Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I come to the floor today to remember the terrible tragedy that occurred 1 year ago tomorrow in Minneapolis, MN, when the bridge carrying Interstate 35W over the Mississippi River near downtown Minneapolis abruptly collapsed during the evening rush hour. At least 50 vehicles plunged some 60 feet into the Mississippi River, killing 13 people and injuring dozens more. As we approach the anniversary of this devastating event, my thoughts and prayers and those, I know, of all our colleagues are with the victims and their families, with Senator Klobuchar, our colleague, Senator Coleman, Representative Ellison, whose district the bridge is in, and all those affected by this terrible tragedy. The people of my own State of Connecticut can sympathize in a direct way with the people of Minnesota, as they prepare to remember: 25 years ago, a bridge carrying Interstate 95--the main thoroughfare along the east coast of the United States--over the Mianus River in Greenwich, CT, abruptly collapsed in the early afternoon. Four vehicles plunged into the Mianus River, three people lost their lives, and others sustained serious injuries. It remains one of the worst transportation disasters in my small State's history. The tragedy in Minnesota is the most recent example of our national infrastructure crumbling before our very eyes. Indeed, this is not a problem that only affects Minneapolis or Connecticut or--in the case of last year's steampipe eruption--New York City. These are problems affecting every single State, every single county, every single community in our Nation from San Diego, CA, to Bangor, ME. For far too long, we have taken all our infrastructure systems--our roads, bridges, mass transit systems, drinking water systems, wastewater systems, public housing properties--for granted. For far too long, we have failed to invest adequately in their long-term sustainability. Today, we find ourselves in a precarious position concerning their future viability--a precarious position that is costing lives and jeopardizing the high quality of life we have come to enjoy and expect as American citizens. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that 152,000 of the Nation's bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Put another way, one out of every four bridges in our Nation is in a state of serious disrepair. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials estimates it would cost some $140 billion just to repair the 152,000 bridges that are in that condition. The life-threatening problems are not confined to bridges. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that approximately 14,000 Americans die each year, at least in part, because our roads and bridges are no longer up to the task. Congestion on our highways causes tons of carbon dioxide and other pollutants to be pumped into the atmosphere every day. These emissions compromise the health of children and adults and contribute to global warming, which poses immense risks to the future of all of us. This congestion on our highways stems from the absence of mass transit systems or other adequate means to move people. Tens of millions of Americans receive drinking water in their homes every day from pipes that are, on average, over 100 years old. In our Nation's capital city, in the area of Georgetown--one of the city's most affluent neighborhoods--wastewater is still conveyed through wooden sewage pipes constructed in the 19th century. In the city of Milwaukee, over 400,000 people were sickened several years ago with flu-like symptoms caused by a strain of bacteria in the municipal drinking water system of that community. The bacteria strain was eventually linked to inadequate treatment of the drinking water. It is not just our health and safety that is affected by our crumbling infrastructure; in fact, our national prosperity is at stake. From the days of the Roman aqueducts to the present, a nation's ability to grow and prosper has always relied upon its ability to effectively move people, goods, and information. Ask any American today how we are doing in achieving this objective, and chances are the response would be the same: We are not doing very well, and we could be doing substantially better. When the average American spends 51.5 hours a year--more than 2 full days of one's life, per year--stuck in traffic congestion, then I think we can do better. When one out of three of our roads is in poor, mediocre, or fair condition, then I think all of us would agree we can do better. When the United States invests less than 2 percent of its gross domestic product on infrastructure, while nations such as China and India--the major competitors of this country in the 21st century-- invest between 7 and 12 percent, then I think all of us recognize we need to do better or we are going to find our country in a very weakened position very quickly. Infrastructure is not something you can correct overnight. The investments need to be made. It takes time to do it right. We are almost to the second decade of this century, and we remain way behind in this area. Tomorrow is also the 1-year anniversary of the introduction of the National Infrastructure Bank Act that I have offered along with Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. It is a bipartisan bill that has gained a number of cosponsors over the last year, and we would like more. The Infrastructure Bank would establish a unique and powerful public- private partnership to restore our Nation's infrastructure. Using limited Federal resources, it would leverage the significant resources, both at home and abroad, of the private sector. If we don't talk about how we are going to finance this, it is not going to happen. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. DODD. We need to come up with a financing mechanism. We all understand the need for doing this. I think all of us recognize as well that we are not going to talk about doing this out of the appropriations process alone. There are not enough resources there to meet the $1.6 trillion currently needed to repair decaying infrastructure. We need a better mechanism to finance this. Senator Hagel of Nebraska and I have worked with the Center for Strategic and International Studies over the last 2\1/2\ years, along with Senator Bob Kerrey, the former Senator of Nebraska; Warren Rudman, the former Senator of New Hampshire; Felix Rohatyn, a well-known business individual from New York who is almost certainly responsible for getting New York City back on its feet years ago; and John Hamre, a former official at the Defense Department, and we have constructed a means by which a limited amount of Federal dollars could attract massive amounts of private capital to allow us to really begin this work. Absent some idea like this--and we think this is a good one--then year after year we can give speeches about our infrastructure, but nothing much will happen. This bill is designed to deal with regional and national needs, not local ones. We leave those up to the local municipalities. We need to once again recognize that to grow as a people, to have our economy grow and provide the jobs and fulfill the aspirations and hopes of many Americans, we have to grow as well in our capacity to handle that kind of growth. The infrastructure needs of our Nation are daunting. So on this tragic anniversary of the events in Minneapolis and the reminder of what occurred in my own State, as well as the recognition of what is occurring every single day all across our Nation, my hope would be that in the coming Congress, whether we are talking about a McCain administration or an Obama administration, that infrastructure would be a high priority for our country, that we get on that track together, as Democrats and Republicans, and come up with some creative ideas on how we can invest in this needed aspect of our economy. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me return the compliment by commending our colleague from Maryland, who has taken on the Herculean task in the absence of our colleague from Massachusetts, of shepherding, along with Senator Enzi, this very important piece of legislation. My compliments to Mike Enzi, the Republican leader on this issue, along with Barbara, and the House leaders--George Miller, with whom I was elected to Congress many years ago--and the members of the House Education Committee. This is a very important bill. A few days ago we passed the housing bill to make a difference for people facing foreclosure. We tried to pass legislation dealing with low-income energy assistance. I remind my colleagues, the Presiding Officer led the effort on that issue, and we will come back to it. Education costs are critical to address. This bill is sweeping in its reforms, making a difference for average Americans and their families to deal with those costs and allow them to achieve the goal of a higher education, which not only has tremendous advantage for them individually but for us, as a country. It is a small price to pay for the reward we receive. The GI bill, which was adopted during World War II, is another example of this sort of effort, providing 8 million Americans benefits. Over the years it cost a lot of money, but the benefit to our country has vastly exceeded the cost of that program. This bill is like that one in many ways. This bill is not inexpensive, but it provides benefits to our country. I am particularly proud of a number of provisions. One is the Pell grant increase, up to $8,000, which will help us in dealing with the cost of a public education, though not close enough when it comes to private education. The Patsy Mink Fellowship Program, which I am proud to have authored, creates scholarships and makes it possible for young women and minorities to become college professors, and addressing the very small number of women who are providing a college education. The provisions designed to get colleges and universities to control their costs, including both transparency and incentives for schools who succeed in this endeavor. I am also proud of the improvements we have made to TRIO and GEAR-Up and the expansion of child care in this bill. Lastly, as my friend and colleague from Maryland pointed out, the inclusion of the Private Student Loan Transparency Improvement Act, which Senator Shelby and I, along with 19 other members of the Banking Committee authored unanimously, will make a difference when it comes to protecting student borrowers from excessive debt. These provisions require lenders to provide more accurate and timely information to their customers about interest rates, terms and conditions of their private loans, and prohibits documented private student lending practices that have harmed students and their families, keeping them from obtaining the most competitive and affordable student loans. The bill also ensures that private lending is done on the fairest and most transparent terms. It prevents kickbacks and co-branding that may allow steering of students to specific lenders, and it guarantees borrowers time to consider their options and shop around for better terms without losing the loan they have been offered. These are very important steps. Finally, I end where I began. None of this would have happened without the senior Senator from Massachusetts who has dedicated his life to working families. This bill is yet further testimony to his commitment to those constituencies, the people of this country. We have missed him terribly lately, but he had a champion in the Senator from Maryland. If I had to pick one person to replace Ted Kennedy, I would choose Barbara Mikulski every day of the week. She did a fabulous job on behalf of students and their families. We thank her immensely. I know my friend from Massachusetts is watching tonight, and he thanks her as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch, in introducing the National Pain Care Policy Act of 2008. This important legislation would make significant strides in the understanding and treatment of pain as a medical condition. Pain is the most common symptom leading to medical care and a leading health issue. Yet people suffering through pain often struggle to get relief because of a variety of issues. This is why we are introducing this important legislation. Each year pain results in more than 50 million lost workdays estimated to cost the United States $100 billion. Beyond the economic impact, pain is a leading cause of disability, with back pain alone causing chronic disability in 1 percent of the population of this country. In the United States 40 million people suffer from arthritis, more than 26 million, ages 20 to 64, experience frequent back pain, more than 25 million experience migraine headaches, and 20 million have jaw and lower facial pain each year. It is estimated that 70 percent of cancer patients have significant pain as they fight the disease. And half of all patients in hospitals suffer through moderate to severe pain in their last days. As with many medical conditions, this is a problem that is likely to become worse as the baby boom generation approaches retirement and the population ages. Sadly, though most pain can be relieved, it often is not. Many suffering patients are reluctant to tell their medical provider about the pain they are experiencing, for fear of being identified as a ``bad patient,'' and concern about addiction often leads patients to avoid seeking or using medications to treat their pain. But even if patients were more forthcoming about their condition, few medical providers are equipped to do something about it. Often they have not been trained in assessment techniques or pain management, and are unaware of the latest research, guidelines, and standards for treatment. There is also concern among most providers that prescribing treatment for pain will lead to greater scrutiny by regulatory agencies and insurers. But we can do something about these barriers and help individuals suffering from pain. The National Pain Care Policy Act would lead to improvements in pain care across the country. The legislation would call for an Institute of Medicine conference on pain care to increase awareness of this issue as a public health problem, identify barriers to pain care and determine action for overcoming those barriers. A number of years ago, my good friend Senator Hatch helped establish a Pain Consortium at the National Institutes of Health to establish a coordinated pain research agenda. This legislation will codify that consortium and update its mission. The bill addresses the training and education of health care professionals through new grant programs at the Agency for Health Research and Quality, AHRQ, and the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA. And finally this legislation creates a national outreach and awareness campaign at the Department of Health and Human Services to educate patients, families, and caregivers about the significance of pain and the importance of treatment. I want to thank Senator Hatch for his leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to join us on this important effort to help the millions of Americans suffering from severe pain.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch, in introducing the National Pain Care Policy Act of 2008. This important legislation would make significant strides in the understanding and treatment of pain as a medical condition. Pain is the most common symptom leading to medical care and a leading health issue. Yet people suffering through pain often struggle to get relief because of a variety of issues. This is why we are introducing this important legislation. Each year pain results in more than 50 million lost workdays estimated to cost the United States $100 billion. Beyond the economic impact, pain is a leading cause of disability, with back pain alone causing chronic disability in 1 percent of the population of this country. In the United States 40 million people suffer from arthritis, more than 26 million, ages 20 to 64, experience frequent back pain, more than 25 million experience migraine headaches, and 20 million have jaw and lower facial pain each year. It is estimated that 70 percent of cancer patients have significant pain as they fight the disease. And half of all patients in hospitals suffer through moderate to severe pain in their last days. As with many medical conditions, this is a problem that is likely to become worse as the baby boom generation approaches retirement and the population ages. Sadly, though most pain can be relieved, it often is not. Many suffering patients are reluctant to tell their medical provider about the pain they are experiencing, for fear of being identified as a ``bad patient,'' and concern about addiction often leads patients to avoid seeking or using medications to treat their pain. But even if patients were more forthcoming about their condition, few medical providers are equipped to do something about it. Often they have not been trained in assessment techniques or pain management, and are unaware of the latest research, guidelines, and standards for treatment. There is also concern among most providers that prescribing treatment for pain will lead to greater scrutiny by regulatory agencies and insurers. But we can do something about these barriers and help individuals suffering from pain. The National Pain Care Policy Act would lead to improvements in pain care across the country. The legislation would call for an Institute of Medicine conference on pain care to increase awareness of this issue as a public health problem, identify barriers to pain care and determine action for overcoming those barriers. A number of years ago, my good friend Senator Hatch helped establish a Pain Consortium at the National Institutes of Health to establish a coordinated pain research agenda. This legislation will codify that consortium and update its mission. The bill addresses the training and education of health care professionals through new grant programs at the Agency for Health Research and Quality, AHRQ, and the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA. And finally this legislation creates a national outreach and awareness campaign at the Department of Health and Human Services to educate patients, families, and caregivers about the significance of pain and the importance of treatment. I want to thank Senator Hatch for his leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to join us on this important effort to help the millions of Americans suffering from severe pain.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Free Flow of Information Act. This bill would protect journalists from being forced to reveal their confidential sources not as an end in itself but as a means to a well-informed public. I applaud the tireless efforts of those who have made this possible, including our colleagues in the other body who have shown their strong commitment to this issue. As far back as 2004, I introduced similar legislation which was called the Free Speech Protection Act. Since that time, I have worked closely with the senior Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, and earlier this Congress we introduced legislation that would have provided more protection to journalists. Companion legislation passed the House 398 to 21. I was also pleased to cosponsor Senators Specter and Schumer's legislation, which passed the Judiciary Committee earlier this Congress. Over the last several months, we have worked to bring this important issue to the attention of Congress and the Nation. And while this bill does not include everything I had hoped for, I recognize that in this body, we do not get to write or pass these bills by ourselves. We have to reach out and work together that is how we advance or in this case protect our more cherished principles. I thank both of my colleagues for their diligence and commitment to the first amendment. Indeed, though I recognize this fight will not likely be over today, in the 4 years we have been working together on this legislation, we are closer than ever to acting on this bill. I hardly have to recite the litany of abuses that have been exposed because journalists called the powerful to account nor must I remind my colleagues how many of those exposures relied on confidential sources. Without confidential sources, would we still know about the abuse of power in the Watergate era? Without confidential sources, would Enron still be profiting from defrauding its investors? How long would torture at Abu Ghraib have persisted, if proof of these abhorrent crimes had not been provided to the press? The most meaningful check on abuses such as these is the free flow of information. Thomas Jefferson said it best: If I had to make a choice, to choose the government without the press or to have the press but without the government, I will select the latter without hesitation. Jefferson clearly understood that a free government cannot possibly last in the absence of a free press. But today, we find this cornerstone of self-governance facing a new threat--one that comes not from the dictates of a dangerous government, but for the best of intentions. As we have heard time and again in recent years, in a spate of cases, prosecutors have used subpoenas, fines, and jail time to compel journalists to reveal their anonymous sources. Judith Miller of the New York Times was famously jailed for 85 days for refusing to reveal a source. Two San Francisco Chronicle reporters were found in contempt of court for refusing to identify sources and hand over material related to the BALCO steroids investigation. A Rhode Island journalist was sentenced to home arrest on similar charges. In 2005, some two dozen reporters were subpoenaed or questioned about confidential sources. Their offense, Mr. President? Journalism. As one prominent magazine editor told Congress because of what has happened: ``Valuable sources have insisted that they no longer trusted the magazine and that they would no longer cooperate on stories. The chilling effect is obvious.'' Experience has shown us that the most effective constraint on free speech need not be blatant censorship. It only takes a few cases like Ms. Miller's and the San Francisco Chronicle's before the news begins censoring itself. We can only speculate as to how many editors and publishers put the brakes on a story out of fear that one of their reporters could be caught in a spider web of subpoenas, charges of contempt, and prison. When we minimize the impact of confidential sources, serious journalism is crippled. We will find our papers full of stories more and more palatable to the powerful and secretive. No one argues that that is the intention of those prosecuting these cases I think prosecutors simply want to do their jobs. But few deny that it could, in time, be the effect. When journalists are hauled into court and threatened with imprisonment if they don't divulge their sources, we enter dangerous territory for a democracy. The information we need to remain sovereign will be tarnished and the public's right to know will be threatened. And I would submit to you that the liberties we hold dear will be threatened as well. That is exactly why we need a Federal reporter shield. Forty-nine States as well as the District of Columbia have already adopted shield laws or other legal protections for reporters trying to safeguard their sources. The Free Flow of Information Act simply extends that widely recognized protection to the federal courts. This bill will allow journalists the opportunity to argue before a court that they should not have to reveal sources and this can include bloggers. This is an important step the Federal Government can take to ensure that the free flow of information is protected. That is why I have such a difficult time understanding our Director of National Intelligence's recent comments regarding this bill. In an opinion piece in USA Today earlier this week, Admiral McConnell writes: The intelligence community recognizes the critical role that the news media plays in our democratic society. However, this bill would upset the balance established by current law, crippling the government's ability to investigate and prosecute those who harm national security. I find that very hard to believe. Every time the Congress seeks to balance the need for security with our rights as Americans, this administration says ``we can't have both--it's one or the other. You either can be safe or give up rights.'' As I have said before--it is a false choice. And it is a mischaracterization of what this bill does. The reporter shield is not absolute--nor should it be. The public's need to know must and will be weighed against other goods, which is precisely why the bill establishes a balancing test that will weigh the Government's interest in disclosure and the public interest in gathering news and maintaining the free flow of information. In other words, we are balancing our right to know with our need for security, whether physical or economic. This bill makes clear that secrecy is as necessary in extreme circumstances as it is dangerous on the whole. Ultimately, it comes down to what makes us most secure in the long run. As men and women on both sides of the aisle understand, a prosecution, whatever its individual merits, sacrifices something higher when it turns on reporters--and so those merits must be balanced against the broader harms such a prosecution can work. If a free press inexorably creates a free government, as Jefferson suggested, then the agents of that free government--prosecutors included--owe a high debt to journalism. When prosecutors threaten journalism, they have begun to renege on that debt. So, Mr. President, I am proud to support this valuable legislation-- it is a critical first step toward rebalancing the pursuit of justice and the diffusion of truth. I thank my colleagues again for their leadership.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to honor a man we recently lost--a remarkable individual full of warmth and generous of spirit. My wife Jackie and I came to know Frank Stroud as a doctor at the Spring Valley Pediatrics practice to which we take our daughters. But before Frank was one of our daughter's doctors, he was a friend. My father said at the end of his life that he hadn't regretted a moment of his career in public life because no other calling gave him the opportunity to impact the lives of so many people. He might have said otherwise had he met Frank Stroud. Frank had a remarkable capacity for remembering every detail about you. His ability to make casual acquaintances feel like old childhood friends would have made Members of the Senate green with envy. But public office wasn't his vocation. Nor was the seminary, which he contemplated entering. As his children say, Frank found a higher calling: Helping children--which Frank did for nearly four decades, specializing in helping children struggling with learning disabilities such as attention-deficit disorder. But politics was certainly never far from his mind--or his work. His wife Kandy, whom he loved dearly, worked for the Democratic National Committee. As Terry McAuliffe once said, Frank became ``the pediatrician for the Democrats,'' having treated Al Gore's children and Smith Bagley's, among others. And 40 years ago this year, Frank became medical director at the Office of Economic Opportunity which was, of course, at the very center of President Johnson's War on Poverty. We all have unique experiences in our lives that shape the person we become. In Frank's case, one of those experiences was that he was raised by a single mother. One of his children said in his eulogy of his father words that are so poignant today: ``At a big party, he would make sure to dance with all the single ladies as though he knew what it felt like for his mother to sit along the edges of the dance floor.'' Frank passed away a little over a month ago. At the time, he was doing what he always does: caring for someone other than himself--in this case, his beloved mother Lila, from whom his strength of character was surely handed down. And so today, I wish to extend our thoughts and prayers to Kandy, their three children and the entire Stroud family, and quote the words in his obituary, which read: The innocence of a child, The elegance of a Prince, And the generosity of a Saint, Frank Stroud was a majestic human being. Indeed, he was. Frank will be missed. His memory will remain, his legacy will endure, for as long as the children he cared for grow into the healthy adults Frank always believed they could. And because of Frank Stroud, they most certainly will.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me commend our colleague from Vermont for his eloquence and his passion this morning on a subject that, as he says, ought to unite all of us, regardless of geography or political party. I would be remiss if I did not recognize, as well, that the Presiding Officer today has been a champion of this issue during his tenure in the Senate. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his passion about this issue as well. In the quarter of a century that I been here, as the Senator from Vermont has pointed out, this issue has been an issue that has not divided us along these lines. There have been those who, from time to time, have opposed low-income energy assistance but, by and large, this is a matter that has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. While we are in the depths of the summer today, and there are those who are wondering what we are talking about, we talk about home heating oil and gas for the winter, we are only days away from those temperature changes. Of course, for those who live in our southern States, the issue of heat exhaustion is something they live with all the time. And low- income energy assistance, as the Senator from Vermont points out, cuts across all geographical lines. It is the basic necessity. You cannot survive without it. Over the years, we have been able to do something to support it. So I urge our colleagues, when the vote occurs later this morning on this issue, that we join on this matter and support the effort to provide for that low-income energy assistance. I commend my colleague from Vermont, who has been patient about this issue over the last number of weeks. My hope is it will be supported. I hope we do on low-income energy assistance what we have done on housing. I note the presence of my colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby. I wish to begin my remarks by thanking my friend from Alabama. I thank him and our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, on the Banking Committee. The Presiding Officer and others, by a vote of 19 to 2, we came out of our committee back in March on a housing proposal. We have worked closely together over these last number of weeks in order to bring us to this moment, which I wondered if it would ever occur, given the number of times we have voted on this matter since March. But in about 30 minutes, we are going to have a chance to finally decide whether this Congress is going to do something about the growing economic problems, basically founded and anchored in the foreclosure crisis of our Nation, that has now spread far beyond residential mortgages. It is long overdue that this Congress respond. We are about to do so in a bipartisan fashion. Given the vote yesterday of 80 to 13, it is an indication of this what this body can do when we are determined to work together to make a difference. So I wish to thank--I see my colleague from Georgia--Senator Isakson and others who have done a terrific job in packaging this proposal. If each one of us could write this alone, it would be different. We serve in a body of 100 Members. We need to work together to develop final products. This is an example of what can happen when that occurs. I am pleased we are finally ready to pass the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 and send it to the President's desk for his signature. This has been a long and arduous process. It started when Leader Reid, who has been remarkable and marvelous in this process, Leader McConnell, Senator Shelby and I, announced on March 31 that we were going to put together a bipartisan housing stimulus bill that would address the growing housing crisis. Not much more than 24 hours later, Senator Shelby and I, along with Senators Baucus and Grassley, brought the first version of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act to the floor where it received an overwhelming vote of 84 to 12. We continued to work over subsequent months to expand and improve the legislation so it would more thoroughly address the growing foreclosure and financial crisis. This is the product we present to our colleagues this morning. This action is coming none too soon. Earlier this week data was released showing that home sales hit a 10-year low, falling 2.6 percent, over twice as much as what had been expected. Home prices continue to fall. The Census Bureau reported that foreclosures contributed to a record number of vacant homes in the second quarter. Merrill Lynch reports that June numbers show we now have 11 months of inventory of single-family homes. That is a 23-year high. RealtyTrac reported yesterday that forecloses in the second quarter more than doubled from a year earlier and jumped nearly 14 percent from the previous 3 months. As you have heard me say over and over, every day between 8,000 and 9,000 of our fellow Americans are put into foreclosure. There have been a record number of bank seizures as well. This is happening in the United States. It simply ought to be unacceptable to every single one of us. Bill Gross, the CIO of PIMCO, one of our largest investment funds, estimates our economy will face nearly $1 trillion in mortgage losses when it is all said and done. Martin Feldstein, who served President Reagan as chief economist, wrote in the Wall Street Journal in March: The 10 percent decline in house prices has cut household wealth by more than $2 trillion, reducing consumer spending and increasing the risk of a deep recession. This is a staggering loss of wealth we are seeing, coming at the very same time, as the Senator from Vermont has pointed out, that food prices, gas prices, health care, and education costs are rising. We are experiencing the worst of all possible worlds. Wealth is declining, the source of wealth creation, and costs are rising simultaneously. Moreover, when we consider the role that home equity has played in supporting consumer spending, we see the danger a vicious downward cycle could create, an economic disaster for our country. Don't let yourselves be dulled by nameless and faceless statistics either. Behind each one of these numbers I have recited, there is a family--a mother, a father, children trying to grow up, facing unemployment, losing their homes, wondering what the future holds. So when we talk about the numbers, about how important this data is, pause for a minute, when deciding whether to support this bill, and remember: Behind every one of those numbers there is an American family who this morning is wondering whether their Congress can do anything at all about the problems they face. In about 30 minutes, we will have an answer for that, I believe, an overwhelming one, that says: We are on your side. We want to make a difference to keep you in your homes and get back on your feet again. That is what this is all about--not the numbers but the faces. Those families are counting on us. In the face of these daunting challenges, I believe we all have a responsibility to act. That is what we are going to do this morning by passing this bill. Let me quote again Mr. Gross of PIMCO, who wrote this past Thursday: . . . the omnibus housing/GSE bill now placed before the Congress and the President is the best way to begin the long journey back to normalcy [in this country]. I believe that to be the case. Treasury Secretary Paulson said the passing of this legislation is the most important action we can take to address the housing crisis. This legislation will not perform miracles. I want the American people to have a realistic expectation as to what we are about to do. But as others have said, it is a step--I hope and expect an important step--toward putting our Nation on the road to economic recovery. Let me sum up the legislation very quickly before turning to my colleague from Alabama. The bill establishes the HOPE for Homeowners Act to help at least 400,000 to 500,000 families stay in their homes. It does so after asking both lenders and borrowers to make financial sacrifices, and it does so at absolutely no cost to the American taxpayer. The bill creates a new world-class regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks. Recent news makes it clear these entities need a stronger regulator to ensure they are viable and healthy institutions, able to provide credit in times of stress such as we are experiencing today. It also raises loan limits from $417,000 to a high of $625,000 so the government-sponsored enterprises can play an even more active role in stabilizing the housing market. At the request of Secretary Paulson, the legislation includes standby authority for the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase the stock or debt of the housing GSEs only if he finds such action is necessary to keep the financial markets stable and mortgage credit flowing. It is our strong expectation that creating this authority will make it unlikely that it will ever be needed. As I have said, the GSEs have significantly more capital than is required by law. They continue to have open access to the debt markets, and their holdings consist primarily of 30-year fixed rate mortgages. The bill modernizes the Federal Housing Administration program, raising the loan limits from $362,000 to $625,000 so that 98 percent of the counties in the United States and 85 percent of the population will have access to this important program. FHA has proved its value in the current crisis, as it has continued to provide a stable source of mortgage credit even while many other lenders have failed. The bill includes a permanent, affordable housing fund financed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that will provide tens of thousands of affordable housing units. I tip my hat to the Presiding Officer, who has been a tireless champion on behalf of affordable housing. With the work of Senators Shelby and Reed, we have a permanent, affordable housing program, the first time ever in our history. The bill includes new protections for elderly homeowners taking out FHA-insured reverse mortgages so they are not deceived, as many have been, into using the proceeds from these loans to buy expensive and needless insurance products. These provisions were incorporated from a bill introduced by our colleague from Missouri, Senator McCaskill. The bill includes a new mortgage broker and lender licensing requirement added by Senator Martinez, with strong support from Senator Feinstein, that will begin to address the many abuses of the mortgage process perpetrated by brokers. In addition, it includes improved disclosure requirements added by Senators Reed and Bond. Because of the efforts of Senators Kerry, Coleman, Akaka, Cornyn, and Sanders, the bill expands the availability of the VA housing program and includes a number of provisions to help returning veterans save their homes from foreclosure, and provides new housing benefits to disabled veterans. The legislation includes $3.9 billion in emergency Community Development Block Grant funds for areas hard hit by foreclosures, to help them purchase and rehabilitate these homes and put them into productive use. As the Boston Globe wrote in an editorial earlier this month: The major beneficiaries [of this provision] would be the urban homeowners to pay their mortgages diligently yet face declining property values, crime, and blight associated with a rash of foreclosures near their homes. This body has repeatedly provided emergency funds to communities ravaged by floods, hurricanes, and natural disasters. The foreclosure crisis is every bit as much of a disaster. This is an emergency equally deserving of these funds. Finally, the bill includes $150 million in new counseling money. Housing counselors have been our troops on the frontline, working with troubled borrowers and lenders. These funds, which were included at the request of Senator Murray, along with Senator Schumer, will result in tens of thousands of American families being able to keep their homes. Let me close by saying again this legislation is the product of tireless collaboration in the Senate and the other body, the House of Representatives, with the work of Barney Frank and his colleagues on the Financial Services Committee and, of course, the administration, particularly Secretary Paulson and his staff, to help develop solutions that will strengthen our economy, restore confidence in our financial markets, and provide urgently needed relief to American families struggling to make ends meet. Such an outcome could not be possible without the full support and leadership of my colleague and ranking member, Senator Shelby. Every vote we have taken on this bill, from the 19-to-2 vote in committee to yesterday's 80-to-13 vote on cloture, has been strongly bipartisan. The American people can take some pride in this institution for our willingness to work together through these difficult issues to get such a good outcome. Finally, legislation of this magnitude takes hours and hours of staff time to work out. There is never going to be an adequate expression for Senator Shelby and me to thank our staffs on the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. They have been remarkable, beginning with the Senate staff director, Shawn Maher of my office, along with Jonathan Miller, Amy Friend, Roger Hollingsworth, Aaron Klein, Julie Chon, Jenn Fogel-Bublick, Sarah Kline, Kate Szostak, and Drew Colbert; legislative counsel Laura Ayoud and Rob Grant; Senator Shelby's staff--Bill Duhnke, Mark Oesterle, Peggy Kuhn, Jim Johnson--and from Senator Reed's staff, Kara Stein. I thank Senator Harry Reid lastly, our majority leader, for his diligence, patience, and determination. We have been through six cloture motions, delay after delay after delay by a handful of Senators who were determined to do everything they could procedurally to stop us from getting to this moment. I thank immensely the majority leader, and his staff as well, for their tireless support of this effort. Again to my colleague from Alabama, I tip my hat. He is a good man to work with, and I thank Senator Shelby.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the majority leader, Senator Reid, for including in S. 3297, the Advancing America's Priorities Act, an important initiative to support the horticulture operations of the Smithsonian Institution. Without this needed support, the Smithsonian Institution would not be able to maintain or continue the same level of horticulture services it currently provides. I additionally want to thank Senator Feinstein, chair of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, for her support of this important initiative. I would also like to note the support for this effort of Senators Leahy and Cochran and thank them for their work to preserve the Smithsonian's many valuable contributions. I do not believe that the provisions of title VII of S. 3297 constitute a ``congressionally directed spending item,'' but out of an abundance of caution I certify that neither I nor my immediate family has a pecuniary interest in the provisions of title VII of S. 3297, consistent with the requirements of paragraph 9 of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important and needed initiative to support the horticulture operations of the Smithsonian Institution.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on S. 3268, the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act. I thank the majority leader for his leadership on this issue, which addresses one of the most critical problems facing our Nation today--the problem of high oil and gas prices. I am deeply disappointed that our Republican colleagues chose to block the Senate from taking action on this bill, despite including provisions to address speculation in their own proposal. Energy is an economic issue. As every American has been reminded over and over in recent weeks and months, virtually everything we do requires energy--whether it is driving to work, cooking dinner for our families--or cooling our homes in the hot summer months. And when the cost of that energy goes up, our quality of life goes down. And feelings across the country are raw right now. Whether it is the crisis in our housing markets, skyrocketing health care costs, rising unemployment, or soaring energy costs, people are hurting--people are angry and frustrated, as circumstances completely beyond their control prevent them from taking care of their families--and they want their elected leaders to do something to get this economy moving again. But, we simply cannot drill our way to lower gas prices. President Bush's Energy Information Administration has said that not a drop of oil from the Outer Continental Shelf would be produced until 2017, and we would not reach peak production until 2030. Even then, this increased production will never be enough to lower world oil prices--we only have 2-to-3 percent of the world's oil reserves. President Bush and Republicans in Congress are demanding we open up more areas--yet oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres that they have already leased but refuse to explore. That is 3 out of every 4 acres these companies have under lease. That is why Senators Feingold, Menendez, and I have introduced legislation that denies new leases to companies that leave the areas they lease unused. We have also introduced the Responsible Ownership of Public Lands Act that forces companies to pay a penalty on areas they have leased but not put into production. These fees would be used to help bring clean, domestic, renewable sources of energy online. We had hoped to offer both of these proposals as amendments to the legislation before us; unfortunately, obstruction by the Republicans will prevent us from doing so. The message is simple: instead of continuing to pad the coffers of oil executives while American families struggle, we are telling these companies they can either ``use it or lose it.'' I hope my colleagues will join us in pursuing this legislation as an amendment to the pending bill. I also strongly support efforts to rein in excessive speculation in energy markets. Over the last several months there have been numerous congressional hearings and reports from experts across many fields--oil industry executives, airline industry leaders, financial analysts, and others. Jeroen van der Veer, the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell, was quoted in the Washington Post on April 11 saying that ``the . . . fundamentals are no problem. They are the same as they were when oil was selling for $60 a barrel, which is in itself quite a unique phenomenon.'' Representatives of Exxon-Mobil, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, and others have all expressed similar views. Yet the price of a barrel of oil has doubled in the last year. Indeed, expert economists have estimated that speculators in energy markets are responsible for anywhere from 25 percent to 50 percent of the price of a barrel of oil. Even the Japanese government's Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry has concluded that speculation has played a significant role in driving up oil prices. This bill is supported by a broad coalition of airlines, trucking associations, labor groups, and environmental groups because it takes important steps that will help eliminate the ``speculative premium'' on each barrel of oil. The dramatic increase in oil prices is hurting American families and threatens to cripple countless American businesses. This important legislation closes the ``London loophole'' by treating oil traders using a foreign exchange as if they were trading in the U.S. for regulatory purposes, in order to stop traders from manipulating prices and speculating excessively by routing oil trades away from U.S.-based exchanges. In addition, the bill requires the CFTC to convene a working group of international regulators to develop uniform reporting requirements, require the CFTC to collect data on index traders to ensure they are not adversely impacting the price discovery process, and authorize the CFTC to hire at least 100 additional full-time employees. At the same time, I feel that some areas of the bill can be improved. In particular, I am concerned that section 6 may cause unintended disruptions for financial institutions with over-the-counter hedging transactions and unnecessarily increase costs for operating companies that are trying to manage their energy costs through hedging. In addition, it appears that some aspects of section 7 and other sections may be unclear or have unintended consequences. I hope we have another opportunity to address the issue of speculation, and I look forward to working with the majority leader on ways to address some of these concerns. Mr. President, I am disappointed that this bill will not have a chance to become law. I recognize that addressing the issue of speculation will not solve our energy crisis. This crisis is too big of an issue with too many root causes. But speculation is part of the problem, and curbing speculation must be part of the solution. This bill would have achieved that goal.

Mr. DODD. Yes. It is my intent that section 2203(b)(1) should read 'in excess of 6 percent per year `` before subparagraph (A). This would track the existing language in section 207(a)(1) of the SCRA that refers to preexisting obligations or liabilities bearing an interest rate in excess of 6 percent per year. It is not my intent to modify this aspect of section 207(a)(1).

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to share with my colleagues the good news: that we are about to pass, I believe, after many weeks and months, numerous votes on countless amendments on the floor of this body, as well as efforts in the other Chamber, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. I am going to share some thoughts on where this is and what is included in this bill that passed the House yesterday and is pending as one of the matters that will be considered in the next 24 to 48 hours by this Chamber. My first expression of gratitude goes to the majority leader, his staff, and others, along with the minority leader's staff, particularly those on the floor who have been very patient. In the case of the majority leader, he has been far more patient but tremendously supportive of this effort. This has taken a long time and has gone through a lot of different processes over the last number of months to get to the point where we are today: on the brink of passing the most sweeping housing legislation in more than a generation, that will particularly focus on trying to keep people in their homes. There are literally thousands every day who face the prospect of foreclosure. This legislation will not protect everyone, but it will make a difference in the case of thousands, as well as many of the provisions which I will address in a minute or so. But I begin by expressing my gratitude to those who made it possible for us to get to this point. Again, the majority leader and his staff played a critical role. Senator Shelby of Alabama, former chairman of the Banking Committee, today the ranking Republican of that committee--we would never have been able to succeed at what we achieved without him and his staff and the work he has done on the committee. We were able to mark up this bill several weeks ago and bring it to the floor of the Senate on a vote of 19 to 2, and that was because of the work of Senator Shelby and others, along with, of course, the wonderful staff I have as part of the Democratic majority of that committee and as chairman of the committee. They worked well together. They spent countless hours. Last weekend alone, they were up until 2 o'clock, 3:30 in the morning trying to iron out details with ourselves and with the leaders in the House of Representatives. There are a lot of people who can claim credit for helping us get to this point. I wish to recognize them and I will continuously over the coming days as we move beyond this legislation. But it is very important to know that people who never get a chance to speak in this Chamber but who put in the countless hours, the staff who work on these bills, work in our respective offices, work for the committees, do tremendous work on behalf of the American people. I, for one, am very grateful to all who made such a difference in bringing us to the point of stepping up and doing something about this economic crisis, which at its heart, of course, is the housing crisis, and behind all that is the foreclosure crisis. I wish to share some views on what the bill does and why this moment is important beyond the specifics of this bill. In my view, we should have and could have acted months ago on this legislation. Regrettably, there are still one or two Senators who are doing everything and anything they can to block this bipartisan legislation from going forward, delaying the kind of relief American homeowners, and so many others, desperately need to get our economy moving in the right direction. Yesterday, the President of the United States agreed to sign this legislation. That was a reversal. Only a few days earlier they announced they would veto the bill. But yesterday they made the announcement they are going to accept this legislation and they are going to sign it into law. Let me say how grateful I am to the President of the United States. We are of different political parties. We have different views on many issues. But I thank him. It takes a big person to recognize a mistake, in this case announcing a veto and then changing your mind and saying, in fact, this legislation deserves passage. I appreciate President Bush's willingness to come to that point of view and to make that announcement and to virtually, I hope, guarantee the adoption of this legislation and to begin working to make a difference in people's lives. As many of my colleagues know, we are in the midst of the most serious economic crisis to face our Nation in many years. Certainly, the American people live it every day. They don't need to read the data; they live the data, whether they are losing their jobs, losing their homes, watching the value of their stocks, their pensions, their 401(k)s. All are worth less today than they were even a few weeks ago. So the American people do not need a tutorial on whether things are tough out there. They are living it and their families are and they want to know whether their Government is doing anything about it to make a difference. Income is stagnant, and for many people it is falling at precisely the time Americans are experiencing increasing costs in their daily lives. The source of wealth creation in this country has been damaged badly. Housing, which is a source of great wealth creation for many people, is losing value. Stocks, we know, have lost value. Bonds are losing value. These are the items upon which many Americans, through mutual funds and other vehicles, are able to increase their wealth, increase their security, prepare for their retirement, assist their children to achieve a higher education and to lead decent lives with a degree of happiness and hope that Americans ought to expect, living in this great country of ours. But all these items have been badly damaged over the last number of weeks and compound that loss of wealth creation with the fact that gasoline prices are going up, food costs are going up, health care costs are going up, and the cost of an education is going up. At the very time the source of wealth creation is going down, the cost of living is rising. Unemployment numbers are also worrisome. In the month of May, we saw a one-half of 1 percent increase in unemployment. That is the largest single monthly increase in unemployment in 22 years in our Nation. The root cause of all this--again, you don't need to know all this because you have been feeling it--the root cause of all this is the virtual collapse of the housing market that, in my view, did not have to happen. This did not have to occur. This is not a natural disaster. It is not a hurricane or a cyclone or a snowstorm. This is a problem that was created because the people responsible for being the cops over these institutions were not doing their job. As a result, we are in the mess we are in today. I do not want to oversimplify it, but virtually that is what happened. The collapse was caused by what the Secretary of the Treasury has described as ``bad lending practices'' that were at best ignored and, in crucial respects, knowingly tolerated, if not encouraged, by Government officials over the last number of years. As a result, every single day in this country, Madam President, 8,000 to 9,000 of our fellow countrymen are entering into foreclosure. Home prices nationwide have dropped by the largest and most precipitous amounts since the Great Depression back in the 1930s. Tens of millions of Americans have watched their retirement savings, their pension funds, and the value of their homes fall by alarming amounts. Madam President, I want to remind my colleagues that this legislation has proven time and time again to enjoy strong bipartisan support. Again, without the work of my partner in all of this, Senator Shelby, we wouldn't have arrived at that remarkable result. But my colleagues who have been with us on all of this, those who have added their ideas to this legislation, who have brought thoughtful proposals and added comments as well as specific ideas, deserve a great deal of credit for this as well. Shortly before we left for our July recess, this piece of legislation passed this Chamber by a vote of 79 to 16. Yesterday, in the House, the bill received a bipartisan vote of 272 to 152. It is time to take up this bill one last time and send it to the President for his signature. Let me review for my colleagues, if I may, exactly what it is we are working so hard to achieve. The bill we are about to adopt, and that we have worked on for weeks and months, has a number of key elements, all of which have been supported by the strong bipartisan votes in this body. First, we have the HOPE for Homeowners Act, which we are told will help somewhere between 400,000 to in excess of 500,000 Americans keep their homes and avoid going into foreclosure. My hope, Madam President, is that number will actually be larger than that. That is a low estimate but certainly an important one. These families were simply seeking the American dream of home ownership. Sadly, in case after case after case, they were led astray. They were steered into mortgages they couldn't afford, and the people who steered them into those mortgages knew it because they were going to make their money quickly, and then they were going to sell the mortgage, move on, and never be accountable. In my view, these people should be going to prison for what they did. I know people say that is a harsh conclusion, but to knowingly lure someone into a financial arrangement you know they could never afford, and to know full well they would end up defaulting on or falling behind, to me, that behavior is reprehensible and people ought to be held accountable. I am speaking of those who knowingly engaged in a practice that caused so much harm in our country. These are cases where often the mortgage brokers and loan officers pretended to be trusted financial advisers but were exactly the opposite. They had no intention and were doing nothing when it came to advising and providing help to these borrowers at all. In fact, we now know, according to the Wall Street Journal, over 60 percent of the people who were talked into subprime loans actually could have qualified for a conventional mortgage at far lower cost to them than what a subprime mortgage cost. Sixty percent of these people were lured into that category by people who knew they had an opportunity to qualify for something that would have cost them far less than they ended up paying. Anyway, this part of our HOPE for Homeowners Act is a voluntary program that will help save these homes by forcing the lenders who chose to participate to take some losses. These are not bailouts. The borrowers will have to pledge at least 50 percent of all new equity and future appreciation in order to get the benefit of a new reduced mortgage at a fixed rate that they can afford to pay. So the lender takes a haircut. They are not going to get what they thought they were going to get, but they are not going to get zero; and the borrower gets to stay in his or her home. They are going to end up paying that insurance and also contributing a part of the equity that will increase over the years to compensate for this program. There are many protections built into this program. Only homeowners will qualify; no speculators, only homeowners. No investors or speculators will be allowed to participate. Borrowers will have to show they cannot afford their current mortgages, and all loans will be underwritten at a level the borrower can afford to pay. New loans will be at 30-year fixed rate mortgages. All of this is done at no cost to the taxpayer. In fact, over the next 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office tells us that the program will actually raise some $250 million for the Treasury of the United States. This provision, combined with the government-sponsored enterprises--Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the home loan banks--regulatory reform of this bill, passed the Banking Committee 19 to 2, as I mentioned earlier. Now, let me put to rest, if I can, an issue that has been raised. I have just described what this will do for that borrower who is with that very distressed mortgage. I can hear someone out there listening to these remarks and saying: Well, Senator, I live next door, and I have a mortgage I would like to get reduced as well. Now, I am not at risk of losing my home because I have my job and, frankly, I got a mortgage at a time when my broker and my banker worked out an arrangement that I could afford to pay. But why is that neighbor of mine getting this deal and I am not? Is that fair? That is a good question. Let me say to you, as a borrower, first of all, I want to keep that borrower, if I can, in a home. If you are in a similar problem, we want to do what we can to help you. But you don't want that neighbor of yours to go into foreclosure. If your neighbor goes into foreclosure, then the value of your home that day begins to decline dramatically. The last thing any neighbors want on a block is foreclosed properties. So for every 8,000 or 9,000 people who go into foreclosure today, as they will, there are 16,000 people who live next door to that foreclosed property. And when the value of properties go down in a neighborhood, crime rates go up, and it just spirals further and further down. So I hear what you are saying. But if you think carefully about how this actually helps you as well, by keeping that homeowner in that house, keeping up the value of your property, then everyone benefits. So to those out there who wonder why everyone is not going to get a new mortgage at a rate they can afford, the value of this program is to try to put a tourniquet, if you will, on the hemorrhaging that is going on. There are 1.5 million people who have lost their homes in the last year. It is predicted by some--Credit Suisse being one--that one out of every eight homes, if we don't act, will end up in foreclosure in the next 5 years. Obviously, that is an intolerable situation in our country. So this legislation is designed to provide hope not only for the homeowners but hope for the neighborhoods and communities being so adversely affected by this present problem. We desperately need this legislation. And as I have said repeatedly, every day we wait, some 8,000 to 9,000 foreclosures are filed. In fact, the delays we have suffered over the last number of days have caused an awful lot of people whom we might have been able to help to find themselves without a home. Remember, these aren't just numbers. I have been citing numbers to you--a million and a half, 8,000 to 9,000, and how this program would work. But for every one of these numbers there is a family. Just imagine tonight that you had to go home and tell your husband or your wife or your children: We are no longer going to live here. We can't afford to stay here. This has been our home, but we have to find some other place to live. I don't know of anyone who would like to come home carrying that message because someone lured them into a mortgage knowing full well they could never afford to pay the fully indexed price. These numbers don't speak about the human tragedy and the cost beyond the financial implications. So the importance of this legislation goes to the heart of who we are as a people, that sense of optimism and confidence. That fulfillment of a dream--of owning a home and raising a family, living in a quiet, safe neighborhood--for many people is no longer going to be there because these foreclosures are occurring at such a rapid rate around our country. In late June of this year, Census reported that the home ownership rate, after reaching an all-time high in 2005, has fallen to a little over 67 percent, the sharpest annual decline in 20 years. According to the New York Times, minorities, who are disproportionately likely to get subprime loans, are suffering especially badly. That is why this legislation is widely supported by community and civil rights groups, financial institutions, and others. They see a generation of wealth being lost as a result of this foreclosure crisis. The Senate expressed its strong bipartisan support of the HOPE for Homeowners Act when it defeated an amendment that was offered to strip out this program entirely. To the credit of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, we voted 69 to 21 to keep this program a part of this bill. I want to make people understand something. There is no miracle here. I am not suggesting to you that this is going to work perfectly. It is our best judgment that this voluntary program could make a difference, and my hope is it will. The second part of the bill, Madam President, includes the FHA Modernization Act. This passed early in April of this year as part of the Foreclosure Prevention Act by a vote of 84 to 12. The provisions in the current bill are identical to that legislation that I authored earlier this year, with the exception that the loan limits have been increased in high-cost areas to a maximum of $625,000. As the administration has repeatedly said, the modernization of the Federal Housing Administration will put it in a better position to keep future borrowers away from abusive subprime loans. Thirdly, this legislation creates a strong, effective, world-class regulator for the housing government-sponsored enterprises--Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks. These entities have kept the housing and conforming mortgage markets going while other capital markets have literally frozen. We need to make sure these crucial market players are appropriately capitalized, well regulated, and properly supervised so the American people can continue to depend on them to ensure that affordable mortgages will always be available. Recent losses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac speak to the urgency of this need, and the legislation before us accomplishes that goal. In addition to the government-sponsored enterprise portion of this bill, we have created a new permanent affordable housing fund that will help finance the construction and preservation of affordable homes and apartments across this Nation. Again, the need for this is growing, especially as the foreclosure crisis is pushing more and more families into rental housing. Again, the Senate spoke forcefully in support of this program when an amendment was offered by a Senator in this body to strike that entire program. My colleagues, again Democrats and Republicans, voted 77 to 11 to keep this permanent affordable housing program. The bill also includes $3.9 billion for community development block grant funds to help communities across the Nation revitalize neighborhoods that have been devastated by foreclosures. This provision has strong support from the Nation's mayors, community groups, religious organizations, housing groups, and civil rights organizations as well. Unfortunately, we can't stop every foreclosure, but these funds will help our communities deal with the fallout of this terrible problem and help stabilize and renew our hardest hit communities. There are important sections of the legislation that help our Nation's veterans find and keep housing and provide them with housing counseling. We increase housing counseling money in this bill so we can help people avoid the scourge and trauma of losing their homes to foreclosure. There are a number of important tax provisions, and I want to commend my friend and colleague from Montana, Max Baucus, and Senator Grassley of Iowa. The Finance Committee did a terrific job with this bill. They got rid of some onerous, and I think wrong, tax provisions that had been adopted earlier and included some wonderful provisions to help first-time home buyers, as well as to provide some assistance in the area of encouraging additional investments in our housing areas. So I want to commend Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley and members of the Finance Committee for the additions they have added to this bill that are going to make a significant difference. Finally, the legislation includes important standby authority, which was requested by the Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson. He worked all weekend, two weekends ago, with various other people to do what they could to figure out how not to lose the major investments in our government-sponsored enterprises, and he came up with this idea of standby authority. Now, it is unprecedented the authority he is asking for, but Hank Paulson impresses me as someone who has thought about this. He has spent a lifetime in the private sector and knows and understands these issues pretty well. And I know for a fact that he reached out to a lot of other people in the country as well, not of his own political persuasion but people he respects, and listened to them as they crafted this standby authority. My colleagues have raised some very good questions about it. We had a long, almost 5-hour hearing on the Banking Committee last week where Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Christopher Cox of the SEC, sat there for 4\1/2\ hours and answered questions from 22 members of the Banking Committee about this proposal. And there are legitimate issues about it. I see my friend from New Mexico here, the former chairman of the Budget Committee, and we asked questions that he would have asked in that committee, and I think we answered them as well as we could. But I think Hank Paulson has it about right. This authority is going to be critical if we are going to encourage people to stay involved in this critically important area of liquidity to the housing market. So I know my colleagues are concerned about this 18- month proposal, and that is how long it will last, but we will watch it carefully. Any authority that he would seek would be subject, of course, to the debt ceiling limit, which the Congress can impose at any point to slow this down. But the idea that the authority is there will give us, I think, the needed security that many global investors--and I want to point out they are global investors these institutions need in order to stabilize them at a critical time when there are significant jitters about whether these institutions can survive. So, Madam President, this provision is one that was added by the Secretary of the Treasury, added by the administration, but Senator Shelby and I believed it was worthy of inclusion in this bill, and that is why we included it. In short, this is a good, balanced bill. In many ways it is almost landmark legislation. It has taken a long time to get here and unfortunately it took some bad news for us to build the support this bill needed. But we are where we are. This bill is going to make a difference almost immediately. In fact, we are seeing a difference already in the markets around the country-- and around the world, for that matter. This bill has very broad support, including from the Conference of Mayors, the League of Cities, the Mortgage Insurance Companies of America, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Mortgage Bankers Association of America, the Consumer Federation of America, the National Association of Homebuilders, NAACP, ACORN, the Financial Services Roundtable, and numerous other business, consumer, and civil rights organizations. In fact, I ask unanimous consent that a long list of these organizations be printed in the Record for my colleagues.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I point this out because, as my colleagues will tell you, oftentimes we have one group of people for something and not another. But when you get the Financial Services Roundtable, the NAACP, the Consumer Federation of America, the League of Cities--you get some idea of what we have been able to put together, Senator Shelby and I have, with this bill. Is this a bill Richard Shelby would write on his own? No. Is this one I would write on my own? Absolutely not. We do not do business like that here. There are 100 of us here, and we try to work together to fashion ideas that make sense, and that is what we have done with this critically important legislation. I thank Senator Shelby. I thank my colleagues, my Democratic colleagues on the Banking Committee--Jack Reed, Chuck Schumer, Tim Johnson, a long list of people who made a significant contribution to this bill. I thank my Republican colleagues on the committee as well; 8 out of 10 of my Republican colleagues on that committee have supported this effort and stayed with us through this long, arduous process, a process that did not have to last this long and should not have to last this long over the next several days. We could pass this bill in the next hour and send it to the President for his signature this afternoon. That is the kind of news I think the world is waiting for, both at home and around the globe--that the American Congress, Democrats and Republicans, contrary to the opinion people have of us, can actually sit down and work together and produce something for the American people. That is what we have done with this bill. I thank my colleagues for it and I urge the adoption of this legislation when the moment occurs. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Global HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria reauthorization bill and urge its immediate passage. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and chairman of its Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Narcotics Affairs, I can say that of all the global challenges we face, few are more daunting in scope or immediate in need than the scourge of HIV/AIDS. In so many parts of the world, the global HIV/AIDS pandemic threatens to undermine all of our other efforts to bring stability and prosperity to the world. As a result of the original law Congress passed in 2003, the United States has provided lifesaving drugs to nearly 1.5 million men, women and children; supported care for nearly 7 million people, including 2.7 million orphans and vulnerable children; and prevented an estimated 150,000 infant infections around the world. Through this law alone, we as a nation have shown the world that Americans are a compassionate, caring and generous people. It is a spirit I know to be true throughout our remarkable country. Our sustained commitment to the treatment, prevention, and care of HIV/AIDS globally through this law has helped us make great strides toward helping repair our Nation's image overseas so badly damaged by the war in Iraq. So, I tell my colleagues, the eyes of the world are upon us. We must reauthorize this program and we cannot wait another day to do it. I want to thank and commend the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden and Senator Lugar, for crafting this bipartisan legislation that will continue the success of the 2003 law and make many important improvements to the program. I would like to take a minute to highlight a few of what I believe are the most critical improvements. Following that, I want to go into a bit more detail about provisions in this bill that I am proud to have authored, along with my colleague Senator Gordon Smith, relating to the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV and the treatment of children living with this disease. To begin with, the bill increases the authorization of appropriations to $50 billion, allowing for incremental increases in funding over the course of the next 5 years. HIV/AIDS killed more than 2 million people last year, including 330,000 children under the age of 15, and an estimated 2.5 million people including 420,000 children were newly infected. These numbers are staggering. Absent an increase in our funding commitment, we may well lose all the hard-fought gains we've made against this disease. The bill also eliminates the restrictive ``one-third earmark'' limiting prevention funding to abstinence-until-marriage programs. The Institute of Medicine and the Government Accountability Office, GAO, both concluded that the one-third abstinence earmark unduly limited flexibility for the people implementing HIV/AIDS programs on the ground. In fact, the GAO found that in order to meet the one-third spending requirement, country teams reported having to divert funds from prevention of mother-to-child transmission services. The bill sets several key targets for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care as well as targets to expand the healthcare workforce in order to help achieve staffing levels recommended by the World Health Organization. The bill moves from a reliance on a healthcare workforce that was already in place in the developing world under the original law to investing new funds to train new healthcare workers and paraprofessionals, especially nurses and doctors, under the reauthorization bill. The various targets in the bill will help move the program toward sustainability over the long term. That can only be achieved by a bold, sustained effort to train and retain new healthcare workers, including adding new workers to the most rural of areas. The legislation repeals the provision in current law barring the admission into the U.S. of individuals who are HIV positive or have AIDS. This policy is an international embarrassment and its repeal should be maintained in the final bill. Because of this law, the President has to seek a waiver from his own State Department to invite guests to White House events related to this program. The U.S. cannot even host an international conference on HIV/AIDS. The time to repeal this statutory ban that discriminates solely on the basis of an HIV/AIDS diagnosis is long past due. I would like to take a moment now to highlight a couple of key provisions included in this bill that were drawn from legislation I introduced earlier this year with my colleague, Senator Gordon Smith. Our bill, the Global Pediatric HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment Act, and the bill before us today set a target for the prevention and treatment of mother-to-child transmission of HIV that, within 5 years, will reach 80 percent of pregnant women in those countries most affected by HIV/AIDS in which the U.S. has such programs. The bill also calls for integrating care and treatment with prevention of mother-to-child transmission programs, increasing access of women in these programs to maternal and child health services, and a timeline for expanding access to prevention of mother-to-child regimes. The ultimate goal of these policy improvements is to improve the health outcomes of HIV-affected women and their families and to improve followup and continuity of care. I also want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee for including an amendment I offered in committee that will convene a prevention of mother-to-child expert panel which will report to the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator and the public within a year on a plan for the scale-up of mother-to-child transmission prevention services. This provision was not included in the House-passed bill but I urge my colleagues to maintain it in the bill that is sent to the President. We can prevent the transmission of HIV mother-to-child. We know how to do it. In the industrialized world, the standard of care involving a complex drug regimen has reduced mother-to-child transmission rates to as low as 2 percent. By the end of 2007, 34 percent of HIV-infected pregnant women around the world received the medicines they need to prevent transmission of HIV to their babies, a substantial increase from 14 percent in 2005. While this is considerable progress, still almost two-thirds of HIV-positive pregnant women did not receive the medicines necessary to prevent the transmission of HIV to their baby. That is why the target in the bill is so crucial. I am in the unique position of serving on both the Foreign Relations Committee and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee where I have spent many years working to improve the health and welfare of children and families. We have made great strides through the Ryan White CARE Act program in this country toward ensuring that children and their families receive adequate, family-centered care and treatment for HIV/AIDS. In the United States, we have reached a point where a child living with HIV/AIDS no longer faces certain death. Thanks to antiretroviral, ARV, therapy, many children born infected with HIV/AIDS now have the opportunity to grow up healthy. However, long-term survival remains a dream that eludes most of the 2.5 million HIV- infected children around the world. Globally, HIV/AIDS infection rates in children continue to outpace the rate at which they are treated. Every day approximately 1,100 children across the globe are infected with HIV, the vast majority through mother-to-child transmission during pregnancy, labor or delivery or soon after through breastfeeding. Approximately 90 percent of these infections occur in Africa. With no medical intervention, HIV-positive mothers have a 25 to 30 percent chance of passing the virus to their babies during pregnancy and childbirth. Without proper care and treatment, half of these newly- infected children will die before their second birthday and 75 percent will die before their fifth. Sadly, although children represent close to 16 percent of HIV infections, they are only 10 percent of those receiving treatment. That is why the bill before us today also includes a 5-year target that the number of children receiving care and treatment for HIV/AIDS is proportionate to their infection rate in each country funded under this program. One cannot lag behind the other and, with passage of this bill, they won't. I thank the chairman and ranking member again for working with me to include these vital provisions for children and families. I believe they will have an enormous impact on the long-term health and survival of the millions of men, women and children affected by HIV/AIDS. I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to highlight an area where I believe the bill regrettably does not incorporate the lessons learned over the past 5 years about addressing HIV/AIDS, and that is the lack of language in the bill facilitating linkages between HIV/AIDS activities and family planning activities. I recognize that Members have strong feelings on this issue. But family planning providers serve millions of women in developing countries that are now at the center of the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. Moreover, it is critical that this program continue to support voluntary family planning counseling and referral as a core component of prevention of mother-to-child transmission and other HIV-service programs. I look forward to working to ensure that this program links HIV/AIDS activities and family planning activities. With that, I urge my colleagues to act quickly to pass this bill to reauthorize a program that has helped save the lives of millions of men, women and children. The President has asked Congress to pass the bill. The leading organizations advocating for reauthorization of this program have called on Congress to pass the bill. The House has already passed the bill. It is time for the Senate to do the same. I implore my colleagues to put aside their differences and support passage of this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is poised to pass this critically important legislation that will help address the foreclosure crisis our Nation is facing and take necessary steps to bolster our flagging economy. We have all seen the far-reaching effects the housing crisis is having on our economy, and in my view it is incumbent upon us to examine any actions we might take to reduce foreclosures and steady our Nation's housing markets. My home State of Connecticut has pursued an innovative approach to help people facing foreclosure on their homes. In a bill passed recently by the Connecticut General Assembly and signed by the Governor, $2.5 million was devoted to a job training fund targeted at people facing foreclosure. Guiding this new initiative is the idea that if people have access to job training, they may be able to find higher paying jobs that would allow them to keep their homes and avoid foreclosure. This program will be run by The WorkPlace, Inc., Southern Connecticut's workforce development board, and Capital Workforce Partners, North Central Connecticut's workforce board that serves 37 municipalities, both of which have done a tremendous job in Connecticut helping to train people for better jobs over many years. I think that this is an important idea that merits study as the Congress continues to consider how to help hardworking families weather the current economic storms. As the Chair of the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety and a great champion of job training programs, I would welcome any thoughts on this matter from my distinguished colleague from Washington.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Washington for her comments and for her leadership on this issue. I also would ask the Senator from Washington if it is her understanding, as it is mine, that workforce boards administer programs that train workers for jobs in cutting-edge industries such as renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Mr. DODD. l look forward to working with the distinguished senior Senator from Washington on this idea and hope that we continue to explore fresh ideas to help lift our Nation out of this housing crisis.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to take a couple of minutes before the vote occurs in the next 10 minutes or so to thank, first of all, the majority leader for his tireless efforts to see to it that we stuck with this housing bill. I know it has been a number of days since we began this debate on the housing issue. Regrettably, because of a handful of people who oppose the bill, which is certainly their right, we have been held up from going to final passage. We could have passed this bill yesterday. We could have passed it last week. We have had overwhelming votes in favor of this housing proposal. Yet, as is the right of any individual Senator or small group of them, they can use every parliamentary vehicle available to them to delay any consideration. The tragedy is, the difference between passing this bill yesterday and today, another 8,000 to 9,000 families are filing for foreclosure, and every day we delayed over the last 2 or 3 weeks of considering this bill--just remember that every day we could have passed this bill, somewhere between 8,000 and 9,000 families began the process of losing their homes. While we cite these numbers over and over--53 percent increase, values go down, 1.5 million have lost their homes--somehow they glaze over the reality of what is happening with a family. Imagine, if you will, as I said yesterday, that you had to go home this evening and tell your children, your family: We are going to have to lose our home. We have to pack up. I am not sure where we are going. I am not sure we will find anything. But we are about to lose the home that was our dream, the ability to raise our family here, to accumulate equity to pay for college for our children, maybe pay for health care costs, unexpected costs that arose--everything that families use with the greatest and most important asset that most will ever acquire, and that is their home. Over the last year and a half, 1.5 million people have fallen into the category of losing their home. The economic effects, of course, have been staggering. They go far beyond, obviously, what happens to individual families, as tragic as that is. This bill, which Senator Shelby, I, and 19 other members of the Banking Committee--Democrats and Republicans--put together and brought to the floor on a vote of 19 to 2, deals with the foreclosure crisis by providing some hope for allowing people to stay in their homes at rates they can afford. Lenders will have to take a substantial cut from what they otherwise would be getting. Borrowers will have to pay insurance to the FHA. They have to live in that home. It is not for speculators. It is for a limited amount of time, but it gives them a chance to stay there. We also provide for modernization of FHA, as well as reform of government-sponsored enterprises. Today, as people watched the economic news of the country, we know that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, these great mortgage lenders that are responsible for more than 50 percent of the mortgages in the country, have had a tough day. The good news is they stabilized at the end of the day, and rightfully so because these institutions, despite what some have said, are on a sound footing. They are adequately capitalized. In fact, they have more capital than Federal law requires and they have access to it. I am glad to report that things seem to be stabilizing when it comes to the government-sponsored enterprises. We also include an affordable housing program and, of course, community development block grant money. Senator Max Baucus and Senator Chuck Grassley deserve great credit for what they included in the tax package--mortgage revenue bonds, first-time tax relief for people who buy foreclosed houses, along with tax provisions that will be a real asset to begin to let us come out of this economic crisis, the worst we have had in years in this country. In fact, the loss of value in our homes now is some of the worst we have seen in decades in our Nation. So shortly we will have a chance to once again vote on this bill and then send it to the House of Representatives. I had a good conversation with Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts a little earlier this afternoon about this bill, and while there is some disagreement about what we are doing in the Senate bill, my hope would be--and I will make this plea to our colleagues in the other Chamber--that they would be willing to accept this Senate bill. I know there are provisions in there they do not necessarily agree with, but I think on the fundamentals there is basic agreement about the value of what we have done here. I am hopeful they will accept that. They may not, and send us back an alternative idea, but I hope before they did that they would sit down with Senator Shelby and me and try to work out those differences so we could have one more pass at this before sending it to the President for his signature. Again, I am very grateful to the majority leader, very grateful to Senator Shelby and his staff for the wonderful work they have done in working with us in order to bring us to the point of finally adopting this legislation. It is not the final stop, but it is a major stop in getting this bill done, hopefully in the next several days, and getting it to the President for his signature. It will not solve every problem. But for those who said this Congress could not come together in a bipartisan fashion to do something responsible about housing, this bill does that. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the motion in the vote that will occur momentarily, and let us move on with our ability to solve this major economic crisis, the heart of which is the foreclosure crisis. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the Senator from Alabama.