Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today we are facing a crisis in the mortgage markets on a scale that has not been seen since the Great Depression: over 2 million homeowners face foreclosure at a loss of over $160 billion in hard-earned home equity; the Conference of Mayors recently reported, November 26, 2007, that they expect a decline of $1.2 trillion in property values in 2008 because of the crisis; over one out of every 5 subprime loans is currently delinquent according to First American Loan Performance, an industry research firm. These high default rates have frozen the subprime and jumbo mortgage markets and infected the capital markets to the point where central banks around the world have had to inject liquidity into the system to avoid the crisis from spreading to other segments of the market. One of the fundamental causes of this serious crisis is abusive and predatory subprime mortgage lending. The Homeownership Preservation and Protection Act of 2007, which I am introducing today with a number of my colleagues, is designed to protect American homeowners from these practices, and prevent this disaster from happening again. The legislation will: realign the interests of the mortgage industry with borrowers to insure the availability of mortgage capital on fair terms both for the creation and sustainability of homeownership; establish new lending standards to ensure that loans are affordable and fair, and provide for adequate remedies to make sure the standards are met; and create a transparent set of rules for the mortgage industry so that capital can safely return to the market without bad lending practices driving out the good. The fundamental problem in the subprime market today is that the mortgage system has become extremely fragmented, with different entities responsible for selling, underwriting, originating, funding, and securitizing the loans. Too few of these entities have a stake in the long-term success of the mortgage. A recent article in The Economist, February 17, 2007, described the process succinctly: Banks are traditionally supposed to know a bit about the borrowers on their books. But, in many cases, their loans did not stay on their books long enough for them to care. Mortgages were written for a fee, sold to investment banks for a fee, then packaged and floated for another fee. At each link in the chain, the fees mattered more than the quality of the loans. . . . As the GAO concluded, ``Originators [mortgage brokers and lenders] had financial incentives to increase loan volume, partially at the expense of loan quality,'' October 10, 2007. For example, mortgage originators have an incentive to get a borrower to take out a larger loan than he or she needs, and at a higher interest rate than that for which the borrower would qualify, because the originator gets a higher commission for such loans. Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan recently described the corrosive impact of this system on underwriting standards. In a speech to the American Bankers Association October 9, 2007, Mr. Dugan said: When a bank makes a loan that it plans to hold, the fundamental standard it uses to underwrite the loan is that most basic of credit standards that . . . the underwriting must be strong enough to create a reasonable expectation that the loan will be repaid. But when a bank makes a loan that it plans to sell, then the credit evaluation shifts in an important way: the underwriting must be strong enough to create a reasonable expectation that the loan can be sold or put another way, the bank will underwrite to whatever standard the market will bear. The vast majority of subprime loans were made to be sold, and, hence, their underwriting standards simply were not sufficient to ensure a reasonable prospect of repayment for too many Americans. While the focus of much of the news coverage has been on the impact of the crisis on financial institutions and markets, I ask my colleagues to keep in mind the affect this is having on individuals who are losing their homes, and on their neighbors, who are seeing their home equity erode as foreclosures in their neighborhoods increase. It is important to keep in mind that only about 10 percent of subprime mortgages in the past several years have been made to first time home buyers. This market has not been primarily about creating a new set of homeowners; a majority of subprime loans have been refinances. While maintaining access to subprime credit on fair terms is important, too much of the subprime market in the past several years has actually put the homes and home equity of American families at risk. The legislation seeks to set high standards for brokers, lenders, appraisers, servicers, and Wall Street and provide for strong remedies to restore accountability to the system. Specifically, the legislation will establish new protections for all borrowers including a prohibition on steering prime borrowers to subprime loans, which the Wall Street Journal recently found was widespread in the market. The bill establishes a fiduciary duty for mortgage brokers towards borrowers. It provides for a duty of good faith and fair dealing toward borrowers for all lenders. The bill will establish new protections for subprime borrowers and borrowers who get exotic mortgages. First and foremost, brokers and lenders will have to establish the borrowers' ability to repay the loan, including for interest-only and option ARMs. In addition, the bill prohibits prepayment penalties and YSPs on these loans, and requires that these loans provide a net tangible benefit to the borrower. The bill will tighten the definition of high cost loans and provide increased protections for these borrowers, including a prohibition of balloon payments, financing of points and fees, prepayment penalties and yield spread premiums, YSPs. The bill will provide strong remedies to make sure these standards are met. The bill puts more ``cops on the beat'' by allowing state attorneys general to enforce the provisions of the law, and it does not preempt State law. States should be allowed the flexibility to address new abuses as they arise. The bill will provide for limited liability for holders of a mortgage made in violation of law, whether it is the original lender or a subsequent investment trust. Unlike current law, which puts the burden on the borrower to find the party responsible for causing the harm, the legislation allows the borrower to go directly to the current mortgage holder for a cure. The bill will also prohibit lenders from influencing appraisers, limit the ``junk'' fees mortgage servicers can charge, and require them to credit payments promptly, require foreclosure prevention counseling or loss mitigation before a foreclosure can take place, and uuthorize the hiring of additional FBI agents to fight mortgage fraud. In the coming months, the housing crisis is going to get worse. We will need to continue to press lenders and servicers to provide real relief for homeowners threatened with foreclosure. FHA and the GSEs will have to play an expanded role. But as we deal with the cleaning up the current crisis, let us keep in mind the need to address the underlying problems that have created the crisis, and move to address those underlying causes by passing the ``Homeownership Protection and Preservation Act.'' Finally, I want to acknowledge the work of a number of my colleagues on this issue. Senators Schumer, Brown, and Casey introduced a bill on this topic earlier this year, S. 1299, from which I took some important provisions. In addition, Senators Reed and Menendez both made important contributions to the deliberations leading up to the introduction of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a detailed summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today we are facing a crisis in the mortgage markets on a scale that has not been seen since the Great Depression: over 2 million homeowners face foreclosure at a loss of over $160 billion in hard-earned home equity; the Conference of Mayors recently reported, November 26, 2007, that they expect a decline of $1.2 trillion in property values in 2008 because of the crisis; over one out of every 5 subprime loans is currently delinquent according to First American Loan Performance, an industry research firm. These high default rates have frozen the subprime and jumbo mortgage markets and infected the capital markets to the point where central banks around the world have had to inject liquidity into the system to avoid the crisis from spreading to other segments of the market. One of the fundamental causes of this serious crisis is abusive and predatory subprime mortgage lending. The Homeownership Preservation and Protection Act of 2007, which I am introducing today with a number of my colleagues, is designed to protect American homeowners from these practices, and prevent this disaster from happening again. The legislation will: realign the interests of the mortgage industry with borrowers to insure the availability of mortgage capital on fair terms both for the creation and sustainability of homeownership; establish new lending standards to ensure that loans are affordable and fair, and provide for adequate remedies to make sure the standards are met; and create a transparent set of rules for the mortgage industry so that capital can safely return to the market without bad lending practices driving out the good. The fundamental problem in the subprime market today is that the mortgage system has become extremely fragmented, with different entities responsible for selling, underwriting, originating, funding, and securitizing the loans. Too few of these entities have a stake in the long-term success of the mortgage. A recent article in The Economist, February 17, 2007, described the process succinctly: Banks are traditionally supposed to know a bit about the borrowers on their books. But, in many cases, their loans did not stay on their books long enough for them to care. Mortgages were written for a fee, sold to investment banks for a fee, then packaged and floated for another fee. At each link in the chain, the fees mattered more than the quality of the loans. . . . As the GAO concluded, ``Originators [mortgage brokers and lenders] had financial incentives to increase loan volume, partially at the expense of loan quality,'' October 10, 2007. For example, mortgage originators have an incentive to get a borrower to take out a larger loan than he or she needs, and at a higher interest rate than that for which the borrower would qualify, because the originator gets a higher commission for such loans. Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan recently described the corrosive impact of this system on underwriting standards. In a speech to the American Bankers Association October 9, 2007, Mr. Dugan said: When a bank makes a loan that it plans to hold, the fundamental standard it uses to underwrite the loan is that most basic of credit standards that . . . the underwriting must be strong enough to create a reasonable expectation that the loan will be repaid. But when a bank makes a loan that it plans to sell, then the credit evaluation shifts in an important way: the underwriting must be strong enough to create a reasonable expectation that the loan can be sold or put another way, the bank will underwrite to whatever standard the market will bear. The vast majority of subprime loans were made to be sold, and, hence, their underwriting standards simply were not sufficient to ensure a reasonable prospect of repayment for too many Americans. While the focus of much of the news coverage has been on the impact of the crisis on financial institutions and markets, I ask my colleagues to keep in mind the affect this is having on individuals who are losing their homes, and on their neighbors, who are seeing their home equity erode as foreclosures in their neighborhoods increase. It is important to keep in mind that only about 10 percent of subprime mortgages in the past several years have been made to first time home buyers. This market has not been primarily about creating a new set of homeowners; a majority of subprime loans have been refinances. While maintaining access to subprime credit on fair terms is important, too much of the subprime market in the past several years has actually put the homes and home equity of American families at risk. The legislation seeks to set high standards for brokers, lenders, appraisers, servicers, and Wall Street and provide for strong remedies to restore accountability to the system. Specifically, the legislation will establish new protections for all borrowers including a prohibition on steering prime borrowers to subprime loans, which the Wall Street Journal recently found was widespread in the market. The bill establishes a fiduciary duty for mortgage brokers towards borrowers. It provides for a duty of good faith and fair dealing toward borrowers for all lenders. The bill will establish new protections for subprime borrowers and borrowers who get exotic mortgages. First and foremost, brokers and lenders will have to establish the borrowers' ability to repay the loan, including for interest-only and option ARMs. In addition, the bill prohibits prepayment penalties and YSPs on these loans, and requires that these loans provide a net tangible benefit to the borrower. The bill will tighten the definition of high cost loans and provide increased protections for these borrowers, including a prohibition of balloon payments, financing of points and fees, prepayment penalties and yield spread premiums, YSPs. The bill will provide strong remedies to make sure these standards are met. The bill puts more ``cops on the beat'' by allowing state attorneys general to enforce the provisions of the law, and it does not preempt State law. States should be allowed the flexibility to address new abuses as they arise. The bill will provide for limited liability for holders of a mortgage made in violation of law, whether it is the original lender or a subsequent investment trust. Unlike current law, which puts the burden on the borrower to find the party responsible for causing the harm, the legislation allows the borrower to go directly to the current mortgage holder for a cure. The bill will also prohibit lenders from influencing appraisers, limit the ``junk'' fees mortgage servicers can charge, and require them to credit payments promptly, require foreclosure prevention counseling or loss mitigation before a foreclosure can take place, and uuthorize the hiring of additional FBI agents to fight mortgage fraud. In the coming months, the housing crisis is going to get worse. We will need to continue to press lenders and servicers to provide real relief for homeowners threatened with foreclosure. FHA and the GSEs will have to play an expanded role. But as we deal with the cleaning up the current crisis, let us keep in mind the need to address the underlying problems that have created the crisis, and move to address those underlying causes by passing the ``Homeownership Protection and Preservation Act.'' Finally, I want to acknowledge the work of a number of my colleagues on this issue. Senators Schumer, Brown, and Casey introduced a bill on this topic earlier this year, S. 1299, from which I took some important provisions. In addition, Senators Reed and Menendez both made important contributions to the deliberations leading up to the introduction of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a detailed summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to speak about the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007. This bill was approved unanimously by the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, and I am pleased to report that, in the same bipartisan spirit, it will soon be approved by the full Senate. I am indebted to Ranking Member Shelby for his tremendous collaboration on this important measure. And I want to recognize Senator Durbin, as well--few have been stronger leaders of the divestment effort, or fiercer advocates for the people of Darfur. This bill is aimed at ending the Darfur genocide. I strongly believe that it is our responsibility to help bring that end about--not simply because genocide, everywhere and always, imposes a grave moral obligation on those with the power to stop it, but because many of us share responsibility for this genocide in a much more concrete way. Consider this hypothetical: One of our 50 States invests its employees' pension funds in a wide range of stocks. Some of those dollars end up supplying capital to a multinational corporation, one of whose subsidiaries operates in Sudan--mining, say, for copper or gold. That firm pays the Sudanese government for mining rights, and in the fullness of time, money that began in America finds its way into the blood-stained coffers of Omar al-Bashir. What could those dollars become at last? A plane dropping fire on a Darfuri village; a knife held to a woman's throat; weapons of murder and rape. It is a chain of cause and effect in which American money may finally objectively fund genocide--in which Americans may come to pay, through no fault or intention of their own, for crimes they abhor. If responsibility means anything, it exists at every step of that chain. To be sure, it grows heavier at each step; but just as it is certain at the last step, it is present at the first. That is why those who have recognized their place in that chain and who have resolved to break it deserve our blessing and our support. Twenty-one states have begun to divest from Sudan, and similar work is underway in about 20 more. At least 55 colleges and universities have divested, and efforts are underway at about 50 more. Many large cities, non-profits, and pension and mutual funds have joined this campaign--a campaign that recognizes that our responsibility for Darfur can go beyond speaking out, to actively depriving the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed militia of some of their means of murder. Along with sanctions, Security Council resolutions, and a combined UN/African Union force, divestment is part of a global movement to cut off funding and end, at long last, the Darfur genocide. Even if it succeeds, it will have come more than 450,000 lives too late; but lost time and lost lives should only fire our urgency. The Accountability and Divestment Act is Congress's latest step to aid this global movement. It helps Americans to divest from firms whose business props up the Sudanese regime, it gives them the tools to make socially responsible investment decisions, and it ensures that investors who choose to divest will be held harmless for those decisions. The bill has five key provisions. First, it explicitly authorizes states and localities to divest from companies involved in those economic sectors that, by its own admission, are Khartoum's main sources of foreign investment-- petroleum, mining, and power production--along with military production. Investment in these sectors, more than any others, is propping up the Bashir regime and enabling its intransigence. The divestment standards set by this bill are universal. It allows divestment to take place in a unitary, federally sanctioned manner. That alone should contradict the claim that this bill somehow violates the Constitution's Supremacy Clause by establishing ``50 different foreign policies.'' Moreover, state divestment could hardly be considered unconstitutional when it is explicitly authorized on the federal level. Paul H. Schwartz, legal counsel to the Sudan Divestment Task Force, and former clerk to two Supreme Court Justices, made the case convincingly: It is only logical that when a bill authorizing state measures touching on foreign affairs becomes federal law, the federal government has expressed a judgment that the measures do not ``intrude'' into or ``interfere'' with federal foreign policy, but rather complement that policy. That is exactly what this legislation does. It outlines a targeted, federal divestment policy and authorizes states and investors to act consistently with that policy if they so choose. In doing so, the bill protects the investors' right to be guided by conscience; it also allows investors to protect themselves from the financial and reputational risks posed by an affiliation with Khartoum. Second, this bill allows mutual fund and corporate pension fund managers to cut ties, at their discretion, with companies involved in the 4 key sectors. It also offers limited protection from lawsuits for those choosing to divest, while preserving their normal fiduciary duties. Third, it establishes the sense of Congress that private pension managers are already authorized to divest their public pension funds from businesses in the 4 sectors, in accordance with existing Department of Labor regulations. Fourth, it requires federal contractors to certify that they do not do business with firms involved in the 4 sectors, and it provides several punitive options, including debarment, if those contractors are found to be lying. The bill does, however, authorize the President to grant contractors a waiver if their operations in Sudan are found to be in the national interest; and it adds an extra level of accountability by mandating that the President report these exceptions to Congress on a case-by-case basis. I am aware that some have argued for an additional waiver on the basis of ``substantial humanitarian work'' in Sudan, but I believe that that criterion would fit within any conception of the national interest, properly understood. In the end, the exposure mandated by the president's case-by-case reports to Congress will be the best deterrent to firms that seek waivers on spurious grounds: They will be exposed to the whole nation and forced to justify their actions to a highly skeptical public. Fifth, the bill's authorities terminate when the government of Sudan ends its murderous policies and returns to the community of law-abiding nations. The divestment campaign will end when, and only when, Sudan fully accepts the presence of the joint UN/AU peacekeeping force, ceases attacks on civilians, demilitarizes the Janjaweed militia, allows the unfettered delivery of humanitarian relief, and grants the right of return to refugees. Anything short of those targets, divestment must and will continue. The international divestment campaign exists precisely to pressure Khartoum to meet those goals. It is stunning, Mr. President, that pressure should even be needed to force a sovereign nation to end targeted attacks on civilians. Yet that is the case; that is the radical evil we face. Even still, some in this administration are urging us to treat Khartoum with kid gloves at this delicate time for peace negotiations, as the Justice Department put it in a letter 2 months ago. That would be the same administration whose Special Envoy to Sudan declared American action on the genocide imminent 11 months ago. That would be the same administration whose president declared the crimes in Darfur ``genocide'' more than two years ago, and has done next to nothing of substance since. Ironically, one of those few substantive actions has been to endorse a bill that originated in the Senate, the International Emergency Economic Powers Enhancement Act, which strengthened penalties on companies violating U.S. sanctions. That bill was approved unanimously by the Senate Banking Committee and adopted unanimously by this Congress. That bill, like this one, targets the Khartoum regime's financial supports; that bill, like this one, comes at a ``delicate time'' for negotiations. As my colleague Senator Menendez asked an official of the State Department at a recent hearing of the Senate Banking Committee: What is the difference? You have a sanctions regime that you are all enthusiastically pursuing before the peace conference in Tripoli, and yet you are back-pedaling on this effort. Honestly, I can't see my way through the contradiction. If the administration endorsed tough measures then, it should do the same now, and if it wants to shirk our responsibility altogether, it should tell us why. Of course, as the Administration has stalled and insisted that we refrain from approving this critical legislation, talks have broken down. The Tripoli conference that the State Department had been heralding as a great breakthrough at the Banking Committee's October 3rd hearing ended up being canceled. The truth is that economic pressure has seemed to be the only tool that's proven successful in bringing Khartoum back to the table in the first place. That truth is in keeping with everything the regime has shown us in its 18 years of existence. As John Prendergast, Co-Chair of the ENOUGH Project and former National Security Council and State Department Official, told the Banking Committee during our hearing. Four times in 18 years, we have been able to change the policies of the Government of Sudan. In the mid-1990s, Khartoum renounced its support for international terrorist organizations, including al-Qaeda. Why? International pressure and multilateral sanctions from the United States, its allies, and the Security Council. In the same decade, Sudan ended its support of the slave trade. Why? Again, multilateral sanctions led by the Security Council. In 2005, the government signed a peace deal with rebels, ending a civil war that had taken 2 million lives. Why? In large part, because of a coordinated divestment campaign and Congress's passage of the Sudan Peace Act, which condemned the government's human rights record. Just this year, the government acquiesced in the UN/AU peacekeeping force. Why? Largely because of economic pressure from China. Four times, the international community has brought some measure of control to Khartoum's criminal behavior, and there is one common thread: sustained pressure. As Prendergast put it, the only way to end the genocide is if ``multilateral, targeted pressures are increased.'' Conversely, ``the deadly mistake that has been made for Darfur repeatedly during the last 4\1/2\ years is to do precisely as the administration proposes now to reduce pressure, to let up.'' After all, it makes perfect sense. What do we expect from those capable of presiding over all this blood? What do we expect from killers who, in the words of one survivor, ``are happy when they rape they sing when they rape''? Do we expect them to listen politely to our objections? Do we expect to change their minds? No. All of our prayers, no matter how fervent, and all of our words, no matter how eloquent, are only noise to them. They do not speak the language of should or ought. They speak the language of must. To the genocidal killers and their sponsors, this bill is one more word in the only language they know. And given everything we have learned from history and from simple common sense, all the talk of kid gloves would be hysterical--if it weren't infuriating. Even if some in this administration haven't learned the lesson, I have learned it in my bones. In 1945, my father, Tom Dodd, was called to Nuremberg, Germany, to help lead the prosecution of Nazi war criminals. He wrote my mother that few things were more painful than being away from his family. I learned to walk and talk in his absence. But he also wrote home: ``I will never do anything as worthwhile.'' What, today, could be more worthwhile? What could be clearer than the duty we owe to the 2.5 million displaced, the orphaned, the raped, the dead themselves? Even if they cannot fathom the chain linking us to the fire falling on their villages, or the knives against their throats, we can; we can see it and choose to break it. Even if we bear only the smallest fraction of responsibility, we can choose to act as if we bore all of it. Measure by measure and step by step and inch by inch, we can choose to push with all our strength against death's machinery until it cracks at last. Here is another step. I ask my colleagues to take it with me.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I move to table that, Mr. President.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider vote No. 411.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, at the request of the distinguished majority leader, and as the only Democrat who voted against cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 4156, the Orderly and Responsible Iraq redeployment Appropriations Bill, I have entered this motion to reconsider so that the Senate may have another opportunity to vote on this matter. Only Senators who voted no on this matter are able under Senate rules to ask for another vote. I am undertaking this procedural matter at the Leader's request and out of my respect for him. I am happy to do so. However, I want to make clear that should there be another cloture vote on H.R. 4156 or similar legislation, my position will remain the same--I will vote no. I am opposed to providing any additional funding for the war in Iraq unless there is a firm and enforceable deadline for the redeployment of our forces from Iraq. My views on the ongoing failed policy in Iraq are included in the Record earlier in the day at the time of the original vote and I urge my colleagues to take the opportunity to review my concerns about our continued involvement in a civil war which has no military solutions.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased that the Senate has unanimously passed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007. It is critically important for our Nation's workers and businesses that we enact this backstop legislation. The legislation passed today provides for an extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, known as ``TRIA,'' which expires on December 31 of this year. TRIA was originally passed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, and was extended for 2 years in 2005. The bill passed by the Senate today extends TRIA for an additional 7 years. In anticipation of TRIA's expiration, the Banking Committee held a hearing earlier this year in which the committee heard from a variety of experts about the critical need to extend this program, which is vital to the economic security and prosperity of our Nation. As my colleagues will recall, after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the market for terrorism insurance in this country virtually disappeared. Businesses could not obtain credit, borrowers could not obtain loans, jobs were at risk, and the economy faced serious instability and dislocation. We repeatedly heard from businesses, both large and small, from labor unions, from universities and hospitals, from manufacturers, builders, and lenders, and from insurers about the need for the Federal Government to help stabilize the market and ensure the availability of affordable insurance against the risk of future terrorist attacks. Congress responded by creating TRIA, a public-private partnership in which the Federal Government would share the risk of future terrorist attacks with insurers by becoming the backstop against truly catastrophic losses. And the overwhelming evidence shows that TRIA has worked, very very well. According to several recent studies, terrorism insurance is more widely available and more affordable today than in the aftermath of 9/ 11, providing certainty and stability to the sectors of our economy that we depend on for our national well-being. And it is important to note, TRIA has cost taxpayers virtually nothing. When terrorism insurance is available at reasonable rates, and when business owners and property owners can insure themselves against terrorism, there is a private-sector mechanism in place to cover a significant amount of the losses stemming from any future terrorist attack. In fact, a recent study by the RAND Corporation found that in the case of a terrorist attack, TRIA would actually save taxpayers money, as property owners could rebuild using the payments from their insurance policies instead of federal disaster assistance. Let me quote from RAND's findings: ``Taxpayer cost is lower with TRIA than without TRIA across a broad range of scenarios when post-attack assistance is factored in as well.'' The need to extend this program is clear. The private insurance industry has not reemerged with respect to the provision of terrorism insurance. Nearly all of the data and the experts say that there is no reason to think that the private insurance industry alone can insure against this unique risk. As long as the threat of terrorism remains, we must act to ensure that terrorism insurance remains available and affordable. I want to note that this bill contains two important studies to address serious issues that were raised in the context of the TRIA extension debate. First, there is a mandate for the GAO to study the question of insurance for nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological terrorist events. Insurance coverage in this area is very limited and in this legislation we require the GAO to make recommendations for expanding such coverage. Second, the GAO is required to study and to report back to the committee within 6 months on whether there are areas of this country, such as Lower Manhattan, that may have unique capacity constraints when it comes to terrorism insurance, and to make recommendations for addressing those capacity constraints. This legislation is supported by the insurance industry and policyholders, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support for the legislation. I also want to particularly thank Senator Shelby for his work on this program, as well as Majority Leader Reid, Minority Leader McConnell, and Senators Reed, Bennett, and Schumer, for their work both on this bill and on the original TRIA bill and its extension in 2005. By extending the TRIA program for an additional 7 years, this bill will address the long-term security needs of our people and our economy, and I thank all the Members of the Senate for their unanimous support for this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will oppose the motion to proceed to both the Senate and House bills to provide bridge funding to Iraq because they do not contain firm and enforceable dates to get our troops out of Iraq. Once again, Congress is being asked to pour tens of billions of dollars more into an unending war, for uncertain goals, carried forward by little more than a mixture of blind faith and inertia. Once again, the American people are being asked to shut their eyes tight against the facts and trudge blindly on--this time at the cost of some $50 or $70 billion, depending on which bill we are talking about, and who knows how many more lives. And once again, those who question this war--a majority of Americans--are being asked: You support the troops, don't you? How could we not? How could we not be awed by the bravery and sacrifice of our men and women in Iraq? How could we not be inspired by their choice to volunteer in the first place? How could we not be impressed by the discipline, competence, intelligence, and resourcefulness with which General Petraeus and the soldiers under his command have fought in Iraq? They deserve our respect and much more. But contrary to what the President's supporters would have you believe, the debate does not end there. It begins there. And I have come to the floor today to suggest that the President's supporters would do well to heed key military virtues: recognizing the difference between tactics and strategy--between short term and long term. All the tactical brilliance in the world will win you nothing if it doesn't find its place within a larger plan for victory. And in Iraq, that plan is exactly where we found it in the spring of 2003-- nonexistent. No one in this Chamber would doubt that recent months in Iraq have seen significant tactical success. The number of IED explosions has dropped significantly. The total number of enemy attacks, and the number of coalition soldiers killed in action, have been in decline--even though 2007 recently became the deadliest year on record for U.S. troops in Iraq. Iraqi civilian casualties have been cut from a high of 3,000 in the month of December 2006--even though they still hover around an appalling 1,000 per month. But overall, the security picture in Iraq is, for the time being, improved. The question is: Why? What made that happen? If anything comes out of this debate, it should be an honest answer to that question--not so we can assign praise and blame but so we can piece together a coherent strategy. I don't doubt that our troops' dedication did its part to reduce the violence. But if American agency was the sole factor, why was violence in Iraq on the decline before the surge began--even before it was announced? It is clear to me that there have been three deeper causes. First, Moqtada al-Sadr, a prime mover of sectarian violence, has sat out the surge, patiently waiting for its inevitable end. As The New Yorker recently put it: ``Analysts credit much of the recent drop in Iraqi civilian deaths not to the surge but to Sadr's decision, in August, to order the Mahdi Army, which is believed to have been responsible for much of the Shiite-on-Sunni sectarian killing in and around Baghdad, to `freeze' its activities for six months.'' Sadr and his fellow sectarian leaders may be brutal--but they are also calculating and self-interested. They know that the surge, whatever is decided here today, cannot be physically sustained indefinitely. Second, the drop in violence can also be attributed to the so-called Sunni awakening: the decision by tribal leaders in Anbar Province to turn against al-Qaida and foreign jihadists. That choice was laudable and--as shown by Abu Risha, the charismatic tribal leader who allied with America and was murdered for it--truly courageous. But it was also unforeseen by the surge and began independently of the surge. But as valuable and necessary as the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq has been, it does little to stem the deeper civil war between Sunnis and Shiites--the overwhelming source of Iraq's chaos. The fight against al-Qaida must go on--but there's no reason why it compels us to police a civil war. Third and finally, many analysts have argued that violence has bottomed out because Iraq's ethnic cleansing is reaching a conclusion-- because Iraq has, de facto, partitioned itself. With almost a million Baghdadis fleeing their homes in the conflict, the city has become ever more ethnically homogenous, reducing Sunni-Shiite flashpoints. Each of these causes has contributed its part to what some are intemperately hailing as our long-awaited victory. It would be wonderful to believe that America made it happen, after all this time, through sheer force of will. Every one of my colleagues, I am sure, wants to believe that. But this is the clear line running through this Chamber: between those who want it to be true so desperately that they blind themselves and those who understand that that kind of belief--the kind that calls a proposition true because we want it to be true--is the kind that saw an alliance between Saddam and al-Qaida, the kind that saw an Iraq full of WMDs, the kind that saw a mission accomplished 4 years ago. But still, even if you grant that belief, even if you say that the surge, and nothing else, brought down the violence--is that our victory? No. The surge was always a military means to a political end. Comptroller General David Walker put it well: ``The primary point of the surge was to improve security . . . in order to provide political breathing room'' for the Iraqi Government. President Bush has said much the same. The surge was always meant to open a window for political reconciliation. Nearly 800 Americans sacrificed their lives to keep that window open; thousands and thousands of Americans took wounds to keep that window open. What has the Iraqi Government done with it? Failed to meet its own political benchmarks. Failed to enact oil legislation. Sustained a mass resignation of Sunni politicians, leaving more than half of its Cabinet seats vacant. Enjoyed a month-long vacation. This September, 60 percent of Iraqis--and 93 percent of Sunnis-- thought it was justified to kill American troops. And during America's long sacrifice to keep civil war at bay, the Maliki Government has grown more sectarian than ever, more and more openly an arm of the Shiites, more and more actively prejudiced against Sunnis. Hundreds of Americans died to give breathing space to Iraqi politicians and they act as if Iraq doesn't exist. Many of the Iraqi forces we have relied on to stabilize that country are little more than retooled sectarian gangs. What is stopping them from accepting our training, accepting our weapons, and then, as soon as the surge dies down, jumping once again down each other's throats? In the name of unity and reconciliation, our policies have divided Iraq deeper and deeper, until, as George Washington University Middle East expert Marc Lynch has argued, Iraq becomes ``a warlord state . . . with power devolved to local militias, gangs, tribes, and power- brokers, with a purely nominal central state.'' That is Iraq with the surge in place. But President Bush has conceded that it can't continue past July; and soon, we will be confronted by Iraq without the surge. So I have a simple question for my colleagues this morning: What then? And as President Bush tries to find an answer, as he tries to cobble together a plan more than 4 years too late, our billions will continue to be poured into a desert sinkhole; our Nation will earn the enmity of more and more Muslims for our endless occupation; our military will be ground into the dirt, unit by unit, machine by machine, soldier by soldier; and young Americans will continue to die. And we will be not an inch safer. That is why I have come to the floor this morning: not to pass judgment; not to score points; not to assign blame. But because as we hurtle on with all tactics and no strategy, the costs are becoming too heavy for us to bear. There is only one realistic strategy, only one honest answer to: What then? Redeploy our combat forces from Iraq, starting immediately. Refocus the fight on al-Qaida, training those Iraqi forces we can trust, and protecting U.S. personnel and infrastructure. Rebuild our worn-down, battered military. Our troops will have my respect for what they have done in Iraq for as long as I live. And I join President Bush in his fervent hope that their sacrifice would be enough to heal a shattered country. But my eyes are open. I know that the best hope for Iraq, and the best hope for America, lies in redeployment--not in another $50 or $70 billion poured down this hole. I have faith that time will open the eyes of every one of my colleagues; I hope they will begin by seeing the deep error of these bills.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to celebrate the passage of the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act to reauthorize the Head Start program yesterday. This legislation is a great accomplishment for the Congress and improves opportunities for nearly a million young children and their families. Head Start represents our understanding that our children must be a top priority. While as children represent one quarter of our population, they represent 100 percent of our future. I would like to thank Senators Kennedy, Enzi and Alexander for their leadership on this bill and their strong bipartisan work to complete this conference report. I also commend Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon in the House of Representatives and Congressmen Kildee and Castle for their work on this reauthorization. Since 2003, the Senate HELP Committee and the House Education and Labor Committee have worked to reauthorize this legislation. As a result of more than four years of bipartisan efforts, the conference report we adopted yesterday improves and strengthens the already successful Head Start program. I am happy with the unanimous passage of the bill and look forward to its enactment into law. Since 1965, Head Start has provided comprehensive early childhood development services to low-income children. The evidence is clear: Head Start works for the more than 900,000 children enrolled in its centers throughout the country. This conference report bolsters the comprehensive nature of Head Start that aids in the social, emotional, physical and cognitive development of low-income preschool children. The program is successful because each center works to address the needs of its local community. Head Start is more than just a school readiness program; it addresses the comprehensive needs of children and their families by providing health and other services to enrolled children. The role of parents as essential partners and decisionmakers in Head Start is also strengthened in this legislation. Families play the most important role in ensuring the success of their children, and our bill maintains an integral role for parents in the decision-making and day- to-day operations of the program. Parent involvement is a centerpiece of Head Start and I believe this bill strengthens their critical role. Expanded eligibility, improved accountability, strengthened school readiness for children and enhanced teacher quality are some of the essential elements of this legislation. In addition, collaboration and coordination with other early childhood development programs and outreach to underserved populations is greatly improved. The legislation before us significantly increases resources for Indian Head Start and Migrant and Seasonal Head Start. In addition, Early Head Start is prioritized, so that thousands of additional infants and toddlers will be served. We know that major brain development occurs in the first 3 years of life and I am thrilled that we are putting research into practice by expanding Early Head Start. The conference report will enable more low-income children to get a head start by allowing programs to serve families with incomes up to 130 percent of the poverty level, while ensuring that the most vulnerable families below the poverty level are served first. This is important for Connecticut and other States where the cost of living is especially high and many working poor families aren't able to access services because they earn just above the poverty level. Although we do not go as far as I would personally like to see in funding for Head Start, we do authorize additional resources in this bill. Despite the tight budget situation, we authorize an increase of six percent from $6.9 billion to $7.35 billion in fiscal year 2008, to $7.65 billion in fiscal year 2009 and to $7.995 billion in fiscal year 2009. I continue to be gravely concerned about the lack of resources for Head Start--funding levels have been essentially flat since 2002. Currently, only half of eligible children are served in Head Start and fewer than 5 percent are served in Early Head Start. The increased funding authorized by this bill will help us to begin to close this gap. Across the country, Head Start providers are reporting rising costs in transportation health care premiums, facilities maintenance and training for staff. Rising operating costs are coinciding with decreasing state, local and private contributions to Head Start programs. We address these needs by ensuring that all Head Start programs receive a cost of living increase, tied to inflation, each year that funds are available. Research shows that child outcomes are directly related to the quality of the teachers and professionals who work with them on a daily basis. I am pleased that in the bill we establish strong educational standards for Head Start teachers, curriculum specialists and teacher assistants. In 6 years, all Head Start teachers will be required to have an associate's degree and 50 percent of teachers will be required to have a bachelor's degree. I will continue to work toward increased funding to assist teachers in pursuing additional educational goals. When Head Start began more than 40 years ago, it was the only preschool program available for low-income children; now there are many approaches. Collaboration and coordination with other early childhood programs is also an essential piece of this Head Start bill, reducing duplication and encouraging opportunities for shared information and resources. This legislation represents an important step forward and I welcome our continued focus on the needs of our Nation's children.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I speak in memory of the life of Donald J. Mulvihill, a distinguished lawyer, a proud public servant, and an honored friend of the Dodd family. He recently died at the age of 76. Donald gave nearly a half century--more than half of his life--to his law firm, Cahill Gordon & Reindel, and the length of his service testifies to his dedication and consummate skill as an attorney. For more than four decades, he managed his firm's Washington office, where he gained a reputation as one of America's leading authorities on federal business regulations. Donald would tell you, though, that his most successful day at the office came when he was fresh out of law school and assigned to the same office as Grace Conroy, one of Cahill's first female lawyers. ``He thought he was getting demoted because they put a woman in his office,'' Grace would later joke. But Donald's attitude soon changed-- he and Grace were married 3 years later, and they spent 45 years together. Donald's skill in the law led President Johnson to tap him in 1968 to direct a task force on individual acts of violence for the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, a council convened in the wake of the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Along with Princeton sociologist Mel Tumin, Donald wrote three volumes of the committee's final report, clearly detailing the link between deteriorating urban conditions and a swell in violent crime. In 1970, he wrote with great insight and penetration on what it means to feel the seductive draw of crime in the inner city, ``to be young, poor, male and Negro, to want what the open society claims is available, but mostly to others; to see illegitimate and often violent methods of obtaining material success, and to observe others using these means successfully.'' For Donald, that was no mere academic conclusion; with the Eisenhower Foundation, he spent years working to put his recommendations into practice, giving as much energy to the revitalization of urban America as he did to his work in the law. His example still reminds us: An open society is justly measured by the gap between what it claims is available, and what it provides-- between what it promises, and what it delivers. For his services, Donald Mulvihill will be remembered as a public- spirited leader who combined, in equal proportion, private success and civic duty. But I confess that all of those accomplishments mean comparatively little to me, next to what he did during a few months in 1967. I was 23, but I can still recall as if it were yesterday the Senate's censure hearings of my father, Senator Tom Dodd. What a painful time that was for my family--but it gave me strength to know that sitting at my father's side, through the whole ordeal, was a talented young lawyer named Donald Mulvihill. I know how thankful my father was for Donald's good counsel. It was the rare case that Donald didn't win; but still, he won my father's sincere and lasting gratitude. And though Tom Dodd is long gone, my family and I have kept his gratitude alive. Now Donald is beyond our thanks. But I pledge to remember him, to keep alive his good name, and to hold up his example of a life well lived.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to mark the passing of a true Connecticut leader and a great benefactor of his people: Ralph Sturges, chief of the Mohegan Indian tribe. Chief Sturges was 88. At various times in his long life, Ralph was a deliveryman, a public relations director, a Civilian Conservation Corps worker, a noted marble sculptor, and a World War II Bronze Star winner--but he found his greatest purpose late in life, leading and reviving Connecticut's Mohegan tribe. Ralph's work on behalf of the Mohegans--who have called New England home for more than four centuries--was unflagging and successful at long last. When he first sought Federal recognition for the tribe, the Government replied that the Mohegans had ceased to exist in the 1940s. That rang clearly false to Ralph, who knew firsthand that the Mohegan identity was still alive; and under his leadership, the tribe pushed until it was finally recognized in 1994. The Mohegans were only the ninth tribe ever to be recognized on the basis of documentary evidence--evidence which Ralph and other Mohegan leaders were tireless in collecting. The chairman of the neighboring Mashantucket Pequot tribe called his efforts ``an inspiration to native peoples everywhere.'' The Mohegans honored Ralph by naming him chief for life. But Ralph was more than a cultural guardian; he was also a shrewd businessman. He understood that a prosperous tribe was more likely to survive into his children's and grandchildren's generations, and beyond; and so he negotiated to build the Mohegan Sun casino on tribal land. Its popularity testifies to Ralph's economic leadership, and its profits pay for health care and college tuition for all Mohegans. Ralph was proud of the casino's success and spoke plainly about the incentive it created for Mohegans to maintain their cultural identity: ``Because Indians are making money, now it's a privilege to be one.'' The casino offered the means; but the end was always clear, and it was the end to which Ralph dedicated decades of his life: bringing back a people that had seemed on the verge of fading away. Ralph dealt cannily with Wall Street investors--but took more pleasure in spending afternoons raking the leaves from his tribe's ancient burial ground. He was a proud product of two cultures, Indian and Western, comfortable in either, taking the best from both. ``What probably happened is my father's people were rowing ashore on the Mayflower and my mother's people were probably on the shore throwing stones,'' Ralph once joked. He will be remembered as an artist, a businessman, and a wise chief, presiding over his tribe with a feathered talking-stick in one hand and a gavel in the other. The cultures he represented in either hand--and our whole State of Connecticut--are united in honoring Chief Ralph Sturges.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, November 9, 2007, was a very special day for me and my whole family. On that day, my mother, Grace Dodd, would have turned 100 years old. She has been gone for many, many years now; but not a day goes by without her memory. I would like to take this chance to call back those memories and speak about what made her so special. I have never known a more infectious optimist. More than anything, that is what comes back: her unshakeable confidence that no matter how bad the problem, she could fix it; her lifelong dedication to the bright side; a smile that could turn even the grumpiest person pleasant. Some kinds of optimism are bought cheaply: they come from sheltering yourself from the world. But the much more valuable, much more lasting kind of optimism comes from embracing the world--and that was my mother's kind. She was a dedicated Latin student, a bundle of energy, a basketball star in high school and at Trinity College in Washington, DC. Her nickname--``the adhesive guard''--testifies, I think, to her persistence on the court and everywhere else. Born Mary Grace Murphy, she married my father Tom Dodd in 1934, loved him deeply, and gave him six children, of which I was the second-to- last. When my father left home to serve as a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials in 1945, he wrote home to his ``dearest Grace'' every day--sometimes twice a day. His letters are filled with descriptions of the Nazi war criminals, ravaged, postwar Germany, growing conflict between the Americans and the Russians; but above all, they are filled with how much he missed his Grace. Being away from her, he wrote, was the hardest thing he had to do. I can't help thinking that my mother had an even harder job--raising all of us! But as full as her hands were, raising four boys and two girls, she found time to give herself fully to her community, as well. She served on the local school board, was an early advocate for public kindergarten, and wrote a column in the Hartford newspaper. And with all that, she still had time left over to read avidly, travel widely, and study Spanish. But my sister Martha said that her greatest talent was something much simpler, something that I think was at the root of everything else in her full life: the ability to take a walk. Not a modern, calorie- burning power-walk; but simply the skill for consciously forgetting the turmoil and bustle of life and taking time to reflect. My mother loved walks--and I think that they are what kept her smile bright and her optimism undimmed for so many years. I know a great story about that optimism. When I moved back to Connecticut after graduating law school, the driver of the moving van had a hard time finding my new house. My mother was on hand to make sure everything was going smoothly, and as the driver got angrier and angrier, she finally climbed into the cab and said, ``I'll show you exactly where it is.'' As they drove into the dark, she kept insisting, ``I can just see it! I can just see it!''--for 4 miles. But she knew exactly where they were going, she calmed the driver's nerves, and she got him there, just as she promised. Grace Dodd did the same for all of us. Whenever times were tough and the road ahead of us seemed dark, there she was by our side, saying, ``I can just see it!'' What we are, we owe to her; and on her 100th birthday, the best words we say in response are, ``Thank you.''

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to report the FHA Modernization Act of 2007. This is vitally important legislation, and I want to take a moment to express my thanks to Senator Martinez for his very close collaboration and support in putting this legislation together. This is an original bill produced by the Senate Banking Committee, and as such, the rules prohibit us from obtaining cosponsors. However, I would like to recognize Senators Reed, Schumer, Bayh, Menendez, Brown, Kerry, Murray, Whitehouse, Martinez, Voinovich, Cornyn, and Coleman for their support of this bill and for their offers of cosponsorship. The mortgage markets--particularly the subprime market--are in the midst of a meltdown. Historically high default and foreclosure rates generated, in significant part, by abusive and predatory lending practices, are threatening millions of American families with the loss of their most significant financial asset--their homes--at a cost of over $160 billion in home equity, according to testimony presented before the Banking Committee. While these problems are addressed, we need to make sure that credit is available, including for subprime borrowers, on fair terms so that the people of this country have an opportunity to build wealth for the future. A revitalized, strengthened, and modernized FHA can be and, under this legislation, will be a source of this constructive, wealth- building credit, both for new homeowners and for people who are seeking a way out of the abusive loans in which they are currently trapped. In short, by providing low-cost credit, without prepayment penalties, without teaser rates, and without other deceptive terms, FHA is a part of the solution to the predatory lending crisis we are experiencing. Moreover, FHA has traditionally been an important tool for creating new minority homeowners, and for lower-, moderate-, and middle-income families to become homeowners. By modernizing FHA, we will help millions of families achieve their American Dream. FHA is in a strong position to play this role: an independent audit report indicates that FHA has a record $22 billion in capital, and a capital ratio, 6.82 percent, that is more than three times higher the mandated level of 2 percent. The bill passed by the Committee, and which is being filed today does a number of important things: it raises FHA loan limits so that the program can reach many more people; it lowers downpayment requirements, while still ensuring that people will have a real stake in their new homes; it expands the reverse mortgage program for elderly homeowners by both raising the loan limit and removing the current cap on the number of these mortgages FHA can insure. I know Senators Reed, Crapo, and Allard strongly support this program; it reduces the origination fee that elderly homeowners can be charged for these mortgages by one- quarter, from 2 percent to 1.5 percent making it more affordable for seniors to take out these loans; and, it includes a major overhaul of FHA's manufactured housing program, authored by our colleagues Senators Bayh and Allard. Taken together, these changes will help make FHA a more relevant and effective program. This legislation is supported by the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors, AARP, the Manufactured Housing Association, the Manufactured Housing Institute, and others. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to report the FHA Modernization Act of 2007. This is vitally important legislation, and I want to take a moment to express my thanks to Senator Martinez for his very close collaboration and support in putting this legislation together. This is an original bill produced by the Senate Banking Committee, and as such, the rules prohibit us from obtaining cosponsors. However, I would like to recognize Senators Reed, Schumer, Bayh, Menendez, Brown, Kerry, Murray, Whitehouse, Martinez, Voinovich, Cornyn, and Coleman for their support of this bill and for their offers of cosponsorship. The mortgage markets--particularly the subprime market--are in the midst of a meltdown. Historically high default and foreclosure rates generated, in significant part, by abusive and predatory lending practices, are threatening millions of American families with the loss of their most significant financial asset--their homes--at a cost of over $160 billion in home equity, according to testimony presented before the Banking Committee. While these problems are addressed, we need to make sure that credit is available, including for subprime borrowers, on fair terms so that the people of this country have an opportunity to build wealth for the future. A revitalized, strengthened, and modernized FHA can be and, under this legislation, will be a source of this constructive, wealth- building credit, both for new homeowners and for people who are seeking a way out of the abusive loans in which they are currently trapped. In short, by providing low-cost credit, without prepayment penalties, without teaser rates, and without other deceptive terms, FHA is a part of the solution to the predatory lending crisis we are experiencing. Moreover, FHA has traditionally been an important tool for creating new minority homeowners, and for lower-, moderate-, and middle-income families to become homeowners. By modernizing FHA, we will help millions of families achieve their American Dream. FHA is in a strong position to play this role: an independent audit report indicates that FHA has a record $22 billion in capital, and a capital ratio, 6.82 percent, that is more than three times higher the mandated level of 2 percent. The bill passed by the Committee, and which is being filed today does a number of important things: it raises FHA loan limits so that the program can reach many more people; it lowers downpayment requirements, while still ensuring that people will have a real stake in their new homes; it expands the reverse mortgage program for elderly homeowners by both raising the loan limit and removing the current cap on the number of these mortgages FHA can insure. I know Senators Reed, Crapo, and Allard strongly support this program; it reduces the origination fee that elderly homeowners can be charged for these mortgages by one- quarter, from 2 percent to 1.5 percent making it more affordable for seniors to take out these loans; and, it includes a major overhaul of FHA's manufactured housing program, authored by our colleagues Senators Bayh and Allard. Taken together, these changes will help make FHA a more relevant and effective program. This legislation is supported by the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors, AARP, the Manufactured Housing Association, the Manufactured Housing Institute, and others. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer my heartfelt congratulations to some of Connecticut's finest high school athletes: the girls swim team of Cheshire High School. Cheshire High recently set a national record with an astounding 235 dual meet wins in a row. With its victory, Cheshire High breaks a record that had been held for 13 years by Elkhart Central High in Indiana--one of the longest- standing, most respected marks in high school swimming. Even more incredibly, the Connecticut streak dates back all the way to 1986, before any members of the current team were born. Their record-setting night brought together parents who decorated the pool, painted their faces, and dressed up as the school's Ram mascot; more than 200 paying spectators; and the support of an entire community. For a town still struggling to overcome the memory of last July's notorious home-invasion murders, it was a joyous community celebration; I hope it will go a little way toward restoring the spirit of this Connecticut town. For their teamwork and success, I applaud the Cheshire High swimmers: Megan Aitro, Tara Aitro, Olivia Amato, Alexandria Barry, Jessica Bauer, Kailee Brown, Bridget Carmichael, Alyssa Carofano, Tina Chang, Katherine Collins, Kayla DeLuca, Adriana DiCenzo, Nicole Dicks, Rachael Dioses, Kelly Dolyak, Danielle Forrest, Amy Hudak, Kathryn Hummel, Kimberly Jerome, Jasmine Liu, Samantha Loignon, Shirin Lowell, Sofia Martone, Alexandra Maurice, Mairin McKinlay, Jessica Metcalf, Melissa Metcalf, Michaela Morr, Jessica Morse, Megan Mostoller, Stephanie Nguyen, Catherine Patrell, Brianna Perazella, Lauren Piccolino, Emilie Ptaszynski, Elissa Rosenfield, Sarah Schulefand, Morgan Schwenn, Meghan Shanahan, Sydney Smith, Jennifer Thompson, Margaret Tooley, Emma Velcofsky, and Elizabeth Visconti. Congratulations are due as well their assistant coaches, William Lapman and Kristen Shanley, and their dedicated coach, Ed Aston, whom his team pulled, fully dressed, into the pool once the record was broken. It is a true team, and town, achievement; and if I could list here the names of all 278 athletes who contributed their part to the streak, I certainly would. Instead I simply extend my admiration and my best wishes for many more wins to come.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3963, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. This bipartisan agreement is our second attempt to do what is right for our Nation's children. There are few more important issues facing the Senate than the health and well-being of our Nation's youth. The vote to pass this legislation is a vote for children. As the father of two young daughters, I clearly understand how important it is to know that if one of them gets sick that they have the health insurance coverage that will provide for their care. For millions of parents, every slight sniffle or aching tooth could mean the difference between paying the rent and paying for medical care. Today we have an opportunity to help give those parents peace of mind about their children's health. Despite the broad bipartisan support that already exists for this bill, Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley, among others, have worked tirelessly to build more support and accommodate the bill's critics. They should be commended for their work and dedication. Thanks to them and many others, this legislation represents an even more thorough compromise while still covering 10 million children. There are explicit changes designed to address criticisms by the bill's opponents. H.R. 3963 makes it even more clear that States must cover the poorest children before expanding their programs. And it ensures that illegal immigrants cannot get benefits. But even with these changes the bill continues providing coverage for 6.6 million children currently enrolled in CHIP and provides coverage for 3.1 million children who are currently uninsured today. It gives States the resources they need to keep up with the growing numbers of uninsured children. It provides tools and incentives to cover children who have fallen through the cracks of current programs. And it will prevent the President from unfairly and shortsightedly limiting States' efforts to expand their CHIP programs to cover even more children. All together these efforts will reduce the number of uninsured children by one third over the next 5 years. I am additionally very pleased that my Support for Injured Servicemembers Act amendment was included in the final SCHIP bill. This amendment provides up to 6 months of Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, leave for family members of military personnel who suffer from a combat-related injury or illness. FMLA currently allows 3 months of unpaid leave. Fourteen years ago, FMLA declared the principle that workers should never be forced to choose between the jobs they need and the families they love. If ordinary Americans deserve those rights, how much more do they apply to those who risk their lives in the service of our country? Soldiers who have been wounded in our service deserve everything America can give to speed their recoveries--but most of all, they deserve the care of their closest loved ones. The President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors, ably led by Senator Bob Dole and former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, has been instrumental in efforts to provide needed care for our returning heroes. It is not surprising that the Commission found that family members play a critical role in the recovery of our wounded servicemembers. Although the President has lauded the recommendations of the Commission and recently sent legislation to Congress to implement its recommendations, he continues to hold up the passage of this provision. I am pleased that Senator Clinton is the lead cosponsor of my amendment. In addition, I am pleased that Senators Dole, Graham, Kennedy, Chambliss, Reed, Mikulski, Murray, Salazar, Lieberman, Menendez, Brown, Nelson of Nebraska, Cardin, and Obama are cosponsoring this amendment. I thank Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley for accepting this important amendment and appreciate the support of all of my colleagues in this effort. Unfortunately the President still stands in the way. He continues to threaten to veto this important legislation. I am fearful that he will block yet another bipartisan compromise to cover children who need health care. This legislation is vital to the health and well-being of our children. It represents the hard work and agreement of an overwhelming majority of Members on both sides of the aisle. It is a testament to how important issues like children's health care can be addressed in a bipartisan manner by a united Congress. The President's policy of block and delay would mean Connecticut and other States would have to take away existing health coverage for hundreds of thousands of children when they should be covering more kids. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation, and I urge President Bush to do what is right and sign it into law. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Aeronautics Competitiveness Act of 2007 with my colleagues, Senators Voinovich and Warner. Since the Wright brothers first flew at Kill Devil Hills, aeronautics has been an iconic American industry. The ability to fly is no less remarkable because it has now become commonplace; and in fact, that a flight across the country is now routine is a wonder in itself. Very few advances have had the national and global impact of the progress of aeronautics, and at the core of those advances has been a robust tradition of American ingenuity and production. The challenges in aeronautics continue to shift. The air traffic control system is under strain, and my colleagues on the Commerce Committee have worked diligently this year to chart the path for a complete overhaul of the system. There are environmental pressures the industry has not faced before, including pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, new sectors of the business, including light jets, show the potential for astonishing growth. All of these challenges require significant technology advances, and a significant investment in research. We find ourselves at a crossroads. The European Union has written a report entitled ``European Aeronautics: A Vision for 2020.'' I can summarize the vision: it is to supplant the U.S. as the global leader in aeronautics in the next 13 years. Toward that goal, the E.U. is investing about $860 million per year at today's exchange rates in a research fund for aeronautics and ``sustainable surface transport.'' With the investments of individual countries, the total research spending on civil aeronautics is closer to $4.5 billion. In contrast, this year's budget for NASA aeronautics research will be on the order of $550 million. Aeronautics is the first ``A'' in NASA, but receives less than one-thirtieth of the funds. The aeronautics industry is part of the fabric of American life, and has the highest trade surplus of any industry, at $52 billion last year. But U.S. preeminence is far from assured. This is why I am proud to introduce a bill that will help to ensure the future competitiveness of U.S. aeronautics. It increases the authorization level for NASA aeronautics programs by 20 percent per year for the first 2 years, with a smaller increase in the third year. It creates a more transparent and inclusive process for stakeholder input into research priorities, and encourages NASA to take selected technologies farther along from basic research towards development. And it invests in the workforce by providing for scholarships for graduate students at NASA and the FAA, and creating a program modeled on the Independent Research and Development program. I believe the future is bright for this vital industry, and I strongly feel that we should be unwilling to cede leadership to anyone in this area, no matter how determined they may be. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to preserve the leading role of U.S. aeronautics.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Aeronautics Competitiveness Act of 2007 with my colleagues, Senators Voinovich and Warner. Since the Wright brothers first flew at Kill Devil Hills, aeronautics has been an iconic American industry. The ability to fly is no less remarkable because it has now become commonplace; and in fact, that a flight across the country is now routine is a wonder in itself. Very few advances have had the national and global impact of the progress of aeronautics, and at the core of those advances has been a robust tradition of American ingenuity and production. The challenges in aeronautics continue to shift. The air traffic control system is under strain, and my colleagues on the Commerce Committee have worked diligently this year to chart the path for a complete overhaul of the system. There are environmental pressures the industry has not faced before, including pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, new sectors of the business, including light jets, show the potential for astonishing growth. All of these challenges require significant technology advances, and a significant investment in research. We find ourselves at a crossroads. The European Union has written a report entitled ``European Aeronautics: A Vision for 2020.'' I can summarize the vision: it is to supplant the U.S. as the global leader in aeronautics in the next 13 years. Toward that goal, the E.U. is investing about $860 million per year at today's exchange rates in a research fund for aeronautics and ``sustainable surface transport.'' With the investments of individual countries, the total research spending on civil aeronautics is closer to $4.5 billion. In contrast, this year's budget for NASA aeronautics research will be on the order of $550 million. Aeronautics is the first ``A'' in NASA, but receives less than one-thirtieth of the funds. The aeronautics industry is part of the fabric of American life, and has the highest trade surplus of any industry, at $52 billion last year. But U.S. preeminence is far from assured. This is why I am proud to introduce a bill that will help to ensure the future competitiveness of U.S. aeronautics. It increases the authorization level for NASA aeronautics programs by 20 percent per year for the first 2 years, with a smaller increase in the third year. It creates a more transparent and inclusive process for stakeholder input into research priorities, and encourages NASA to take selected technologies farther along from basic research towards development. And it invests in the workforce by providing for scholarships for graduate students at NASA and the FAA, and creating a program modeled on the Independent Research and Development program. I believe the future is bright for this vital industry, and I strongly feel that we should be unwilling to cede leadership to anyone in this area, no matter how determined they may be. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to preserve the leading role of U.S. aeronautics.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I join all of Connecticut in extending congratulations to the many young athletes who competed in the 15th Pan American Games, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. For over half a century, these games have brought together athletes from across the Western Hemisphere. This year 5,648 athletes from 49 countries came together in Rio to compete in 38 sports. The Pan American games, similar to the Olympics, provide us another valuable opportunity to enjoy international athletic competition undertaken for pride and the love of the sport. By participating in the 15th Pan American Games, these young Americans have had an opportunity that few of their fellow Americans ever will--to join in competition with other young people from North, Central, and South America. I would like to commend the 14 athletes from Connecticut who competed in the games: John Ball, Andrew Bolton, Eliza Cleveland, Reilley Dampeer, Robert Merrick, Alyssa Naeher, Todd Paul, Cara Raether, Geoffrey Rathgeber, Sarah Trowbridge, Karen Scavotto, Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss, Bartosz Wolski. It is with great pleasure and pride that I offer further congratulations to the Connecticut athletes who brought home three gold and five silver medals and one bronze medal. Without a doubt, the nine medals won by Connecticut's athletes contributed to America's overall victory at the 15th Pan American Games. It is my hope that these kinds of events will further unite our hemisphere.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have some comments I want to make about the FISA legislation. But before doing so, I commend my colleague from North Dakota. I have joined with him on so many occasions in the past. Once again, his eloquence and passion about these issues is evident this morning. We have worked together. We have sponsored legislation on a number of matters. I will join him in the efforts he raised today. He has described a situation that most Americans find horrific. As to the point he makes on the issue of supporting our troops, I find it offensive that anyone would suggest, because we disagree with the policy, we are somehow putting our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen at risk. I strongly suggest, as does my colleague from North Dakota, that our continuing policy in Iraq has made us less safe, less secure, more vulnerable, more isolated in the world and, in fact, the very soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines we admire are in greater jeopardy because of a continuation of this policy. I will be joining with him and others as we try to bring this to a halt, not in 2009 or 2013 but hopefully this year. I commend him for his comments.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, for 6 years the President has demonstrated time and again that he doesn't respect the role of Congress, nor does he respect the rule of law. It is the latter point that I want to address this morning because it is the rule of law which draws us all together, regardless of politics, ideology, or party. It is the rule of law, not of men, which we swear to uphold when we take the oath of office in this Chamber, as Members do in the other Chamber, and certainly as the President does on January 20 every 4 years. For 6 years this President has used scare tactics to prevent the Congress from reining in his abuse of authority. A case in point is the current direction in which this body appears to be headed as we prepare to reform and extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Many of the unprecedented rollbacks to the rule of law by this administration have been made in the name of national security. The Bush administration has relentlessly focused our Nation's resources and manpower on a war of choice in Iraq. That ill-conceived war has broken our military, squandered our resources, and emboldened our enemies. The President's wholesale disregard of the rule of law has compounded the damage done in Iraq, made our Nation less secure, and as a direct consequence of these acts, we are far less secure, far more vulnerable, and certainly far more isolated in the world today. Consider the scandal at Abu Ghraib, where Iraqi prisoners were subjected to inhumane, humiliating acts by U.S. personnel charged with guarding them. Consider Guantanamo Bay. Rather than helping to protect the Nation by aggressively prosecuting prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, these individuals have instead become the symbol of our weakened moral standing in the world. Who would have ever imagined it? Consider the secret prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency and the practice of extraordinary rendition that allows them to evade U.S. law regarding torture. Consider the shameful actions of our outgoing Attorney General who politicized prosecutions in the U.S. Attorney's Office, who was more committed to serving the President who appointed him than laws he was sworn to uphold as Attorney General. Consider the Military Commissions Act, a law that allows evidence obtained through torture to be admitted into evidence. It denies individuals the right to counsel. It denies them the right to invoke the Geneva Conventions. And it denies them the single most important and effective safeguard of liberty man has ever known, the right of habeas corpus, permitting prisoners to be brought before a court to determine whether their detainment is lawful. Warrantless wiretapping, torture, the list goes on. Each of these policies share two things in common. First, they have severely weakened our ability to prosecute the global war on terrorism, if for no other reason than they have made it harder, if not impossible, to build the kind of international support and cooperation we absolutely need to succeed in our efforts against stateless terrorism. And second, each has only been possible because the U.S. Congress has not been able to stop the President in his unprecedented expansion of executive power, although, I might add, some in this body have certainly tried. Whether these policies were explicitly authorized is beside the point. In every instance, Congress has been unable to hold this administration to account for violating the rule of law and our Constitution. In each instance, Republicans in the Congress have prevented this body from telling this administration that a state of war is not a blank check. And those are not my words. Those are the words of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, nominated by President Ronald Reagan. And today, it appears that we are prepared to consider the proposed renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a law that whatever form it eventually takes will almost certainly permit the Bush administration to broadly eavesdrop on American citizens. Legislation, as currently drafted, that would grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that helped this administration violate the civil liberties of Americans and the law of this Nation. While it may be true that the proposed legislation is an improvement over existing law, it remains fundamentally flawed because it fails to protect the privacy rights of Americans or hold the Executive or the private sector accountable if they choose to ignore the law. That is why I will not stand on the floor of the Senate and be silent about the direction we are about to take. It is time to say: No more. No more trampling on our Constitution. No more excusing those who violate the rule of law. These are fundamental, basic, eternal principles. They have been around, some of them, for as long as the Magna Carta. They are enduring. What they are not is temporary. And what we do not do in a time where our country is at risk is abandon them. My father served as executive trial counsel at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals in 1945 and 1946. What America accomplished at those historic trials was not a foregone conclusion. It took courage. When Joseph Stalin and even a leader as great and noble as Winston Churchill wanted to simply execute the Nazi leaders, we didn't back down in this country from our belief that these men, as terrible as they were--some of the worst violators in the court of history of mankind--ought to have a trial. We did not give in to vengeance. As then, the issue before us today is the same. Does America stand for all that is still right with our world or do we retreat in fear? Do we stand for justice that secures America or do we act out of vengeance that weakens us? I am well aware this issue is seen as political. I believe Democrats were elected to help strengthen our Nation, elected to help restore our standing in the world. I believe we were elected to ensure that this Nation adheres to the rule of law and to stop the administration's assault on our Constitution. But the rule of law is not the province of any one political party. It is the province of each and every one of us as American citizens, on our watch and our generation, to make sure we are safer because of its inviolable provisions. Mr. President, I know this bill has not been reported out of the Judiciary Committee yet. But I am here today because if I have learned anything in my 26 years in this body, particularly over the last 7 years, it is that if you wait until the end to voice your concerns, you will have waited too long. That is why I have written the majority leader informing him that I will object to any effort to bring the legislation to the Senate floor for consideration. I hope my colleague, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy is able to remove this language from the FISA bill. Pat Leahy is as strong a defender of the Constitution as any Member of this body. But if he is unable to do so, I am prepared to filibuster this bill. President Bush is right about one thing: The debate is about security but not in the way he imagines it. He believes we have to give up certain rights to be safe. I believe the choice between moral authority and security is a false choice. I believe it is precisely when you stand up and protect your rights that you become stronger, not weaker, as a nation. The damage that was done to our country on 9/11 was stunning. It changed the world forever. But when you start diminishing our rights as a people, you compound that tragedy. You cannot protect America in the long run if you fail to protect our Constitution. It is that simple. History will likely judge this President harshly for his war of choice and for fighting it with a disregard for our most cherished principles. But history is about tomorrow. We must act today and stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law. Mr. President, this is the moment. At long last, let us rise up to it. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to honor the life of one of the finest men I have known in this body: Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota. Paul--along with his wife Sheila and his daughter Marcia; his staff members Will McLaughlin, Tom Lapic, and Mary McEvoy; and pilots Richard Conry and Michael Guess--died in a plane crash 5 years ago to the day. Five years, half a decade already: The time has passed so quickly that it comes as a shock to stop and recall just how long Paul has been gone. In marking his death, we remember that the years are passing just as fast for each of us, and that they can take us, as they took our friend Paul, when we are least ready to go. What a privilege we have to serve here--what a short time we are given! Paul's death and Paul's life remind us to fill that short time with all the best we can bring. Paul Wellstone did: He lived just 58 years, and yet it seems that in that time, he lived enough to fill two or three or four lives. Paul was a champion wrestler who became a champion scholar; a tireless activist and organizer who became a beloved professor; everywhere and always a fighter, full of energy and zeal and real love for the people he spoke for in this Chamber. He was, in the proud tradition of his State, one of the happiest warriors I have ever known. He was an intellectual, a Ph.D., but never abstract; all the theories in the world meant nothing to Paul if they couldn't lift up the single mother struggling to support a family or the torture victim seeking refuge in America or the sufferer of mental illness marked with an unjust stigma. Paul suffered with each of them. In fact, the pain that Paul felt in his life--the ache of his multiple sclerosis, the challenges of growing up the son of immigrants, the pain of his brother's mental illness-- became his most powerful political weapon. Pain cuts some of us off, but not Paul Wellstone: He found the greatest salve in reaching out, in traveling up and down Minnesota in the dead of winter in his rickety green campaign bus; in taking time to thank the cooks, waiters, and janitors who served at so many of Paul's events; in stretching out an appearance to two or three times its planned length because he was so caught up in a conversation, until his staff were forced to grab him by the arm and literally drag him out of the room. He was given 12 years to make his mark in the Senate. And in that time, he helped ensure that toddlers all through this country would have a head start in life. He ensured that his State would be a refuge for victims of torture who came here from the dungeons of Central America or Asia. He fought hard against sex trafficking and against domestic violence with Sheila Wellstone, herself a leading advocate for battered women. He helped make sure that families stayed warm in the winter, because the government gave them the heating assistance they needed. And inspired by the struggles of his brother, he struggled to end the discrimination against the mentally ill by insurers. In that last cause, I was particularly proud to stand beside Paul; and finally enacting mental health parity legislation would be a fitting honor to his memory. Paul did so much more than ever could be expected with the short time he was given; he was driven by an untiring spirit. But he also understood that legislation, as much good as it has the power to do, is something of a symptom, an outward phenomenon; the deeper causes of what we accomplish in this Chamber are the movements and forces that put us in office, that make one cause prosper and another weaken-- Paul's ear was to the ground and his eyes were on the roots. He was a Senator-organizer: and as much energy as he put into legislating, he put more into building a movement that would outlast him. So I wish that Paul were still at his desk in this room today; maybe grayer and a little more stooped, but still giving his all to the fight to end a misguided war, one he opposed since the outset, or pouring out all his passion against torture and lawlessness in our own government. I wish we still had his voice. But on another level, I know that it doesn't matter. The activists and candidates and grassroots organizers trained by Wellstone Action, a nonprofit set up in Paul's name, still memorize a phrase he used to remind us all that politics is first and foremost about those we serve: ``It's not about me, it's not about me, it's not about me.'' Paul knew that the name at the top of the bill, the politician at the top of a ballot, the voice speaking the words matters little. The citizens whom we serve are the ones who matter most, and Paul's commitment was, first and foremost, to those of our citizens whose lives are spent at the margins of our society. ``Some people,'' Paul's home newspaper wrote today, ``live lives so large that they never really die.'' It was true of Paul Wellstone, and his wife Sheila, and his daughter Marcia. May we live in their example, so that those words will one day be true of each of us.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I am particularly concerned because these funding cuts so deeply impacted Connecticut's two transitional grant areas, formerly eligible metropolitan areas, Hartford, which lost nearly $1.5 million, and New Haven, which lost nearly $1.6 million. Urban areas in my State, like many urban areas throughout the U.S. with a long history of the presence of this disease, have systems of medical care and treatment that have been disrupted by the Ryan White CARE Act reauthorization bill. When I put my support behind the final reauthorization bill, it was with the understanding that this bill would do no harm to my State. In fact, an analysis of the reauthorization bill provided by the Government Accountability Office and others prior to its passage showed that the State of Connecticut and the cities of Hartford and New Haven would gain over $2 million as a result of its passage. However, this has not been the case.

Mr. DODD. First, I would like to thank and congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on putting together this vitally important appropriations bill that will restore and grow funding for so many of our Nation's domestic health, education and labor programs. In particular, he should be commended for his leadership in support of funding for domestic HIV/AIDS programs. As a senior member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions-- HELP--Committee, I am deeply troubled by the impact Public Law 109-415, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006, has had on the State of Connecticut. Is the distinguished chairman aware that the State of Connecticut lost a total of $3.3 million in Federal funding in the current fiscal year as a result of improper implementation of the reauthorization by the Bush administration?

Mr. DODD. Yes, it is. Connecticut is not listed among the States with sufficiently reliable and accurate names-based reporting of living non- AIDS cases of HIV. During negotiations on the reauthorization bill, I was told by officials in the Bush administration that Connecticut's names-based reporting system could not yet be considered sufficiently reliable and accurate because it had not reported HIV cases by name for four consecutive years. Connecticut would not be in that position until 2009, at the earliest. The result has been that my State lost $3.3 million in Federal funding. I am also deeply troubled by reports of how HRSA may be measuring urban areas' demonstrated need for supplemental funding. Under Public Law 109-415, HRSA can consider the impact a decline in formula funding under title I would have on individuals living with HIV/AIDS for purposes of supplemental grant funding. It is my understanding that this language targets urban areas whose decline in formula funding has meant a decline or disruption of services for people living with HIV/ AIDS by giving them priority in the supplemental funding process.