Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, first, I want to commend my colleague from Florida. This is a well-intended proposal. Here is the one problem with it that I tell my colleague: It breaks contracts. There is a constitutional issue here, where servicers could sue. What we are doing with this amendment, if I understand it correctly, is that the compensation due to a servicer would now fall on the taxpayer. So we would have to set up a bureaucracy to pay the servicer where the legal liability was determined. That poses some real problems. The other part of the amendment I totally agree with. In fact, we try to cover it. In fact, we established a safe harbor, my colleague will recall, in the bill we did together, and also trying to figure out a way to deal with this. But I am nervous. There is $1.7 billion dollars in the amendment. No one can say with any certainty whether that would be an adequate amount to cover the government costs were these determined to be liabilities of the government. So I am uneasy about establishing a new bureaucracy here, and also the constitutional question of breaking these contracts which raises some very serious issues. But what I recommend to my colleague is, we have got an amendment coming up in a little while, maybe tomorrow, where we can work together to try to accommodate this to deal with exactly what he is talking about. But I have a very difficult time accepting this for the reasons I have described.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I know others want to be heard. I appreciate the consideration of the manager of this part of the bill, Senator Baucus. This amendment would apply to recipients of TARP assistance, stronger restrictions on executive compensation. I will make some comments this evening and invite my colleagues to look at the language of the amendment. It is the one that I hope all Members will be able to support. It does not directly apply to the stimulus package, but it is an opportunity for us to speak on the executive compensation issues which are critically important. The amendment bans bonuses for most highly paid executives of TARP- recipient firms: Prohibits TARP recipients from paying a bonus, retention award, or other similar incentive compensation to the 25 most highly-paid employees ``or such higher number as the Secretary of the Treasury may determine is in the public interest with respect to any TARP recipient.'' It requires a retroactive review: The Secretary of the Treasury must review bonus awards paid to executives of TARP recipients to determine whether any payments were excessive, inconsistent with the purposes of the act or the TARP or otherwise contrary to public interest and, if so, seek to negotiate with the recipient and the subject employee for appropriate reimbursement to the Government. It requires each TARP recipient to include on annual proxy statement a ``say on pay'' proposal or advisory shareholder vote on the company's executive cash compensation program. It allows for the Government to clawback any bonus or incentive compensation paid to an executive based on reported earnings or other criteria later found to be materially inaccurate. It prohibits compensation plans that would encourage manipulation of reported earnings. The Board Compensation Committee of each TARP recipient must be composed entirely of independent directors; and requires the committee to evaluate compensation plans and their potential risk to the financial health of the company. It prohibits golden parachutes to top senior executives. It prohibits a compensation plan that has incentives for employees to take unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten the value of the company. This will encourage the companies to use the TARP funds for the purposes they were intended and assure the American taxpayers that their funds are being used properly.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I understand there has been an objection. I am not going to offer an amendment at this point until after this is resolved. I wish to take a couple of minutes, if I may, on an amendment I will call up either this evening or tomorrow once this has been resolved, this process matter has been resolved. I intend to offer an amendment that would statutorily require a dedication of $50 billion from the second tranche of the so-called TARP funding to be dedicated to foreclosure mitigation. As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee--and I am pleased to recognize that the distinguished Presiding Officer is a new member of that committee--for the last 2 years--in fact, 2 years ago this very week, we had our very first hearing, and I became chairman of the committee on the foreclosure problems in this country and the problems with the residential mortgage market generally. We had witnesses at that time who warned that we might face as many as 2 million foreclosures in the country. I recall when the witness testified to that effect, there were those who scoffed at that prediction, that nothing such as that could possibly happen in the United States. Now it seems like a modest prediction in light of what has occurred over the last 2 years regarding our economy, in this country, all of which began with the residential mortgage market in this Nation. More so than anything else, it was the predatory lending that drew people into mortgages they were ill-prepared to meet, did not require documentation; they were actually called liar loans, in a sense. Of course, the brokers and the servicers and lenders were all passing on the responsibility with little or no accountability, were being compensated for their efforts, and no longer had any underwriting standards or requirements that would have required that the borrowers meet certain requirements in order to protect that mortgage and that homeowner. I won't dwell on that this evening except to say that now we have 8 million homes underwater in effect, where the mortgages exceed the value of the homes. It is predicted that several millions more could lose their homes. Mr. President, 10,000 people a day in this country are losing their homes, along with the 20,000 losing their jobs, and there is an increase in the likelihood of further deterioration in the housing market. I had hoped earlier on, with the first tranche of $350 billion, that more would be done in foreclosure mitigation. Regretfully, despite promises to the contrary, that never occurred. I am hopeful--in fact, beyond hopeful--because this amendment would require that $50 billion of that remaining $350 billion be dedicated to this purpose. I am confident that the new administration is committed to that. They certainly indicated as much in their comments. While not specifically identifying a number, they certainly indicated they intend to dedicate serious resources toward foreclosure mitigation. This amendment would secure, beyond any doubt--that those resources I have identified would be allocated for foreclosure mitigation. There are some other points in the amendment, but that is the major thrust. Most economists, regardless of ideology or political perspective, have agreed that until we deal with the foreclosure crisis, the economic situation will continue to deteriorate until we get to the bottom of that. There are a variety of different proposals that have been suggested on how we might achieve that. This amendment I am offering does not insist upon any particular formulation. There are a number of ideas out there. I think Sheila Bair, who is the chairperson of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, has one of the more creative ideas, an idea that has been warmly embraced by the Obama administration. That is not to say they agree with every dotted ``I'' and crossed ``t,'' but they certainly indicated they think it is more than just a reasonable idea but may very well contribute to putting a tourniquet on this hemorrhaging that is occurring in the residential mortgage market. That is one idea. There are others as well. Several of my colleagues on both sides of this political divide have offered ideas that I think would contribute to the reduction of foreclosures in the country, many of which are very solid ideas. Some may need further work than others, but I think all of us are now aiming in the right direction. It has been a journey of some length. It was only in the spring of last year that we faced some six filibusters in this Chamber when we tried to fashion a housing program that would reduce some of the problems we saw a year ago. Obviously, the mood has changed dramatically. We now have virtually everyone talking about how to deal with the foreclosure problem. I only regret that same consensus had not developed earlier. Had it done so, in my view, we would not be where we are today. This is not a natural disaster that has occurred; this was an avoidable problem. That is the great tragedy of it. This was an avoidable economic problem that has at its roots the mortgage crisis. Unfortunately, it went unattended for so long despite repeated warnings by many of us. But here we are at the outset of 2009 with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and a problem that has now spread throughout the globe. So it is incumbent upon us to take various steps to try to address this issue. I think the money that was allocated back last fall minimized the problem in a sense that it would have been far worse than it is today without those resources. Unfortunately, the management of those resources has not been as well executed as it could have been. My hope is that this next tranche will be far better managed with far greater accountability, far greater transparency, and far greater controls on such things as executive compensation. Obviously, the stimulus package is also important. I wish to commend President Obama because he has said this well; that is, these steps we are taking are not in and of themselves going to resolve the economic crisis. What I think they do is minimize further deterioration of our economy. The President said the other day that he wishes these actions would turn the corner for us. What he hopes it will achieve is to stop the deterioration or the flow of this economy moving in the wrong direction. So I think it is important as we talk about the stimulus package that we talk about these TARP funds. These are all steps that are needed to get us moving in the right direction, to create jobs in the country and stop the tremendous increase in unemployment--as I mentioned, 20,000 jobs a day--and begin to repair our credit market and the financial system in this country. Far more will need to be done. Anyone who stands on this floor or elsewhere and predicts that because of the steps we are taking we are going to miraculously or immediately cure our economic ills is misspeaking. It will not. But it will get us pointed in the right direction. That is what is important about these steps we are about to take. It will move us in a direction of improving our economy. I see my colleague from Missouri.

Mr. DODD. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would say to my colleague from Missouri that she has an excellent memory. I had 82 hearings in the Banking Committee, over a third of them on this subject matter alone. We came to the floor of the Senate at the behest of the majority leader, Senator Reid, who was a champion of these issues. We had these hearings prior to the Passover, Easter break in committee, over a third of them on this subject matter alone. We faced six filibusters--almost a record number--on a single piece of legislation. It was after that break that things began to open up and move. My colleague from Missouri has this exactly right. There were those who were vehemently opposed. There were all sorts of amendments, all sorts of efforts made to obstruct any effort for us to come up with ideas to allow us to mitigate the rising foreclosures in the country. Had we dealt with it then, a year ago, I think it is safe to say to my colleagues that we would not be in the situation we are in today.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, responding to my colleague and friend from Missouri, she is absolutely correct. I think there is a tendency to look at these issues as if they were somehow stovepiped, separate from each other, this dealing with the TARP legislation and dealing with the financial crisis and now dealing with the stimulus package is unrelated. It has been pointed out that there is a likelihood we will lose as much as $2 trillion out of our economy over the next 2 years. Making up that gap is going to require some effort. This bill will ultimately, I hope, result in an appropriation of something between $800 billion and $900 billion--no small amount but far short of what will be lost in our economy over the next 2 years. If we defeat this or shelve this, as has been suggested, we exacerbate the economic problems of this Nation to a significant degree, which would require this body coming back at a later date with something that none of us even wants to contemplate at this point. So this is not an unrelated matter. You shelve this, you walk away from this responsibility, and you burden the American taxpayer to the likes none of us could even begin to calculate. So I thank my colleague from Missouri for pointing that fact out. This is related. If our economy does not begin to improve or at least not get worse, as the President has accurately pointed out, the problems only become more pronounced, more difficult to resolve in the coming weeks and months. So our economic future depends upon each of these pieces in place that will allow us to begin to turn that corner, see credit begin to move, borrowing occur, lenders lending, and activity economically in this country begin to move in the direction we need for recovery. So I thank her immensely for her comments. She identified exactly what needs to be done and explained it to our citizens. This is not an idle effort just to secure some spending. It is absolutely essential if we are going to produce the kinds of jobs that are necessary, contribute to economic growth, and make a difference for our country. That is the reason I thought on this bill--it is a stimulus bill--of requiring to be set aside $50 billion of the TARP money in the next tranche to be dedicated to the rising number of foreclosures of residential properties in our Nation. If you are losing 20,000 jobs a day, you don't need to be a degreed economist to know that with every one of those people who loses a job, the greater the likelihood they will lose their home. We need to do everything we can to try to stop that erosion in the job market and simultaneously do what we can to make it possible for people to stay in their homes. There is a direct correlation between the stimulus effort and TARP regarding mitigation of foreclosures. That is why I will ask my colleagues to be supportive of that effort tomorrow. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the nomination of Timothy Geithner to serve as our Nation's Treasury Secretary. I believe most Americans, regardless of political persuasion or how they voted in November, would agree that we are living in probably the worst economic crisis of their lifetime. You would have to have been alive in the 1920s to remember days that even resemble the ones we are in today. So this afternoon, in the moments before we are about to vote on this nomination, I rise to express my views. I know Tim Geithner. I wouldn't ask my colleagues to support his nomination because I know this person, respect and admire him and think he is qualified to serve as Treasury Secretary. I am asking my colleagues to support him because he is one of the most talented people I have met in the area of financial services and in understanding the regulatory architecture that not only exists today but the one that we must create in order to get our country back on its feet again. While there are certainly issues raised, including the one raised a moment ago about back taxes--and I don't minimize that--it is also extremely important that we keep this nomination in perspective and that we understand the issues at hand. While I have served here for the last quarter of a century, I can only count on less than one hand the number of nominations I voted against in Democratic and Republican administrations. Not because I have agreed with all of them but because I happen to believe that administrations that are elected deserve to have the official family they choose, barring disqualifying concerns about a nominee's ability to serve. To be sure, a nomination to the President's Cabinet is worthy of congratulations, and I congratulate Mr. Geithner. But with our economic trouble so severe and our future so uncertain, this nomination deserves less our congratulations than our very best wishes and commitment to work in partnership. Mr. Geithner's arrival at Treasury could not come at a more critical moment for our Nation. It comes on the heels of excessive unchecked financial practices that have brought our economy and the world's economy to its knees. Next to the President himself, no single individual will bear more of a responsibility to steer our Nation out of this crisis than the new Treasury Secretary. Charting a course of recovery requires understanding the causes of the crisis in the very first instance. As chairman of the Banking Committee, I have convened more than 80 hearings and markups in the last 24 months to help diagnose and remedy our Nation's economic troubles. It is not a responsibility I sought, nor one which I relish. Certainly, I would much rather be talking about how to grow our economy than how to save our economy, but that is where we are today. We have an obligation, all of us, regardless of party or ideology, not only to determine how we got into this situation, but also--and more importantly, in many ways--what is needed to get us out of it. It is by now beyond dispute that the current crisis threatening our economy started several years ago in a relatively discrete corner of the credit market known as subprime mortgage lending. Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, previous Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, and many other individuals have all agreed on that fact. There is no dispute about it. Mortgage market participants from brokers to lenders to investment banks to credit rating agencies exploited millions of unsuspecting, hard-working Americans seeking to own or refinance a home. It is clear that greed and avarice overcame sound judgment and prudent lending. But what makes this crisis different from others was the abject failure of regulators to adequately police the markets. Regulators resisted the call to regulate new markets and financial instruments, even when they had the tools to do so. The Federal Reserve, for example, ignored a power granted by Congress over 14 years ago to regulate mortgage markets, State-chartered and federally chartered lending institutions. Not a single regulation was ever promulgated under the Bush administration until the problem was well out of hand. This wasn't a matter of there not being enough laws on the books--quite the contrary--but, rather, a matter of regulators failing to enforce the ones they had been given. What resulted was a regulatory failure of historic proportions. Of the many lessons learned from this crisis, the most revealing is that the failure to enforce consumer protections can lead to the failure of the entire financial system. For decades, ideology prevented regulators from acknowledging this fact. It takes a crisis, unfortunately, of global scale to understand the dangers of failing to protect consumers. It is now painfully clear that when American households are preyed upon in such systemic and abusive ways, our entire financial system is threatened. Never again should we allow financial regulators to treat consumer protection as a nuisance or of secondary importance to safety and soundness regulation. Never again should we permit the kind of systemic regulatory failures that allowed reckless lending practices to mushroom into a global credit crisis. The safety and soundness of our financial system depends upon the well-being of the customers and investors who use that system every day. Unfortunately, most of the Government actions taken in recent months have largely ignored this fact and have addressed the symptoms of the credit crisis rather than its root causes. For nearly 2 years now, I have urged, along with others, forceful and definitive action to reverse the rising tide of foreclosures that began to chip away at American households in 2007. In fact, it was exactly 2 years ago next week, I had chaired the Banking Committee for only one month, when we held the very first hearings on the mortgage credit crisis, in February of 2007. For 2 long years, we had hearings and meetings and countless efforts to try and convince the administration of the seriousness of what was happening in the residential mortgage market. Not until last summer did we finally get some recognition, but it was far too late at that point. All of my colleagues can recount in great detail the events that cascaded since July through the fall of this past year. Noted economists and analysts from across the political spectrum have also sounded the alarm, including such distinguished individuals as former Carter and Reagan Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, former Reagan chief economic adviser Martin Feldstein, and American Enterprise Institute Resident Fellow Alex Pollack. These and other experts agreed that the key to our Nation's economic recovery is recovery of the housing market and that the key to recovery of the housing market is, of course, reducing foreclosures, of which nearly 9,000 occur every day. Without addressing the cause of this crisis as swiftly, aggressively, and decisively as we have tackled the symptoms of the crisis, home prices will continue to fall. The value of assets based on mortgages-- trillions of dollars of which are on the books of our major financial institutions--will continue to be virtually unknowable. The longer we allow foreclosures to erode family wealth, tear apart neighborhoods and freeze our markets, the longer our economy will take to recover from this crisis. However hard our regulators work, the result will be a continuation of volatility and paralysis in our economy. If ever there was a time that called for new thinking, this is that moment. As Tim Geithner takes the helm of the Treasury, he will be responsible for leading administration efforts to revitalize the credit markets and restore confidence and integrity in our financial system. It is a tall order, to be sure. No one could assume that one individual is going to solve all of this. But in my view, we can achieve these results for the American people through four key steps. First, Mr. Geithner and the rest of the administration's economic team must develop and clearly communicate a long-term, comprehensive plan, a framework for using TARP funds to support the financial system and communicate effectively to the American people so they understand exactly where we are, how we got here, and what the intended steps are to move us out of it. The previous administration's piecemeal lurching intervention from one side to the next in the financial system contributed to the confusion and the volatility that has dragged down consumer and investor confidence. Outlining a clear direction as to how the Government will use taxpayer money going forward would provide families and businesses with the clarity and assurance they need to make important economic decisions. Second, we must safeguard the use of taxpayer money through increased transparency and strengthened taxpayer protections. Instead of lending money to consumers and small businesses, TARP recipients have effectively been given a free pass to hoard taxpayer funds and pay lavish bonuses to senior executives and handsome dividends to shareholders. In order to provide meaningful taxpayer protection, I believe at least the following conditions are necessary: stricter limits on executive compensation, additional limits on executive compensation, including restricting the payment of bonuses to executives; strictly limit dividends, prohibit the payment of dividends to shareholders beyond de minimis amounts; establish appropriate lending targets for recipients of TARP funding and the means of monitoring them; limit acquisitions, prohibit the use of TARP funds to purchase healthy institutions; increase transparency and accountability, require that TARP recipients submit regular reports no less than quarterly specifying how they are using TARP funds or otherwise furthering the purposes of the emergency economic stabilization law and how they are complying with these TARP conditions. These reports should include information about consumer and commercial loans, details about acquisitions, and the number and type of loan modifications. We must implement measures to prevent foreclosures, which I should have listed at the top of the list, require recipients of TARP funds that service or own mortgages to take measures to mitigate preventable foreclosures and use TARP funds to establish or support foreclosure prevention programs. The Obama administration is already committed to making these changes and is working on a more detailed strategy. I look forward to reviewing that plan and to continuing the committee's close and detailed oversight of the implementation of this program. That is why I intend to hold hearings on the TARP in the coming weeks and to ask the very questions I am raising this afternoon. Third in this list is to apply the same sharp and urgent focus to help individual homeowners whose plight is the root cause of this crisis. Stopping foreclosures must be our top priority, putting a tourniquet on this hemorrhaging that is occurring across the country. Failing to do so will have devastating consequences for the economy. Finally, to fix the failures in the regulatory system that led to this crisis, if we are going to regain the confidence of investors, consumers, and businesses at home and around the world, we must have assurances that our financial institutions are properly capitalized, regulated, and supervised. The Senate Banking Committee has already begun an ambitious schedule of meetings and hearings to understand the strengths of our regulatory system and to address forcefully its weaknesses. Senator Shelby and I welcome diverse parties and points of view. I am guided by several core principles: Regulators must be strong cops on the beat rather than turn a blind eye to reckless lending practices; regulators must stop competing against each other for bank and thrift ``clients'' by weakening regulations; regulators must be able to identify and, if necessary, take action against risks at the institutions they supervise; regulators and market participants need more transparency so they understand the risks present in the financial system and to prevent trillion-dollar markets from operating in the dark. Each one of these steps--communicating a long-term plan for Government assistance, strengthening transparency and taxpayer protections, preventing avoidable foreclosures, and fixing regulatory failures--will help not only our economic recovery but also help restore, most importantly, the confidence of the American people. You cannot enumerate confidence, but it is critical. I can not tell you exactly the mathematical formula that will get you there, but in the absence of these steps, I do not believe confidence will be restored, and that is the intangible quality more than any other that we need to regain for investors and for the American people, who have been the driving force for our Nation's innovation and productivity. I commend Tim Geithner for taking on this extraordinary responsibility. In many ways, you wonder why he is willing to do it, considering the incredible problems we face. But we are fortunate to have a talented individual who is willing to step up and assume this responsibility. Rather than decrying it and lambasting him, we ought to be thanking him. None of us are perfect. Every one of us has made mistakes along the way, and to suggest that Tim Geithner is unqualified for this job or should not be confirmed because of his tax issue is to fail to understand the value his nomination is to our country. My hope is my colleagues will do what I have done over the years. I have been highly criticized by people in my party. When I voted for John Ashcroft to be the Attorney General, I was highly criticized. When I voted for John Tower to be the Secretary of Defense, I was highly criticized. But I happen to believe Presidents deserve their teams to be in place to do their job. Tim Geithner is the kind of individual we need. He will listen to people. He will pay attention to different points of view. And he can make a difference for our country. In an hour such as this, we ought not to be divided in this Chamber, but to stand united, to give this young man a chance to get a job done for our Nation at one of the most critical periods in our history. We have a lot of work to do, and we ought to get about the business of doing it, not as Democrats or Republicans but as Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this nomination. At this moment, communication, cooperation, and consultation are not only preferable as we steer our country through these tough times, they are absolutely essential. I look forward to Tim Geithner's confirmation and to working with him, as I do my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, along with our new President. This is a defining moment in our history, and restoring our economy is our defining challenge. I believe Tim Geithner is the right person to begin this effort. Madam President, I urge the confirmation of Tim Geithner, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue of fundamental economic fairness--an issue that affects the dignity and the security of millions of Americans: the right to equal pay for equal work. Before I begin, let me thank Senator Kennedy, the chairman of the HELP Committee, and Senator Mikulski, for their tireless work on this important issue. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act goes a long way toward ensuring that right to equal pay. In a perfect world, of course, we could take that right for granted--we could take it for granted that the value of work lies not in the race or gender of the person who is doing it but in a job well done. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world. We know that, even now, some employers cheat their employees out of equal pay for equal work. That's what happened to Lilly Ledbetter. For almost two decades, from 1979 to 1998, she was a hardworking supervisor at a Goodyear tire plant in Gadsden, AL. And it is telling that she suffered from two types of discrimination at the same time. On the one hand, there was sexual harassment, from the manager who said to her face that women shouldn't work in a tire factory, to the supervisor who tried to use performance evaluations to extort sex. And on the other hand, there was pay discrimination: by the end of her career, as the salaries of her male coworkers were raised higher and faster than hers, she was making some $6,700 less per year than the lowest paid man in the same position. Now, the two kinds of discrimination faced by Ms. Ledbetter have a good deal in common. Morally, each amounts to a kind of theft--the theft of dignity in work and the theft of the wages fairly earned. Both send a clear message as well--that women don't belong in the workplace. But there is a clear difference between sexual harassment and pay discrimination. The former is blatant. The latter far too often stays insidiously hidden. In fact, Lilly Ledbetter didn't even know she was being paid unfairly until long after the discrimination began. Absent an anonymous coworker giving her proof, she might be in the dark to this very day. And that is hardly surprising. How many Americans know exactly how much their coworkers make? What would happen if they asked? At some companies, you could be fired. Armed with proof of pay discrimination, Ms. Ledbetter asked the courts for her fair share. And they agreed with her: she had been discriminated against. She had been cheated. And she was entitled to her back pay. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled against her, and took it all away. Yes, she had been discriminated against--but she had missed a very important technicality. She only had 180 days--6 months--to file her lawsuit--and the clock started running on the day Goodyear chose to discriminate against her. Never mind that she had no idea she was even the victim of pay discrimination until years later. Figure it out in 180 days, the Court said or you are out of luck for a lifetime. It is not hard to see how this ruling harms so many Americans beyond Ms. Ledbetter. In setting an extremely difficult, arbitrary, and unfair hurdle, it stands in the way of many, many Americans fighting against discrimination. It also flatly contradicts what had been the standard practice of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, flies in the face of decades of legal precedent, and ignores clear congressional intent. As Justice Ginsburg put it in her vehement dissent, the Court's Ledbetter ruling ignores the facts of discrimination in the real world. She writes: Pay disparities often occur . . . in small increments; cause to suspect that discrimination is at work develops only over time. Comparative pay information, moreover, is often hidden from the employee's view . . . Small initial discrepancies may not be seen as meet for a federal case, particularly when the employee, trying to succeed in a nontraditional environment, is averse to making waves. ``The ball,'' Ginsburg concluded, ``is in Congress's court . . . The legislature may act to correct this Court's parsimonious reading.'' That is precisely what we are here to do today. With today's passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, employees will have a fair time limit to sue for pay discrimination. They will still have 180 days, but the clock will start with each discriminatory paycheck, not with the original decision to discriminate. After all, each unfair paycheck is in itself a decision to discriminate--it is ongoing discrimination. Employees like Ms. Ledbetter will no longer be blocked from seeking redress, through no fault of their own, except a failure to be more suspicious. This is an important moment and important bill. I do wish we were also strengthening the remedies available to victims of pay discrimination under the Equal Pay Act. For this reason we must also pass into law the Paycheck Fairness Act, authored by my friend and colleague in the Connecticut delegation, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, and championed in the Senate by Senator Hillary Clinton. Had paycheck fairness been law when Lilly Ledbetter decided to go to court, she may well have received just compensation for the discriminatory practices she endured. She certainly would have had a stronger case to make and a greater array of tools. So, as critical as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is, we certainly have more work to do. Millions of Americans depend on the right to equal pay for equal work: to earn a livelihood, to feed their families, and to uphold their basic dignity. We ought to make it easier for Americans to exercise that right, not harder. We ought to get unfair roadblocks, hurdles, and technicalities out of their way. With passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, we take an important step toward eliminating these discriminatory roadblocks once and for all.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I once again come to the floor to discuss an issue that goes directly to who we are as a country and what we stand for. Specifically, I want to comment on the executive orders President Obama signed today to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within a year, close secret prisons operated by the CIA, and review the procedures for detaining and trying accused terrorists. In so doing, he sends a long-overdue message not only to the world, but also to the American people here at home, reaffirming our values as Americans and our commitment to the rule of law. As we speak, some 245 individuals are still being held as enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, and about 100 in secret prisons around the world, though we do not even know for sure. Several independent sources have alleged that these detainees have suffered from abuse. All of the information we have indicates that most, if not all, of these people have engaged in a host of violent actions directed at the United States. They are not misguided innocents, but rather men committed to harming us. I rise today not to defend them and their actions in any way; they must be punished to the full extent of the law. Rather, I rise to urge exactly that, the application of our great body of law for dealing with dangerous people intent on harming us. Indeed, some in our Government have failed to apply the law and failed to obey it. According to a Red Cross report, prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were subjected to ``cruel, inhumane and degrading'' treatment that is ``tantamount to torture.'' FBI agents have reported that many of those held at Guantnamo Bay were chained to the floor in a fetal position for 18 hours or more, and were subject to 100-degree heat and freezing cold. The CIA's secret facilities have never been inspected, so we don't know how prisoners have been treated in them. These abuses are not just morally wrong, they are violations of American and international law. They weaken respect for the rule of law abroad and subject American citizens to greater risks of unlawful detention and torture in foreign countries. And they weaken our security even as they undermine our democratic ideals. Guantanamo and the CIA's secret prisons has been an international embarrassment, a symbol of abuse and the breakdown of law, which is why I and others have come to this floor so often to discuss our moral responsibility to close them. To be absolutely clear, I repeat that those who are a threat to America, who are guilty of crimes, must and will be punished to the fullest extent of the law. They must be tried and prosecuted. This decision is not about protecting those who wish to harm us. Rather, this decision says, as President Obama did in his inaugural address this week, that the choice between security and liberty is a false choice, and we reject it. As General George Washington answered when his soldiers asked him for permission to beat their prisoners, ``Treat them with humanity. Let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example'' of our enemies. And so, I am grateful and relieved that President Obama has acted so quickly to remedy this very damaging policy. This is, of course, only the first step. We must remain vigilant in working with the administration to implement these orders. And there remain many issues to be decided, from when and how Guantanamo and other detention facilities are closed to ensuring the interrogation methods employed by U.S. personnel never again cross the line into torture. But this is a critical first step toward restoring not only the rule of law and our Constitution but also our moral authority. Today, we remind the world and ourselves that everyone is subject to the law and no one, not you, not I, stands above it. I am convinced that today's orders will better secure our Nation and allow us to more effectively prevent, detain, and prosecute those who would seek to harm us. I applaud President Obama for his decision to act without delay on these most important issues.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today we are considering the nomination of Mr. Shaun Donovan, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development to become the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD. Mr. Donovan, has been nominated for a job fraught with significant challenges yet, for that very reason, imbued with great opportunities. For the past 3 or 4 years, the country has been facing a growing housing problem that had its origins in the scourge of predatory lending that has resulted in record high foreclosure rates. This housing crisis has been a primary cause of the deepening recession to which none of us are immune. Across the country, between 9,000 and 10,000 homeowners face foreclosure every day. Foreclosures in my State were up over 71 percent since last year, and it is expected that we will have more than 13,000 subprime foreclosures in the next two years. Nationwide, cities such as Bridgeport, which had inordinately high rates of subprime loans, are struggling to keep themselves afloat as those loans reset one-by-one and families find themselves with nowhere to turn. I recently met with leaders in my State where I heard about the toll this crisis is taking on our minority communities. Some say this crisis will result in a net loss in homeownership rates for African Americans, wiping out a generation of wealth, gains and opportunities. But let there be no doubt that this crisis today affects every American in one way or another. In all, by some counts, we can expect some 8 million homes to go into foreclosure absent some form of additional action. Unfortunately, the previous administration was slow to acknowledge the housing problem, and when it finally did, timid in its response. Even as we witnessed foreclosures tear apart neighborhoods and wreak havoc upon our economy, the Administration refused to use the authority or funds we gave it in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to tackle the foreclosure crisis head on--despite the Congress's crystal clear intent in writing that law. Surprisingly--and unfortunately, in my opinion--HUD has not played a central role in addressing the housing crisis. Frankly, it has been, to quote National Journal, ``at best, a second string player . . .'' following in the wake of other government departments with far less expertise in housing than the professionals at HUD (January 10, 2009). Indeed, as the cover page of CQ Weekly says, ``The housing crisis remains at the core of the economy's woes . . .'' (January 12, 2009). Put simply, we cannot address our economic crisis until we address the underlying housing crisis. And to do that, we need an active, aggressive, and well-run HUD with leadership that is confident in its mission and unafraid to act. As President Obama has himself said, ``HUD's role has never been more important.'' Unfortunately, HUD has been mismanaged and ridden with scandal in the last several years. Let me be clear that these problems did not arise under the able leadership of our colleague, then-Secretary Martinez. I would also say that in recent weeks, Secretary Preston has made some improvements. But fundamentally, HUD has been left adrift at a time when bold leadership and a clear direction were never more important. Just a week or two ago, we learned about the Wrights--a middle-class family in Windsor, Connecticut in danger of losing their home. Like thousands of families across the country, the Wrights were lured into a mortgage they were assured they could afford but couldn't--not because they acted irresponsibly but because they became pregnant with their second child, and Mrs. Wright ran out of the paid sick time she was afforded as a teacher. This is the kind of story being repeated in every community across America today. With the right leadership, I believe HUD can be an effective partner in helping families like the Wrights. That is the opportunity Mr. Donovan has--to restore HUD as a leading voice in addressing the crisis facing our country today. I would say to my colleagues that Mr. Donovan is the most experienced nominee for HUD secretary that Senate has considered in my long experience. In addition to his degrees in architecture and public administration from Harvard, Mr. Donovan has run the multifamily program at the Federal Housing Administration and was, for a time, the Acting Housing Commissioner. He has worked in the private nonprofit sector as a housing developer and he has worked as a managing director of a large, multi-family mortgage company. Since 2004, Mr. Donovan has been the commissioner of New York City's Department of Housing Preservation and Development. In that role, he managed 2,800 employees and helped develop and manage Mayor Bloomberg's ``New Housing Marketplace Plan,'' one of the most ambitious local housing plans in the nation. The $7.5 billion plan calls for the creation or preservation of 165,000 units of affordable housing, about half of which has been accomplished to date. Beyond the statistics and the numbers that so dramatically underscore Mr. Donovan's accomplishments, I want to welcome him for the kind of leadership and vision I am confident he will bring to the Department at a time when such leadership is needed so desperately. For example, as early as 2004, long before most of the rest of the country was focused on the subprime crisis and the foreclosures they would lead to, Mr. Donovan told a Newsday reporter that he was worried about the coming ``flood of foreclosures'' and the impact it would have on homeowners and neighborhoods. Mr. Donovan sees the role of HUD as being more than a caretaker for physical housing structures, or as a mortgage insurance company. He understands the danger of stove-piping within this arena, and sees HUD as the Federal Government's primary tool to help build communities--an agency that helps to provide housing opportunities for homeowners and for renters along a spectrum of incomes and ages. He understands the need to coordinate housing with transportation, including public transportation and transit, to improve access to jobs and other economic opportunities--and we need someone with that vision at the helm. Finally, Mr. Donovan is a man of the utmost integrity who has shown a proven ability to work constructively with all interested parties. His nomination is being supported, enthusiastically, I want to add, by a wide variety of housing groups, from the Realtors, to the Homebuilders, to the Low Income Housing Coalition, to many nonprofit organizations and many, many others. I want to express my thanks to Mr. Donovan for the leadership he will bring to this critically important department and, more importantly, the hope he will offer to millions of families at this uncertain moment. I urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Mr. Donovan to be Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the nomination of our colleague, the junior Senator from New York, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton, as our next Secretary of State. It is a position to which I am confident she will be confirmed shortly--and in which I know she will serve extraordinarily well. Before I speak about the qualifications that Senator Clinton brings to this most important position at such a crucial juncture in our history, I want say a few words about the spirit of openness and cooperation that she demonstrated throughout the confirmation process. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for more than a quarter century--having closely reviewed her nomination--Senator Clinton and her husband have taken unprecedented steps and gone above and beyond what we have asked of them. That she has speaks not only to Senator Clinton's personal integrity, but to her commitment to the office of Secretary of State. Senator Clinton will serve during a period crucial to restoring America's moral authority--making clear to the world our virtue, our noble intentions and--as we were reminded by our new President, Barack Obama, yesterday--all that we still represent to so many around the globe. As we all know, Senator Clinton has a history of redefining roles and inspiring people around the world. Certainly, she did when she first rose to the national stage as First Lady, taking on issues previously unfamiliar to that position, often in new ways--children's issues, healthcare, women's rights. To those who had known her, none of that was surprising. Indeed, long before she became First Lady or Senator, she had been a tenacious legal advocate for children and families, fostering hope in a wide cross- section of the American people. Little wonder, then, that she gained that following of passionate supporters that we saw on the campaign trail last year. For the last 8 years, Senator Clinton has represented the State of New York and has given her constituents a daring and tenacious advocate in Washington, putting a special focus on improving her State's economy--specifically that of upstate New York which is not only hit harder by recessions but often remains a bystander during times of economic expansion. That she so naturally became this kind of advocate speaks volumes about her affinity for the less fortunate--her beliefs about the nature of public service and the kind of priorities she will bring as Secretary of State. I have said that it also is a testament to President Obama that he nominated his one-time rival to such a critical post. But perhaps it says more about the nominee herself--about her commitment to bringing change to this country. I have been privileged to serve alongside Senator Clinton. In assuming the position of Secretary of State, Senator Clinton assumes a responsibility--that of being our representative to friends and enemies alike. Her judgment and temperament will be critical to restoring international relationships which have been so badly tarnished in recent years. So, let me join my colleagues in saying thank you to the junior Senator from New York. I know her tenacity and talent will serve our country extraordinarily well in the coming years, as it has throughout her lifetime. I urge my colleagues to confirm her and I wish her the best of luck.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to say a word of good wishes to the senior Senator, albeit very briefly, from Colorado, Ken Salazar, as he leaves the Senate to become Secretary of the Interior. As the son of 11th generation immigrants, from a family that farmed Colorado's San Luis Valley for a century and a half, no one has a deeper, more powerful connection to what opportunity means in this country than Ken Salazar. I can remember one of the first times I met Senator Salazar. After we had exchanged greetings, I said to him, ``My family came to America in the 1800s. When did your family come here?'' He replied, ``Oh, about 500 years ago.'' Indeed, it is remarkable to think that the descendant of a family that settled in the American West almost half a millennium ago will soon be a Member of the cabinet of first African-American President of the United States. Only in America. Indeed, though his parents, who served their country in World War II, were not college-educated themselves, they made sure that Ken, his brother, John, and their six brothers and sisters all graduated from college. To be sure, Senator Salazar is a son of Colorado--a small businessman who owned ice cream stores and radio stations and a farmer for more than 30 years. Indeed, he practiced water and environmental law. Our colleague's affection for the pristine, majestic beauty of the Silver State and its people is embedded in his DNA. Senator Salazar also made a mark instantly on this institution. In 4 years, he developed a reputation for bringing people together in common purpose--whether it was advancing renewable energy policy, confirming judges, standing up to abuses at the Justice Department, or championing the State Children's Health Insurance Program. And I would add that as we work to expand that latter program today, his leadership will be missed. His time in this institution was short, but he has made those moments count. As Senator Salazar seeks to find a balance between renewables and fossil fuels in the administration's energy choices, protect our public lands, and restore integrity to what has been a deeply troubled Department, I am confident that as Interior Secretary he will bring the same temperament to the job that he has brought to his responsibilities in the Senate, never forgetting those who came before us--whose sweat and heart remain at the very foundation of this great country of ours. And so, today, we thank Senator Salazar for his service and wish him well. As he has throughout his life, I have no doubt he will do a remarkable job for our Nation.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Thank you, Madam President. In about an hour or so we will be voting on this matter. I know there are several other Members who want to be heard on this discussion, although there has been a lot said about this matter since the problem first emerged, at least the request first emerged, back in mid- September, September 18 of last year, when the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve came before the leadership of the Congress and announced that within a matter of days we would be facing a meltdown of the financial sector of this country as well as, maybe, globally. From that time forward, we have found ourselves in this situation. As I said a little while ago in brief remarks, I do not know of a single Member--at least I do not believe there is any--who takes any pleasure in being involved in this debate, involved in the vote we are about to cast, knowing the problems that have created this situation were avoidable, preventable, and had the administration paid more attention, when they were asked to more than 2 years ago, about the foreclosure crisis in this country--that is the root cause of the problems we are now dealing with--then we would not have to be here today. That is not hyperbole. That is not speculation. That is a fact. But the reality is there was denial after denial after denial: the economy was sound and solid, and things were going to be in great shape no matter what happened. Today, we find ourselves with 17,000 people a day losing their jobs in America. Between 9,000 and 10,000 homes are going into foreclosure every day in the country. Retirement accounts are being dwindled down to almost nothing in too many cases. Costs and other matters are rising for many people. We are in the most serious economic shape since the Great Depression 80 years ago. It is this Senate, this Congress, at this hour, with the transfer of power coming at the executive branch in a matter of hours, literally yards from where I am speaking today, that will hopefully provide a new direction for our Nation. The outgoing President--in a unique moment, I suppose, historically--along with the incoming President have jointly asked us to step up and provide a tool that might very well do something to make a difference in the lives of those 17,000 people today who will lose their jobs or maybe one of those families of the 9,000 today who will lose their home. We can say: Look, we are not going to do this. We can flyspeck this: I don't like this part; I don't like that part. I would like more specificity here and there. We can twiddle our thumbs. Well, explain that, if you will, to that person who might lose their job, when maybe taking action might make a difference or tell that to a family in Connecticut or Minnesota who is going to lose their house today: No, we ought to wait a week or two and maybe we will sort this out a little better somehow; like somehow the great wizards here, we are going to organize this in some fabulous way to serve the interests of the people. This is a dreadful moment, it is a sad moment, that here in the first hours of the 111th Congress, instead of talking about resources that go to building bridges and roads or schools, making a difference in the health care of people, providing some decent retirement and hope for other Americans, we are talking about providing resources to stabilize our economy, to get our credit system working again, so you do not find the squandering of resources, to see that we might make a difference in putting a tourniquet on the hemorrhaging of home foreclosures that is occurring from one end of this country to the other. Now, it is more dire in some areas than others. Obviously, the States of California and Florida particularly are seeing the tremendous effects of this situation. Arizona and Nevada are also paying a very serious price. But I know in Minnesota, I know in Connecticut, as well, while it is not as bad as in some of these other States, it is getting worse. There is not an economist anyone has listened to over the last number of weeks who has not told us it is not going to get better overnight. But what do we do? Again, we have been asked to step up and provide some resources here, some serious ones to try to stabilize the credit markets, to provide some assistance. I do not know if it is adequate enough. This much I can tell you: Like all of us, we have been terribly disappointed over the management of the resources that were provided back at the end of September, early October. I honestly believe some of those resources have actually worked to some degree. But today we had about five different witnesses before the Senate Banking Committee-- nominees for various posts, most of them very distinguished economists--who have spent years in this field. To a person, everyone said, well, they could not predict with absolute certainty that had we not acted in September, this economy would be in even worse shape today. It is always difficult to prove a negative. But it is, obviously, easier for those who can stand here and say, well, I told you so or we should not have done this because it is impossible to go back and say what would have happened with any great certainty had we not acted. I think much can be said today when you have an outgoing Republican President and administration and an incoming Democratic administration, with very different views about how our economy ought to be managed, asking us jointly to step up and make this decision. I think it is important we listen and we act. That is what I am urging my colleagues to do. This is not going to win you any parades. You are not going to get a plaque or a medal for doing this. I have great respect for my friend from Oklahoma, but I would predict just the opposite of what he has suggested. I think history will judge us, just as it judged two generations ago, what a new Congress did gathered in the winter of 1933, after the election of 1932, when 5,000 banks closed their doors and 27 percent of the American people were out of work. There was no hope whatsoever. People got together, infused capital into lending institutions--the 5,000 of them--in the spring of 1933, and creative people sat down and worked to try to come up with imaginative ideas to get this country moving again, and an American President stood on the east front of this Capitol and said to the American people: You have nothing to fear but fear itself. Hope began to spring in the hearts and minds of Americans all across this country because while they were suffering terribly, they knew they needed a Government that was going to roll up its sleeves, keep an eye on them, and keep them in mind every single day to try to get this country moving again. I would say to my colleagues that I believe on next Tuesday, January 20, the 44th President of the United States will remind the American people once again that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, in his own words, and that there is a reason to be hopeful and optimistic. This is a great country, with great resources, talented, bright, energetic Americans, who want to see our country get back on its feet again. But you need to have the tools to do it. You cannot wish it well. You have to provide the resources in order to make it possible for us to get moving again. That is what this President has asked for--both the outgoing and incoming one--to give this incoming President the tools necessary to move forward. Now, I know, as well, there is going to be far better accountability, far more transparency. Foreclosure mitigation is going to be a part of this effort. In fact, in a letter from Larry Summers to the majority leader--which I ask unanimous consent, Madam President, to be printed in the Record provides far greater specificity than earlier communications, and I welcome that, detailing specifically how this will work, how it will be monitored, how important the intervention on foreclosures will be, and focusing on the flow of credit, which is, obviously, critical if we are going to get back on our feet again. I think the letter ought to provide some confidence to Members who are concerned about how this program will be managed and run, and that it will, in fact, be run differently than the present administration is doing it.

Mr. DODD. So this is a tough vote to cast, as it was in September, in October. I listened that night as the majority leader asked every single Member to vote from their desk, something we do not do with great frequency. I listened to several of our colleagues who are no longer here, and I suspect that vote they cast in favor of that program had something to do with the outcome of their elections. I am sorry that happened to them, and it may have happened because of that vote. But we are Senators. This is not a place just to come and give speeches. We happen to be here at one of the most critical times in our Nation's history. There are wars raging around the globe, and people are suffering at home. We have an obligation to them, and sometimes the decisions we make are not always the most popular ones in the moment they are given. We have learned that throughout history, too, that the Congresses in the past that have come before us, that have had the courage to stand up and face the realities of their day, have enjoyed the good judgement of history because they had the intestinal fortitude to do so. There is not a single one of us in this Chamber who knows what is the right political vote. We all know we can gain favor overnight by casting a vote against this bill. My hope is there will be at least 50 of us who will stand up and cast a better vote--for your children and your grandchildren who will not know the outcome of your vote because they probably are not alive yet or could not read it. But someday they are going to look back and ask what we did at this critical time to make a difference in our Nation. I believe we are in such a moment, we are in such a time. And it is not just this moment; there will be a series of them in the coming weeks and months. That is why you sought this office, I presume, to be a part of making history and making a difference. I would urge my colleagues, no one is arguing perfection at all. No one can speak with any certainty at all about the outcome of all of this. We are actually in uncharted waters when it comes to these issues. But to sit back and do nothing--to do nothing--would be an indictment and a failure of responsibility. So I am determined, as I know my colleagues will be, if this, in fact, goes forward, to monitor it, to insist upon accountability, to demand that we see lenders do what they should be doing, insisting that the leaders of these institutions not gouge or hoard and do everything possible to make sure our economy gets moving in the right direction. On that note, Madam President, I urge my colleagues to reject this motion of disapproval and to give this new, young American President a chance to get our country back on its feet again, as he desperately wants to do, and to give America, once again, that sense of hope and optimism we deserve as a people. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time in the quorum call be jointly charged to both sides.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, in a few very short moments--I think within 5 minutes or so--we are going to be welcoming a new Member to this Chamber, and we will certainly take time out to do that. I believe Mr. Durbin, the senior Senator from Illinois, wishes to be heard to speak about our new colleague as the swearing-in ceremony will take place at 2. So we will take a little time out for that--I don't think much time--and then I know my friends on the other side have lined up a number of speakers on the TARP program, and we are certainly going to accommodate that. I think all their time has been accounted for already, so we will have to make sure of the resources there. I have a number of requests on this side of the aisle as well to be heard on this very important matter before the vote occurs at 4:30. Let me say in the few moments before the leaders arrive to welcome our new colleague from Illinois, new Senator-elect Burris, that this is obviously a very important debate that we are having regarding these so-called TARP funds. I don't know of a single Member, regardless of how they will vote on this matter, who likes being here for this debate or believes that this is something they wish they were doing at this hour. I certainly don't. I have been involved tirelessly with this now over the last number of weeks. As we all know, we are going through a dramatic situation in our country. To put it in numbers terms that are more understandable, 17,000 people in our Nation are losing their jobs every day. Nine thousand to ten thousand people are losing their homes every day in America. We saw the numbers of unemployment in the months of November and December; I think some 500,000 jobs in that month alone. Every indication is that the coming months are going to give us equally bad news on that front. We hear more bad news about lending institutions, financial institutions that are in trouble. So, obviously, these are fragile times, to put it mildly, for our Nation. Yet, at the same time, within a matter of hours, almost within a few feet from where I speak, we are going to be inaugurating the 44th President of the United States, an individual who has given this Nation--in fact, many beyond our borders and shores--a great sense of renewed hope, a renewed sense of optimism about our country and its future. So the timing, in many ways, couldn't be better for this new President arriving, a new team coming to town, determined to do everything they can to get our Nation back on its feet again. So this debate is not just any other debate. This is a debate that will give this new President the chance all of us want him to have to get our country moving in the right direction. So at an appropriate time, at the conclusion of the swearing-in ceremony of our new colleague, I will take additional time to talk about this issue, the importance of it, the regrets I have about why we ended up where we are but also why I think it is critically important we move forward at this very important moment. With that, I see the distinguished majority leader is here and I will yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Senate for its passage of the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Amendments Act, which was included as part of S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. First, I would like to thank Senators Lieberman, Kerry, and Kennedy, who joined me in introducing a standalone version of this bill last week and have worked with me for many years to preserve this beautiful part of New England. I would also like to thank the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Bingaman, for his tireless work to pass all of the critically important public lands bills included in S. 22. Because of his efforts, hundreds of thousands of acres of pristine wilderness will be added to the National Wilderness Preservation System, and many new ecologically unique and culturally significant sites will receive Federal protection under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, the National Trails System, and the National Heritage Area program. I have long felt that as Senators, one of our most important obligations is to ensure that our Nation's vast array of natural treasures is managed in an environmentally responsible and sustainable way. With the passage of S. 22, and in particular, with the extension of Congress's authorization of the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor, I believe that we have taken an important step toward achieving that goal. The Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor, QSHC, was established in 1994 as the fifth National Heritage Corridor. National Heritage Areas are designated by Congress to preserve distinctive landscapes of historic, cultural, natural, and recreational resources. The QSHC is commonly known as ``The Last Green Valley,'' a rare and beautiful rural landscape in the populous Northeast. In fact, the Valley stands out in night images from space for its absence of lights. It contains aboriginal and colonial archaeological sites, mills and mill villages that preserve the history of the early industrial revolution, and traditional farming communities. The QSHC nonprofit management entity has restored architecturally and historically important buildings, developed conservation and open space plans, and fostered cooperation among businesses in the region that rely on the natural resources and beauty of the land. It has consistently leveraged an average of $19 for every $1 of appropriated Federal money. The QSHC has developed a plan to become a self-sustaining entity by 2015, as laid out in ``The Trail to 2015: A Sustainability Plan for the Last Green Valley.'' The plan calls for replacing Federal funds with fees for services, private and corporate support, and income from a permanent fund. In the interim, Federal funds are necessary for capacity-building, awareness programs, and ongoing education of land- use decision-makers. The Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor has created a collaboration of 35 municipalities dedicated to preserving a unique slice of our American heritage. With the extension of its authorization, this preserve will be able to exist in perpetuity. Again, I would like to thank my Senate colleagues for their support of the QSHC and the numerous other sites of great natural and cultural significance that will be protected as a result of the passage of this important legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff, Deborah Katz, be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in celebrating this remarkable achievement of our dear friend, the senior Senator from Kentucky and the minority leader of the Senate, Senator McConnell. And I apologize that I wasn't able to join the rest of my colleagues in their tribute earlier. Twenty-four years is a long time in politics and in the case of my friend from Kentucky, it is historic. But as someone who sits at the desk his father did before him--who treasures this institution--I know there is a difference between the length of our service and the quality of our service. And let there be no doubt that throughout his two-and-a-half decades here, Senator McConnell has tirelessly dedicated himself to the latter. My friend and I may not agree on everything. But we both realize the extraordinary privilege and opportunity this is. When this institution works, it works because of people like Mitch McConnell. Having served with him for the past 24 years and during our time at the Rules Committee, I had the privilege of seeing my colleague's remarkable talent very closely. Everyone in this Chamber knows how difficult the moment was after the Presidential election in 2000. The country was terribly divided along partisan lines and feelings in this institution were raw. As chair and ranking member of Rules, the responsibility fell to Senator McConnell and me to count the electoral votes--typically a ceremonial duty but one fraught with tension in the wake of the closest Presidential election in American history. We would soon oversee together President Bush's first inaugural as well. That we were able to get back to business in such short order was a tribute to Mitch McConnell's temperament and commitment to this institution. And there was some very important business to be done--not the least of which was reforming our nation's voting laws to ensure there wouldn't be a repeat of Florida ever again. Together, and over a series of months, he and I wrote the Helping America Vote Act. It was a difficult, delicate process--but the hard work paid off. Civil rights hero John Lewis called HAVA the most important voting rights law since the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965. In part because of Senator McConnell's commitment to working together--to working through difficult issues instead of setting them aside--today Americans have more confidence in their right to vote privately and independently. We also managed the McCain-Feingold bill to reform our campaign finance laws on the floor of the Senate--another challenge that took considerable effort on the part of Democrats and Republicans to work together. To set aside those differences and focus on what was at stake. Senator McConnell did not support the McCain-Feingold bill in the end. But he was passionate about there being a fair process. As another Kentucky son once said, Justice Louis Brandeis, ``We are not won by arguments that we can analyze, but by tone and temper--by the manner, which is the man himself.'' To me, that is Mitch McConnell--a conservative to the marrow but someone who has never forgotten why we come here: To make a difference. So I congratulate my colleague and his family for reaching this remarkable milestone. May you continue to expand on it for many years to come. Thank you.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today we begin the 111th Congress. As it is every two years, this is a moment for new beginnings, but also an opportunity to bid farewell to some dear friends of ours as they move on to the next chapters in their remarkable lives. While it is always a joy to see this moment--to see the pride visible in not only the Members' faces, but their families' as well--this year's is especially poignant for me. Each of the men and women who have taken this oath during my time in this institution has made an impression on me--influencing my life, my work--in one way or another. But 50 years ago this week, two Members were sworn in--one who is here today and another who remains here in spirit--each of whom had a singularly important impact on me: My father, Thomas Dodd, who represented my State of Connecticut, and our esteemed colleague and friend from West Virginia, Robert C. Byrd. I was only a boy then, but I remember that moment as if it were yesterday, seated with my family in the gallery above, as we looked down on my father, as he began what would turn out to be the final chapter in a public life--a life that had already taken him from Norwich, CT, to Washington, DC, as an FBI agent and lawyer at the Department of Justice; to Germany where he served as a prosecutor at the famous Nuremberg Trials, before returning to our Nation's Capital to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. Fifty years later, I take no small amount of pride in noting that in each of these endeavors, my father proved to be ahead of his time--an advocate for universal health care, a proponent of sensible gun safety laws, an early voice warning of the effects of violence on TV and the dangers of drug addiction; and an insistent defender of those whose human rights were being denied. Indeed, it would not take long before a fellow freshman made his own mark, becoming not only this body's President pro tempore and the longest-serving Member in its history, but the undisputed master of this body's arcane parliamentary procedures, an award-winning author and historian and the foremost champion of sunlight in government. Today, as the whole world watches these historic moments, we should note that it was Robert Byrd who staved off the threat that the Senate might become ``the invisible branch of government'' by ensuring that our proceedings be televised. Some two-and-half decades ago, when I was sworn in myself, it was my colleague from West Virginia who handed me a small book--a pocket-sized Constitution. For all I know, he did this for every freshman Senator. His message was simple: as a Member of the Senate, you are a temporary custodian of this document. And so, I kept that book. For 28 years, I have carried it with me in my back pocket--Saturday, Sunday, every day of the week to remind myself how important this document is, the values and the principles that are incorporated in it. Senator Byrd has put it better than anyone: ``The limits that the Constitution places on how political power is exercised have ensured our freedom for more than two centuries.'' Each of these men taught me, in different ways, that we cannot defend and protect the vision of the Framers if we are ignorant of the Constitution's history and the rule of law. And so today, as we look forward to the 111th Congress and all that we hope to achieve, may we also remember this gift that was given to all of us in the 86th Congress all those years ago. May it continue to shine for many, many more.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in these times of financial uncertainty, today I would like to take the time to commend Mr. Lawrence McHugh of my State, and to recognize his 25 years of leadership at the Middlesex County Chamber of Commerce. In Larry's quarter century as the president of the organization, membership has grown from 282 to a total of 2,400 members who employ over 50,000 individuals in central Connecticut. The Chamber itself now employs 22 people and increased its annual budget from $109,000 in 1983 to over $2 million in 2007. Mr. McHugh has served as the president of the Connecticut Association of Chamber of Commerce Executives and vice chair of both the Connecticut Employment and Training Commission and the Connecticut Tourism Council, as well as on many other boards of organizations that seek to improve businesses and communities across the State. Impressive as these figures may be, the true measure of his contributions to his community cannot be measured by statistics or figures. Larry McHugh has shown remarkable leadership in protecting not only the local businesses of central Connecticut, but also the future of our State through his extensive work with our youth. Following an injury that ended his football career with the AFL's New York Titans, Larry took a position as the football coach for Xavier High School in Middletown, CT where he spent 20 years inspiring his athletes to great success both on and off the field. He would later combine his interest in achieving the best for his students and athletes with his business savvy in spending 8 years as the head of fund raising for Mercy and Xavier High Schools. Fortunately for the youth of Connecticut, Larry has continued to invest in their futures in the years since his retirement from coaching. Under Larry's leadership, the Middlesex County Chamber of Commerce has consistently promoted programs seeking to partner businesses with the young people of the State, both equipping the youth with real life experiences and business opportunities and providing local businesses with the ability to reinvest in the futures of their companies. Larry has placed a premium on establishing a vital connection between businesses and the community's greatest asset--its human capital. Despite great worries over our national economy, it is of the utmost comfort to me to know that the businesses of central Connecticut are under the leadership of a man who has a proven record of doing great things for his Chamber and for his community. I would like to join my voice with those across Connecticut that already speak of his success with the greatest respect, and commend Larry McHugh for his 25 years of service. His continued focus on the promise of the future convinces me that there is none better to be leading the local industries at such a time as this.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, as Members are leaving, I would be remiss if I did not express my very deep and sincere gratitude to some remarkable people who, like all of us, have staff members who do incredible jobs who never get the recognition they deserve. They worked over these past 8 or 9 days literally until 2 and 3 and 4 in the morning--night after night after night--in an effort to put together a package here that would win the approval of our colleagues. These remarkable young men and women have just served our country.