Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, earlier this week the House and Senate Democratic Leadership--forced to forgo a formal conference by one Republican Senator's insistence on blocking this bill--made public their comprehensive new ethics reform legislation. This legislation is historic, an important next step in the process of restoring the confidence of Americans in the legislative process. Designed to bolster congressional accountability, make the legislative process fairer and more transparent, and regulate more tightly the relationships between Members of Congress, executive branch officials, and lobbyists, it deserves our full support. After being stymied by serious procedural hurdles in the last Congress, earlier this year in the Senate we passed a tough, comprehensive, bipartisan bill of which this body can be very proud. Regrettably, this week we had to overcome a filibuster by my Republican colleagues to get this bill to this point--a filibuster on a bill very similar to the earlier Senate-passed bill for which many of them voted. I congratulate my colleagues on voting earlier today to overcome objections from those who attempted to block its progress. We should adopt this bill today without changes and send it to the President for his signature. It is important that Congress act quickly on this bill to help restore the confidence of all Americans in the legislative process and in the laws we write. That confidence, already low, has been further shaken by recent lobbying scandals and investigations, some involving funding earmarks. Bringing this bill to the floor as the first piece of legislation in this Congress was an indication of the depth of our commitment to restore the confidence of Americans in that process; I commend the majority leader for making this measure a priority and for pressing forward relentlessly, through many obstacles, to get this final version to the floor. This bill, which passed the House by an overwhelming vote of 411 to 8 earlier this week, reflects the approach we took last year in developing reform legislation. I commend our Rules Committee chair Senator Feinstein, along with Chairman Lieberman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, for working with our leaders to develop this strong bill. It is the final step in a lobbying reform process which has taken several years to come to fruition. Let's remember why we are here: because of a need to respond to the crisis in confidence of the American people following the Jack Abramoff scandal in the House, a matter involving the bribery conviction of a Member of that body, and legal proceedings against certain other congressional and administration officials involving allegations of lobbying-related improprieties. The serious violations that have lead to last year's guilty pleas by former House Members and staff and the activities of Abramoff and his cronies in which they violated lobbying, gift, and ethics rules have helped to create a climate of disillusionment and distrust of Congress. Americans made very clear in the last elections that cleaning up this process was a priority for them; it must also be a priority for us. This comprehensive reform bill will help reduce the risk of future wrongdoing by lobbyists and officeholders. It is important to strengthen our current rules and procedures, where we can, to avoid future problems. But enforcing current rules is not enough; that is why we should adopt these tough new reforms today. And let me say that by making these changes we impugn no one in this body--I know my colleagues, many of whom I have worked with for decades, to be men and women of integrity, their behavior above reproach. Regulating the relationships between lawmakers and lobbyists is not new. In 1876, the House tried to require lobbyists to register with its clerk, but enforcement was weak and not much came of these efforts. In the early 1930s, Congress held hearings on lobbying abuses, with little result. In 1938, the Foreign Agents Registration Act was enacted, followed by the 1946 Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act, the scope of which the Supreme Court soon narrowed. Additional minor reforms were implemented in the sixties, and then the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and new Senate gift and travel rules followed. And now this reform measure, the most sweeping of its kind since Watergate, will help shed further sunlight on the legislative process and illuminate how special interests influence that process. It is clear that real, enforceable ethics reforms do work. Such reforms have over the years worked to improve the way Congress operates. Conflict of interest rules, earned-income limits, lobbying disclosure laws, the McCain-Feingold law and the honoraria ban, both of which I was privileged to play a role in, and other key reforms have helped ensure greater transparency and accountability to those whom we represent. But we must do more, and that is what this effort is about. When we initially considered this legislation many months ago, Members from both sides of the aisle offered their ideas to improve the bill on the floor, which were incorporated into the final bill. That measure then passed 96 to 2. While some may quibble with the way one or another provision was finalized, virtually all of the bill's major elements have been retained in some form, and that is why this is a very strong product. Our leader rightly called it the strongest reform bill since the Watergate era; we should be proud to support it. Since others have detailed what is in this bill--including provisions to slow the revolving door between Congress and the lobbying industry; tough new conflict of interest and postemployment rules; expanded disclosure of lobbyists' activities, including campaign-related activities; tightening of gift and travel rules; increased enforcement; requiring Members to pay charter rates to fly on private aircraft, and the like--I will not spend time doing that here. Suffice it to say this is a very strong bill, worthy of our support. Finally, let me say a word about what I think is the elephant in the room on congressional reform efforts, and that is the need to enact comprehensive reforms of the way we organize and finance campaigns in this country. As I have said, gift and lobby reforms do matter and are important. But while it is clear serious reform of the way some in Congress and their lobbying allies do business is needed, these changes alone won't address the core problem: the need for campaign finance reform which breaks once and for all the link between legislative favor-seekers and the free flow of inadequately regulated, special interest private money. Ultimately, this is more significant than lobbying, gift and travel rules, or procedural reforms on earmarks and conference procedures and reports. My preferred reform approach would include a combination of public funding, free or reduced media time, spending limits, and other key reforms. Others will have different views and approaches. But I hope this will be just the first step in a process that will include comprehensive campaign finance reform. It took us years to enact the McCain-Feingold law, and it will likely take at least as long to enact a more comprehensive bill; we should get started on that effort as soon as possible. Real campaign finance reform must address not just congressional campaigns but also the urgent need to renew and repair our Presidential public funding system, which has served Democratic and Republican candidates--and all Americans--for 25 years. The American public is way ahead of us on this issue. Too many believe the interests of average voters are usurped by the money and influence of lobbyists, powerful individuals, corporations, and interest groups. Too many believe their voices go unheard, drowned out by the din of special interest favor-seekers. Our system derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. That is put at risk if the governed lose faith in the system's fundamental fairness and in its capacity to respond to the most basic needs of our society because narrow special interests hold sway over the public interest. Nowhere is the need for reform more urgent than on campaign finance. In the Rules Committee we held a recent hearing on the issue; I hope we will keep moving forward on it, and I intend to contribute to that debate as I have before. I end where I began, with a concern about the confidence of Americans in Congress. Our credibility, and the credibility of the legislative process, is at stake. Let's not fool ourselves that these issues will ultimately be resolved without a fundamental overhaul of our campaign finance system. But in the wake of overwhelming approval by the House, let's adopt this measure and get it signed by the President, recognizing that it is an important next step in the reform process. I again congratulate the majority leader for bringing this legislation back to the Senate floor and look forward to seeing it enacted into law so that we can help to begin to restore the confidence of the American people in the legislative process. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting aye.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, genocide has only one morally tenable answer. This week, the United Nations found that answer: decisive and forceful action to protect the innocent. Tuesday's Security Council resolution put real teeth in the world's effort to stop the Darfur genocide: A paltry contingent of 7,000 African Union peacekeepers will swell with 26,000 more troops in a combined UN/AU force. The peacekeepers will take command of the region by the end of the year, and their arms will help to shield the people of Darfur from continued murder and rape and displacement. I applaud this resolution. We all know that it comes 450,000 lives too late. But the UN's action looks positively instantaneous when set against the delay and the equivocation of our own Government. Special Envoy Andrew Natsios assured the world that American action was ``imminent'' 7 months ago. And it was 2 years ago that President Bush declared the crimes in Darfur ``genocide.'' But there is still time for America to act, and a vital role for America to play. The Security Council's force resolution, as valuable as it is, came at a price: To mollify China and several African member states, its provisions for multilateral sanctions on Sudan were significantly softened. We can, and must, fill the gap with unilateral sanctions of our own. Multilateral force combined with American sanctions would show the international system working at its best. The world community has agreed to act against genocide; now, the United States can work in the spirit of that resolution and do its own part to bring the suffering to an end. Our economic muscle can be a potent weapon. Three sanctions bills are before the Senate. Two S. 831--the Sudan Divestment Authorization Act of 2007, and S. 1563, the Sudan Disclosure and Enforcement Act of 2007--have been authored by my friend and colleague, Senator Durbin. From the very start, his voice has been the strongest in the Senate on the Darfur genocide, and his tremendous leadership stands in stark contrast to this administration. A third sanctions bill--H.R. 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007--has been authored by Representative Barbara Lee, whose leadership ranks with Senator Durbin's. I have asked the majority leader to expedite consideration of all of these bills. I would like to focus for a moment on Representative Lee's bill. It aims to punish the bloodstained Government of Sudan by assisting divestment from companies that--knowingly or not--have helped to fund the genocide. H.R. 180 requires the Department of the Treasury to develop a list of companies investing in specific sectors of the Sudanese economy: power production, mineral extraction, oil-related industries, and military equipment industries. Before being put on the list, companies are given 30 days to either rebut the designation or to say that they will be suspending such activities within a year. The bill also removes specific legal barriers to enable mutual fund and corporate pension fund managers to cut ties with these listed companies. And it allows States and localities to divest their public pension funds from those companies whose financial operations help support the genocidal practices of the Sudanese Government. In ultimately leading to the withdrawal of funds from the Sudanese military machine, the bill does valuable work. But I am concerned that it entrusts the compilation of the list of companies to the wrong agency, Treasury's Office of Foreign Asset Control. OFAC is an enforcement agency, and such investigation is not in its mission. I believe the job is better entrusted to an interagency task force combining the varied strengths of the Departments of Treasury, State, and Energy, along with the SEC. This combined approach will mean that our efforts toward divestment are as fair, effective, targeted, and transparent as they can be. So I have proposed amending the divestment bill to that effect; a second amendment authorizes $2 million to make this divestment task force a reality. But whatever form they take, sanctions need to pass now. As the UN/AU force stabilizes Darfur, we must do our utmost to choke off the money that has oiled the machinery of slaughter. To those of my colleagues who are standing in the way of swift action, I ask: What more do you need to see? What more do we need to prove? What more could it possibly take to move you? I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 180, as amended, and the two other strong Senate bills.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, 14 years ago, the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, declared the principle that workers should never be forced to choose between the jobs they need and the families they love. In the years since its passage, more than 50 million Americans have taken advantage of its provisions to care for a sick love one, or recover from illness themselves, or welcome a new baby into the family. 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. That is exactly what is offered in the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act, a bill I am proud to have authored along with Senator Clinton. The FMLA was the very first bill that President Clinton signed into law, and I am grateful that his wife, Senator Clinton, continues to support the principles that I have been fighting for over 20 years. Now, I am also pleased that Senators Dole, Graham, Kennedy, Chambliss, Reed, Mikulski, Murray, Salazar, Lieberman, Menendez, Brown, Nelson of Nebraska, and Cardin are cosponsoring this new legislation today. Senator Bob Dole and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala have been instrumental in this effort as well, through their thoughtfulness and work on the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors. It is unsurprising that the commission found that family members play a critical role in the recovery of our wounded servicemembers. The commitment shown by the families and friends of our troops is truly inspiring: according to the commission's report, 33 percent of active duty servicemembers report that a family member or close friend relocated for extended periods of time to help in their recoveries. It also points out that 21 percent of active duty servicemembers say that their friends or family members gave up jobs to find the time. To quote from the commission's moving report: In virtually every case [of a wounded servicemember], a wife, husband, parent, brother, or sister has received the heart-stopping telephone call telling them that their loved one is sick or injured, halfway around the world. These loved ones bear a burden almost as sharp as the wound itself. The very least we can give them is the assurance that their jobs will be there when they return. It is for these reasons that the commission recommend that the FMLA be expanded to provide family members of combat-injured servicemembers up to 6 months of leave to care for their loved ones. The Support for Injured Servicemembers Act does just that. FMLA currently allows 3 months of unpaid leave. Given the severity of their injuries, and our debt of gratitude, our servicemembers need more. For the first time, this bill offers FMLA leave not just to parents, spouses, and children, but to next-of-kin, including siblings. Families, not the government, should decide for themselves who takes on the work of caring for their injured loved ones. This bill recognizes that fact, and it is a major accomplishment. Our troops are laying their bodies on the line for us in Iraq and Afghanistan, every day. Our full debt to them is unpayable. But perhaps the best thing we can do for them is to get out of the way, to make it possible for the love of family to heal their wounds. With their jobs protected, more family members will be able to do just that. What this bill does, then, is break down a barrier, between our troops and the care they need the most. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce bipartisan legislation with my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel. The bill addresses an issue of paramount importance to our country and its quality of life: the deteriorating condition of our infrastructure systems. I do not believe there is one person present in this chamber, funding myself, who has not taken our Nation's infrastructure systems for granted at some point. Indeed, our roads, bridges, mass transit systems, drinking water systems, wastewater systems, and public housing properties, collectively comprise the overlooked but critically important adhesive that holds our society together. These systems allow for the continuous passage of people and goods across the country; they allow people to communicate with each other here and around the world; they allow business and Government to function; and they allow goods to be consumed and services to be rendered. All in all, our infrastructure systems are directly responsible for providing the high quality of life that we Americans have come to enjoy in a free society. Yet, it is precisely because we have taken our infrastructure systems for granted that we find ourselves in a precarious position today concerning their future viability. One does not have to look far to comprehend the extensive problems plaguing many of our infrastructure systems and facilities. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers in their seminal 2005 Infrastructure Report Card, the current condition of our Nation's major infrastructure systems earns a grade point average of D and jeopardizes the prosperity and quality of life of all Americans. According to the Federal Highway Administration, 33 percent of all urban and rural roads are in poor, mediocre or fair condition. 27.1 percent of all bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Data from the Federal Transit Administration shows our mass transit systems are becoming increasingly unable to handle the growing demands passengers in a safe and efficient manner. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, the average traveler is delayed 51.5 hours annually due to traffic and infrastructure-related congestion in the Nation's 20 largest metropolitan areas. The delays range from 93 hours in Los Angeles to 14 hours in Pittsburgh. Combined, these delays waste 1.78 billion gallons of fuel each year and waste almost $50.3 billion in congestion costs. Furthermore, the average delay in these metropolitan areas has increased by almost 35.3 hours since 1982. A significant percentage of our Nation's drinking water and wastewater systems are obsolete; the average age of these systems range in age from 50 years in smaller cities to 100 years in larger cities. Finally, the Department of Housing and Urban Development reports there are 1.2 million units of public housing with critical capital needs totaling $18 billion. Clearly, these statistics are alarming and they are not getting any better. In their Infrastructure Report Card, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that $1.6 trillion is needed over a 5-year period to bring our Nation's infrastructure systems to a good condition. Regrettably, our current infrastructure financing mechanisms, such as formula grants and earmarks, are not equipped by themselves to absorb this cost or meet fully these growing needs. They largely do not address capacity-building infrastructure projects of regional or national significance; they largely do not encourage an appropriate pooling of Federal, State, local and private resources; and they largely do not provide transparency to ensure the optimal return on public resources. This is why I rise with my colleague from Nebraska today. We are introducing the National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007, a bipartisan measure that addresses the critical needs of our Nation's major infrastructure systems. Our legislation establishes a new method through which the Federal Government can finance infrastructure projects of substantial regional or national significance more effectively with public and private capital. Our legislation establishes the National Infrastructure Bank, which, as an independent entity of the Government, is tasked with evaluating and financing capacity-building infrastructure projects of substantial regional and national significance. Infrastructure projects that come under the bank's consideration are publicly-owned mass transit systems, housing properties, roads, bridges, drinking water systems, and wastewater systems. Modeled after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the bank is led by a 5 member Board of Directors, each whom are appointed by the Prsident and confirmed by the Senate. The bank's board has flexibility to develop an organization of professional civil service staff to carry out the bank's authorized activities. An Inspector General oversees the bank's daily operations and reports on those operations to Congress. Infrastructure projects with a potential Federal investment of at least $75 million are brought to the bank's attention by a project sponsor, State, locality, tribe, infrastructure agency, e.g. transit agency, a consortium of these entities. To determine a level of Federal investment, the bank uses a sliding-scale method that incorporates conditions such as the type of infrastructure system or systems, project location, project cost, current and projected usage, non- Federal revenue, regional or national significance, promotion of economic growth and community development, reduction in traffic congestion, environmental benefits, land use policies that promote smart growth, and mobility improvements. Once a level of investment is determined for a project, the bank develops a financing package with full faith and credit from the government. The financing package could include direct subsidies, direct loan guarantees, long-term tax-credit general purpose bonds, and long-term tax-credit infrastructure project specific bonds. The initial ceiling to issue bonds is $60 billion. The bank is tasked to report annually to Congress on the projects it reviews and finances. A public database is created to catalog what projects were funded and what financing packages were provided. The bank is also tasked to report every 3 years on the economic efficacy and transparency of all current Federal infrastructure financing methods, and how those methods could be improved. After 5 years, the Government Accountability Office would be tasked with evaluating the bank's operations and efficacy. It is important to note that our legislation does not displace or supplant any existing infrastructure finance mechanisms, such as formula grants and earmarks. Instead, the bank targets large-scale projects that are currently underserved by these existing financing mechanisms. I would like to take a moment to thank the Centers for Strategic and International Studies, CSIS, and the work undertaken by Dr. John Hamre in infrastucture finance. CSIS, Ambassador Felix Rohatyn, and former Senator Warren Rudman have provided valuable assistance and support in the development of our legislation. I would also like to thank the American Society of Civil Engineers and the National Construction Alliance for their support of our bill. It is my intent to take up this legislation in the Banking Committee after the August recess. This is an issue that cannot be neglected or deferred any further. Restoring our Nation's infrastructure demands our immediate attention and commitment in the Senate. The quality of life in our country hangs in the balance. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I wish to begin my comments by thanking our colleague from Massachusetts once again for giving heart to an argument that sometimes gets lost in statistics and numbers. As all of us know, every one of us has watched either fellow Members or others--our staffs or constituents--who have gone through the dreaded situation of watching a child in need of health care. We know how fortunate we are to be Members of Congress, as we receive a tremendous amount of support for health care services. The fact that we are living in a day and age in the 21st century when so many of our children, growing numbers in our society, are without any kind of health care coverage at all. It is shameful, to put it mildly. I commend the distinguished Senator from Montana, the chair of the Finance Committee, and once again the Senator from Massachusetts for his tremendous support of this effort. I wish to offer an amendment at the appropriate time. As many of my colleagues know, over a period of 7 years, three Presidents, and two Presidential vetoes, I worked toward passage of the Family Medical Leave Act. It finally became law in 1993. Today, more than 50 million Americans have been able to take advantage of the protections of that law. It is related to the subject matter of the bill at hand, a little bit off center, but it's about caring for our families. Last week, Senator Dole along with Donna Shalala and others, offered recommendations from the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors. They urged Congress to draft legislation to allow up to 6 months of family and medical leave for family members of troops who have sustained combat-related injuries and meet the other eligibility requirements of the law. We believe this is a worthwhile proposal, so I introduced the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act last week with several of my colleagues. I am very grateful to Senator Dole, a former colleague of ours, and the entire Commission for their thoughtful work on this crucial issue. For 20 years, we have worked on legislation to extend family and medical leave to families in this country. So I hope that at the appropriate time, my amendment on this matter will be considered and unanimously adopted. There may be an argument on germaneness, but we can't wait to help the men and women who are injured in service to our country. I can't think of a more appropriate step for us to take than to allow these veterans who are recovering from their wounds to have a loved one with them during that period of recovery. I wanted to lay out for my colleagues the value of this amendment, how valuable the protections of family and medical leave have been for families. In fact, we have introduced legislation to provide paid family and medical leave. I won't be offering that at this juncture, but now offer an extended unpaid leave program. My amendment would simply extend the period of job protection for up to six months for those who care for our returning heroes as they recover from their injuries. The reasons are obvious. In the Wounded Warriors Commission survey, 33 percent of Active-Duty and 22 percent of Reserve components and 37 percent of retired/ separated servicemembers report that family members or close friends relocated for extended periods of time to be with them while they were in the hospital. Twenty-one percent of Active-Duty, 15 percent of Reserve components, and 24 percent of retired/separated servicemembers say friends or family gave up a job to be with them or act as their caregiver. It seems to me they shouldn't have to give up a job in order to be with a recuperating servicemember coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan. The Commission's findings indicate the critical role that family and friends play in the recovery of our wounded servicemembers. Currently FMLA provides for 3 months of job-protected unpaid leave to a spouse, parent or child acting as a caregiver for a person with a serious illness. The report indicates that many servicemembers rely on other family members or friends to care for them. My amendment allows these other caregivers--siblings, cousins, friends or significant others to take leave for up to six months, when our returning heroes need them the most, without fear of losing their jobs. My amendment goes beyond some other proposals in other ways as well. It covers caregivers staying with the recovering servicemember in a military hospital as well as those providing care at home. This proposal would apply to all individuals currently covered by FMLA, including federal civil servants, who might find themselves caring for a wounded warrior. My amendment only addresses servicemembers with combat-related injuries. This is a narrow universe of individuals who experience extraordinary circumstances. Taking care of our soldiers, sailors, airman and Marines returning from Iraq and Afghanistan was the point of the Commission and the Wounded Warriors Act that we recently passed. I can't think of anything more important that we could do this week before August break than to pass a proposal that would provide these service men and women the opportunity to have a loved one with them as they recover. I send my amendment to the desk. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his tireless work, the Senator from Montana, of course, and the Senator from Iowa, who have worked hard on children's issues, and ask them to consider this amendment at the appropriate time. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the ongoing genocide in Darfur. As my colleagues know, the United Nations Security Council is currently hammering out the final text of a new resolution related to the expanded United Nations African Union hybrid force to protect civilians who have been victims of genocide in Darfur. This resolution represents the best hope for the international community to finally come together to put an end to the violence in that country. This new U.N. resolution reportedly calls for a large increase in military and police personnel to be deployed to Darfur. It calls on member states to make commitments to contribute troops to the hybrid force, and for this bolstered hybrid force UNAMID to take command of the region by the end of the year. Importantly, it also calls on the Sudanese Government and all rebel groups to enter into peace negotiations to reach a political settlement which will ultimately end the conflict in Darfur. If these reports are accurate, then we may be one step closer to ending the violence in Darfur. But in order to actually stop the violence, we must ensure that the hybrid force is large enough to effectively carry out its mission, and deployed quickly to stop the violence immediately. These increased forces are desperately needed to replace the currently under-funded and under- equipped paltry AU force of 7,000 soldiers presently in Darfur. We simply cannot wait any longer to protect the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians whose villages have been burned, who have been driven into refugee camps, and who have been raped and murdered. I welcome the calls of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicholas Sarkozy for the United Nations to quickly adopt this new draft resolution, and I appreciate the leadership they have demonstrated in personally committing to ensure that the peace process moves forward, once the U.N. resolution has passed. Prime Minister Brown recently declared that ``this is one of the great humanitarian disasters of our generation. It is incumbent on the whole world to act.'' I wholeheartedly agree and I urge President Bush to join with Prime Minister Brown and President Sarkozy in personally committing to ending the conflict in Darfur. Recent reports have also indicated that the text of the resolution relating to implementing multilateral sanctions has been softened due to the objections of some African member states, as well as China. While I strongly believe that robust targeted sanctions should be implemented against members of rebel groups and the Sudanese Government, that we should curb the Sudanese Government's access to oil revenues, increase penalties on private companies operating in Sudan, and allow for the divestment of funds in Sudan, the sad truth is that what is most needed now from the international community is a legitimate U.N. mandate for a strengthened hybrid peacekeeping force. But there is no reason why the United States can't move forward to implement unilateral sanctions against Sudan, even if the international community and the Bush administration refuse to do so. As chairman of the Banking Committee I have asked the majority leader to expedite Senate consideration and passage of S.831, The Sudan Divestment Authorization Act of 2007. The majority leader was prepared to do so, but the minority objected. I have also asked that the majority leader to hold H.R. 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007, at the desk and attempt to pass this bill prior to the August recess. I am also planning to ask the majority leader to expedite consideration of S. 1563, the Sudan Disclosure and Enforcement Act of 2007. These three bills represent a good step towards applying targeted economic pressure against the Sudanese Government. The implementation of robust and targeted sanctions is long overdue. In fact, the time to implement the sanctions was 4 years ago, and it should have been among the first components of the administration's Plan A, instead of the last resort of its Plan B--a plan which it has still failed to implement, despite Special Envoy Andrew Natsios's assurances over 7 months ago, back in January of 2007, that action was imminent. Sudan's U.N. ambassador recently asserted that the text of the new U.N. Security Council resolution is ``hostile'' and full of ``insinuations.'' He further declared that the language is ``ugly'' and ``awful.'' Ugly and awful? Ugly and awful is the murder of 450,000 people in Darfur and the displacement of 2.5 million civilians. Ugly and awful is the Sudanese President, Omar al-Bashir, after his recent visit to Darfur, declaring ``that most of Darfur is now secure and enjoying real peace. People are living normal lives,'' he said. Ugly and awful is the United States and the international community waiting one day longer to protect these innocent civilians. The time for action is now. We must not allow the Sudanese Government to engage in anymore prevarication regarding its acceptance of a hybrid peacekeeping force. And we must ensure that this new U.N. Security Council resolution marks the beginning of the end of genocide in Darfur, by mandating the immediate deployment of a robust multinational peacekeeping force.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act of 2007. This bill will implement one of the key recommendations of the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors. First of all, I commend former Senator Bob Dole, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, and the distinguished members of the Commission for their thoughtfulness and thorough work on this critically important matter. More than 20 years ago, I began the effort to bring job protection to hard-working Americans so they wouldn't have to choose between the family they love and the job they need. This effort, after more than seven years, three presidents, and two vetoes, eventually led to the enactment of the Family Medical Leave Act, FMLA, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid leave for eligible employees to care for a newborn or adopted child, their own serious illness or that of a loved one. Since its passage, I have worked to expand this act to cover more workers and to provide for wage replacement, so that more employees can afford to take leave when necessary. Mr. President, it is essential that we do everything possible to support our troops and to allow their loved ones to be with them as they recover from a combat-related injury or illness. That is why we must expand and improve leave benefits to those caring for our injured or ill servicemembers. The bill I introduce today provides up to 6 months of FMLA leave for primary caregivers of servicemembers who suffer from a combat-related injury or illness. FMLA currently provides for 3 months of unpaid leave to a spouse, parent or child acting as a caregiver for a person with a serious illness. However, some of those injured in service to our country rely on other family members or friends to care for them as they recover. This legislation allows these other primary caregivers, such as siblings, cousins, friends or significant others to take leave from their employment when our returning heroes need them most. Our troops are giving their all on the battlefield. The very least our Government owes them is its total support for their family and medical needs. While FMLA has provided critical support to more than 50 million American families, I will not rest until we are able to modernize this statute to cover our wounded warriors. Plain and simple, the loved ones of these brave men and women should be allowed to care for them without the fear of losing their job. I am pleased that I am joined today by Senators Ben Nelson, Kennedy, Reed and Lieberman in introducing the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act of 2007 and ask for the support of all my colleagues for this critically important effort to care for our returning wounded warriors and their loved ones. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act of 2007. This bill will implement one of the key recommendations of the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors. First of all, I commend former Senator Bob Dole, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, and the distinguished members of the Commission for their thoughtfulness and thorough work on this critically important matter. More than 20 years ago, I began the effort to bring job protection to hard-working Americans so they wouldn't have to choose between the family they love and the job they need. This effort, after more than seven years, three presidents, and two vetoes, eventually led to the enactment of the Family Medical Leave Act, FMLA, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid leave for eligible employees to care for a newborn or adopted child, their own serious illness or that of a loved one. Since its passage, I have worked to expand this act to cover more workers and to provide for wage replacement, so that more employees can afford to take leave when necessary. Mr. President, it is essential that we do everything possible to support our troops and to allow their loved ones to be with them as they recover from a combat-related injury or illness. That is why we must expand and improve leave benefits to those caring for our injured or ill servicemembers. The bill I introduce today provides up to 6 months of FMLA leave for primary caregivers of servicemembers who suffer from a combat-related injury or illness. FMLA currently provides for 3 months of unpaid leave to a spouse, parent or child acting as a caregiver for a person with a serious illness. However, some of those injured in service to our country rely on other family members or friends to care for them as they recover. This legislation allows these other primary caregivers, such as siblings, cousins, friends or significant others to take leave from their employment when our returning heroes need them most. Our troops are giving their all on the battlefield. The very least our Government owes them is its total support for their family and medical needs. While FMLA has provided critical support to more than 50 million American families, I will not rest until we are able to modernize this statute to cover our wounded warriors. Plain and simple, the loved ones of these brave men and women should be allowed to care for them without the fear of losing their job. I am pleased that I am joined today by Senators Ben Nelson, Kennedy, Reed and Lieberman in introducing the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act of 2007 and ask for the support of all my colleagues for this critically important effort to care for our returning wounded warriors and their loved ones. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation reported by the conference, the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/ 11 Commission Act of 2007. I was proud to serve on this very important conference, and while I may not agree with every part of the act, I believe that on balance it is a very important piece of legislation that will serve to make our Nation more secure and help protect Americans of all walks of life. Over 5 years after the tragic events of 9/11 and almost 2 years since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we continue to hear from Governors, county executives, mayors, first responders, health professionals, and emergency preparedness officials that our country as a whole remains unprepared for another manmade or natural disaster. We have heard the argument, which I support, that Congress needs to do more to support regional and local efforts to protect Americans. Overall, I believe this conference report takes a critical step forward in making America more secure. I am going to focus on the titles of this legislation dealing with transportation security, with which I was deeply involved throughout this process as chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, which has jurisdiction over public transportation. Title XIV of this bill creates a new grant program to improve the security of public transportation and its 14 million daily passengers. Safe and secure transit systems are essential to the well-being of our citizens and the health of our economy. The Banking Committee examined the state of transit security in our very first hearing of the 110th Congress, which was my first hearing as chairman. At that hearing, the committee heard from some very compelling witnesses, including the directors of the London and Madrid transit systems. It is not all that common that we invite witnesses who are not U.S. citizens to come and participate in congressional hearings. But given the tragedies in Madrid and London, we thought it would be worthwhile to have those who manage the transit operations in those two cities come and share with us information about their experiences. I think their testimony was very helpful in demonstrating the importance of this issue and galvanizing the attention of the Congress to address this issue in the legislation before us. We learned in those hearings that transit attacks have unfortunately been a major component of terrorist activities over the last several decades. It is no secret that worldwide, terrorists have favored public transit as a target. In the decade leading up to 2000, 42 percent of terrorist attacks worldwide targeted rail systems or buses, according to a study done by the Brookings Institution. In 2005 they attacked, as I mentioned, London's rail and bus system, killing 52 riders and injuring almost 700 more in what has been called London's bloodiest peacetime attack. In 2004, they attacked Madrid's metro system, killing 192 people and leaving 1,500 people injured. Transit is frequently targeted because it is tremendously important to any nation's economy. Securing our transit systems and our transportation networks generally is a difficult challenge under any circumstances. We must do all that we can to meet that challenge. Beyond the obvious implications of physically protecting our citizens, safe transit systems can help to maintain public confidence, encouraging transit use, reducing pollution, and preventing our cities from being mired in gridlock. The first piece of legislation that the Banking Committee marked up after I became chairman addressed with transit security. That legislation, reported out of the committee as S. 763, was included in the Senate version of the 9/11 bill. I am extremely pleased that it is included in the conference report which the Senate is considering. Similar to the bill that was reported by the Banking Committee, the conference report provides $3.5 billion in grants directly to transit agencies for security equipment, evacuation drills, and worker training--on which several witnesses, particularly from Madrid and London, testified would be the most important investment we could make. Indeed, the conference report requires worker training for all transit systems that receive security grants. The importance of worker training can scarcely be overstated. Transit workers are the first line of defense against an attack and the first to respond in the event of an attack. Mr. O'Toole, the director of London's transit system, said it well: ``You have to invest in your staff and rely on them. You have to invest in technology, but don't rely on it.'' The conference report also authorizes funds for the research and development of security technologies and authorizes funding for the Information Sharing Analysis Center, ISAC, a valuable tool that provides transit agencies timely information on active threats against their systems. At the Banking Committee hearing we heard testimony from the American Public Transportation Association in strong support of the ISAC, and I am very pleased that the conference report authorizes this important center. The conference report follows the Banking Committee's bill in allocating grants directly to transit systems on the basis of risk. The legislation makes clear that the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for making these critical decisions and allocating the grants among the Nation's 6,000 public transit agencies. The report does leave open the important decision of which agency, the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Transportation, should actually distribute these grants and audit recipients' compliance with important provisions of transit law, including labor protections. The legislation requires the Secretaries of these 2 Departments to make this decision on the basis of which Department can distribute grants in the most effective and efficient manner. It is my opinion that at this moment, and at least for the next few years, the Department of Transportation is the agency that can best meet these criteria. DOT already has an efficient and effective grant distribution system in place that directly reaches our Nation's transit systems. The Federal Transit Administration is well aware of the various provisions of transit law that the recipients of security grants will be required to comply with and will therefore be able to monitor for compliance effectively. These transit security grants must go out to agencies quickly, as we face an urgent threat. It is my hope that the Secretaries will make a decision based on sound policy to best protect the American public and not with an eye toward jurisdiction or turf. Over the years we have invested heavily in aviation security. In fact, we have invested about $7.50 per aviation passenger per trip. About 1.8 million people travel using the aviation system daily in this country. Fourteen million people use mass transit systems every workday. We have invested about $380 million in the security of mass transit systems. That is about one penny per passenger per trip. I am not suggesting, nor do we require, that there be an equilibrium between the security investment in aviation and mass transit systems. I am simply suggesting that the Federal government can and should do more to secure our transit systems. To that end, the conference report provides an authorization of $3.5 billion for transit security. We believe with this additional authorization, and we hope an appropriate appropriation from the responsible committees, that we will be able to provide some additional security for this critically important component of our economy. Again, I am grateful to the members of the conference committee for their support of this effort. I also want to thank my colleague and ranking member on the Banking Committee, Senator Shelby, who has been a true champion for transit security for many years. This National Transit Systems Security Act of 2007 would never have reached this stage without Senator Shelby's work. This was truly a bipartisan product, and I want to thank Senator Shelby and our colleagues on the Banking Committee, including the former chairmen of the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, Senators Reed and Allard, who have also made very valuable contributions to this bill over the many years that we have been working to improve transit security. I also want to make a few comments about other items that are included in this conference report. First, as chairman of the Banking Committee, I recognize the preparedness requirements that the Federal financial regulators have imposed on institutions under their jurisdiction and which those institutions have observed. I am pleased to have worked with my colleagues Senators Lieberman and Collins on title IX to clarify that the private sector preparedness certification is voluntary and should not be construed as a requirement to replace any preparedness, emergency response, or business continuity standards, requirements, or best practices established under any other provision of Federal law, or by any sector-specific agency. The Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs also exercises jurisdiction over the preparedness of American industry to supply our Government in times of defense and homeland security emergencies. Key to this effort is ensuring that our Nation's critical infrastructure operates uninterrupted and unhindered by natural or manmade disasters. Title X of this bill will enable the Department of Homeland Security to assess our vulnerabilities and hopefully work with other agencies to build up defenses for our critical infrastructure. In one specific provision, we built off of the Banking Committee's work 4 years ago when we reauthorized the Defense Production Act, DPA. In 2003, we emphasized the importance of the DPA's authorities in protecting our critical infrastructure. Today, under the conference agreement, we will require the Homeland Security Department, in coordination with the Departments of Commerce, Transportation, Defense, and Energy, to explain how it is implementing these 2003 DPA requirements. With the DPA's authorities expiring in September 2008, this report may prove helpful for our Committee's eventual markup of the reauthorization and modernization of the DPA. Finally, I want to express my disappointment that the conference report includes an immunity provision that was added to the report despite not being contained in either the Senate bill or the House bill that was sent to conference. I note that this provision was not supported by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over this matter, and I believe it should have been dealt with in a very different manner. While I share the belief that our citizens are the first line of defense against terrorism and that they need to be encouraged to report legitimate suspicious behavior, we need to be very careful whenever we grant blanket immunity and even more careful when we pass legislation granting this immunity retroactively. To conclude, Mr. President, I am pleased to recommend this conference report to my colleagues, as I believe that it will serve us well in our efforts to make Americans more secure.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be yielded time off the bill to speak.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I begin by commending our leading sponsors and managers of this legislation, Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi, for the leadership they provided in working on this important legislation. It is especially important to most American families, because all of us now are beginning to appreciate how expensive it is to receive a higher education--tragically, I point out--and what a higher education can mean to more and more Americans--the quality of life, individual success of our citizenry, but also the collective health of our country as well when we have a well-educated population. I have often quoted the statistic made by Thomas Jefferson more than 200 years ago that: Any nation that expects to be ignorant and free expects what never was and never can be. Certainly as we enter this 21st century of global competitiveness, the children of my State are not just competing with the children of Missouri, the home State of the Presiding Officer, but also competing, obviously, with children from all over the world, from Beijing, Johannesburg, Moscow, New Delhi--everywhere. This is going to be a very different world for children growing up in the 21st century. The extent we provide them with the tools and preparation necessary to compete and succeed under these circumstances--very different from what most of us have grown up with--is going to be extremely important, and the work this body does in the coming days is extremely important. I believe the National Science Foundation reported that the abrupt changes that will come in this country will be staggering if we don't do a better job in preparing ourselves for the educational challenges that we will face in the 21st century. The cost of a college education obviously is a major factor here. It is vital for children and families and for America's long-term success. According to recent statistics, to put it in graphic terms, a person with a higher education, a college education, their earning power jumps by almost $1 million. Not that this ought to be the sole criterion whether someone gets a higher education, but the earning power of an individual is substantially enhanced. There are other, more important issues than earning power, but certainly the issues of individuals being able to do better, provide for the long-term financial security of themselves and families is critically important. But there are issues that go beyond how much money you make that have to do with an education. We have to support the institution we embrace as Americans, as Jefferson was suggesting back in the beginning of the 19th century. I would argue even more importantly, the subtleties of a Bill of Rights will depend upon a population that embraces them, understands them, is willing to do everything they can to protect them so future generations will enjoy the benefits of our form of governance as well. Today's tuition levels are one of the great barriers to people going on to higher education. I was stunned to learn, even in the last 2 months, the number of people in our country who completed high school, were accepted for higher education and did not go because of financial barriers. I am told the numbers hover around 400,000 young people in this country. That is a deeply troubling statistic. If we have as many as 400,000 people in our country who cannot afford to go on to higher education despite having done everything else well, then America truly will be paying a price in no time. The average cost of attending a public university is roughly $13,000. The average cost of attending a private university stands at $30,000. That is the average. I know people here can cite numbers and statistics that make that $13,000 on average seem small and the $30,000 on average per annum seem small. But just think of that, $30,000, for one individual to attend 1 year of higher education; even at a public institution, it costs around $13,000. Then consider where the average family is in their income, and whether they have more than one child and other obligations, obviously, as they try to prepare for their own long-term financial security; not worry about health care costs, including rising premium costs, if they have health insurance. Additionally, the mortgage payments on their home with adjustable rate mortgages, all of those factors crowding in as families try to do everything possible to see to it that their children can have the benefit of a higher education. How many families have planned and spent years and years watching their children mature and grow, with the full expectation of all the admonitions: Work hard, do your homework, get involved in things, learn as much as you can, pay attention, and all of that. Then, arriving at the moment, where they do everything they are supposed to have done, they say now we want to send you on to college, but we cannot afford to do so. Or the loans are so expensive that you will be left with such debt that the benefits of getting a higher education seem daunting, to put it mildly. So imagine how daunting these levels are to a single parent or a family struggling on a minimum wage, for instance. You can even forget about it at minimum wage. Clearly, we must do more to ensure that skyrocketing tuition does not put out of reach the dream and the ability of obtaining a higher education. That is why this bill is so important, maybe one of the most important bills. We have had long debates on immigration, long debates on Iraq, all very important issues. But the long-term effects of what we do on this legislation may have more to do with the well-being of our country than almost anything else in the coming days and weeks. This bill will help us move toward a society where equal opportunity for all is more than just high-blown rhetoric. We hear too often in public speeches about doing something to make a difference in the lives of working families. There are a number of key provisions in this bill which accomplish those goals. For example, the bill caps the borrower's monthly loan payments at 15 percent of discretionary income. While payments are still costly at 15 percent, this is a major achievement. This cap, if you will, will make repayment more manageable and borrowers will be less likely to default on their loans, which ought to be important for the lending institutions. This bill will also increase the auto zero threshold, as they call it, to allow additional low-income families to automatically claim zero expected family contributions when filling out financial aid forms. This change will allow students of these families to be eligible for increased Pell grants. Too often what we have done with the Pell grants is consider these other factors, such as expected family contribution. It drives a student out of the Pell grant qualifications when, frankly, what the family has to contribute is so little that it would amount to almost nothing, and yet would disqualify them from receiving the Pell grant funding they need. Furthermore, we have raised the cap on economic hardship deferments from 3 years to 6 years to ensure that students are not finally crushed in times of financial difficulty. We have also strengthened our commitment to those who provide high- quality childcare services as well as all other public service employees by offering them further opportunities for loan forgiveness. One of the items contained in this bill that I am most happy about is the increase in the Pell grant. I have been involved in this for many years. It has been terribly frustrating over the last 6, 7, 8 years to watch how little this administration is willing to support even modest increases to the Pell Grant Program in our country. The Pell grant in this bill will be raised to $5,100, in 2008 and up to $5,400 by the year 2012. Frankly, that is paltry. Candidly, I wish it were much higher, especially considering what a Pell grant used to provide only a few short years ago toward the cost of a public education. The grant used to cover 80 percent of the average tuition, fees, room and board at a public university. Today the Pell grant covers 29 percent. So even with a Pell grant you are still looking at having to come up with roughly 70 percent of the additional costs of that higher education when you take all of these factors together. As a result, low- to middle-income students who attend college are forced to finance their education with an ever-increasing percentage of loans, including private loans. This increase in the debt burden of students, in some cases, keeps them from going to college at all. As I mentioned the numbers earlier, somewhere close to 400,000 students are not going on to higher education because of financial burdens. This year alone, it is estimated that 400,000 high school graduates who are prepared and ready to go to a 4-year college will be unable to go because their families cannot afford it. While I continue to advocate for even greater increases in the Pell grant, I commend my colleagues for taking the first steps in getting us back to the 80- percent tuition coverage we achieved in 1975. I am pleased that Senators Kennedy and Enzi are doing that. Until we reach the goal of 80 percent of students' tuition being covered by Pell grants and other forms of Federal aid, many students will be forced to turn to private and direct consumer and student loans, which are also not guaranteed by the Federal Government and are not subject to loan limits. In fact, the market for private student loans has grown significantly and is now the fastest growing segment of the $85 billion student loan industry, as traditional sources of student aid have failed to keep pace, with both the tremendous demand and the cost of higher education. The underwriting for private loans is similar to that used for other forms of consumer credit. This means student borrowers, who usually have little or no credit history, poor credit scores, or no parental cosigner, or whose parents have poor credit histories, will typically pay higher rates than those with good credit histories and those with parental consigners with good credit. In many regards, this model runs counter to the longstanding Federal purpose of student aid, which is targeting low-cost financial assistance to students with the greatest needs and those from the humblest of backgrounds, one of the great success stories of our country. We have heard the anecdote repeated hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of times of what a difference a college education has made throughout history. We have tried desperately to make sure that no one in this country would be deprived of the opportunity of a higher education because they or their family lacked the financial resources to do it. If you had the drive, the ambition, the determination to get a higher education, America stood ready to see to it that this pathway was available to you. It has only been in the last few years that we have allowed a situation to develop where too often those young people and those families are being told: Because you are in those circumstances, you are not going to be able to get that higher education that you need and you deserve. As I mentioned a moment ago, 400,000 young people who will not go on to 4-year colleges, at a time when we enter a global marketplace, where we need to have the best prepared generation America has ever produced, we seem to be heading in the wrong direction. This bill reverses that trend. Again, I commend my colleagues, Senator Kennedy particularly, and Senator Enzi, for their work in reversing this trend line. I hope it is the beginning of several steps that we take in the coming years. I am further alarmed by reports uncovered by the Congressional and State investigators which detail aggressive and questionable private loan marketing practices and other unseemly industry practices, ranging from conflicts of interest to kickback schemes to consumer fraud. I want to particularly commend Andrew Cuomo, the attorney general of the State of New York, who has taken a leadership role in this nationally, in uncovering some of these schemes and kickbacks and other financial activities that have put these loans at even higher costs to students. I was pleased we had him testify before the Banking Committee only a few weeks ago to talk about this and the steps that we will be taking to try to correct some of those matters at the appropriate time. I also was troubled by issues uncovered at a hearing that I just mentioned in the Senate Banking Committee that suggests some lenders may be using as part of their loan underwriting criteria subjective rankings of academic institutions, and demographic information about the students who attend these schools who, that be discriminatory and disparately impact the quality and type of loans made available to students based on their race and socioeconomic background, in effect red-lining, where they are taking entire institutions, based on some data and so forth they collect to deny individual students within those institutions the lower cost access to financial support. That amounts to red-lining, as we saw in housing issues only a few years ago. If that is the case, and we believe it may be, we will be taking steps to correct that as well. Students seeking to finance the cost of a higher education should have access to the most competitive and affordable loans available through private student loan markets, with appropriate consideration given to the credit worthiness of the student and any cosigner, without regard to the type of institution that student chooses to attend. Students should have full and timely access to all of the information they need regarding the terms and conditions of private student loans in order to make a well-informed decision regarding the financing of their educational needs. Given the growth of this market and its enormous impact on the educational and economic future of student borrowers, I view it as imperative that we address these issues as part of the consideration of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. We should ensure that the market is well regulated and accessible and affordable as an alternative source of higher education funding for those who need the loans in our country. We can do that, in my view, by prohibiting industry practices like revenue sharing and co-branding that present conflicts of interest by providing student borrowers with better, more timely disclosure information so that students understand the rates, the terms, and the conditions of the loans they are going to receive. We must work to make sure that private student lending practices are transparent so the public can be confident that students and families are obtaining the most competitive and affordable student loans with the fairest terms. I plan on working with my friend and colleague, Senator Shelby of Alabama, who is the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, and all members of that committee for that matter, on this bill. We are in the process of doing that now. I would say under the circumstances that this bill is coming up, we would be prohibited, under Senate rules, from raising that issue on this particular vehicle. I do not in any way suggest that what they are doing is not the right thing to be doing, it is the right thing to be doing, but our bill that deals specifically with student financing and lending institutions will be presented at an appropriate time, possibly when the full higher education bill is before us--but we are determined on a bipartisan basis to address some of these issues, if not all of them, that I have raised briefly this afternoon. Indeed, this bill before us provides all students with the tools that make it possible to access and afford a postsecondary education. If we are serious about leaving no child behind, as I know all of us are as a nation, then we must reinvigorate our commitment to higher education, to ensure that students have access to a higher education, to a college education. If America is to remain the land of opportunity that all of us want it to be, then we must ensure that college is available to all of our citizenry. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this long overdue legislation. I often cite the fact that in our Nation's history, it has always been a stunning commentary about our country, as it has evolved and matured over the years, that one of the very first bills that ever passed the United States Congress in the 18th century, in the early 1790s, was the Northwest Ordnance. My colleague from Colorado probably is more familiar than I, given he represents a State in the far West, but the whole idea being to set aside land for educational purposes. The Morrill Act, which was adopted in the mid-1860s--in fact, right in the middle of the Civil War, Senator Morrill of Vermont offered legislation to create land grant colleges. So even in the midst of this great contest to determine whether we would remain one Nation, one Union, the Congress of the United States, under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln and Senator Morrill of Vermont, fought to create land grant colleges. The University of Connecticut is one of those institutions that provides incredible opportunities for young people all across the Nation, again understanding the value of education to our country. So in the 18th and the 19th centuries, and then of course in the 20th century, we saw, even before World War II was concluded, the Congress of the United States passed the GI bill, which provided, of course, a whole generation of service men and women coming back from that war the ability to get an educational opportunity. That investment in the GI bill has been repaid to the U.S. Government tenfold because of the earning power of the individuals who went through the GI bill who were able to improve their economic opportunity. The resources they paid back into our country have dwarfed the cost of that legislation. Today we do not even think about legislation like that, given the cost, regrettably, I might add, because when you consider that 400,000--think of that, 400,000 of our young people in this country today are not going to go on to a higher education because of cost. That is, 400,000 young people who did everything they were asked to do, I presume, having been accepted on to higher education--will not get that chance because we do not have the resources or the will to come up with a system to make that possible. We talk about being a major competitor nation in the 21st century. I promise you, our major competitors around the world are not making that mistake. They will create the opportunities for their young people to get that education. This bill is a major step to reverse that trend in our country. There are other things we need to do, such as a proposal regarding private lenders that we will be offering shortly. I wish I could offer it today but, it would be subject to at least two points of order. So it would require a 60-vote margin to deal with it. We probably don't have a number of Members willing to go that far, I regret to say that. So I will wait for another opportunity in the coming weeks to do so. I will do that with Senator Shelby as we work on this together. But my hope is, shortly we will have an opportunity to present legislation that will close up some of these abusive practices that have contributed to rising costs and depriving families and their children of having the best possible arrangements for the student loans they need to get a higher education. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 20 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the next Democratic Speaker be Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts; with the understanding that if a Republican Member wishes to speak, they would be permitted to do so between any majority speakers.

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I had hoped to offer an amendment today to this year's Defense authorization bill regarding Iraq. I understand the leadership has decided to act on the Levin-Reed amendment before considering other amendments to this legislation. Given the existing parliamentary situation, I am not confident there will be an opportunity to get an up-or-down vote on my amendment or, for that matter, any other amendments that meaningfully mandates a change of course with respect to the administration's policy in Iraq. It is deeply troubling and it saddens me that in the Senate, on the most critical issue of our day, we cannot consider, debate or vote on amendments affecting the lives and well-being of our servicemen and women and the conduct of U.S. foreign policy in the most troubled spot in the world today. I believe those who refuse to allow this Senate to vote on this critical issue do a grave disservice to the American people by enabling the President to continue with his failed strategy in Iraq. Every additional day we ``stay the course'' in Iraq, our Nation is less safe and the people of Iraq get further away from coming together to fashion a political and diplomatic solution to their civil conflict. Our men and women in uniform have served this Nation valiantly in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they will continue to do so, I am confident, until our political leaders see the error of their judgment in this case and begin the process of drawing down U.S. troops in Iraq. It is imperative, I believe, we change course in Iraq immediately. I think this is vitally important for our country and the well-being of that part of the world. Sadly, the President and his allies stand in the way of that goal. Support for the President's policy erodes as each passing day unfolds with more violence and chaos in Iraq. I predict the day will come when Congress will have the courage to say enough is enough, but, sadly, it would not be before more American lives are lost or more wanton destruction occurs in the beleaguered nation of Iraq. Let me speak briefly about the amendment I had hoped to offer--still hope to offer--and which I would like to offer at the earliest opportunity if, in fact, this logjam breaks. My amendment seeks to accomplish two critical tasks. First, to bring the Iraq war to a close by ending the financing of combat operations, mandating a phased redeployment of combat forces from Iraq, and ensuring the administration actually carries out that redeployment. Second, the amendment proposes to redirect any savings realized from a reduced military presence in Iraq, to restore the readiness of our very war-battered National Guard and armed services. I strongly believe we must not wait any longer to achieve either task. Now is the time for us to make difficult choices. Now is the time for the Senate to enact legislation that, I believe, will hold this administration accountable to this policy. I support the Levin-Reed amendment, and I thank both our colleagues, the authors of that amendment, for demonstrating leadership in trying to move this body one step closer to bringing this disastrous war to a close. It is my hope that their amendment will do that, but I remain concerned about some aspects of that amendment--the extended delay in commencing redeployment and the absence of any funding linkage to redeployment. Based on past experiences with this administration, my concern is the President will simply ignore the legislation proposed by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the senior Senator from Rhode Island. It has been quite difficult to track the ever-changing justifications for continuing our combat operations in Iraq, including the surge, and there appears to be no end in sight. First, the administration simply refused to admit there was no military solution in Iraq or that Iraq was in a State of civil war. Then, instead of acting upon a unique chance to implement the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission, which Congress supported, Secretary Rice explained that the administration was implementing a surge tactic, but assured us that it was an Iraqi plan. ``Most importantly,'' she claimed, ``the Iraqis have devised their own strategy, and our efforts will support theirs.'' Our country was told that despite the catastrophic policy failures of this administration up until that point, that the surge would take time to work and that we couldn't judge its success until U.S. forces had ``surged'' to their maximum levels--and that would take up to 6 months. But that the surge is at full force, and we are told yet again that the time isn't right to make a judgment about the success or failure of the administration's policy. Now we are told we must wait until September to determine the success of the surge. I strongly suspect, as I stand here in July, that as September draws near the administration will once again come up with some additional arguments to delay the day of reckoning on the policy in Iraq. I do not need any more time, or any more reports and briefings to confirm what most of us already know. The American people and the Iraqi people don't need any more time to realize that the administration's Iraq policy, including the surge, has been a failure. With the exception of a handful in this body, I have not said anything that most of my colleagues do not believe themselves. Why, then, are we waiting? As we wait yet another 2 or 3 months to decide what most of us here have already concluded, while disagreeing about how best to achieve this result, there is a consensus that has emerged that I think is probably more than a supermajority. After all the time waiting here, our servicemen and women and the beleaguered people of Iraq will pay an awful price indeed, as we fool around and dicker while deciding to come to the conclusion we have all basically reached already. The highly respected International Crisis Group recently released a report on Iraq which examined the complex reasons for the current political violence in Iraq, and concluded that any surge based on a purely military operation with a simplistic view of the bloodshed's origins was destined for failure. We mustn't sacrifice any more lives, we shouldn't countenance any more bloodshed, and we shouldn't support the continuation of the failed escalation of a disastrous policy. The April-May American death toll is a new 2-month record. The civilian casualty rate in Iraq is at an all- time high. Overall violence in Iraq is up and, according to the Iraqi Red Crescent, the number of internally displaced Iraqis has quadrupled since January. In fact, the Iraqi Red Crescent warns that there is currently a human tragedy unprecedented in Iraq's history.'' As recent GAO reports have highlighted what we all intuitively have concluded--that there has been little progress on the key detailed provisions of Iraq's hydrocarbon law, let alone on reforming the Iraqi constitution, on debaathification, or on a host of other essential political components to a functioning Iraqi government, focused on reconciliation. In fact, Foreign Policy magazine recently released their ``failed state index'' and Iraq rose to No. 2 on that index, closely behind Sudan. The President told the American people that the surge of troops into key cities in Iraq was being executed in order to provide the Iraqis with some political breathing space to start the reconciliation process. Secretary Rice explained that ``the most urgent task now is to help the Iraqi government establish the confidence that it can and will protect all of its citizens, regardless of their sectarian identity, and that it will reinforce security with political reconciliation and economic support.'' But none of that has happened--and falsely claiming that it has, won't make us safer, won't secure Iraq, won't secure our interests in the region, and won't rebuild our military. As my friend Senator Lugar, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said recently In my judgment, the current surge strategy is not an effective means of protecting these interests. Its prospects for success are too dependent on the actions of others who do not share our agenda. It relies on military power to achieve goals that it cannot achieve. It distances allies that we will need for any regional diplomatic effort. Its failure, without a careful transition to a back-up policy would intensify our loss of credibility. It uses tremendous amounts of resources that cannot be employed in other ways to secure our objectives. I fully agree with my friend and colleague from Indiana. That is why my amendment also calls on the administration to appoint a high-level special envoy to Iraq to engage in a new diplomatic offensive--exactly what the Baker Hamilton Commission called for over 6 months ago. It is imperative that we engage Iraqi leaders, regional leaders and international organizations such as the United Nations and the Arab League to promote reconciliation and stability in Iraq. I know of no other way this is likely to occur. This administration has long neglected the key diplomatic and political aspects of the conflict in Iraq, despite the calls of many of us, including my good friend Senator Hagel, who recently outlined a plan to ``internationalize'' our efforts to help Iraqis reach political reconciliation, including appointing a U.N. Security Council-backed international mediator. The amendment offered by Senators Levin and Reed also calls for such a mediator, which I fully support. But, despite the fact that there is no military solution to this conflict, which we have said for now almost 3\1/2\ years, this administration and too many in the Congress are still wedded to only military solutions. In fact, these defenders of the Iraq war continue claim that we are in Iraq to fight al-Qaida, just like they continue to falsely claim that al-Qaida had links to Saddam Hussein. But according to a recent article by Michael Gordon, the coauthor of Cobra II: al-Qaida in Mesopotamia [the action of al-Qaida currently in Iraq] did not exist before the Sept. 11 attacks. This Sunni group has thrived as a magnet for recruiting and a force for violence largely because of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which brought an American occupying force of more than 100,000 troops to the heart of the Middle East, and led to a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad. Moreover, according to recent media accounts, it is the Mahdi Army, a Shiite militia led by the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, not al-Qaida in Mesopotamia that poses the greatest risk to American troops in Baghdad. Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that the Mahdi Army's frequent and brazen attacks on U.S. soldiers also appear to challenge the idea that the Mahdi Army has been lying low to avoid confrontations with Americans. Perhaps most frustrating of all, while feverishly attempting to find linkages between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi insurgents, the administration has taken its eye off the ball of the bigger threats posed by looming terrorists having little or nothing to do with Iraq. The GAO recently slammed the administration's anti-terrorism efforts in a report entitled ``Law Enforcement Agencies Lack Directives to Assist Foreign Nations to Identify, Disrupt and Prosecute Terrorists.'' The report found that there is a tremendous deficit of communication and coordination among key U.S. agencies, which in turn severely hampers our efforts at fighting international terrorism and aiding foreign governments in doing so. Six years after 9/11, this administration has singularly focused on Iraq, while failing to effectively fight international terrorism. It may be true that for the Bush administration that Iraq is the central front in their ``war on terror'', but this misplaced focus has made America less secure as a result. Simply put, we must stop the downward spiral in Iraq, and refocus our efforts at effectively and robustly combating extremism and terrorism around the world--and my amendment would begin to do just that. Why is that the case? Because my amendment sets clear timelines for the phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq, with three specific exceptions for activities that are critical to our national security interests and the interests of Iraq: First, conducting counterrorism operations in Iraq, targeted at al-Qaida in Mesopotamia; second, training and equipping Iraqi forces; and third, force protection for U.S. personnel and infrastructure. This amendment also provides a specific timeline for all combat forces to redeploy out of Iraq, aside from the three exceptions I just mentioned, by April 30, 2008. To ensure that this process gets underway without any stonewalling by the administration or anyone in his administration, my amendment sets an interim deadline of December 31, 2007, at which point at least 50,000 troops must have been redeployed out of Iraq. Failure to meet this initial milestone will result in a funding penalty. The amendment would withhold 25 percent of the fiscal year 2008 military budget for Iraq-related activities until the President certifies that he can meet the overall April 30, 2008, deadline. Ultimately, this amendment calls for the redeployment of approximately 90,000 combat troops within the next 9 months, leaving about 70,000 to complete the three non-combat missions that I have already outlined. The redeployed forces would be comprised of a majority of the deployed Army brigade combat teams and the Marine Expeditionary Force currently in theater. Now, some may say that such redeployment is not logistically achievable within the timeframes laid out in the amendment. However, I want to remind my colleagues that in the ramp up to the first gulf war, the Department of Defense coordinated the movement of over 500,000 troops and 10 million tons of cargo and fuel in the same timeframe that this amendment grants to redeploy a force one-fifth the size. In January 1991, alone, the Transportation Command moved approximately 132,000 troops, 1 million tons of cargo, and over 1 million tons of fuel. If it is possible to coordinate the logistics to go to war, it is certainly possible, in my view, to get our troops out of harm's way and bring our military involvement in this civil war to a close. Of course, there is always a concern about the cost of conducting a redeployment. Senator Conrad, now chairman of the Budget Committee, asked this very question to the Congressional Budget Office in 2002, requesting an assessment of the costs of the Iraq war; including the eventual redeployment of our forces. The CBO concluded that the redeployment of our forces to their home bases would cost approximately $7 billion, less than the cost of 1 month of ongoing operations in Iraq. Can we trust this figure? The very same report notes that monthly costs for the war would run between $6 billion and $9 billion per month--that was in 2002; which is exactly what we saw until the incursion of additional surge related costs. Up until now, the cost of the war in Iraq has been mainly measured in the number of lives lost and U.S. Treasury spent--and rightly so. Mr. President, 3,600 brave American servicemembers have been killed, tens of thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives, and Congress has approved approximately $450 billion. But there is yet another cost of war--our military's readiness. While long, arduous deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan are testing the morale of our troops in the field and their families, they are also taxing critical stocks of aircraft, vehicles and equipment that our military needs to prepare for other challenges in the 21st century. According to recent military reports, two-thirds of the U.S. Army is unable to report for combat duty, and the Army's top generals have said that if the administration continues to fail to meet these needs, the situation could further deteriorate. The situation for our National Guard is even worse. According to National Guard Bureau Chief, LTG Steven Blum, ``88 percent of the force that are back here in the United States are very poorly equipped today in the Army National Guard.'' Such a statistic is unconscionable to me--and it affects the National Guard units in every State of every last Senator in this Chamber. My amendment will take steps to remedy this dire situation and begin to rebuild our military. This debate is about priorities. Will we continue to fund a failed strategy, in my view, in Iraq that is leaving us less secure and that is hollowing out our military? Or will we meet our commitments to our service members and our Nation, by restoring the readiness of our forces which have been severely damaged by this administration's policies? In my view, the answer is simple. Our military's top generals and admirals have submitted to Congress lists of critical military priorities that would not be funded under the President's fiscal year 2008 budget proposal. Billions of dollars a week are being squandered in Iraq, while our Nation's military is calling out for additional resources to repair the damage caused by the administration's policies. My amendment therefore reprioritizes our defense budget to rebuild our military. It stops financing combat missions in Iraq and redirects funding to meeting priorities for the armed services. Savings made available by downsizing our force in Iraq would be invested in items identified by each of our military's Service Chiefs. Funding levels for these items would not exceed the amounts specified in their official fiscal year 2008 unfunded requirements lists submitted to Congress earlier this year. The Army Chief of Staff has found over $10 billion in critical shortfalls, including funding for specially armored trucks known as MRAPs or mine resistant ambush protected vehicles; night vision goggles, and bomb disposal gear. The Marine Corps' ``unfunded requirement list'' submitted by the Commandant includes over $3 billion for similar priorities as well as new helicopters; communications gear and training equipment. The Navy's list totals over $5.6 billion, including helicopters, sailor housing, and aircraft maintenance. The Air Force's unfunded priorities, totaling over $16 billion, includes much needed resources to modernize radar systems and restore our fleet of cargo aircraft to help redeploy our troops and their equipment. The National Guard Bureau Chief has identified over a billion dollars needed to begin rebuilding Guard forces across the United States--to replace and repair vehicles, aircraft, and personal gear, necessary for homeland security missions. The amendment I would like to offer would allow for funding to restore National Guard equipment readiness. Due to the administration's mismanagement, the National Guard is facing a $38 billion equipment shortfall, according to General Blum. A recent report by the U.S. Commission on the National Guard and Reserves disclosed that the administration's policies have actually endangered the Guard's abilities to perform both their overseas and homeland defense missions. Under orders by the administration, the National Guard troops have been forced to leave their State's equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan for our troops rotating into combat theaters. Many of their military vehicles and aircraft are being worn down or destroyed in battle, but any critical equipment that may have survived is simply being transferred to other units coming into Iraq and Afghanistan. In my home State of Connecticut, the adjutant general, MG Thaddeus Martin, recently reported that equipment shortages exceed $200 million in my State. This includes more than 200 humvees, 21 large support vehicles and tankers and heavy-cargo vehicles, over 600 personnel and crew-served weapons systems, over 1,500 night-vision devices, and even one medium-lift helicopter. What does all of this mean? It means that we are short of equipment to respond to natural or manmade disasters here at home, short of equipment for training, short of equipment to maintain the standard of maintenance rotation for equipment currently in the field, short of equipment for units deploying into harm's way--short of equipment to protect the American people themselves. The Government Accountability Office highlighted this very important point in testimony released on October 20, 2005, and I quote it. It stated: The cumulative effect of these personnel and equipment transfers has been a decline in the readiness of Army National Guard forces for future missions, both overseas and at home. This data alone should demonstrate to everyone unequivocally that each of us has to fulfill our obligations to our warfighters. Now is the time to begin the rebuilding process. In my view, the sooner we redeploy out of Iraq, get our military out of that situation, the sooner we can redirect these vital funds to rebuild our forces here at home. None of our choices are easy. I don't suggest by my remarks here that they are. But they are clear choices. It is about time we made them. To govern is to choose the policy that is best for our Nation, even in the face of extreme difficulty. So I call on my colleagues here today to make those choices which experience, commonsense, and overwhelming data compel; that is, to force the President to redeploy, to rebuild our Armed Forces, and to end this disastrous involvement in the civil war. The last several months have been a story of squandered chances. We have paid for them in American lives. Again, to delay another 2 or 3 months to arrive at a conclusion most of us have already arrived at is something I think is unacceptable. And that lives which may be lost or damaged because we waited 2 or 3 months to arrive at a conclusion that most here already believe to be the case, is certainly a sad day for this body. We cannot even have votes, we cannot even consider the various ideas we bring to the Chamber that might bring this war and our involvement in it to a close. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached letter from the American Council of Life Insurers be printed in the Record, along with the materials I submitted for S. 1677, the Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, section 721 of the Defense Production Act, also known as the Exon-Florio amendment, Exon-Florio, established a statutory framework for the U.S. Government to analyze foreign acquisitions, mergers, and takeovers of privately owned entities within the United States to determine whether such transactions affect the national security of the United States. The Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 amends section 721 for the purpose of strengthening the process by which such transactions are reviewed and, when warranted, investigated for national security concerns. In addition, the act provides for a system of congressional notification so that Congress is able to conduct proper oversight of the national security implications of foreign direct investment in the United States to ensure that it is beneficial and has no adverse impact on U.S. national security. Exon-Florio established a four-step process for examining a foreign acquisition: (1) voluntary notice by the companies; (2) a 30-day review to identify any national security concerns; (3) an optional 45-day investigation to determine whether identified concerns require more extensive mitigation efforts or a recommendation to the President for possible action; and (4) a Presidential decision to permit, suspend, or prohibit an acquisition in those instances where potential national security concerns cannot be mitigated. During the standard review period, CFIUS conducts a national security analysis to determine whether any national security issues exist with a particular transaction, and if so, whether those concerns can be mitigated. In practice, companies sometime ``pre-file'' with CFIUS, providing information about the transaction in order to ensure that CFIUS has all necessary information during the formal review period. Further, companies may withdraw from the formal review in order to address concerns on the condition that they re-file promptly with CFIUS or abandon the transaction. Therefore, while the vast majority of CFIUS transactions are approved by the end of the 30-day review, the total time devoted to transactions is sometimes longer. If national security concerns have not been resolved during the 30-day review, CFIUS can extend its review to a second stage 45-day investigation. At the end of a 45-day investigation, the transaction is sent to the President for a decision, accompanied by a CFIUS report and recommendation. Any transaction that goes to the President must be reported to Congress. Transactions that enter investigation may also be terminated before reaching the President, with the companies voluntarily withdrawing and abandoning the investment. Presidential decisions are also avoided in cases where a mitigation agreement has been reached during the investigation period and the companies withdraw from investigation and immediately refile. Mitigation agreements, which are contracts with CFIUS or CFIUS agencies entered into by the parties to the transaction, are an important element of the CFIUS review and investigation process. These agreements are intended to mitigate possible national security threats posed by a transaction short of requiring that the parties abandon the transaction altogether. The Department of Defense, hereafter DOD, has for many years used various types of mitigation agreements under existing DOD authority and regulations such as the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, NISPOM, to address the impact of foreign ownership and control over companies that have classified contracts with the Pentagon or intelligence agencies. In recent years, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security have also done so. S. 1610 reinforces CFIUS's capacity to refuse, suspend, modify or reverse any transaction if a written notice of such transaction is not filed with CFIUS or if there is an intentional material omission or falsehood in connection with a completed CFIUS review or investigation, or an intentional material breach in any posttransaction mitigation agreement, and establishes a formal requirement that all filings with CFIUS must be complete and accurate to the best of the filing party's ability. Thus, the committee establishes a clear signal that all violations of such notice certification should be considered in the context of title 18, section 1001, and all intentional breaches or misstatements could also lead to severe modification or divestment of an acquisition of a previously reviewed transaction at any time. The bill also establishes a mechanism by which CFIUS can unilaterally reopen a transaction that had previously been approved. My expectation is that this authority will only be used in exceptional circumstances when no other remedies exist and where there has been an intentional breach that affects national security. For that reason, the bill requires important procedural safeguards to ensure that this authority is not used lightly--among other safeguards, it requires, for example, that the decision to reopen a case is made at the same level of seniority as is required in the bill for the approval of transactions. The bill makes clear that CFIUS can only reopen a transaction if these threshold tests are met. Of necessity, the reviews and investigations, which contain classified evaluations of national security vulnerabilities as well as extensive proprietary business information, remain highly confidential. Given this lack of transparency, there have been concerns over the years about CFIUS's accountability to Congress and to the public, particularly with regard to fundamental questions of whether CFIUS policies are consistent with the statute, executive orders, and regulations that govern its operations and whether CFIUS policies are applied consistently from transaction to transaction. CFIUS has explicit authority in the regulations to open a case in the event that CFIUS discovers there has been a material misstatement or omission in the information provided by the parties to the transaction. CFIUS agencies also have all of the remedies that are normally available under a contract in order to enforce the terms of the mitigation agreement. In addition, in a large number of CFIUS cases, and particularly those involving the Defense Department, CFIUS approvals can be effectively nullified simply by ending the federal agency's contracting relationship with the company. Defense-related contracts are often a central element of CFIUS transactions, so the threat of being denied a contract going forward ensures compliance with the terms of mitigation agreements or other conditions agreed to by the foreign investor. On October 6, 2005, under the leadership of then-Chairman Richard Shelby, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs conducted a hearing into the findings of the GAO report. Discussion between the GAO witnesses and Banking Committee members further highlighted deficiencies in implementation of Exon-Florio and the level of dissatisfaction with the lack of communication between CFIUS and the appropriate oversight committees of Congress. That hearing was followed on October 20, 2005, by another hearing that allowed the Banking Committee to hear directly from many of the agencies that comprise CFIUS, including the Department of the Treasury, which has the lead role in implementing Exon-Florio, as well as private sector representatives. In late January 2006 congressional offices became aware of the proposed acquisition of terminal operations at a number of U.S. maritime ports by Dubai Ports World, hereafter DPW, an established port operator owned by the government of the Emirate of Dubai. Concern within Congress about a transaction that would transfer control of terminal operations to a company owned by a Persian Gulf emirate through whose financial system funds had been transferred to the terrorists who carried out the September 11, 2001, attacks upon the United States, and that had been a central conduit for nuclear weapons components being smuggled to hostile regimes, provided further impetus for review of the manner in which foreign transactions were being analyzed by CFIUS. That senior White House officials, and the Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries of the Departments of the Treasury and Homeland Security were unaware of the Dubai Ports World transaction, combined with the fact this transaction was not subjected to a formal investigation in violation of the Byrd amendment, compounded congressional concerns about the nature of the underlying transaction. In response to congressional criticism related to the DPW case in 2006, CFIUS agencies pledged to address flaws in the CFIUS process identified by Congress. There were 113 transactions filed with CFIUS in 2006, up 74 percent from the previous year. Because companies seek CFIUS consideration voluntarily, this increase reflected greater sensitivity among foreign investors, which in turn may reflect a more aggressive stance from CFIUS. CFIUS conducted seven second-stage investigations, the same number of investigations that had been conducted over the previous five-year period. There was also an increase in the number of companies withdrawing from CFIUS reviews and investigations, which suggests a higher degree of scrutiny: either companies withdrew for the purpose of terminating the underlying transaction or in order to restructure the transaction to address CFIUS concerns. The number of cases in which CFIUS approved transactions with conditions attached through mitigation agreements also increased. CFIUS has also increased its Congressional outreach, notifying the Congressional leadership and committees of jurisdiction upon completion of CFIUS action on each transaction. Treasury also finally produced the long-overdue quadrennial report on CFIUS-related issues as mandated by the Defense Production Act of 1950. In response to continued concerns regarding implementation of Exon- Florio, on April 30, 2006, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs reported an original bill, S. 109-264, which made significant amendments to Section 721 to strengthen the review and oversight process. Senate bill 109-264 passed the Senate on July 26, 2006. On the same day the House passed its own reform legislation, H.R. 5337. No further action occurred on the bills prior to the adjournment of the 109th Congress. On February 28, 2007, The House once again passed legislation amending section 721 to strengthen the foreign investment review process, H.R. 556--The National Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act of 2007. On May 16, 2007, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs convened to consider and report an original bill--the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007--Proposed by Chairman Christopher J. Dodd, working closely with Ranking Member Richard Shelby and drawing upon the extensive work that members of the committee had undertaken on this subject in the 109th Congress. Let me offer a brief summary of the most important provisions of the bill. The Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007-- Establishes the membership of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS, in statute; Strengthens the role of the Director of National Intelligence, hereafter DNI, by making the DNI an ex-officio member of CFIUS and requiring that the Director undertake a thorough analysis of the transaction with respect to any national security implications, engage the intelligence community, and report the DNI's findings to the committee within 20 days of the commencement of the CFIUS review. Requires the DNI to update CFIUS with any additional relevant intelligence information that becomes available during the course of a review and/or investigation; Mandates the designation of a lead agency or agencies for each covered transaction, in addition to the Treasury Department, charged with negotiating any mitigation agreement or other conditions to ensure that national security is protected, and for follow-up compliance with the terms of the agreement after the transaction has been approved by CFIUS; Provides for the 30-day review of covered transactions by CFIUS to determine its effects on national security, and for sign-off at the assistant secretary-level, or above, that there is no threat to national security by the proposed transaction; Provides for the 45-day investigation of covered transactions that threaten to impair national security, including transactions involving foreign government-owned companies and control of critical infrastructure, and for sign-off at the Deputy Secretary level that there is no threat to the national security by the proposed transaction; Provides for certain exceptions for the requirement that a state- owned entity automatically go to the investigation stage if the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, and the equivalent level official in the lead agency, determine after review of the transaction that national security will not be impaired by the transaction; Requires assessment of a country's compliance with U.S. and multilateral counterterrorism, nonproliferation and export control regimes for acquisitions by stateowned companies in the investigation stage; Provides authority to the President to suspend or prohibit a covered transaction if there is credible evidence that such transaction threatens to impair U.S. national security; Provides authority to CFIUS, or the lead agencies acting on behalf of CFIUS, to negotiate, impose and enforce conditions necessary to mitigate any threat to national security related to a covered transaction; Adds to the list of factors that CFIUS should consider in the conduct of its reviews and investigation to include among other things consideration of the potential impact of a transaction on critical infrastructure, energy assets, or critical technologies; Provides for written notice, to the Congress at the conclusion of the CFIUS process for both reviews and investigations, providing details about the transaction, including written assurance that the transaction does not threaten to impair national security or that any initial concerns have been mitigated through binding agreements between the parties and CFIUS, or the lead agency or agencies designated by the Chairman of CFIUS; Provides for detailed annual reports to Congress on the activities of CFIUS, including information concerning the transactions that have been reviewed or investigated during the previous 12 months; Provides for an investigation by the Inspector General of the Department of Treasury to determine why the department failed to comply with provisions of the Defense Production Act with respect to certain reporting requirements related to potential industrial espionage or coordinated strategies by foreign parties with respect to U.S. critical technology by foreign parties; and Provides for the issuance of regulations and guidance to carry out the provisions of the Act. Madam President, Ranking Member Richard Shelby and I believe that Senate passage of S. 1610 as amended by the Dodd/Shelby substitute amendment, which is largely technical in nature, will not only implement needed reforms and thereby strengthen national security, but also provide more transparency and predictability to the CFIUS process that is important to ensuring that the U.S. economy continues to benefit from the fruits of foreign direct investment. We strongly urge our colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Claire Collier Social Security Disability Insurance Fairness Act. This legislation will ensure that individuals suffering from certain terminal diseases are entitled to receive Social Security disability benefits. Under current law, an individual who contracts a covered terminal illness, and who has not been part of the workforce for a period of time, may not qualify for Social Security disability benefits they would otherwise be entitled to. This bill is named after Claire Collier, a Stamford, Connecticut mother of three, who I first met a few years ago after she was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, in 2003. ALS, commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease, first strikes the nerve cells, then weakens the muscles, causes paralysis and tragically leads to death. Three years ago, Claire applied for Social Security disability benefits. However, she was denied the benefits because she did not have enough work credits. Ms. Collier, who worked for more than 15 years as an events planner, does not qualify for Social Security disability benefits, even though she paid Social Security and Medicare taxes for more than 15 years. The reason is the Social Security Act mandates that an individual earn 20 quarters of Social Security earnings during the 10 years preceding a disability to collect benefits. This discriminates against people who have earned the required number of credits outside of the time period prescribed under current law. Under the present system, hardworking Americans, such as Claire Collier, are being denied benefits at a time when they need them most. In Claire's case, the rules are especially unfair since she has been penalized for choosing to stay at home with her children prior to being diagnosed with ALS. The bill I am sponsoring will change the eligibility standard. The Claire Collier legislation will amend the Social Security Act to provide that the eligibility standard for disability insurance benefits not be applicable in the case of a disabled individual suffering from a terminal illness. Passage of this important legislation will simply ensure fairness. We should reward individuals who contribute to Social Security, not punish them. The Claire Collier Social Security Disability Insurance Fairness Act will eliminate inequity in the current system. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that this legislation is not only passed by this body soon, but that it is signed into law.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Claire Collier Social Security Disability Insurance Fairness Act. This legislation will ensure that individuals suffering from certain terminal diseases are entitled to receive Social Security disability benefits. Under current law, an individual who contracts a covered terminal illness, and who has not been part of the workforce for a period of time, may not qualify for Social Security disability benefits they would otherwise be entitled to. This bill is named after Claire Collier, a Stamford, Connecticut mother of three, who I first met a few years ago after she was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, in 2003. ALS, commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease, first strikes the nerve cells, then weakens the muscles, causes paralysis and tragically leads to death. Three years ago, Claire applied for Social Security disability benefits. However, she was denied the benefits because she did not have enough work credits. Ms. Collier, who worked for more than 15 years as an events planner, does not qualify for Social Security disability benefits, even though she paid Social Security and Medicare taxes for more than 15 years. The reason is the Social Security Act mandates that an individual earn 20 quarters of Social Security earnings during the 10 years preceding a disability to collect benefits. This discriminates against people who have earned the required number of credits outside of the time period prescribed under current law. Under the present system, hardworking Americans, such as Claire Collier, are being denied benefits at a time when they need them most. In Claire's case, the rules are especially unfair since she has been penalized for choosing to stay at home with her children prior to being diagnosed with ALS. The bill I am sponsoring will change the eligibility standard. The Claire Collier legislation will amend the Social Security Act to provide that the eligibility standard for disability insurance benefits not be applicable in the case of a disabled individual suffering from a terminal illness. Passage of this important legislation will simply ensure fairness. We should reward individuals who contribute to Social Security, not punish them. The Claire Collier Social Security Disability Insurance Fairness Act will eliminate inequity in the current system. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that this legislation is not only passed by this body soon, but that it is signed into law.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am proud to submit S. Con. Res. 39, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of a world day of remembrance for road crash victims. This resolution is the Senate companion to H. Con. Res. 87, which was recently submitted in the House. Each crash might seem to us, in its immediacy, like an isolated tragedy, but when we step back, we see that each has its part in a global crisis that is deepening year by year. The day of remembrance-- set by the United Nations General Assembly for the third Sunday of November--is not just for the 40,000 people who die in road crashes each year in America; it is for the 1.2 million who die in crashes in every part of the world and for the staggering 20 to 50 million who are injured. In fact, the World Health Organization predicts that, by the year 2020, the death rate from crashes each year will surpass the death rate from AIDS. True, many of these crashes are unique disasters, but that leaves many more whose causes are systemic and preventable. Unsafe roads, poor medical facilities, and inadequate driver education all contribute their share to the death toll. And unsurprisingly, the toll is highest, and rising, in middle- and low-income countries. Road safety, then, is an issue of economic justice. On the world day of remembrance, we will recall all of the victims of road crashes; we keep their families in our thoughts, and we pray for the full recovery of those still living. But our compassion for individuals must not obscure the bigger picture. ``We have to change the way we think about crashes,'' said Diza Gonzaga, the mother of a car-crash victim in Brazil. ``The majority of people think that crashes are due to fate. We have to think of a crash as a preventable event.''

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that will ensure dignity and prosperity for millions of American workers. It is no secret that unions helped build in America the largest and strongest middle class the world had ever seen. But where does that middle class stand today? Since 2000, real median household income is down, real wages are down; real wages, in fact, are lower now than they were in 1973. Nearly 50 million Americans, and more every day, are without health insurance. And all this stagnation while corporate profits are up 83 percent since 2005, while the pay of CEOs has skyrocketed to 411 times the pay of their workers. It is no secret that, while American inequality has reached these heights, fewer and fewer workers are members of unions. In large part, that is not by choice. Worker intimidation is not the activity of a few outlaws--it is persistent, it is systemic, and it is devastating. Employers illegally fired workers in one quarter of union organizing drives. In 2005, more than 30,000 workers were discriminated against in connection with union-busting activities. If we are going to preserve the American middle class--if workers are going to have the ability to bargain for their fair share--then we need to deter coercion and discrimination; we need a way for workers to fearlessly let their voices be heard. The Employee Free Choice Act is the tool they need. It has three key provisions. First, the bill recognizes that union elections are often the high point of employers' intimidation tactics. Rather than provide them a concentrated target, the EFCA establishes majority signup: If a majority of workers sign cards stating that they want union representation, a union is certified as their official collective bargaining agent. Workers are still free to participate in a secret ballot election supervised by the National Labor Relations Board if they so choose; but the Employee Free Choice Act gives that choice to workers themselves. Second, the bill provides strict penalties for employers interfering with their workers' free choice to join or establish a union. Under the bill, the National Labor Relations Board may obtain a court injunction against an employer that is illegally firing or otherwise harassing workers. Illegally fired workers will be entitled to three times their back pay--a strong deterrent. And willful and repeated violation of workers' rights will result in a civil fine of $20,000 per incident. These penalties replace consequences that, to date, have proven ineffective. Companies will no longer have an incentive to ignore the law. Third, the bill makes it easier for unions and employers to reach their first contract. It stipulates that bargaining must begin within 10 days of a new union being certified. If, after 90 days, no agreement has been reached, this legislation then authorizes either party to seek mediation through the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which, in 2006 handled more than 5,500 cases and had an 86 percent success rate; if no contract is reached after 30 days of mediation, the parties will then submit to binding arbitration, which will impose a contract that lasts for 2 years. This clear process ensures that unions serve their purpose--because, without contracts, collective bargaining is meaningless. There is no doubt that majority signup, stricter intimidation penalties, and the clear first contract process will strengthen American unions. But this is not a union bill, not if that term is understood to mean any narrow constituency or any narrow interest. Whatever his or her choice, it is in the interest of every American worker to have that choice recorded fairly, free from fear and threat. When the unfair and illegal barriers are removed, however, I am confident that more and more workers will put their trust in unions. Unions offer millions of us better wages, sounder health care, and more secure pensions. They are the best way we have yet discovered to share the fruits of our prosperity more equally. Workers know that, Mr. President--and they are waiting to be heard.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the pending energy bill and the future of energy in the U.S. I commend Chairman Bingaman for crafting this compromise bill and bringing it before the full Senate for consideration. Like many of us, he recognizes that the energy crisis we face will be long-term and life-altering, and that we must enlist all Americans, and the cooperation of governments worldwide, to solve it. Let's be honest. We have only gotten to this critical point because we have put off for too long momentous energy decisions. In fact, the main answer to our energy dilemma from the party across the aisle while they were in power in Congress was the 2005 energy bill, a scandalous mix of billions in drilling subsidies and other giveaways to big oil companies which even some of them admitted were unnecessary. That effort was doomed from the start: While we consume 25 percent of the world's oil, we only hold 3 percent of its reserves--so we can't, we never could, drill our way out of the problem. The results of that bill in the last 2 years haven't been surprising: skyrocketing oil and gas prices; no slackening of demand; increased U.S. dependence on foreign oil; underfunding of renewable energy initiatives; and slashed conservation funding. This bill takes us in a much better direction, with progressive new policies. And that is critical. If we are to address honestly the threat posed by America's addiction to carbon- based fossil fuels, and especially imported oil, it is long past time to move in a better direction, and to make some difficult choices. We have known for a long time about the three-fold threat--to our national security, our economic vitality, and our environmental health--posed by our over-reliance on foreign oil. To our national security, because we now import about 60 percent of our oil from some of the most politically unstable regions of the world, governed by authoritarian regimes, some serving as breeding grounds for terror. To our economic vitality, through high gasoline prices, rising home heating costs, and electricity price spikes which strain family budgets, burden businesses, and make our Nation less competitive. To our environmental health, due to smog, climate change, increased asthma risks, cancer and other diseases caused or exacerbated by pollution. We continue on this path to our peril. A better way forward is to embark now on a course of dramatic change in our energy policies, including setting clear long-term goals and enforceable benchmarks; backing our rhetoric on conservation, renewable energy and other initiatives with real funding; scaling back wasteful oil industry subsidies, and including all Americans in energy conservation efforts. If we do it right, Middle East imports will decline and vital U.S. interests will be made less vulnerable; our air will be cleaner; new jobs in the renewable sector will be created, our rural communities will be revitalized through energy innovation, and our relationships with allies and overall position in the world will be strengthened. Our over-reliance on foreign oil, especially from the Middle East, makes us vulnerable to price spikes, supply disruptions, and market uncertainty. We also, sadly, pay for the privilege of propping up authoritarian regimes that use oil reserves to bolster their own power, insulate themselves from demands for political and economic liberalization, and protect themselves from the need to improve their human rights records--what NYT columnist Tom Friedman calls ``petro- authoritarianism.'' This is why the government of Iran can suppress its own people; it's why Russia can crush Chechnya and intimidate its neighbors; it's why China, a major owner of Sudan's main oil consortium, can continue to block effective U.N. action on Darfur. We are effectively financing them to do it through our oil purchases. And we have been doing this for decades. I was first elected to Congress in 1974, in the wake of an energy crisis prompted by an OPEC oil embargo. It was a summer of gas lines and shortages, of steps large and small taken to address the problem. And now here we are, fighting another uphill battle to enact a good energy bill, which contains an important set of incremental steps to address these problems. I would like us to go much farther than this bill does. But at least with its passage we would finally be headed in the right direction. I think almost everyone in this Chamber would agree that the future of energy in this country, to the maximum extent possible, should be clean, green, domestic, and renewable. We know that our dependence on foreign oil leaves us vulnerable, increases our trade deficit, and creates volatility in energy prices and hardships for American consumers and businesses. We know that emissions from fossil-fuel fired powerplants cause unnecessary illnesses and deaths. And we know that our emissions of greenhouse gases are causing global climate change, which is leading to higher sea levels, melting glaciers, shifting ecosystems, and ocean acidification. Our national energy policy must be retooled to address those threats directly, and to encourage the development and deployment of technologies that will encourage the use of clean, domestic, renewable energy. This bill, modest as it is, does that, I applaud Senators Stevens, Inouye, Feinstein, and others for crafting a compromise on fuel economy standards, though we must recognize that it is a compromise: the new fuel economy standards contained in this bill do not do enough to achieve the full potential of current technologies to increase fuel efficiency. Even so, setting the CAFE target at 35 miles per gallon by 2020, is an important advance for a Congress that has not managed to increase standards at all for over 20 years. There was no increase in fuel economy standards to blame for the decline in American auto manufacturers' market share from 73 percent in 1986 to 55 percent in 2006; the future strength or weakness of those manufacturers will depend far more on the extent to which they transform themselves by taking advantage of new green vehicle technologies in the coming years. The same arguments we have heard for many years--that the technology is unavailable to enable these higher standards, that they will make cars less safe, that we will hurt our own manufacturers--are the ones made in the late 1970's; they are no more true now than they were then. We have spent much of this debate on a few contentious issues, but there are many significant provisions in the bill that have not been as widely discussed, including creating research and demonstration programs for carbon capture and sequestration, substantially increasing appliance efficiency standards, and making the Federal Government a leader in the use of renewable energy and green construction. Moreover, this legislation puts the Senate on record in our support of engagement with other countries, especially those in the Western Hemisphere, to better coordinate energy security and assure diverse and reliable energy supplies. While it is not perfect, it is a step in the right direction. Mr. President, let me say a final word about the elephant in the room, which we have scarcely acknowledged thus far in this debate about energy policy: climate change. Climate and energy policy are inextricable--any energy policy we adopt will have an enormous impact on the climate. I recognize that this body is not yet ready to adopt a comprehensive measure to substantially limit emissions of greenhouse gases, or to take the bold step of imposing some form of a comprehensive corporate carbon tax. If we were honest with the American people, that is the kind of bold step we would take to help resolve our energy dilemma. The truth is that, on energy and climate issues, Americans are ahead of their political leaders. They understand the serious, long-term cumulative threat climate change poses to their children and grandchildren; they're willing to make tough choices to address it. They understand that cleaner energy is possible; they know that fuel- efficient vehicles and appliances are within reach--but they're worried that American manufacturers are falling behind. Americans overwhelmingly support the development of alternative energy, higher mileage standards, hybrid vehicles, and incentives to produce and install more energy efficient appliances. They see the potential for savings generated by energy-efficient technologies, both for their families and for a more efficient, more effective use of their tax dollars by government. And they want change. They understand that the threats of climate change are not geographically remote or far off in time; they are real and urgent. I hope that the day when we can take up and pass tough new controls on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases arrives soon. But however we address emissions and efficiency, conservation, bio-fuels, fuel economy, and other important provisions, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and to start us on the road towards a future of clean, domestic, and renewable energy.