put forth by some of my colleagues, notably Senators Levin, Menendez, Akaka, and Tester. Each is a cosponsor of this legislation, as are Senators Reed, Schumer, Brown, Merkley, Kerry, Leahy, Durbin, Harkin, McCaskill, Whitehouse, and Casey. This bill has the support of a wide array of consumer advocates and labor organizations, including the Center for Responsible Lending, Connecticut Public Interest Research Group, the Connecticut Association for Human Services, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Demos, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the NAACP, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, the National Council of LaRaza, the Service Employees International Union, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. The bill also has the support of the National Small Business Association. As the U.S. economy tightens, financially vulnerable families need the protections of the Credit CARD Act more than ever. That is what the American people and the people of Connecticut are demanding. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring, and eventually in enacting the Credit CARD Act.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I was recently 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 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 weather the economic crisis. 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. At the end of the third quarter of last year, the fund held approximately $35 billion. Legislation to substantially and permanently increase this borrowing authority has already passed the House, as part of the TARP legislation passed in January. A scaled back version of it was also incorporated into financial services legislation ordered reported by the House Financial Services Committee earlier this week. Treasury Secretary Geithner and Chairman Bernanke of the Federal Reserve Board have also recently written to me underscoring their support for this request. 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 Deposit Insurance Fund. 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. While the current fund has substantial reserves, 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. I had intended to try to incorporate a provision to increase FDIC borrowing authority into the Economic Recovery legislation, with certain protections to require concurrence from other federal officials--including ultimately the President--in exigent circumstances, and at least on a temporary basis. I sought to do this yesterday. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues made clear that they would object to this proposal at this time. And, for this reason, I will not offer it today. However, I intend to work with them and those in the administration to craft a proposal that satisfies their concerns in order to ensure that the FDIC as the borrowing authority that it needs going forward. I ask unanimous consent that copies of the letters from FDIC Chairman Bair, Treasury Secretary Geithner, and Fed Chairman Bernanke be printed in the Record. I will continue to work to ensure that the FDIC has sufficient borrowing authority going forward to deal with a wide range of contingencies.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an amendment, amendment No. 427, that Senators Bingaman, Isakson, and I offered to help mitigate the foreclosure crisis, which is at the root of our economic downturn. Currently, foreclosures are being filed at the rate of nearly 10,000 a day; one in six homeowners are underwater; and a recent study shows that U.S. homeowners lost a cumulative $3.3 trillion in home equity during 2008. Addressing the foreclosure crisis is key to restoring growth to the economy. According to Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, the most effective way to reduce foreclosures is to restore positive equity by writing down mortgage principal. In fact, the HOPE for Homeowners program requires principal write-down for participation. Yet, under current tax law, most people who get loan modifications involving principal reductions would have to pay taxes on the amount of the loan forgiven. This is a significant barrier to people participating in effective loan modifications and a terrible burden to put on struggling families. In 2007, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act provided a tax exemption for forgiven mortgage debt if that mortgage debt was used exclusively to purchase or substantially improve the home. However, many homeowners, including a majority of subprime borrowers, did not get their current loans to buy a home. Rather, in many cases, they were steered by unscrupulous mortgage brokers into high-cost refinance loans with hidden features that they did not understand. In some cases, these funds were used to pay health care costs, educational or other expenses. Many of these borrowers are now delinquent and seeking loan modifications. Too many will end up in foreclosure. These borrowers do not qualify for this current exemption. The threat of a large tax bill has dissuaded many homeowners from getting loan modifications. In fact, in their 2008 Annual Report to Congress, the IRS National Taxpayer Advocate wrote ``[we] recommend that Congress pass legislation to make it easier for financially distressed taxpayers to exclude cancelled [forgiven debt] from gross income.'' This amendment, by eliminating the income tax on all forgiven mortgage debt, would remove a significant obstacle to loan modifications at a cost of $98 million over the next 10 years. This benefit would still expire, as it currently stands, at the end of 2012. In addition, I urge the IRS to ease the burden of complying with the reporting requirements that taxpayers face when claiming this exclusion. In its 2008 Annual Report to Congress, the IRS's Office of the National Taxpayer Advocate stated that current reporting requirements ``are so complex that many and probably most taxpayers who qualify to exclude [QPRI] from their gross income do not do so.'' QPRI or qualified principle residence indebtedness is the technical term the IRS uses for tax exempt forgiven mortgage debt. One way the IRS can ease this burden, is by allowing taxpayers claiming the exemption to calculate the fair market value based on the appraisal value of the originating loan, which should ease the tax filing burden on the millions of Americans who were tricked by predatory lenders. In addition, the IRS should simplify the reporting requirement to claim this tax exemption. Right now, taxpayers who claim the QPRI exclusion must file a form, Form 982, that is not well known, is not supported by most tax software programs or Volunteer Income Tax Assistance--VITA-- programs, and is extremely complicated. The IRS estimates that it takes the average business taxpayer 10 hours and 43 minutes to complete this form. The goals of this amendment are both to expand the definition of QPRI to include home equity indebtedness and also to relieve taxpayers from the burden of filing any forms that they would not otherwise need to file but for receiving the benefit of the QPRI exclusion. Specifically, I urge the IRS to change Form 1099-C, used for all cancelled debts, not just mortgage debts, to include ``check boxes'' for lenders to check off when they are forgiving debt that is ``QPRI'' under the new definition. These check boxes--similar to the check box currently provided for debts discharged in bankruptcy should identify whether the taxpayer is receiving QPRI debt forgiveness and should indicate whether the taxpayer has lost their home, due to a foreclosure, short sale, or deed-in-lieu-of-foreclosure, or will continue to own the home as a result of a loan modification. Check boxes that make clear whether the taxpayer has lost the home are important because a taxpayer should not be required to make adjustments to the tax basis of the home that they no longer live in. If the homeowner continues to live in their home and the appropriate box is checked, the Form 1099-C will provide the IRS with complete information about the basis adjustments that will be required due to the QPRI exclusion at the time of the property's sale or disposition. Thus, as in the case of bankruptcy, the Form 1099-C should provide the IRS with sufficient information so that the taxpayer will not be required to fill out a Form 982 or use the long form 1040 to claim the QPRI, and taxpayers who are exempt from filing tax returns will not have to file returns solely to claim this exclusion.

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, is there some time in opposition to the amendment?

Mr. DODD. Yes, equally divided. I do not know how much time we will need, but just to--and I will yield whatever time my colleague from New York needs. Two minutes.