Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kerry, Durbin, and Feingold to introduce the Medical Education Affordability Act, MEAA. The purpose of this bill is to make medical and dental education more affordable. Upon graduation from college, students who can demonstrate economic hardship are eligible to extend their student loan deferment for up to 3 additional years. Using the economic hardship deferment, a formula that takes into account earnings and debt level, the majority of medical and dental residents defer repayment of their student loans until the end of their residency period. Unfortunately, for those specialties that require a residency of more than 3 years--OB/GYN, psychiatry, general surgery, and oral maxillofacial dentistry to name a few--student loan repayment begins before a resident's medical or dental education is completed. This situation creates an enormous financial burden for residents who have, in most cases, incurred significant debt. In 2006, the average indebtedness for graduating medical students was $130,000, for graduating dental students it was $145,465. While lenders are currently required to offer forbearance to medical and dental students, this is an expensive option as interest continues to accrue and may be capitalized more.often. The Medical Education Affordability Act would solve this problem by extending the economic hardship deferment to cover the entire length of a medical or dental residency. By altering the definition we are removing a significant financial obstacle facing students with residency periods longer than 3 years. I want to stress again, residents will still have to demonstrate economic hardship--MEAA only extends the deferment for borrowers that continue to meet the debt-to- income requirements of the economic hardship deferment. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in support of medical education by signing onto this bill. By working together, I believe that the Senate as a body can act to ensure that more individuals are able to pursue a full range of medical specialties. I ask unanimous request that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Liberty Memorial Act along with my colleagues, Senators Charles E. Grassley and Sen. Barack Obama. Representatives Donald M. Payne, William Lacy Clay, Steve Cohen, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Nita M. Lowey, Albio Sires, and Betty Sutton have introduced companion language in the House. The depth and breadth of patriotic contributions by African Americans in the Revolutionary War have gone practically unacknowledged. Historians are now beginning to uncover their forgotten heroism, and estimate that 5,000 slaves and free blacks fought in the army, navy, and militia during that harrowing time. They served and struggled in major battles from Lexington and Concord to Yorktown and made significant contributions to the revolutionary effort. More than 400 hailed from my State of Connecticut. More than twenty years ago, Congress authorized a memorial to black Revolutionary War soldiers and sailors, those who provided civilian assistance, and the many slaves who fled slavery or filed petitions to courts or legislatures for their freedom. A site was selected in Constitution Gardens, fittingly near the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence Memorial and the great war memorials. Unfortunately, the group originally authorized to raise funds for and build the memorial was unable to conclude its task, and the site sits empty today. A group of committed citizens has formed the National Mall Liberty Fund DC, ``Liberty Fund D.C.'', to carry out the vision of Congress. Last year, the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission concluded that there are no legal impediments that would preclude the Liberty Fund DC from assuming the prior group's site approvals on the Mall. The legislation that we offer today would amend the 1986 enactment to authorize the Liberty Fund to raise money for and build this valuable memorial. The time has come to recognize the sacrifice and the impact of the African Americans who fought for the birth of our country. I urge my colleagues to support the National Liberty Memorial Act.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kerry, Durbin, and Feingold to introduce the Medical Education Affordability Act, MEAA. The purpose of this bill is to make medical and dental education more affordable. Upon graduation from college, students who can demonstrate economic hardship are eligible to extend their student loan deferment for up to 3 additional years. Using the economic hardship deferment, a formula that takes into account earnings and debt level, the majority of medical and dental residents defer repayment of their student loans until the end of their residency period. Unfortunately, for those specialties that require a residency of more than 3 years--OB/GYN, psychiatry, general surgery, and oral maxillofacial dentistry to name a few--student loan repayment begins before a resident's medical or dental education is completed. This situation creates an enormous financial burden for residents who have, in most cases, incurred significant debt. In 2006, the average indebtedness for graduating medical students was $130,000, for graduating dental students it was $145,465. While lenders are currently required to offer forbearance to medical and dental students, this is an expensive option as interest continues to accrue and may be capitalized more.often. The Medical Education Affordability Act would solve this problem by extending the economic hardship deferment to cover the entire length of a medical or dental residency. By altering the definition we are removing a significant financial obstacle facing students with residency periods longer than 3 years. I want to stress again, residents will still have to demonstrate economic hardship--MEAA only extends the deferment for borrowers that continue to meet the debt-to- income requirements of the economic hardship deferment. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in support of medical education by signing onto this bill. By working together, I believe that the Senate as a body can act to ensure that more individuals are able to pursue a full range of medical specialties. I ask unanimous request that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, last December, 10 of America's most distinguished senior statesmen and -women made public a blueprint for success in Iraq and in so doing opened up the possibility for the administration and the Congress to come together on a bipartisan basis to begin a new direction in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, presented our Nation with a fully bipartisan Iraq strategy--a strategy that all of America could get behind, with clearly defined benchmarks, realistic goals, and a sensible approach for protecting U.S. security interests. Today, the U.S. Senate is finally considering legislation that would help take us in the direction outlined by the Iraq Study Group, over 3 months ago. Under the leadership of Senator Byrd, the Senate Appropriations Committee has presented this body with a chance to get the mission right, namely by beginning the phased redeployment of our combat units from Iraq. Thanks to additional language spelling out a clearly defined benchmarks for Iraqi authorities to meet, from Senator Ben Nelson, Congress has finally put the Iraqi Government on notice that it is time for them to step up to their responsibilities. It is time for the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to start providing for Iraq's own security and making the difficult but necessary political compromises to bring all parties in Iraq to the table, thereby ending the untenable situation of American troops being forced to referee a civil war there. Iraqi compromises will only emerge through serious diplomatic engagement by the U.S. State Department, Iraqi politicians, and neighboring countries in the region. But this isn't just my view. This is also the view of Iraq Study Group cochair, Congressman Lee Hamilton. Before the Senate bill was made public in its entirety, Congressman Hamilton had an opportunity to comment on the House's version of the supplemental appropriations bill. In a Washington Post op-ed, he pointed out that ``The House Bill lays out the steps that the Iraqi Government must take . . . At issue is the conditionality of U.S. support. Time and again, Iraqis have missed deadlines. Time and again, deadlines have been extended, and U.S. political, economic and military support has continued and even increased. The House bill breaks that cycle.'' Most crucially, Congressman Hamilton went on to say that the House bill, ``by tying continued U.S. support--including the presence of U.S. troops--to benchmarks, uses the strongest possible leverage to press Iraqi leaders to meet their commitments.'' Clearly, in the view of Cochair Hamilton, the current majority in Congress is taking the necessary steps to address our national security needs, and doing so in a manner consistent with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Without such a strategy, U.S. Iraq policy amounts to little more than an open-ended commitment which has not translated to progress on the ground in Iraq; and is causing significant long-term costs to our military and to our national security. We have already lost over 3,200 brave American servicemembers in Iraq, and regrettably, that number continues to grow. We have spent over $400 billion since the war began, with an additional $121 billion in the underlying bill being debated today. And our Armed Forces have been left so depleted of combat gear due to the war in Iraq, that vast segments of our military are reporting ``not ready'' for duty--including two-thirds of the Army in the United States and nearly 90 percent of our National Guard. As these figures demonstrate, our Armed Forces and America's national security simply cannot afford the Bush administration's ``stay the course'' policy in Iraq any longer. It is quite literally breaking our military. And it is endangering our Armed Forces' ability to respond to future challenges to America's national security--whether on the Korean Peninsula, the Middle East, or elsewhere in the world. As Army Chief of Staff GEN Peter Schoomaker testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee: ``We have a strategy right now that is outstripping the means to execute it.'' His deputy, GEN Richard Cody, further stated: ``The readiness continues to decline of our next-to- deploy forces.'' Yet, today, we find the administration still engaging in its smoke and mirror campaign to purposefully downplay the monetary and human costs of this war. They do it by forbidding the taking of photos of our honored fallen heroes coming back to Dover Air Force Base and by funding the war through emergency supplementals that are used to obscure the war's impact on our budget deficit. They do so by shamefully neglecting the needs of our returning heroes, too many of whom have come home broken in body or spirit. Despite all of these efforts, the impact of the Iraq war has been so transparently damaging to America's security that it has been impossible even for this White House to keep the facts from the American people--particularly in terms of our military's combat readiness. According to a March 19 Washington Post report, ``it will take years for the Army and Marine Corps to recover from what some officials privately have called a `death spiral,' in which the ever increasing pace of war-zone rotations has consumed 40 percent of their total gear, wearied troops and left no time to train to fight anything other than the insurgencies now at hand.'' We are over 4 years into this war, and the administration is still decrying those of us trying to help address these serious concerns. And all the while, it is the administration who is still continuing to propose budgets, with too few resources for our deployed troops. In fact, the President and the Vice President have continued their disingenuous claims that Democratic proposals would actually cut funding for our troops even while they are the ones proposing budgets with shortfalls in critical combat equipment, military hospital upkeep, and veterans health priorities. It is time for Congress to finally say ``enough is enough.'' The Iraq Study Group was very clear on the need to restore our own military's combat readiness, as spelled out in recommendations 48 and 49 of its report. According to that report, ``the defense budget as a whole is in danger of disarray, as supplemental funding winds down and reset costs become clear. It will be a major challenge to meet ongoing requirements for other current and future security threats that need to be accommodated together with spending for operations and maintenance, reset, personnel, and benefits for active duty and retired personnel. Restoring the capability of our military forces should be a high priority for the United States at this time.'' I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. As my colleagues know, since the war began in 2003, I have to come to the Senate floor time and again to offer amendments to spending bills to address shortfalls in the administration's proposed budget--largely over the objections of the White House and its congressional allies. In 2003, I offered an amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill to add $322 million for critical protective gear identified by the Army that the Bush administration had failed to include in their budget. But it was blocked by the administration and their allies. In 2004 and 2005, I authored legislation, signed into law, to reimburse troops for equipment that they had to purchase on their own because the Rumsfeld Pentagon failed to provide them with the body armor and other gear they needed to stay safe. And last year, working with Senators Inouye, Reed, and Stevens, I offered an amendment to help address a $17 billion budget shortfall to replace and repair thousands of war battered tanks, aircraft, and vehicles. Without these additional resources, the Army Chief of Staff claimed that U.S. Army readiness would deteriorate even further. This provision was approved unanimously and enacted in law. But much more remains to be done. A recent report by the independent National Guard Commission says that 88 percent of our National Guard is reporting ``not ready'' for duty. To address this concern, I introduced S. 756 to provide the $38 billion over the next 5 years the National Guard says it needs to restock its depleted equipment inventories and restore its preparedness, for both wartime and homeland security missions. Doing so is critical to our national security, and we owe our country and our troops no less. Thankfully, here again, Senator Byrd and the Appropriations Committee have demonstrated their leadership by adding $1 billion to address critical equipment shortfalls for our National Guard in 2007. This is a good first step as we work to ensure that America's citizen soldiers are fully prepared to fight our enemies abroad and respond to domestic emergencies here at home. I am joining my colleagues, Senators Leahy and Bond, in offering an amendment to add another $1 billion to meet other immediate National Guard short-term needs. In addition, I intend to work throughout this year to ensure that we address all of the Guard's critical equipment needs. In the meantime, this supplemental appropriations bill will begin to put us on the right track, to reverse 4 years of the administration's mismanagement of a war, and 6 years of its reckless battering of America's great Armed Forces. We should have no higher priority than the safety and well-being of our troops. Plain and simple. But a great deal more remains to be done. We need to redeploy our combat forces out of Iraq's urban areas to Kurdistan, other rural areas of Iraq, and to bases in Kuwait and Qatar, where they can focus on counterterrorism operations, train and equip Iraqi security forces, and offer force protection to U.S. personnel and infrastructure which remain in Iraq after the redeployment of combat forces has been completed early next year. But more than that, we need to stop allowing ourselves and our Nation to be cowed by the administration's fear-mongering. We must embrace the many recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and engage in a ``New Diplomatic Offensive'' in Iraq and the wider region because, as the Iraq Study Group wisely concluded, only a political solution which the Iraqi people buy into can salvage Iraq. Mr. President, the United States has a moral obligation to assist Iraqi and Afghan refugees and those internally displaced by violence. I commend the Appropriations Committee for beginning to effectively do so, by increasing such assistance by $50 million for Iraq, and $18 million for Afghanistan. The Brookings Institution estimates that nearly one-quarter of all physicians have fled Iraq. There are nearly 2 million Iraqi refugees in Jordan and Syria. These refugees have placed a tremendous strain on the essential social services and infrastructure of those two countries, which have begun to close their border crossings. Emergency funding is necessary to provide these individuals with basic medical care, food, housing and to ensure that their children are able to attend school. We cannot afford to miss another opportunity to change our course in Iraq and to support the men and women sacrificing their lives there-- opportunities this administration has resisted at every step of the way. The new Democratic majority in Congress has already begun doing so. The passage of this bill will represent another step toward a stronger and safer America, and more secure and stable Iraq. If President Bush is wise he will reconsider his threat to veto this measure and begin to embrace the call for change embodied in this legislation. If not, I will continue to do all that I can to keep the pressure on the administration. I know that the majority of the Members in this body will as well. That is our responsibility as the people's representatives.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to explain why I offered an amendment with Senator Smith to increase the international affairs budget. Prior to the Budget Committee's consideration of the 2008 international affairs budget, Senator Smith and I, along with many of our colleagues on both side of the aisle, circulated a letter to the Budget Committee asking for a significant increase in the international affairs budget. I feel very strongly that given the myriad challenges facing the United States around the world, the international affairs budget needs be more robustly funded. As my colleagues know, this budget supports the people and programs devoted to strengthening alliances, promoting peaceful relationships among nations, boosting economic development, eliminating poverty, and explaining and representing U.S. policy abroad. As my colleagues also know, the international affairs budget constitutes just over 1 percent of Federal spending, yet it funds some of the most essential components of America's foreign policy, including our diplomatic service, foreign aid, international health programs, and emergency relief operations among others. The international affairs budget provides the funding for the most important tools we have to implement our foreign policy. Robust funding is necessary to implement these critical programs and policies to fund American diplomacy and global development, so that we can continue to expand our leadership in the fight for freedom, prosperity and peace throughout the world.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. Con. Res. 21, the budget resolution currently before this body. This budget restores fiscal discipline on both the spending and revenue sides of the ledger, reinstates the pay-as-you-go rules that were so successful during the late 1990s in helping us achieve budget surpluses, and provides a responsible framework for meeting our Nation's most important priorities. With these accomplishments, it represents a major improvement over the budgets of recent years and the budget submitted by the President last month. It puts our country in a much better position to address the major long-term fiscal challenges looming just around the corner. We as Americans are fortunate to be a part of the world's largest and most prosperous economy. America is, by many measures, doing well but I defy anyone to say we that we cannot do better. We must ensure our national security and restore our moral authority in the world. We must address growing middle class insecurity, reflected in falling incomes coupled with rising costs and record low personal savings coupled with record high household debt. We must stem the backward slide of rising poverty of recent years. As a Nation, we must take this opportunity to lay a strong foundation for the future: to constructively respond to the accelerating pace of globalization, to secure clean and renewable sources of energy, and to rein in the skyrocketing health care costs that threaten to overwhelm the budgets of households, businesses, and the Government. Our ability to effectively address any of these challenges, Mr. President, depends on properly managing our fiscal resources. This budget takes an important step towards restoring fiscal responsibility, reversing the profligate trend of the last several years. Since the current President took office, fiscal discipline has been thrown to the wind. Since 2000, we have seen our nation go from a $236 billion budget surplus to a projected $244 billion deficit, from a National debt of $5.6 trillion to $8.8 trillion today, with the share of that debt held by foreign lenders doubling. Critical investments in education and infrastructure have been shortchanged, and middle-class tax cuts have been passed over in favor of more lavish, budget-busting tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans who needed them least. Instead of continuing these irresponsible policies and passing the costs on to our children and grandchildren, the budget now before us would restore fiscal discipline and renew investments in our nation's critical priorities. First and foremost, it reinstates common-sense pay-as-you-go rules that require any new spending or tax cuts to be paid for up front, rather than added to the debt. And because of this commitment to pay-as-you-go, it balances the federal budget within 5 years and reduces the debt as a share of the economy. It requires honest budgeting for the cost of ongoing military operations. The resolution also imposes discipline on both spending and revenue, lowering spending every year as a share of the economy and cracking down on abusive tax shelters that cost American taxpayers an average of $2,000 apiece every year, according to the Internal Revenue Service's National Taxpayer Advocate. Within the context of fiscal responsibility, this budget also allocates our resources to our Nation's most important priorities. Mr. President, few priorities are more important than investing in our Nation's children. The budget before us recognizes this commitment by rejecting the President's proposed cuts to education. Instead, it provides a funding increase of $9.2 billion above the president's request for education and training, from birth through post-secondary education, including Head Start, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), programs authorized under the No Child Left Behind Act, and Pell Grants. The increased investment will ensure that more preschool children from disadvantaged backgrounds will be ready for school. It will help elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools close achievement gaps; increase graduation rates; and reduce the need for remedial education at a later time. It will ensure that schools can attract, train, and retain high-quality teachers. It will keep our commitment to educate students with disabilities. And it will make college more affordable so that eligible students can gain the skills and experience they need to compete in the global marketplace. Simply put, this budget gives more Americans the tools they need to fulfill their potential, including their college dreams. Mr. President, we can be confident of one thing: the investment we make here will be returned to us, many times over. In addition to investing in our human capital, this budget also makes important investments in our physical capital. Specifically, it honors the funding levels for highways and transit that were authorized for fiscal year 2008 in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA), funding that will help States and communities conduct critical maintenance and make needed improvements in their transportation infrastructure. It more than doubles funding for transit security an important start, although more still needs to be done and rejects the Bush administration's continued attempts to zero out funding for Amtrak, which serves so many people in Connecticut and across the country. With the number of Americans without health insurance on the rise, this budget provides up to $50 billion to help cover uninsured children through the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, which is up for reauthorization this year. We also know that this administration has failed to meet its commitments to the health of our veterans, as revealed by the recent reports on the disgraceful conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. As an answer to this major shortfall, the budget before us provides more than $3.5 billion for veterans above the level proposed by the administration. And where previous budgets have cut funding for first responders, this budget restores the administration's proposed cuts to Firefighter Grants, the COPS program, and Local Law Enforcement and Terrorism Prevention Grants. Finally, this budget also rejects the administration's proposed cuts to low-income heating assistance and to the Community Development Block Grants an absolutely vital source of federal grant assistance for economic development in our local communities. Mr. President, I would also add and I have already spoken on this matter--that I am pleased that the Senate voted to adopt the Smith-Dodd amendment to add $2.2 billion to Function 150 for the International Affairs budget, which will provide important funds for international aid, poverty reduction, and other critical foreign policy priorities. Mr. President, the priorities in this budget set a positive course for our Nation. In its lists of numbers we read a statement of our values. We can all speak in unlimited praise of responsibility and education and opportunity in the abstract but for the first time in several years, I'm proud to say we have a budget in front of us that puts flesh on our words. It restores discipline. It confronts the challenges of a struggling middle class and an aging population, promoting opportunity, prosperity, and security across the board. And it puts the American people's money towards the wisest priority of all: investing in the years to come. In sum, I think we have a budget that reflects the best values of the American people, and I am proud to give it my support.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 491

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Re-empowerment of Skilled and Professional Employees and Construction Tradeworkers Act, or RESPECT Act, a bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to modify the definition of supervisor. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Durbin and Kennedy as original cosponsors and would like to acknowledge Congressman Andrews for championing this legislation in the House of Representatives. The RESPECT Act would make vital changes to the definition of supervisor to ensure that no employee is unjustly denied his or her right to join a labor union. This is a very simple bill just four lines of text making a few definitional changes to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Yet the livelihoods of thousands, possibly millions, of workers are at stake in those few lines. Workers designated as supervisors may not join a union or engage in collective bargaining. As a result, some employers have sought to deny many workers their right to organize by unfairly classifying them as supervisors. And unfortunately, President Bush's appointees on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have upheld these unfair classifications. The NLRB has struggled for years with the definition of supervisor. Twice in the last ten years, its attempts to define supervisory status have been reviewed and rejected by the Supreme Court. But despite this, the NLRB refused to hear oral arguments for the three decisions it handed down last October--Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., Golden Crest Healthcare Center, and Croft Metals, Inc. These decisions are known collectively as the Kentucky River decisions, after the 2001 Supreme Court case of NLRB v. Kentucky River. The NLRB ruled that many charge nurses are supervisors, even though they have no authority to hire, fire, or discipline other employees. In the course of their responsibilities to provide the best care possible to their patients, many rank-and-file nurses occasionally rotate through a limited oversight role, such as assigning other nurses to patients based on workload or a nurse's particular specialty. But on a pretext as slim as that, employers would keep their workers from unionizing altogether. In the Oakwood decision, the hospital argued that 127 of its 181 nurses were supervisors. Though the NLRB found that only 12 were in fact supervisors, its decision left the door open for widespread abuse. Under its ruling, only 10 percent of a worker's time in a supervisory capacity is enough to lock him or her out of a union. Following that precedent, another hospital declared a ludicrous number of its registered nurses to be supervisors--and an NLRB Regional Director agreed. 17 of 20 registered nurses in the Intensive Care Unit were declared supervisors; 6 of 7 in the Medical Unit; 9 of 11 in Neonatal Intensive Care; and in the Inpatient Rehabilitation Unit--all 7. Fictitious classifications like these show just how far some will go to keep workers from bargaining fairly. And, sadly, they demonstrate just how far the NLRB will go to facilitate these false and unfair classifications. Though recent NLRB decisions have targeted nurses, the dangerous precedent they set threatens the rights of workers in countless industries. The NLRB has opened a Pandora's box: Laborers who sometimes work with assistants, or skilled craftsmen who take apprentices, can be barred from unions by the same false logic that prevents nurses from organizing. These decisions are written on more than paper. They're written on real lives, on workers in the thousands and millions, on the dignity of their labor, the health of their children, and the security of their old age. For them, legal fiction becomes painful fact: Without their fair seat at the table, workers will possibly see lower wages, longer hours, more dangerous working conditions, and threats to their healthcare and retirement. The services they provide will suffer as well. Take the case of nurses: Many fear retribution if they speak out on their own about unsafe practices that could endanger patients' lives. Instead, many rely on their unions to provide a strong, unified voice for improved patient care. It's in our interest to keep that voice strong--just one example of how healthy unions benefit us all. The bill introduced today, the RESPECT Act, offers a commonsense step to protect workers' rights. It deletes the terms ``assign'' and ``responsibly to direct'' from the definition of supervisor--terms that the NLRB drastically expanded to justify its rulings. The bill also would require that, to be classified as a supervisor, an employee must actually be one by specifying that an employee must spend the majority of his or her worktime in a supervisory capacity. That's hardly a radical innovation--in fact, it returns us to Congress's original intent. In 1947, the Senate Committee Report on amendments to the National Labor Relations Act stated that: the committee has not been unmindful of the fact that certain employees with minor supervisory duties have problems which may justify their inclusion in that act. It has therefore distinguished between straw bosses, leadmen, set-up men, and other minor supervisory employees, on the one hand, and the supervisor vested with. . .genuine management prerogatives. Clearly, Congress did not intend to deny the right to organize to those workers whose jobs require only occasional and minor supervisory duties. The RESPECT Act restores that sensible precedent. It's not by chance that the rise of the labor movement coincided with the rise of the largest and strongest middle class the world has ever seen. The achievements of the labor unions have made it possible for many working men and women to send their children to college, to store up savings for sickness, injury, and old age--to move from deprivation to dignity. The labor movement greatly contributed to the strengthening of the American middle class. Organized labor was opposed at every step--sometimes by intimidation, sometimes by violence, sometimes by propaganda. Today it is opposed by specious reasoning and twisted definitions of a kind I've rarely seen in public life. I hope my colleagues will be moved to support this bill out of their respect for honesty alone. But add the fact that the security and dignity of so many of their constituents depend on the right to organize and bargain, and the case becomes as clear as day. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. 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 Re-empowerment of Skilled and Professional Employees and Construction Tradeworkers Act, or RESPECT Act, a bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to modify the definition of supervisor. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Durbin and Kennedy as original cosponsors and would like to acknowledge Congressman Andrews for championing this legislation in the House of Representatives. The RESPECT Act would make vital changes to the definition of supervisor to ensure that no employee is unjustly denied his or her right to join a labor union. This is a very simple bill just four lines of text making a few definitional changes to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Yet the livelihoods of thousands, possibly millions, of workers are at stake in those few lines. Workers designated as supervisors may not join a union or engage in collective bargaining. As a result, some employers have sought to deny many workers their right to organize by unfairly classifying them as supervisors. And unfortunately, President Bush's appointees on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have upheld these unfair classifications. The NLRB has struggled for years with the definition of supervisor. Twice in the last ten years, its attempts to define supervisory status have been reviewed and rejected by the Supreme Court. But despite this, the NLRB refused to hear oral arguments for the three decisions it handed down last October--Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., Golden Crest Healthcare Center, and Croft Metals, Inc. These decisions are known collectively as the Kentucky River decisions, after the 2001 Supreme Court case of NLRB v. Kentucky River. The NLRB ruled that many charge nurses are supervisors, even though they have no authority to hire, fire, or discipline other employees. In the course of their responsibilities to provide the best care possible to their patients, many rank-and-file nurses occasionally rotate through a limited oversight role, such as assigning other nurses to patients based on workload or a nurse's particular specialty. But on a pretext as slim as that, employers would keep their workers from unionizing altogether. In the Oakwood decision, the hospital argued that 127 of its 181 nurses were supervisors. Though the NLRB found that only 12 were in fact supervisors, its decision left the door open for widespread abuse. Under its ruling, only 10 percent of a worker's time in a supervisory capacity is enough to lock him or her out of a union. Following that precedent, another hospital declared a ludicrous number of its registered nurses to be supervisors--and an NLRB Regional Director agreed. 17 of 20 registered nurses in the Intensive Care Unit were declared supervisors; 6 of 7 in the Medical Unit; 9 of 11 in Neonatal Intensive Care; and in the Inpatient Rehabilitation Unit--all 7. Fictitious classifications like these show just how far some will go to keep workers from bargaining fairly. And, sadly, they demonstrate just how far the NLRB will go to facilitate these false and unfair classifications. Though recent NLRB decisions have targeted nurses, the dangerous precedent they set threatens the rights of workers in countless industries. The NLRB has opened a Pandora's box: Laborers who sometimes work with assistants, or skilled craftsmen who take apprentices, can be barred from unions by the same false logic that prevents nurses from organizing. These decisions are written on more than paper. They're written on real lives, on workers in the thousands and millions, on the dignity of their labor, the health of their children, and the security of their old age. For them, legal fiction becomes painful fact: Without their fair seat at the table, workers will possibly see lower wages, longer hours, more dangerous working conditions, and threats to their healthcare and retirement. The services they provide will suffer as well. Take the case of nurses: Many fear retribution if they speak out on their own about unsafe practices that could endanger patients' lives. Instead, many rely on their unions to provide a strong, unified voice for improved patient care. It's in our interest to keep that voice strong--just one example of how healthy unions benefit us all. The bill introduced today, the RESPECT Act, offers a commonsense step to protect workers' rights. It deletes the terms ``assign'' and ``responsibly to direct'' from the definition of supervisor--terms that the NLRB drastically expanded to justify its rulings. The bill also would require that, to be classified as a supervisor, an employee must actually be one by specifying that an employee must spend the majority of his or her worktime in a supervisory capacity. That's hardly a radical innovation--in fact, it returns us to Congress's original intent. In 1947, the Senate Committee Report on amendments to the National Labor Relations Act stated that: the committee has not been unmindful of the fact that certain employees with minor supervisory duties have problems which may justify their inclusion in that act. It has therefore distinguished between straw bosses, leadmen, set-up men, and other minor supervisory employees, on the one hand, and the supervisor vested with. . .genuine management prerogatives. Clearly, Congress did not intend to deny the right to organize to those workers whose jobs require only occasional and minor supervisory duties. The RESPECT Act restores that sensible precedent. It's not by chance that the rise of the labor movement coincided with the rise of the largest and strongest middle class the world has ever seen. The achievements of the labor unions have made it possible for many working men and women to send their children to college, to store up savings for sickness, injury, and old age--to move from deprivation to dignity. The labor movement greatly contributed to the strengthening of the American middle class. Organized labor was opposed at every step--sometimes by intimidation, sometimes by violence, sometimes by propaganda. Today it is opposed by specious reasoning and twisted definitions of a kind I've rarely seen in public life. I hope my colleagues will be moved to support this bill out of their respect for honesty alone. But add the fact that the security and dignity of so many of their constituents depend on the right to organize and bargain, and the case becomes as clear as day. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. 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 add to the praise of a great statesman and a great friend: Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri. Those of us who knew Tom remember him as a man of nearly endless drive and boundless energy. Those qualities carried him to a career in Missouri politics unmarked by a single defeat: the youngest St. Louis circuit attorney, the youngest Missouri attorney general and Lieutenant Governor, U.S. Senator at the age of 39. Tom spent his political career, as his hometown paper put it, as ``a force of nature. He worked crowds with a fervor, sweating like a mill worker, chain-smoking Pall Malls, shaking hands, trading insults, telling jokes, remembering names and pet causes.'' As he conceded himself, ``I campaigned myself right into the hospital.'' Thankfully, Tom emerged to serve as one of the most eloquent liberal voices in Congress. His achievements should make his constituents proud and his fellow Senators a little envious. He was crucial to the enactment of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, legislation that still forms the backbone of our environmental defense today. Tom sponsored the amendment that ended American bombing of Cambodia and helped bring an end to the Vietnam war. He was a longtime opponent of unchecked Presidential powers to wage war; and I am sure I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that we could sorely use his example and his counsel in the months ahead. But fairly or not, news of Tom Eagleton's death brought many of us back to 2 tumultuous weeks in 1972. Every piece of social progress has a melancholy side: the memory of those born too soon to profit by it. The career of Senator Eagleton, distinguished as it was, was just such a case. Today we recognize depression as a physical illness, as treatable as an ulcer. But in 1972, when Tom Eagleton ran on the Democratic ticket, it was a mark of shame. Exposure of his psychiatric hospitalization cost him his place on that ticket, and part of me wishes he had had his chance in a slightly wiser time. What a difference it would have made for our country. ``If had it to do over again, I'd have kept him,'' said George McGovern, the Democratic candidate that year. ``I didn't know anything about mental illness. Nobody did.'' Thanks in part to Tom Eagleton, our knowledge today is much deeper. We know, as Abraham Lincoln learned from his own experience more than 160 years ago, that ``a tendency to melancholy is a misfortune, not a fault.'' And we know that it can be the dark obverse side of our brightest virtues. One memory of Tom stands out the clearest. We were in a meeting of Democratic Senators, talking about the upcoming agenda. As we went around the room, each stood up to speak of some interests in our own States. But Tom interrupted and gave an impassioned, impromptu speech on the importance of representing the entire Nation. I wish someone taped it; but whenever I am afraid my range of vision is narrowing, I remember Tom's words and remember his wide view of the common, national good. To me, those words symbolize Tom's greatest strength, something one of our colleagues called his ``moral passion.'' Those who knew Tom will remember that passion first of all, his guiding spirit for 77 years. Our thoughts are with his wife Barbara, his entire family, and all those who looked up to this bold and steadfast leader. I shall miss a remarkable public man, but more personally, a delightful, warm, loyal friend.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to explain why I felt it necessary to vote against the Gregg resolution on Iraq, S. Con. Res. 20, when the Senate considered this and other measures related to Iraq on March 15, 2007. The Bush administration and the Republican leadership in Congress have been making every effort until recently to avoid any real debate on Iraq and have, at each and every step of the way, supported the failed stay-the-course strategy by conflating Iraq with the war on terrorism and by propagating a false choice concerning Iraq: according to their logic, you either support the President or you harm the troops. I firmly reject this false choice, as I rejected the Gregg resolution which was an attempt to validate that false choice. There is no doubt that I and every other Member in this body will do all in our power to protect our troops while they are serving so bravely in Iraq or wherever else their political leaders decide to send them. That is why there was overwhelming Senate support for the Murray resolution, S. Res. 107, which we voted on prior to the Gregg resolution. I would remind our colleagues that I have fought as hard as anyone in the Congress to ensure that our troops have the equipment and resources they need in Iraq--on some occasions over the objections of the administration and their congressional allies, I might add. In 2003, the Army identified $322 million in shortfalls in critical health and safety gear--ranging from body armor, camelback hydration systems, and com- bat helmets to equipment for deactivating high-explosives--all priorities that the Rumsfeld Pentagon and Bush administration failed to provide for in their initial budgets. I offered an amendment to the emergency appropriations bill to resolve these problems. Unfortunately, the Bush administration opposed this legislation, and the amendment was defeated along party lines with the help of the very same Senators who are now claiming to be supporting our troops. In 2004, we tried a different approach--requiring the Department of Defense to reimburse military personnel who bought equipment with their own funds for military service in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Rumsfeld Pentagon had failed to provide. This time, despite ardent objections of Secretary Rumsfeld's Pentagon, Congress approved the legislation in October 2004, President Bush signed the bill into law. We approved similar legislation in 2005 to further extend this benefit as troops, their families, and their communities continued to dig into their own pockets to buy needed lifesaving equipment for use on the battlefield. Last year, the difficulties associated with equipment shortfalls posed a far more serious problem. I offered an amendment to address a $17 billion budget shortfall to replace and repair thousands of war- battered tanks, aircraft, and vehicles. Without these additional resources, the Army Chief of Staff claimed that U.S. Army readiness would deteriorate even further. That said, still more remains to be done if the men and women on active duty, in the Reserves and National Guard are to be fully equipped and ready to defend our country. We need to make certain that our troops have the resources they need to stay ready to fight wherever and whenever duty calls. Regrettably, the war in Iraq is actually draining these resources and making us less safe. That is why I am going to work to continue restocking our troops' equipment inventories to restore their readiness and assure their protection. Voting for a resolution expressing support for the troops is not the same as making concrete decisions to actually do so. Making sure they are fully equipped and that the mission they have been sent to do is achievable is a fundamental part of meaningfully supporting the troops. For me and many others in this body, our vote in support of the Reid resolution, S.J. Res 9, was a vote to support our troops by mandating a different direction in the current failed policy in Iraq, namely the phased redeployment of our combat troops from Iraq, and a narrowing of the mission for those who remain. I will continue to stand up for what I believe is a necessary change in course in Iraq and in American strategy. I will continue to fight to reverse the President's failed policy which has made us less safe, which has created a safe haven for extremists and terrorists in Iraq, and which has undermined the moral and political standing of the United States around the world. Most important, I will continue to stand up for our brave men and women in uniform. I will continue to fight for increased funding for body armor and other critical needs. I will continue to fight for funding for our military personnel to keep them safe and effective and to ensure they are not forgotten if they come home injured and in need of care. I will continue to call for meaningful actions in this Congress to redirect funding away from major combat operations, while ensuring that we have the means and tools necessary to continue vital training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, counter terrorism operations, and the diplomatic, political, and economic offensive and strategies that are the key elements to finding a solution to the crisis in Iraq and in the wider region. I refuse to be cowed or bullied by false choices. It is long overdue that we stand up to unreasonable arguments, conflated logic, attacks against dissent and debate, and most important, failed policies which are making our country less safe, each and every day.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Murray, Sanders, Durbin, Lieberman, Cantwell, Akaka, and Levin, to introduce legislation to amend the Higher Education Act to improve access to college for low- and moderate-income students by raising the authorized maximum Pell grant to $11,600 within 5 years. This bill has the strong support of the American Association of Universities, American Jesuit Colleges and Universities, the American Association of Community Colleges, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the American Council on Education, and The Higher Education Consortium for Special Education. Pell grants were first established in the early 1970s by our former colleague, Senator Claiborne Pell. Pell grants are the largest source of Federal grant aid for college students and make it possible for millions of low- and moderate-income students to attend college. The benefits of Pell grant aid cannot be overstated. Pell grants are beneficial to individual students as well as our society as a whole. Often, our Nation's great innovators and creative minds sharpen their skills on college campuses. By increasing the Pell grant, we make a college education more affordable, and thus, make it more likely that qualified and hard working low- and moderate-income students will attend. It would be a significant loss to this great Nation if a generation of individuals were not able to earn a college degree simply because they could not afford to pay for it. In 1975, the maximum appropriated Pell grant covered 80 percent of the average student's tuition, fees, room, and board at 4-year public universities. In 2005-2006, the average Pell grant covered 33 percent of the total charges at 4-year public universities. That's not just a drop in aid, it's a free-fall. For low- and moderate-income families, the cost of college has also increased as a percentage of income. In 1999 it took 43 percent of a low-income family's income to pay for a college education. In 1972, it only took 27 percent. The cornerstone of American democracy is providing all citizens with access and opportunities so that through hard work they can achieve the ``American dream.'' We must keep that dream alive by providing students the financial opportunity to attend college. In order to meet the cost of attending college, many low- and moderate-income students are forced to take out an exorbitant amount in student loans. Upon graduation these students are often faced with an unmanageable debt load. Surveys tell us that students with a significant amount of debt are postponing marriage and having children. Others are choosing their jobs based on where they think they can afford to work. Clearly, we do not want student loan debt to solely drive our young people's goals and aspirations. Over the past several years, the administration has not raised the maximum Pell grant. On top of leaving millions of children behind by underfunding K-12 education, they are also leaving students behind who have done well in school and want the chance to go on to college. If we are serious about leaving no student behind--if we are serious about having a society where equal opportunity for all is more than just rhetoric--then we must increase the Pell grant. It has been said that investing in a student's future is investing in our Nation's future. We can start investing in our Nation's future by supporting this bill to increase the maximum appropriated Pell grant to $11,600. This bill won't bring the Pell grant's purchasing power back to where it was in 1975, but it is a critical first step. I hope that my colleagues will join me in taking this important step toward ensuring all that have the ability to excel in college are given that opportunity. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Murray, Sanders, Durbin, Lieberman, Cantwell, Akaka, and Levin, to introduce legislation to amend the Higher Education Act to improve access to college for low- and moderate-income students by raising the authorized maximum Pell grant to $11,600 within 5 years. This bill has the strong support of the American Association of Universities, American Jesuit Colleges and Universities, the American Association of Community Colleges, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the American Council on Education, and The Higher Education Consortium for Special Education. Pell grants were first established in the early 1970s by our former colleague, Senator Claiborne Pell. Pell grants are the largest source of Federal grant aid for college students and make it possible for millions of low- and moderate-income students to attend college. The benefits of Pell grant aid cannot be overstated. Pell grants are beneficial to individual students as well as our society as a whole. Often, our Nation's great innovators and creative minds sharpen their skills on college campuses. By increasing the Pell grant, we make a college education more affordable, and thus, make it more likely that qualified and hard working low- and moderate-income students will attend. It would be a significant loss to this great Nation if a generation of individuals were not able to earn a college degree simply because they could not afford to pay for it. In 1975, the maximum appropriated Pell grant covered 80 percent of the average student's tuition, fees, room, and board at 4-year public universities. In 2005-2006, the average Pell grant covered 33 percent of the total charges at 4-year public universities. That's not just a drop in aid, it's a free-fall. For low- and moderate-income families, the cost of college has also increased as a percentage of income. In 1999 it took 43 percent of a low-income family's income to pay for a college education. In 1972, it only took 27 percent. The cornerstone of American democracy is providing all citizens with access and opportunities so that through hard work they can achieve the ``American dream.'' We must keep that dream alive by providing students the financial opportunity to attend college. In order to meet the cost of attending college, many low- and moderate-income students are forced to take out an exorbitant amount in student loans. Upon graduation these students are often faced with an unmanageable debt load. Surveys tell us that students with a significant amount of debt are postponing marriage and having children. Others are choosing their jobs based on where they think they can afford to work. Clearly, we do not want student loan debt to solely drive our young people's goals and aspirations. Over the past several years, the administration has not raised the maximum Pell grant. On top of leaving millions of children behind by underfunding K-12 education, they are also leaving students behind who have done well in school and want the chance to go on to college. If we are serious about leaving no student behind--if we are serious about having a society where equal opportunity for all is more than just rhetoric--then we must increase the Pell grant. It has been said that investing in a student's future is investing in our Nation's future. We can start investing in our Nation's future by supporting this bill to increase the maximum appropriated Pell grant to $11,600. This bill won't bring the Pell grant's purchasing power back to where it was in 1975, but it is a critical first step. I hope that my colleagues will join me in taking this important step toward ensuring all that have the ability to excel in college are given that opportunity. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Michigan. I commend him, along with Senator Biden, my chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and our majority leader, Senator Reid, and others for the tremendous effort they have put into these matters over the last number of weeks. I haven't always agreed with my leaders in the majority on the course of action, but I have respect for their efforts to try and build consensus. I admire that. I always doubted whether consensus is something we ought to try and get on an issue such as this. Clarity, accountability, real proposals that require up-or- down votes that result in action I think in the long term may be necessary here. I respect immensely the efforts they have made to bring as many people as is possible under the same umbrella in dealing with this issue. Once again, we find ourselves debating the same basic issue with respect to United States policy in Iraq, namely, when is the President going to admit his policy is a failure? From how many different places do you have to hear that--from the Baker-Hamilton report, to the analysis by military leaders. Over and over, the conclusion has been the same. This is not a conclusion I have arrived at myself, it is one that has been arrived at by almost every group of people or individuals who know anything about this matter. This policy must be fundamentally changed. The course must be changed to empower the Iraqis to take responsibility for their collective future. If they do that, there is a chance that stability and a better future for them can emerge. If they don't, there is not a treasury deep enough or an army big enough to do that for them. How many debates, how many reports, how many more of our young men and women are going to be killed or wounded until the President and his advisers acknowledge the President's policy has been a failure, unfortunately, from almost the outset? How long will it be before the administration begins a true diplomatic offensive to help the Iraqis and their neighbors secure a political solution that everyone has concluded is the only possible way this matter can have an outcome that offers some hope to the people of that country? How many times can the administration and some of our colleagues here claim that any debate, any dissent, any action that departs one iota from the President's policy is somehow unpatriotic, words we have heard too often in this Chamber and elsewhere to describe those who have a different point of view--I emphasize ``a point of view''--that has been embraced by people without any adherence to a political party or ideology who have reached the same conclusion that this policy is not working at all. Jingoism and facile claims about ``support the troops,'' about ``good versus evil,'' about ``victory versus defeat'' can no longer, I think, be tolerated--in fact, they should never have been tolerated in the first place. Let's stop invoking the inverted logic, as our colleague from Virginia, Senator Webb, so aptly described it, of claiming that because there are troops are in harm's way, we, therefore, have to stay the course. We all know we have troops in the field. We all honor the sacrifices they have made. They are a remarkable group of people. Like many of my colleagues, I have been there on several occasions over the past couple of years. Regardless of one's view on policy, the admiration for the job these individuals are doing ought to be very high. In my case, it is. It is rather remarkable the service they are providing. It is the policy that needs changing. No one is suggesting our troops don't deserve all the support they can get, but supporting our troops and opposing a policy ought not to require the kind of gymnastics that some of our colleagues who oppose any changes suggest. Having troops deployed overseas should not prevent us from debating critically important issues relating to the wisdom of staying the failed course the President has charted. In fact, we do a grave disservice to our troops by not having a public debate to shed light on the many questions and concerns that arise from our current involvement in Iraq. I have publicly stated many times over recent months that this body should urgently take strong, binding action to force the President to change his Iraq policy. While this resolution before us does not represent as forceful an approach to accomplishing that goal as I would propose, it does take the United States one step closer to ending U.S. combat involvement in Iraq, and for that reason I am going to support it as a first step in what I think is the right direction. This resolution goes beyond simply expressing disagreement with the President, which is the problem I had with earlier resolutions. It puts this Congress on record as authorizing a ``prompt commencement of phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.'' It spells out the transition of the mission for the limited forces that would remain after the phased redeployment of combat forces have been completed. This resolution unequivocally states that the United States should begin a phased redeployment of U.S. combat forces from Iraq. It states that the American forces remaining in Iraq should have a very different and more restricted mission: training, equipping Iraqi security forces, force protection, and targeted counterterrorism operations. Crucially, this resolution also states that the redeployment of U.S. forces shall be part of a comprehensive, diplomatic, political, and economic strategy, and it requires the President to develop such a strategy, a strategy that has been seemingly nonexistent and that is critical to the stabilization of Iraq. I am concerned, however, that the resolution allows for as many as 120 days from the date of enactment to pass before the President must commence the redeployment of U.S. combat forces. I firmly believe this redeployment can and must begin far sooner, and that we should set a hard target date for the completion of this phased redeployment rather than a soft goal of the end of March 2008, as stated in the resolution. We face a region-wide crisis of credibility, a crisis that was caused by very bad policy choices rather than fate, as some would suggest. While the United States may still remain an enormous military power, and we are, our power to influence has been greatly diminished, unfortunately. It is this power to influence that is critical, I think, to America's interest in the region and to the future of Iraq and its neighbors. It is my strong hope that the passage of this resolution will bring the United States one step closer to ending our intervention in Iraq's civil war and one step closer to developing and employing critical, comprehensive, diplomatic, political, and economic strategies in Iraq and in the wider region. Based on past experience, however, I have no confidence whatsoever that this President will pay any attention to this resolution or this congressional debate. That has been the history of the administration over the past many months. So I say to my colleagues, if you are truly sincere in your support, as I believe you are, for the policies expressed in this legislation, then I think we must be prepared to do far more in the coming days, I hope in the short days, to bring an end to this destructive and futile policy, including the exercise of the congressional powers of the purse. We need to stop financing the administration's reckless strategy and put critical resources into rebuilding our military. Our troops deserve no less from this Congress. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank the majority leader for this colloquy and for his work with the chairmen and ranking members of many of the committees who have been involved in putting together the legislation to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The Banking Committee took this task very seriously. I am pleased to report that the committee unanimously reported S. 763, the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, which has been incorporated into the 9/11 legislation as title XIV. Transit security has long been a focus of the Banking Committee, where we have held several hearings and reported similar legislation in each of the last two Congresses. While the Banking Committee's previous legislation also passed the Senate, once as a freestanding bill and as title VII of the SAFE Port Act, it has yet to become law. I will continue to work very closely with Senator Shelby, who was a leader on this issue as chairman of the Banking Committee, to work through the conference process with our counterparts in the House of Representatives to make this provision law. I appreciate the leader's support and commitment to having the Banking Committee continue to take responsibility on this title. Transportation security was also addressed more broadly in title VIII of this legislation. As title VIII called for national transportation security and information plans, I worked very closely with my fellow chairmen and ranking members from the Commerce Committee, Senators Inouye and Stevens, who have jurisdiction over other modes of transportation security besides public transportation. Together we reached an agreement, represented in the Inouye amendment, No. 423, between the Commerce, Banking, and Homeland Security Committees. I am very pleased that this amendment was agreed to, and it is my intention to continue our close working relationship on these issues throughout the conference process. The Banking Committee was also very engaged in other areas of the bill that involved the committee's jurisdiction. Since 9/11, we have worked with and overseen the Federal financial regulators as they have implemented sophisticated preparedness requirements for the institutions under their jurisdiction. Title VII, as proposed, authorized the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to create another series of requirements. Although these requirements are voluntary, Federal financial regulators and the financial services industry have expressed concerns about the impact of these requirements, and I share their concerns. A letter from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System staff dated March 1, 2007 explains that the ``voluntary standards [of Title VII are] not appropriate to meet the objective of greater preparedness and resiliency.'' The letter states that it would ``be desirable that Title VII reflect the unique relationships that already exist within the banking and finance sector and not impose any new requirements that duplicate actions that have already been taken by the Federal financial institutions regulators.'' The American Bankers Association in a letter dated February 28, 2007, stated ``ABA is concerned that this program would be redundant to and potential conflict with the existing process by which the banking industry develops business continuity standards, as well as with existing business continuity regulatory requirements.'' Also, the Office of Management and Budget issued a Statement of Administration Policy on February 28, 2007, that stated, ``These standards may increase the regulatory burden.'' I have proposed amendments intended to address these concerns, working with Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins. The final legislation will include an amendment to clarify that institutions in a sector, such as financial services, must obey their sector regulators and to emphasize that this program is voluntary and does not supersede the institutions' responsibilities to maintain the high standards required by their regulators. Another amendment that I authored pertains to title X of the underlying bill. I commend Senators Lieberman and Collins for their efforts in addressing an important issue under this title--to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security thoroughly discerns the risks to America's critical infrastructure. As originally drafted, however, I was concerned that the bill would not ensure that DHS adequately consults with the Federal agencies best equipped to assess and prioritize risks in specific sectors of the economy. From the perspective of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, I can tell you, for example, that no one has greater expertise or technical resources for assessing the vulnerabilities of our financial infrastructure than our Federal financial regulators. It is for that reason that my amendment effectively removed language that would place limits on the DHS' use of information from sector-specific agencies in the formulation of their risk assessments and prioritized lists. It is my belief that we need to encourage greater coordination between these specialized agencies and the Department of Homeland Security, not restrict it. This is true in areas outside of the financial services sector. In matters of public health, DHS should consult the Department of Health and Human Services. In manners of farming and food development, the Department of Agriculture should be consulted. In matters related to drinking water and water treatment systems, the Environmental Protection Agency should be consulted. That is why my amendment endeavors to better integrate our efforts to understand critical infrastructure vulnerabilities and hopefully develop protections in all of these areas. In addition, my amendment ensures that the agencies most familiar with the sensitive data shared with DHS and Congress determine the relative classification levels of this information. Without this provision, I am afraid someone at DHS or elsewhere, who is unfamiliar with the sensitivities of a specific sector of the economy, might unintentionally divulge critical information that could be harmful to U.S. infrastructure. Finally, although it pertains to the assessment of U.S. critical infrastructure, title X does not include any reporting requirement on the government's ability to ensure that U.S. industry reduces interruption of critical infrastructure operations during a national emergency and minimizes the impact of such a catastrophe. My amendment requires reports to the Committees on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs as well as to Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, along with their House committee counterparts, on compliance with subsections (a) and (c) of section 101 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 to meet this requirement. As chairman of the Committee with jurisdiction over this law, it is important to me that we oversee appropriate U.S. industrial preparedness to meet critical infrastructure needs in times of national emergency. I appreciate the cooperation of my colleagues in the development of all of these important provisions. Once again, I thank the majority leader for his excellent work in bringing all of these committees together and fashioning an excellent bill. This demonstrates that the jurisdictional lines established in S. Res. 445 continue to work. Mr. REID I thank the Senator from Connecticut. The Senator is correct that S. Res. 445 determines Senate oversight and jurisdictional authorities, and I acknowledge the important role that the Banking Committee has played and will continue to play on this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak in memory of U.S. Army SGT. Richard L. Ford, of East Hartford, CT. Last month, at the age of 40, he died of combat wounds sustained in Iraq. Sergeant Ford served with the Army's distinguished White Falcons paratrooper regiment, a unit with a reputation for speed and flexibility that dates back to 1917. ``Richard possessed all the qualities of a great paratrooper,'' said his commanding officer, LTC Richard Kim. Those qualities were evident in the city of Mosul in February, 2005. There, Sergeant Ford faced enemy fire to help save his fellow soldiers, an act of physical courage for which he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal with a ``V'' device for valor. His other decorations included a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. But Sergeant Ford was even more remarkable for his moral courage, the way he embodied the ideals of our volunteer military. No one sent Richard Ford to Iraq--he chose to go. Three years ago, he left his post with the Army National Guard to enter active duty. ``He went through basic training again just to do what he wanted to do--become an infantry soldier,'' said his friend, SFC Chris Beloff. ``Anyone who does all that I have the utmost respect for, because he really believed in what he was doing.'' Sergeant Ford willingly left his loved ones and risked his life for his beliefs; few of us can say the same. The time away from his family must have hurt him the most. Even when he was stationed at Fort Bragg, NC, Sergeant Ford would drive for 12 hours back to Connecticut on weekends to be with his father, Mason, and his 11-year-old son, Michael Patrick. Shortly after Sergeant Ford's death, Michael called his father his ``biggest hero.'' Nothing can replace him in the lives of those he loved, but they can be proud that their hero fought bravely and served selflessly. We owe him a debt beyond payment. But I pledge to keep his memory fresh and to add my voice to the prayers of his family. To his father and son; to his brothers, Matthew Ford, and Mason Ford, Jr.; to his sister, Vanessa Migliore; and to his grandmother, Marjorie Gordon--I offer my deepest sympathy. And to this soldier who lost his life in our Nation's service, I swear my highest respect.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act of 2007. This legislation provides a comprehensive approach to ensuring that children are not left behind as cutting-edge research and revolutionary technologies for medical devices advance. Like drugs, where for too long children were treated like small adults and could just be given reduced doses of adult products, many essential medical devices used extensively by pediatricians are not designed or sized for children. In fact, the development of new medical devices suitable for children's smaller and growing bodies can lag 5 or 10 years behind those for adults. While children and adults suffer from many of the same diseases and conditions, their device needs can vary considerably due to differences in size, rates of growth, critical development periods, anatomy, physiological differences such as breathing and heart rate, and physical activity levels. To date, because the pediatric market is so small and pediatric diseases relatively rare, there has been little incentive for device manufacturers to focus their attention on children. The result has been that pediatric providers must resort to ``jury-rigging'' or fashioning make-shift device solutions for pediatric use. When that is not an option, providers may be forced to use more invasive treatment or less effective therapies. For example, at present, left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) do not exist in the U.S. for children less than 5 years old. An LVAD is a mechanical pump that helps a heart that is too weak to pump blood through the body. So, infants and children under five years of age who have critical failure of their left or right ventricles have to be supported through extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). An ECMO consists of a pump, an artificial lung, a blood warmer and an arterial filter, which is installed by inserting tubes into large veins or arteries located in the right side of the neck or the groin. While ECMOs can help children for short periods of time, they are problematic. They can cause dangerous clots and the blood thinners that prevent these clots may lead to internal bleeding. In addition, children must remain bedridden while using the device. For young children needing to be on a ventilator to assist their breathing, the lack of non-invasive ventilators with masks that suitably fit babies has led to respiratory treatments that are inadequate or invasive treatment options such as placing a tube in the baby's throat. Children needing prosthetic heart valves face a disproportionately high failure rate. Because of the biochemistry of children's growing bodies, prosthetic heart valves implanted in children calcify and deteriorate much faster than in adults. Typically, children with a heart valve implant who survive to adulthood will need four or five operations. Additionally, devices currently available for children must be better able to expand and grow as the child grows. Over the past several years, efforts have been launched to better identify barriers to the development of pediatric devices and to generate solutions for improving children's access to needed medical devices. Beginning in June 2004, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD), the National Association of Children's Hospitals, and the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) hosted a series of stakeholders meetings that yielded recommendations for improving the availability of pediatric devices. In October 2004, in response to a directive in the Medical Devices Technical Corrections Act of 2004, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a report that identified numerous barriers to the development and approval of medical devices for children. And in July 2005, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a report on the adequacy of postmarket surveillance of pediatric medical devices, as mandated by the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002. The IOM found significant flaws in safety monitoring and recommended expanding the FDA's ability to require post-market studies of certain products and improve public access to information about post-market pediatric studies. This legislation seeks to address the equally important issues of pediatric medical device safety and availability. To begin with, the bill creates a mechanism to allow the FDA to track the number and types of medical devices approved specifically for children or for conditions that occur in children. It also allows the FDA to use adult data to support a determination of reasonable assurance of effectiveness in pediatric populations and to extrapolate data between pediatric subpopulations. The market for pediatric medical devices simply isn't what it is for adults. Therefore, many device manufacturers have been reluctant to make devices for children. The bill creates an incentive for companies by modifying the existing Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE) provision to allow manufacturers to profit from devices that are specifically designed to meet a pediatric need. To prevent abuse, the bill reverts to current law which allows no profit on sales of devices that exceed the number estimated to be needed for the approved condition. This provision is modeled after the existing Orphan Products Division designation process. Under no circumstances can there be a profit on sales if the device is used to treat or diagnose diseases or conditions affecting more than 4,000 individuals in the U.S. per year which is the same number allowed under current law. Already approved adult HDEs upon date of enactment are eligible for the HDE profit modification but only if they meet the conditions of the bill. The lifting of the profit restriction for new pediatric HDEs sunsets in 2013 and the FDA is required to issue a report on its impact within five years. In order to encourage pediatric medical device research, the bill requires the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to designate a point of contact at the agency to help innovators and physicians access funding for pediatric medical device development. It also requires the NIH, the FDA, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to submit a plan for pediatric medical device research that identifies gaps in such research and proposes a research agenda for addressing them. In identifying the gaps, the plan can include a survey of pediatric medical providers regarding unmet pediatric medical device needs. To better foster innovation in the private sector, the bill establishes demonstration grants for non-profit consortia to promote pediatric device development, including matchmaking between inventors and manufacturers and Federal resources. These demonstration grants, which are authorized for $6 million annually, require the federal government to mentor and help manage pediatric device projects through the development process, including product identification, prototype design, device development and marketing. Under the bill, grantees must coordinate with the NIH's pediatric devices point of contact to identify research issues that require further study and with the FDA to help facilitate approval of pediatric indications. Finally, in its 2005 report on pediatric medical device safety, the IOM found serious flaws in the postmarket safety surveillance of these devices. The legislation allows FDA to require postmarket studies as a condition of clearance for certain categories of devices. This includes ``a class II or class III device the failure of which would be reasonably likely to have serious adverse health consequences or is intended to be (1) implanted in the human body for more than one year, or (2) a life sustaining or life supporting device used outside a device user facility.'' The legislation also gives the FDA the ability to require studies longer than three years with respect to a device that is to have significant use in pediatric populations if such studies would be necessary to address longer-term pediatric questions, such as the impact on growth and development. And, it establishes a publicly accessible database of postmarket study commitments that involve questions about device use in pediatric populations. The legislation I am introducing today has been many years in the making. Last year, I introduced this legislation with Senator DeWine and I thank him for working with me on it and many other initiatives to improve children's health. I would like to also thank the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Thoracic Society and the National Organization for Rare Disorders for their tireless work and support for this legislation. The bill I am introducing today is supported by the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) and its member company Stryker and I thank them for their support. The bill reflects many of the comments they provided throughout the development of this legislation and I am pleased that they join me today in supporting its passage. Several other device manufacturers including Respironics, Seleon, and Breas Medical AB have previously supported this legislation and I would like to recognize and thank them for their continued support of the bill. I look forward to working with patient groups, physicians, industry and my colleagues--including the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senators Kennedy and Enzi--to move this legislation when the Committee considers medical device-related legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I am hopeful that it will become law as soon as possible. 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 Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act of 2007. This legislation provides a comprehensive approach to ensuring that children are not left behind as cutting-edge research and revolutionary technologies for medical devices advance. Like drugs, where for too long children were treated like small adults and could just be given reduced doses of adult products, many essential medical devices used extensively by pediatricians are not designed or sized for children. In fact, the development of new medical devices suitable for children's smaller and growing bodies can lag 5 or 10 years behind those for adults. While children and adults suffer from many of the same diseases and conditions, their device needs can vary considerably due to differences in size, rates of growth, critical development periods, anatomy, physiological differences such as breathing and heart rate, and physical activity levels. To date, because the pediatric market is so small and pediatric diseases relatively rare, there has been little incentive for device manufacturers to focus their attention on children. The result has been that pediatric providers must resort to ``jury-rigging'' or fashioning make-shift device solutions for pediatric use. When that is not an option, providers may be forced to use more invasive treatment or less effective therapies. For example, at present, left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) do not exist in the U.S. for children less than 5 years old. An LVAD is a mechanical pump that helps a heart that is too weak to pump blood through the body. So, infants and children under five years of age who have critical failure of their left or right ventricles have to be supported through extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). An ECMO consists of a pump, an artificial lung, a blood warmer and an arterial filter, which is installed by inserting tubes into large veins or arteries located in the right side of the neck or the groin. While ECMOs can help children for short periods of time, they are problematic. They can cause dangerous clots and the blood thinners that prevent these clots may lead to internal bleeding. In addition, children must remain bedridden while using the device. For young children needing to be on a ventilator to assist their breathing, the lack of non-invasive ventilators with masks that suitably fit babies has led to respiratory treatments that are inadequate or invasive treatment options such as placing a tube in the baby's throat. Children needing prosthetic heart valves face a disproportionately high failure rate. Because of the biochemistry of children's growing bodies, prosthetic heart valves implanted in children calcify and deteriorate much faster than in adults. Typically, children with a heart valve implant who survive to adulthood will need four or five operations. Additionally, devices currently available for children must be better able to expand and grow as the child grows. Over the past several years, efforts have been launched to better identify barriers to the development of pediatric devices and to generate solutions for improving children's access to needed medical devices. Beginning in June 2004, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD), the National Association of Children's Hospitals, and the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) hosted a series of stakeholders meetings that yielded recommendations for improving the availability of pediatric devices. In October 2004, in response to a directive in the Medical Devices Technical Corrections Act of 2004, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a report that identified numerous barriers to the development and approval of medical devices for children. And in July 2005, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a report on the adequacy of postmarket surveillance of pediatric medical devices, as mandated by the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002. The IOM found significant flaws in safety monitoring and recommended expanding the FDA's ability to require post-market studies of certain products and improve public access to information about post-market pediatric studies. This legislation seeks to address the equally important issues of pediatric medical device safety and availability. To begin with, the bill creates a mechanism to allow the FDA to track the number and types of medical devices approved specifically for children or for conditions that occur in children. It also allows the FDA to use adult data to support a determination of reasonable assurance of effectiveness in pediatric populations and to extrapolate data between pediatric subpopulations. The market for pediatric medical devices simply isn't what it is for adults. Therefore, many device manufacturers have been reluctant to make devices for children. The bill creates an incentive for companies by modifying the existing Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE) provision to allow manufacturers to profit from devices that are specifically designed to meet a pediatric need. To prevent abuse, the bill reverts to current law which allows no profit on sales of devices that exceed the number estimated to be needed for the approved condition. This provision is modeled after the existing Orphan Products Division designation process. Under no circumstances can there be a profit on sales if the device is used to treat or diagnose diseases or conditions affecting more than 4,000 individuals in the U.S. per year which is the same number allowed under current law. Already approved adult HDEs upon date of enactment are eligible for the HDE profit modification but only if they meet the conditions of the bill. The lifting of the profit restriction for new pediatric HDEs sunsets in 2013 and the FDA is required to issue a report on its impact within five years. In order to encourage pediatric medical device research, the bill requires the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to designate a point of contact at the agency to help innovators and physicians access funding for pediatric medical device development. It also requires the NIH, the FDA, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to submit a plan for pediatric medical device research that identifies gaps in such research and proposes a research agenda for addressing them. In identifying the gaps, the plan can include a survey of pediatric medical providers regarding unmet pediatric medical device needs. To better foster innovation in the private sector, the bill establishes demonstration grants for non-profit consortia to promote pediatric device development, including matchmaking between inventors and manufacturers and Federal resources. These demonstration grants, which are authorized for $6 million annually, require the federal government to mentor and help manage pediatric device projects through the development process, including product identification, prototype design, device development and marketing. Under the bill, grantees must coordinate with the NIH's pediatric devices point of contact to identify research issues that require further study and with the FDA to help facilitate approval of pediatric indications. Finally, in its 2005 report on pediatric medical device safety, the IOM found serious flaws in the postmarket safety surveillance of these devices. The legislation allows FDA to require postmarket studies as a condition of clearance for certain categories of devices. This includes ``a class II or class III device the failure of which would be reasonably likely to have serious adverse health consequences or is intended to be (1) implanted in the human body for more than one year, or (2) a life sustaining or life supporting device used outside a device user facility.'' The legislation also gives the FDA the ability to require studies longer than three years with respect to a device that is to have significant use in pediatric populations if such studies would be necessary to address longer-term pediatric questions, such as the impact on growth and development. And, it establishes a publicly accessible database of postmarket study commitments that involve questions about device use in pediatric populations. The legislation I am introducing today has been many years in the making. Last year, I introduced this legislation with Senator DeWine and I thank him for working with me on it and many other initiatives to improve children's health. I would like to also thank the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Thoracic Society and the National Organization for Rare Disorders for their tireless work and support for this legislation. The bill I am introducing today is supported by the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) and its member company Stryker and I thank them for their support. The bill reflects many of the comments they provided throughout the development of this legislation and I am pleased that they join me today in supporting its passage. Several other device manufacturers including Respironics, Seleon, and Breas Medical AB have previously supported this legislation and I would like to recognize and thank them for their continued support of the bill. I look forward to working with patient groups, physicians, industry and my colleagues--including the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senators Kennedy and Enzi--to move this legislation when the Committee considers medical device-related legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I am hopeful that it will become law as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI.2. of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the rules of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, as unanimously adopted by the committee on January 31, 2007.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me also address my thanks to our colleague from Oklahoma. Before I discuss the Banking Committee's contribution to this important bill, I would like to take a moment to provide some thoughts on the overall bill--especially the initiatives pertaining to our Nation's homeland security. Over 5 years after the tragic events of 9/11 and almost 20 months since the tragic events of 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 bill takes a critical step forward in protecting Americans at home from manmade and natural disasters. It codifies several recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission--seminal recommendations that, nearly 3 years after being issued, have still not been implemented by this White House or the Congress. I support the measures in this bill designed to allocate critical resources based on concrete risk and effectiveness analysis. I also support the measure in this bill that establishes a minimum base of funding for all States. We all know how important initiatives like the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program are to our States and localities. While I believe those areas with higher degrees of risk from manmade and natural disasters should receive adequate resources proportionate to that risk, I also believe that all areas of our country should receive a base amount of funding that guarantees the protection of all Americans. I am going to jump to the section of the legislation over which the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee has specific jurisdiction. The Presiding Officer is a distinguished member of the committee. He will recall just a few weeks ago we marked up the transit security bill which is now a part of this legislation. I thank Senator Richard Shelby, my ranking member on the committee, former chairman of the committee, for his cooperation, and I thank all members of the committee. We marked up this piece of the bill now before the Senate, unanimously. It is very much a reflection of what the committee did previously in the 109th Congress to deal with transportation security, and we thought it was an important matter to raise at the outset. My compliments to the chairman of the committee for the underlying legislation, who is responsible for the homeland security issues, and his colleague from Maine, for the tremendous work they have done on this bill, and for others who have been involved in it. I would be remiss if I also didn't commend the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Inouye, and his ranking member, Senator Stevens, for their work, as well as Senator Reid, the majority leader, for bringing this all together in one package. It is also important we recognize how important transit security is. The Presiding Officer and others will recall we had a hearing on this subject matter and heard from some very interesting witnesses. 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 might be worthwhile to hear from those who manage the transit operations in those two cities to come and share with us information about those two experiences. I think their testimony was very helpful in galvanizing the importance of this issue and the attention of the committee and, we hope, our colleagues as well. We learned in those hearings, of course, that transit attacks have unfortunately been the major source of some of the terrorist activities over the last number of years. It is no secret that worldwide terrorists have favored public transit as a target. Transit has been the single most frequent target of terrorism. 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. The Banking Committee heard testimony from the leaders of these two transit systems, as I mentioned. 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. Every act to increase security generally potentially limits the specific security needs of a transit agency. The bill includes grants for security equipment, evacuation drills, and, most importantly--what we heard from the witnesses, particularly from Madrid and London--worker training. Indeed, the bill requires worker training for all systems that receive security grants. The importance of worker training can be scarcely overstated. Transit workers are the first line of defense against an attack and the first to respond to an event of an attack. Mr. O'Toole, the director of London's transit system said: You have to invest in your staff and rely on them. You have to invest in technology, but don't rely on it. Finally, the bill authorizes funds for the research of new and existing security technologies and fully authorizes the funding of the Information Sharing Analysis Center, a valuable tool that provides transit agencies timely information on active threats against their systems. 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. 14 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 systems of both aviation and mass transit systems. But our bill does provide an authorization of $3.5 billion to increase exactly the kind of operations I have described briefly, including the training issues which are critically important. 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 system of our economy. Again, I am grateful to the members of the committee, as well as my colleagues here, for their indication of support of this effort. It is going to be very important to all of us across this country. This is not limited, obviously, to the east coast or west coast. In fact, now some of the most urbanized States in the country are Western States with mass transit systems. It is going to be very important we provide the kind of support that this provision of the bill does. Again, my thanks to Senator Shelby, to all members of the committee who played a very constructive role in crafting this legislation, as they did in the 109th Congress and, again, to my colleague from Connecticut and my colleague from Maine for their fine work on this issue, making this a part of this bill. I urge the adoption of this section when the full bill is considered. Again, my thanks to my colleague from Oklahoma for providing some time. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today, together with my colleague Senator Lieberman, to introduce the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2007. The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2007 will end an outdated legal doctrine that unfairly penalizes thousands of workers in Connecticut and across the country whose only offense is that they sometimes work from home. Technology continues to transform the way business is conducted in America and all over the world. Telecommunications advances such as cell phones, email, the Internet, and mobile networking have not only made Americans more productive, they have also given people greater flexibility in where they can work without compromising productivity. As a result, more Americans now have the freedom to work from home or other alternative offices when their physical presence is not required at their primary place of work. This option to telecommute offers tremendous benefits for businesses, families, and communities. It helps employers lower costs and raise worker productivity, and individuals better manage the demands of work and family. It also reduces congestion on our roads and rails, and in so doing, lowers pollution. Despite the many benefits of telecommuting, some states continue to maintain and enforce outdated laws that unfairly penalize people who choose to work from home. New York, in particular, has been among the most aggressive. Under its so-called ``convenience of the employer'' rule, New York requires out-of-State residents who work for an employer in New York to pay New York taxes on income earned outside the State, even if the State in which the employee is physically present also applies tax to the same income. New York only allows exceptions for cases of ``necessity,'' as opposed to ``convenience,'' and the State has determined that telecommuting falls into the latter, taxable category. While there are several States that have ``convenience of the employer'' rules, no other State applies it with the same rigor as New York. Under this rule, if a Connecticut resident who normally works in New York--as thousands of Connecticut residents do--chooses to work from home some days, New York forces her to pay taxes for income earned on those days not only to Connecticut, the state in which she is physically present, but also to New York. This rule unfairly subjects the many workers who telecommute from their homes or other sites outside of New York to a double tax on the part of their income earned from home. According to Connecticut's attorney general, thousands of Connecticut residents alone are affected by this unfair double taxation. However, it isn't only Connecticut residents who are at risk. Thomas Huckaby is a Tennessee-based computer programmer that telecommuted for a firm in Queens, New York. In 1994 and 1995, Mr. Huckaby spent 75 percent of his time working in Tennessee and the remaining 25 percent working in the Queens office and attempted to apportion his income accordingly. New York, however, sought to tax 100 percent of his income and was successful due to its ``convenience of employer'' rule. On March 29, 2005, the New York Court of Appeals upheld New York's rule in a 4 to 3 decision. The Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal. A similar story involves Arthur Gray, a New Hampshire resident who worked for the New York office of Cowen & Co. as an investment counselor from 1976 through 1996 and paid New York state income taxes during that time. In 1997, Arthur Gray, per his employer's request, opened and managed an office from his home in New Hampshire. Several times during the year, Mr. Gray worked in New York, but most of his days were spent in New Hampshire. When paying his taxes during this time, he paid New York state income taxes for the days he was in New York, but not for the days he worked in New Hampshire. New York, however, sought to tax 100 percent of his income and was successful due to its ``convenience of the employer'' rule. These are only two examples of the far-reaching consequences of this ``convenience of employer'' rule. There are thousands of individuals across the country who are adversely impacted by this rule. Most, however, lack the time, money, or energy to take their case to court. This potential for double taxation is not only unfair, it also discourages people from telecommuting when we should be doing the opposite. Legislation is needed to protect these honest workers who deserve fair and equitable treatment under the law. The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005 accomplishes this by specifically preventing a State from engaging in the current fiction of deeming a nonresident to be in the taxing state when the nonresident is actually working in another state. In doing so, it will eliminate the possibility that citizens will be double-taxed when telecommuting. Establishing a ``physical presence'' test--as this legislation does-- is the most logical basis for determining tax status. If a worker is in a State, and taking advantage of that State's infrastructure, the worker should pay taxes in that State. Some suggest that the double-taxation quandary can easily be fixed by having other States provide a tax credit to those telecommuters. However, why should Connecticut, or any other State, be required to allow a credit on income actually earned in the State? If a worker is working in Connecticut, he or she is benefiting from a range of services paid for and maintained by Connecticut, including roads, water, police, fire protection, and communications services. It's only fair that Connecticut ask that worker to help support the services that he or she uses. This is not just an issue that deals with a small group of citizens from one small state. Rather, this is an issue that affects workers all over the country. It will only grow more pressing as people and businesses continue to seek to take advantage of new technologies that influence the way we live and work. I hope our colleagues will favorably consider this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today, together with my colleague Senator Lieberman, to introduce the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2007. The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2007 will end an outdated legal doctrine that unfairly penalizes thousands of workers in Connecticut and across the country whose only offense is that they sometimes work from home. Technology continues to transform the way business is conducted in America and all over the world. Telecommunications advances such as cell phones, email, the Internet, and mobile networking have not only made Americans more productive, they have also given people greater flexibility in where they can work without compromising productivity. As a result, more Americans now have the freedom to work from home or other alternative offices when their physical presence is not required at their primary place of work. This option to telecommute offers tremendous benefits for businesses, families, and communities. It helps employers lower costs and raise worker productivity, and individuals better manage the demands of work and family. It also reduces congestion on our roads and rails, and in so doing, lowers pollution. Despite the many benefits of telecommuting, some states continue to maintain and enforce outdated laws that unfairly penalize people who choose to work from home. New York, in particular, has been among the most aggressive. Under its so-called ``convenience of the employer'' rule, New York requires out-of-State residents who work for an employer in New York to pay New York taxes on income earned outside the State, even if the State in which the employee is physically present also applies tax to the same income. New York only allows exceptions for cases of ``necessity,'' as opposed to ``convenience,'' and the State has determined that telecommuting falls into the latter, taxable category. While there are several States that have ``convenience of the employer'' rules, no other State applies it with the same rigor as New York. Under this rule, if a Connecticut resident who normally works in New York--as thousands of Connecticut residents do--chooses to work from home some days, New York forces her to pay taxes for income earned on those days not only to Connecticut, the state in which she is physically present, but also to New York. This rule unfairly subjects the many workers who telecommute from their homes or other sites outside of New York to a double tax on the part of their income earned from home. According to Connecticut's attorney general, thousands of Connecticut residents alone are affected by this unfair double taxation. However, it isn't only Connecticut residents who are at risk. Thomas Huckaby is a Tennessee-based computer programmer that telecommuted for a firm in Queens, New York. In 1994 and 1995, Mr. Huckaby spent 75 percent of his time working in Tennessee and the remaining 25 percent working in the Queens office and attempted to apportion his income accordingly. New York, however, sought to tax 100 percent of his income and was successful due to its ``convenience of employer'' rule. On March 29, 2005, the New York Court of Appeals upheld New York's rule in a 4 to 3 decision. The Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal. A similar story involves Arthur Gray, a New Hampshire resident who worked for the New York office of Cowen & Co. as an investment counselor from 1976 through 1996 and paid New York state income taxes during that time. In 1997, Arthur Gray, per his employer's request, opened and managed an office from his home in New Hampshire. Several times during the year, Mr. Gray worked in New York, but most of his days were spent in New Hampshire. When paying his taxes during this time, he paid New York state income taxes for the days he was in New York, but not for the days he worked in New Hampshire. New York, however, sought to tax 100 percent of his income and was successful due to its ``convenience of the employer'' rule. These are only two examples of the far-reaching consequences of this ``convenience of employer'' rule. There are thousands of individuals across the country who are adversely impacted by this rule. Most, however, lack the time, money, or energy to take their case to court. This potential for double taxation is not only unfair, it also discourages people from telecommuting when we should be doing the opposite. Legislation is needed to protect these honest workers who deserve fair and equitable treatment under the law. The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005 accomplishes this by specifically preventing a State from engaging in the current fiction of deeming a nonresident to be in the taxing state when the nonresident is actually working in another state. In doing so, it will eliminate the possibility that citizens will be double-taxed when telecommuting. Establishing a ``physical presence'' test--as this legislation does-- is the most logical basis for determining tax status. If a worker is in a State, and taking advantage of that State's infrastructure, the worker should pay taxes in that State. Some suggest that the double-taxation quandary can easily be fixed by having other States provide a tax credit to those telecommuters. However, why should Connecticut, or any other State, be required to allow a credit on income actually earned in the State? If a worker is working in Connecticut, he or she is benefiting from a range of services paid for and maintained by Connecticut, including roads, water, police, fire protection, and communications services. It's only fair that Connecticut ask that worker to help support the services that he or she uses. This is not just an issue that deals with a small group of citizens from one small state. Rather, this is an issue that affects workers all over the country. It will only grow more pressing as people and businesses continue to seek to take advantage of new technologies that influence the way we live and work. I hope our colleagues will favorably consider this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, no one has worked harder or sacrificed more in the war on terrorism than our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. Regrettably, they have been tested in unprecedented ways--with too few troops in our overall forces, our soldiers are rotating in and out of Iraq for year-long stretches. By the beginning of next year, members of the 3rd Infantry Division will have spent more time in Iraq than at home in a span of five years. On top of the physical and psychological strains caused by these deployments, our troops are contending with grave equipment shortfalls and sparse resources to restock their supplies. Congress and the American public were already informed that two- thirds of the Army's forces in the United States are ``not ready'' for combat duty, largely due to these equipment shortfalls. But the situation for our National Guard is far worse. In a report submitted to Congress last Thursday by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, we learned that 88 percent of the National Guard has been classified as ``not ready'' for duty. Such a statistic seems earth-shattering to me--it should drive all of us in Congress to action immediately. As my colleagues know, the National Guard operates under dual authorities: overseas, they become fully integrated into the U.S. Armed Forces, serving under the President in a variety of combat missions; at home, the National Guard serves under our States' governors, performing homeland security functions during local or statewide emergencies, such as storms, fires, earthquakes or civil disturbances. For years now, however, the administration's foreign policies have actually endangered the Guard's abilities to perform either of these functions. Under orders by the administration, National Guard troops have been forced to leave their State's equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan for other troops rotating into combat theaters. Many of their military vehicles and aircraft are being worn down and destroyed in battle. But any critical equipment that may have survived is simply being transferred to other units coming into Iraq or Afghanistan. This means that when the National Guard comes home, they are finding their stocks of equipment--ranging from humvees to night-vision goggles, generators and radios--cleaned out. So today, we face a frightening series of questions--what happens when the next Hurricane Katrina strikes? Who will help restore order? Who will help provide critical emergency response services? And what equipment will they use? The National Guard Commission, led by former Senate Armed Services Committee Staff Director retired Marine General Arnold Punaro, lays out the problems in stark terms. Unless we address this situation immediately, we will jeopardize not only our troops' safety but our very nation's security. That is why today I am introducing legislation to rebuild our National Guard and ensure that it can fully perform both its homeland security and national defense missions. According to the National Guard Bureau at the Pentagon, the President's budget is short $38 billion over the next five years. My bill would allocate funding according to the needs projected by National Guard Bureau Chief Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum. Some may suggest that this is not an issue that can simply be fixed with more money. As in prior years, the Department of Defense may say that the defense industry simply just does not have adequate capacity to manufacture all of these new product orders. If that is the case, we will need to find ways to expand our nation's defense production. For that reason, my bill will also require the Defense Department to provide a plan for investing in industry to expand their manufacturing capacity. This legislation will complement the Leahy-Bond Guard Empowerment Act of 2007, legislation that I have proudly cosponsored to elevate National Guard leadership at the Department of Defense so that it may better contribute to the formulation of key defense policies. But without the necessary resources, the National Guard will be unable to do its job. That is why my legislation is so important today. These conclusions were further confirmed by a January 2007 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report which found that our National Guard's equipment inventories in the United States have decreased largely because of overseas operations. The GAO further found that as of November 2006, nondeployed Army National Guard forces nationwide only have 64 percent of the total amount of equipment they need. Let me be clear about the reasons why my legislation is needed to lay out our budget for the next five years. While the administration's recent five-year budget projections have sought large increases for National Guard equipment, according to the National Guard Commission Report data, the administration and Republican-led Congresses have repeatedly failed to follow through on such requirements. According to the Commission, funding from 1999-2005 has been reduced significantly from the amounts identified several years earlier. For example, when the administration's first five-year budget was submitted to Congress, it showed that the Army planned to fund $1.346 billion in Fiscal Year 2004 for Army National Guard procurement. But in reality, the Army Guard actually had only $578.4 million to spend that year. Similarly, the Fiscal Year 2005 budget was initially projected to be $1.625 billion for the Army National Guard. But when it came time to allocate the funding, the Administration and their Congressional allies could only come up with $660.9 million for Army National Guard procurement. Indeed, while our troops have given their all on the battlefield, the administration and United States Congress have not held up their end of the bargain. We owe it to our troops to do all that we can to promote their wellbeing--whether providing appropriate care at our military and VA hospitals or providing the military equipment they need to complete their missions safely and effectively. Regrettably, the sad and simple fact is that the administration has repeatedly come up short in this regard. And these failures are having devastating consequences, not only for our troops but for our Nation's very defense and homeland security. This situation is not new. I have come to the floor to try to address lacking resources for our military's essential equipment needs from the very first year of the Iraq war. In 2003, the Army identified $322 million in shortfalls in critical health and safety gear--ranging from body armor, camelback hydration systems, and combat helmets to equipment for deactivating high-explosives--all priorities that the Rumsfeld Pentagon and Bush administration failed to provide for in their initial budgets. I offered an amendment to the Emergency Appropriations bill to resolve these problems. Unfortunately, the Bush administration opposed this legislation, and the amendment was defeated along party lines. In 2004, we tried a different approach--requiring the Department of Defense to reimburse military personnel who bought equipment for military service in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Rumsfeld Pentagon had failed to provide. This time, despite ardent objections of Secretary Rumsfeld's Pentagon, Congress approved the legislation. And in October 2004, President Bush signed the bill into law. We approved similar legislation in 2005 to further extend this benefit as troops, their families, and their communities continued to dig into their own pockets to buy needed lifesaving equipment for use on the battlefield. But last year, the difficulties associated with equipment shortfalls posed a far more serious problem. Working with Senators Inouye, Reed and Stevens, I offered an amendment to address a $17 billion budget shortfall to replace and repair thousands of war battered tanks, aircraft, and vehicles. Without these additional resources, the Army Chief of Staff claimed that U.S. Army readiness would deteriorate even further. This provision was approved unanimously and enacted in law. But much more remains to be done. If Congress and the administration do not finally heed the warnings of the U.S. military's top generals, and fully fund our equipment needs, the Armed Forces' ability to respond to future challenges to America's national security--whether on the Korean Peninsula, the Middle East, or elsewhere in the world--could be harmed. Moreover, if we do not take the findings of the independent National Guard Commission seriously, and fully address the equipment shortfalls of our Citizen Soldiers here at home, I am afraid we will further erode our states' most pressing emergency response capabilities. For the last six years, our troops have unconditionally served in Afghanistan, battling Al Qaeda and Taliban forces. And for four years, they have bravely followed orders into Iraq, despite the administration's ill-defined objectives and faulty intelligence. Our troops have served with characteristic honor, dedication, and skill. It is high time that we meet our commitments to them--and give them the mission-critical gear they need to get their jobs done. I strongly urge my colleagues to support my legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, no one has worked harder or sacrificed more in the war on terrorism than our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. Regrettably, they have been tested in unprecedented ways--with too few troops in our overall forces, our soldiers are rotating in and out of Iraq for year-long stretches. By the beginning of next year, members of the 3rd Infantry Division will have spent more time in Iraq than at home in a span of five years. On top of the physical and psychological strains caused by these deployments, our troops are contending with grave equipment shortfalls and sparse resources to restock their supplies. Congress and the American public were already informed that two- thirds of the Army's forces in the United States are ``not ready'' for combat duty, largely due to these equipment shortfalls. But the situation for our National Guard is far worse. In a report submitted to Congress last Thursday by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, we learned that 88 percent of the National Guard has been classified as ``not ready'' for duty. Such a statistic seems earth-shattering to me--it should drive all of us in Congress to action immediately. As my colleagues know, the National Guard operates under dual authorities: overseas, they become fully integrated into the U.S. Armed Forces, serving under the President in a variety of combat missions; at home, the National Guard serves under our States' governors, performing homeland security functions during local or statewide emergencies, such as storms, fires, earthquakes or civil disturbances. For years now, however, the administration's foreign policies have actually endangered the Guard's abilities to perform either of these functions. Under orders by the administration, National Guard troops have been forced to leave their State's equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan for other troops rotating into combat theaters. Many of their military vehicles and aircraft are being worn down and destroyed in battle. But any critical equipment that may have survived is simply being transferred to other units coming into Iraq or Afghanistan. This means that when the National Guard comes home, they are finding their stocks of equipment--ranging from humvees to night-vision goggles, generators and radios--cleaned out. So today, we face a frightening series of questions--what happens when the next Hurricane Katrina strikes? Who will help restore order? Who will help provide critical emergency response services? And what equipment will they use? The National Guard Commission, led by former Senate Armed Services Committee Staff Director retired Marine General Arnold Punaro, lays out the problems in stark terms. Unless we address this situation immediately, we will jeopardize not only our troops' safety but our very nation's security. That is why today I am introducing legislation to rebuild our National Guard and ensure that it can fully perform both its homeland security and national defense missions. According to the National Guard Bureau at the Pentagon, the President's budget is short $38 billion over the next five years. My bill would allocate funding according to the needs projected by National Guard Bureau Chief Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum. Some may suggest that this is not an issue that can simply be fixed with more money. As in prior years, the Department of Defense may say that the defense industry simply just does not have adequate capacity to manufacture all of these new product orders. If that is the case, we will need to find ways to expand our nation's defense production. For that reason, my bill will also require the Defense Department to provide a plan for investing in industry to expand their manufacturing capacity. This legislation will complement the Leahy-Bond Guard Empowerment Act of 2007, legislation that I have proudly cosponsored to elevate National Guard leadership at the Department of Defense so that it may better contribute to the formulation of key defense policies. But without the necessary resources, the National Guard will be unable to do its job. That is why my legislation is so important today. These conclusions were further confirmed by a January 2007 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report which found that our National Guard's equipment inventories in the United States have decreased largely because of overseas operations. The GAO further found that as of November 2006, nondeployed Army National Guard forces nationwide only have 64 percent of the total amount of equipment they need. Let me be clear about the reasons why my legislation is needed to lay out our budget for the next five years. While the administration's recent five-year budget projections have sought large increases for National Guard equipment, according to the National Guard Commission Report data, the administration and Republican-led Congresses have repeatedly failed to follow through on such requirements. According to the Commission, funding from 1999-2005 has been reduced significantly from the amounts identified several years earlier. For example, when the administration's first five-year budget was submitted to Congress, it showed that the Army planned to fund $1.346 billion in Fiscal Year 2004 for Army National Guard procurement. But in reality, the Army Guard actually had only $578.4 million to spend that year. Similarly, the Fiscal Year 2005 budget was initially projected to be $1.625 billion for the Army National Guard. But when it came time to allocate the funding, the Administration and their Congressional allies could only come up with $660.9 million for Army National Guard procurement. Indeed, while our troops have given their all on the battlefield, the administration and United States Congress have not held up their end of the bargain. We owe it to our troops to do all that we can to promote their wellbeing--whether providing appropriate care at our military and VA hospitals or providing the military equipment they need to complete their missions safely and effectively. Regrettably, the sad and simple fact is that the administration has repeatedly come up short in this regard. And these failures are having devastating consequences, not only for our troops but for our Nation's very defense and homeland security. This situation is not new. I have come to the floor to try to address lacking resources for our military's essential equipment needs from the very first year of the Iraq war. In 2003, the Army identified $322 million in shortfalls in critical health and safety gear--ranging from body armor, camelback hydration systems, and combat helmets to equipment for deactivating high-explosives--all priorities that the Rumsfeld Pentagon and Bush administration failed to provide for in their initial budgets. I offered an amendment to the Emergency Appropriations bill to resolve these problems. Unfortunately, the Bush administration opposed this legislation, and the amendment was defeated along party lines. In 2004, we tried a different approach--requiring the Department of Defense to reimburse military personnel who bought equipment for military service in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Rumsfeld Pentagon had failed to provide. This time, despite ardent objections of Secretary Rumsfeld's Pentagon, Congress approved the legislation. And in October 2004, President Bush signed the bill into law. We approved similar legislation in 2005 to further extend this benefit as troops, their families, and their communities continued to dig into their own pockets to buy needed lifesaving equipment for use on the battlefield. But last year, the difficulties associated with equipment shortfalls posed a far more serious problem. Working with Senators Inouye, Reed and Stevens, I offered an amendment to address a $17 billion budget shortfall to replace and repair thousands of war battered tanks, aircraft, and vehicles. Without these additional resources, the Army Chief of Staff claimed that U.S. Army readiness would deteriorate even further. This provision was approved unanimously and enacted in law. But much more remains to be done. If Congress and the administration do not finally heed the warnings of the U.S. military's top generals, and fully fund our equipment needs, the Armed Forces' ability to respond to future challenges to America's national security--whether on the Korean Peninsula, the Middle East, or elsewhere in the world--could be harmed. Moreover, if we do not take the findings of the independent National Guard Commission seriously, and fully address the equipment shortfalls of our Citizen Soldiers here at home, I am afraid we will further erode our states' most pressing emergency response capabilities. For the last six years, our troops have unconditionally served in Afghanistan, battling Al Qaeda and Taliban forces. And for four years, they have bravely followed orders into Iraq, despite the administration's ill-defined objectives and faulty intelligence. Our troops have served with characteristic honor, dedication, and skill. It is high time that we meet our commitments to them--and give them the mission-critical gear they need to get their jobs done. I strongly urge my colleagues to support my legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as we move forward in the coming months in the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on critical election reform hearings, I wanted to take this opportunity to re-introduce my legislation, the Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights (VOTER) Act of 2007. I am committed to working with our new Rules Committee Chair Senator Feinstein and my other Rules Committee colleagues, and with others off the committee, to try to secure enactment of tough new election reform legislation in this Congress. This bill provides a focus and framework for that discussion. It does not purport to address all of the key problems in election reform that have arisen since enactment in 2002 of the historic Help America Vote Act (HAVA), but it is an important start, and I am pleased that Senator Feinstein and I will be working together on comprehensive reform legislation this year. In light of the continuing barriers that American citizens found at polling places across this Nation last November, including technological barriers, human errors, and other problems, we cannot rest on the laurels of past legislation. We must continue to strive to provide an equal opportunity for all citizens to participate in their democracy by voting and having their vote counted. That's why today I am re-introducing this legislation. There is nothing more fundamental to the vitality of a democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people, than the people's right to vote. In the words of Thomas Paine: ``The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected.'' Indeed, it is the right on which all others in our democracy depend. We still have a long way to go before we get to the point where all Americans are able to participate without obstacles in our elections, and able to participate with confidence in the voting systems they use. In the 2000 presidential election, 51.2 percent of the eligible American electorate voted. And although in the 2004 presidential election voting participation reached its highest level since 1968, only 60.7 percent of eligible Americans voted. That dropped back down, in the 2006 off-year elections, to just over 40 percent. While there are many reasons why more Americans do not vote, we learned from the debacle of the 2000 presidential elections that many citizens cannot vote and have their vote counted because they are improperly removed from registration rolls, do not have access to accessible voting systems and ballots, or lack confidence in antiquated and error-prone machines and State administrative procedures. In response to those concerns, in 2002 Congress enacted HAVA, overwhelmingly bipartisan election reform legislation. For the first time in our history, that landmark legislation established the role of the Federal Government in administering and funding Federal elections. The twin goals of the act were to make it easier to vote and harder to defraud the system. On the day that the Senate adopted its version of HAVA, I noted that the Senate bill was a bipartisan compromise and the culmination of the hard work of a dedicated group of Senators. But I also noted that the compromise was just that--it was not everything that all of us wanted, but it was something that everyone wanted. That was equally true of the final HAVA compromise on election reform. The 2004 and 2006 elections raised both continuing and new concerns. And some of the most important of these concerns are not addressed by HAVA. The fact that less than one-half of the eligible voting age population voted in 2006 underscores the reality that not everybody votes in America. We must do better on this front, and we can. As the 2006 elections in some states reminded us, we also must do better at bolstering Americans' confidence in the security and reliability of our election systems, while preserving critical access to people with disabilities, language minorities, and others. Let me summarize briefly what this bill does. First, the VOTER Act provides every eligible American, regardless of where they live in the world or where they find themselves on election day, the right to cast a National Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot in Federal elections. This new national absentee ballot extends to all citizens the same right to a Federal absentee ballot that overseas and active military voters currently have. Beginning with Federal elections in 2008, every State shall provide early voting opportunities for a minimum of 15 days prior to election day, including Saturdays. Beginning in 2009, any otherwise eligible voter must be allowed to register to vote on election day and have that vote counted in Federal elections. This last provision would in itself be a major advance. The VOTER Act also addresses many of the recurring, and new, barriers to voting that voters faced at the polls in the last two federal elections. It requires that a State count a provisional ballot for Federal office cast within the State by an otherwise eligible voter, notwithstanding the polling place where the ballot is cast. HAVA established a uniform national right for every voter in a Federal election to receive and cast a provisional ballot. This new right was intended to ensure that no otherwise eligible voter could be turned away from the polls because of an administrative error or other challenge. But in 2004, and again in 2006, we saw this right eroded by States and applied in non-uniform ways. Some States, such as Ohio, initially interpreted HAVA to require that a voter be in their correct precinct in order to cast a Federal provisional ballot. Other States interpreted the same HAVA language to allow challenged voters to cast a provisional ballot in their county of residence. Whether or not the provisional ballot was ultimately counted turned solely on State law. This bill ensures that voters who cast a provisional ballot for Federal office will have that ballot counted in a uniform manner. In addition, the VOTER Act requires that each State provide a minimum required number of voting systems and poll workers for each polling place on election day and during early voting, consistent with mandatory standards established by the Election Assistance Commission. This is to avoid the problem of long lines and disenfranchised voters because of too few voting systems or ballots at polling places and too few poll workers to assist voters. This requirement would become effective in January, 2008. To ensure that all voters have an opportunity to independently verify their ballot before it is cast and counted, the VOTER Act also requires that all States provide voters a voter-verified ballot with a choice of at least four formats for verification: a paper record; an audio record; a pictorial record; and an electronic record or other means which is fully accessible to the disabled, including the blind and visually impaired. HAVA already requires that all voting systems provide voters an opportunity to verify their ballot before it is cast and counted. HAVA also requires that all systems produce a permanent paper record for audit purposes. However, it does not spell out how that verification is to be achieved to ensure security and independence of the voter's choice. In the last few years, many have called on Congress to require a voter-verified paper ballot. And I understand what is behind that impulse. Even so, unless voter verification schemes are carefully crafted, paper-only processes can be less accurate, printer jams can result in more destroyed ballots, and they can inherently discriminate against the disabled, particularly the blind and visually-impaired. HAVA already requires that all voters, regardless of disability, be able to verify their ballots. With current and developing technology-- and with new approaches being developed which will require paper ballots which are then convertible into formats for verification that are accessible to persons with disabilities and language minorities--I am hopeful that as we move forward we will be able to work out an approach on which all sides can agree. I continue to believe it is important to preserve the anti- discrimination requirements in current law, by ensuring that appropriate verification alternatives are offered to those who need them. I know my colleagues have various proposals on this issue to bring before the Committee for its consideration, either separately or as part of more comprehensive reform efforts, and we should examine those proposals carefully. That process has already begun with the Committee's hearing last month which focused on problems with electronic voting systems, including those currently before the court in the contested election for the 13th Congressional District in Sarasota County, Florida. The VOTER Act also addresses the continuing problem of minority disenfranchisement through last-minute purges of voter registration lists by requiring States to provide public notice of any such purges not later than 45 days before a Federal election. To expedite the studies called for under HAVA for establishing election day as a Federal holiday, the VOTER Act requires the EAC to complete its study and issue recommendations within 6 months of enactment and earmarks funds within the EAC budget solely for this purpose. It also includes amendments to HAVA that build on the existing voting system requirements to ensure that all voting systems, including punch cards and central count optical scan machines, provide voters with actual notice of over-votes. Also, beginning in 2009, States must allow for voter registration through the Internet. The bill also includes provisions to ensure both the security and uniform treatment of voter registration applications by requiring that all voters sign an affidavit attesting to both their citizenship and age, in lieu of the HAVA requirements for a check-off box alone, effective in 2009. HAVA requires that voter registration forms include questions regarding citizenship and age with check-off boxes that applicants use to indicate whether or not they meet eligibility requirements. States are further required to contact any applicant who does not fill in the boxes in order to complete the form. However, in the 2004 and 2006 elections, States implemented this requirement in widely varying ways, resulting in non-uniform treatment of voters in Federal elections. In some cases, States refused to process the form and failed to contact the voter. In other States, voters who had submitted incomplete forms were asked to complete those forms at the polling place. While the twin purposes of HAVA were to make it easier to vote and harder to defraud the system, as implemented this requirement achieves neither purpose. This requirement further resulted in disenfranchising voters who failed to check a box but nonetheless signed an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, attesting to both their citizenship and age. With the implementation of statewide voter registration lists, the check-off box requirement is unnecessary and burdensome to both voters and election administrators. To ensure that the implementation of the voter identification requirements in HAVA do not make it harder to vote, the VOTER Act expands the forms of identification that can be used to establish identity for first-time voters who submit their voter registration by mail to include an affidavit executed by the voter attesting to his or her identity, generally subject to penalties for perjury under State law. The VOTER Act also begins to respond to concerns first raised in the 2000 Presidential election in Florida, and echoed again in the 2004 and 2006 elections, regarding the appearance of impartiality by State election officials who were otherwise active in Federal campaigns. The bill imposes new accountability and transparency requirements on States, beginning in 2008, including a public notice requirement of any changes in State law affecting the administration of elections, such as changes in polling places and actions denying access to polling place observers. Some have urged going beyond this, including by banning state election officials from engaging in political activity in races which they oversee; the committee should consider this approach carefully. To ensure the independence of the Election Assistance Commission, and the timely issuance of guidance and standards, the bill provides the agency with independent budget authority and the authority to issue mandatory standards to implement the new requirements. Finally, in recognition of the inherent role of the States in the administration of Federal elections, the VOTER Act provides additional Federal funds for the State requirement grants under HAVA to implement the new requirements. This measure does not pretend to be exhaustive, and I know there are other important reform ideas that will be considered by the committee, including measures to penalize deceptive voter intimidation practices, to impose additional voting systems testing, to improve poll worker training, to ease registration for new voters, and others. I welcome a full discussion of all of these issues. While Congress accomplished much with the passage of the Help America Vote Act following the debacle of the 2000 Presidential election, 5 years later voters still face some of the same barriers to voting that HAVA promised to remove. As we move forward on election reform this year, let us ensure that every eligible American voter has an equal opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted in Federal elections. I invite my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this measure, and I ask unanimous consent that a brief section-by-section analysis of this measure be printed in the Record.