Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, March 1, marks the 46th Anniversary of the Peace Corps. Never in our history has it been more critical that the Peace Corps succeed in its mission to ``promote world peace and friendship.'' As we all know, the Peace Corps seeks to advance both a better understanding of Americans and better understanding by Americans; and these goals are especially central if we want to effectively counter the spread of extremist ideology to disaffected people around the world, people who, after all, know as little of us as we know of them. Since 1961, nearly 190,000 Peace Corps volunteers have served our Nation as citizen diplomats. For the last 45 years, by living and working side-by-side with people from 139 nations, these volunteers have represented the very best of American ideals: working to improve the human condition, and overcoming barriers of culture, language and religion, through patience, mutual respect, and partnership. The Peace Corps is an absolutely crucial instrument in advancing America's longer term foreign policy goals. And so today I am proud to introduce the Peace Corps Volunteer Empowerment Act that is designed to make the Peace Corps even more relevant to the dynamic world of the 21st Century. I am also very pleased to announce that another returned Peace Corps volunteer, Congressman Sam Farr will shortly introduce a companion bill in the House so that both bodies can begin working to pass this very important legislation. The bill will provide seed monies for active Peace Corps volunteers for demonstration projects at their specific in-country sites. It authorizes $10 million in additional annual appropriations to be distributed by the Peace Corps as grants to returned Peace Corps volunteers interested in undertaking ``third goal'' projects in their communities. The bill will also authorize active Peace Corps volunteers to accept, under certain carefully defined circumstances, private donations to support their development projects. For any organization to thrive, managers and leaders must have access to first-hand knowledge and perspectives of those working on the front lines. And so, this bill will establish mechanisms for more volunteer input into Peace Corps operations, including staffing decisions, site selection, language training and country programs. This bill will also explicitly protect certain rights of Peace Corps volunteers with respect to termination of service and whistleblower protection. We must bring the Peace Corps into the digital age. To that end, this bill will provide volunteers with better means of communication by establishing websites and email links for use by volunteers in-country. Inadequate funding and internal structural roadblocks have unfortunately resulted in an unfulfilled Presidential pledge to double the size of the Peace Corps by 2007. Despite a large increase in volunteers signing up for the Peace Corps immediately after September 11, the Congressional Research Service reports that the number of Peace Corps volunteers actually declined in 2006. It is crucial that we work to reverse this troubling trend. That is why this bill authorizes active recruitment from the 185,000 returned Peace Corps volunteer community for second tours as volunteers and as participants in third goal activities in the United States. This bill will also remove certain medical, healthcare and other impediments that discourage older individuals from becoming Peace Corps volunteers. It will create more transparency in the medical screening and appeals process, and require reports on costs associated with extending post-service health coverage from 1 month to 6 months. Finally, and perhaps most crucially, my bill includes annual authorizations for Fiscal Years 2008 to 2011, so that we can provide the means by which the Peace Corps can double the number of volunteers to 15,000, by 2011. In all the controversies of the past 5 years, all the vagaries of strategy and tactics and plans and counter plans, there's one policy that guarantees success: sending our best young men and women into the world to make America known. So, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, to modernize, strengthen and enlarge the Peace Corps. On the 46th Anniversary of this great program, let us act swiftly to ensure that at the very least, the Peace Corps will continue to thrive for an additional 46 years.

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.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, March 1, marks the 46th Anniversary of the Peace Corps. Never in our history has it been more critical that the Peace Corps succeed in its mission to ``promote world peace and friendship.'' As we all know, the Peace Corps seeks to advance both a better understanding of Americans and better understanding by Americans; and these goals are especially central if we want to effectively counter the spread of extremist ideology to disaffected people around the world, people who, after all, know as little of us as we know of them. Since 1961, nearly 190,000 Peace Corps volunteers have served our Nation as citizen diplomats. For the last 45 years, by living and working side-by-side with people from 139 nations, these volunteers have represented the very best of American ideals: working to improve the human condition, and overcoming barriers of culture, language and religion, through patience, mutual respect, and partnership. The Peace Corps is an absolutely crucial instrument in advancing America's longer term foreign policy goals. And so today I am proud to introduce the Peace Corps Volunteer Empowerment Act that is designed to make the Peace Corps even more relevant to the dynamic world of the 21st Century. I am also very pleased to announce that another returned Peace Corps volunteer, Congressman Sam Farr will shortly introduce a companion bill in the House so that both bodies can begin working to pass this very important legislation. The bill will provide seed monies for active Peace Corps volunteers for demonstration projects at their specific in-country sites. It authorizes $10 million in additional annual appropriations to be distributed by the Peace Corps as grants to returned Peace Corps volunteers interested in undertaking ``third goal'' projects in their communities. The bill will also authorize active Peace Corps volunteers to accept, under certain carefully defined circumstances, private donations to support their development projects. For any organization to thrive, managers and leaders must have access to first-hand knowledge and perspectives of those working on the front lines. And so, this bill will establish mechanisms for more volunteer input into Peace Corps operations, including staffing decisions, site selection, language training and country programs. This bill will also explicitly protect certain rights of Peace Corps volunteers with respect to termination of service and whistleblower protection. We must bring the Peace Corps into the digital age. To that end, this bill will provide volunteers with better means of communication by establishing websites and email links for use by volunteers in-country. Inadequate funding and internal structural roadblocks have unfortunately resulted in an unfulfilled Presidential pledge to double the size of the Peace Corps by 2007. Despite a large increase in volunteers signing up for the Peace Corps immediately after September 11, the Congressional Research Service reports that the number of Peace Corps volunteers actually declined in 2006. It is crucial that we work to reverse this troubling trend. That is why this bill authorizes active recruitment from the 185,000 returned Peace Corps volunteer community for second tours as volunteers and as participants in third goal activities in the United States. This bill will also remove certain medical, healthcare and other impediments that discourage older individuals from becoming Peace Corps volunteers. It will create more transparency in the medical screening and appeals process, and require reports on costs associated with extending post-service health coverage from 1 month to 6 months. Finally, and perhaps most crucially, my bill includes annual authorizations for Fiscal Years 2008 to 2011, so that we can provide the means by which the Peace Corps can double the number of volunteers to 15,000, by 2011. In all the controversies of the past 5 years, all the vagaries of strategy and tactics and plans and counter plans, there's one policy that guarantees success: sending our best young men and women into the world to make America known. So, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, to modernize, strengthen and enlarge the Peace Corps. On the 46th Anniversary of this great program, let us act swiftly to ensure that at the very least, the Peace Corps will continue to thrive for an additional 46 years.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, this past week the President of the United States warned of the ``disastrous consequences'' and ``chaos'' which could occur in Iraq if we fail in that country. Once again the President's statements demonstrate how out of touch he is on this issue. Iraq already is in a state of chaos. The American people know it and the Iraqi people know it, most painfully. Unfortunately, we already are dealing with the ``disastrous consequences'' of 4 years of this administration's failed policy in Iraq. This chaos became inevitable the day the President invaded Iraq without a viable plan for winning the peace. And this chaos has been further compounded by 4 years of consistent failure by this administration. The President's plan to surge forces into Iraq is no different from previous surges, including Operation Together Forward, which only resulted in more violence. Despite all of our military strength, the United States cannot through force alone instill Iraqis with democratic values or end the sectarian civil war in that country. We have before us this afternoon a very direct, succinct nonbinding resolution. The language is unequivocal in expressing opposition to the President's surge. I am strongly opposed to the ``surge'' and will therefore vote in a favor of this straightforward, simple resolution expressing that opposition. Surely our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can vote on a simple resolution stating whether they support the President's surge. This is a vote on whether you support the President's Iraq war policy, without caveat or qualifier. And if this Chamber is ever allowed to get to a vote on this measure, a majority of this body will vote aye and therefore be publicly on record against the President's proposed policy to put even more of our soldiers in harm's way in Iraq's civil war. If Congress had wanted to express its opinion on this important issue, this vote should have been among the first steps taken back in January, immediately after the President announced his intention to escalate our military involvement in Iraq. Nearly 5 weeks have passed since that announcement. In those 5 weeks we have heard from experts across the political spectrum explain why the surge won't work and explain that there is no military solution to the conflict in Iraq. Yesterday, the House of Representatives sent a message to the President and to the American people with their vote on this resolution opposing the surge. And yet the President has unwaveringly declared that he will stay the course. It's full speed ahead in the words of Vice-President Cheney. We all know that and up-or-down vote on this resolution is not enough. Yes, I oppose the President's proposed surge. But I oppose much more than that--I oppose the President's overall strategy in Iraq. So let's be realistic and understand that our pronouncing ourselves on the measure before us today will do nothing to force the President to change course in Iraq. It will do nothing to get our troops out of harms way. It will do nothing to improve the lives of Iraqi civilians. American combat brigades are being asked to carry out a mission that is unachievable; namely, to bring an end to Iraq's civil war through military force. Only a political solution can salvage Iraq. Regrettably, we are in the fourth year of this conflict, and for some reason, this administration is still failing our troops. The President's proposed surge tactic will send thousands of American G.I.s into a battle with inadequate protection and training and on a mission which they will be unable to achieve. Last month, Senator Kennedy and I sent a letter to Defense Secretary Gates demanding that he address reported shortfalls among two combat brigades being deployed as part of the President's proposed surge without the most up-to-date armored vehicles, vehicles that have been designed to withstand explosions and provide significantly better protection for our troops. Just this week, media accounts of a classified Defense Department inspector general's report cited significant problems in outfitting our forces with a variety of vehicle armor to protect troops from IEDS. How much more of this can we allow to stand? How many more of these reports should we tolerate until we say enough is enough? The only way to reverse course in Iraq is to demonstrate to the President that it's no longer business as usual--that this Congress will not continue to support funding for the President's failed strategy, which is needlessly harming our troops and weakening our national security. It is essential that we find a better use for the funds being allocated for the President's surge. We need to redirect U.S. funds to immediately begin to redeploy combat forces within and out of Iraq, to focus on counterterrorism and training of Iraqis, to put pressure on all of Iraq's leaders--not just the Maliki government--to seek and reach necessary and painful political compromises, and to ensure the security and political rights of all Iraqis. We must also acknowledge how broken our own military is as a result of the Iraq war and redirect a portion of the funds proposed for Iraq to restore our own military's readiness. It is time that this Congress moves beyond debating non-binding resolutions about the surge. It is time for the Congress to debate how much longer and under what circumstances we are prepared to support funding for a continued U.S. presence in Iraq. That is the debate the American people want to hear, that is the debate our courageous and dedicated troops deserve.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my colleague Senator Hatch to introduce legislation to protect the most vulnerable members of our society: newborn infants. Many people know the joy of parenthood. These parents know the sense of worry about whether their kids are doing well, are feeling well, and are safe. Nothing is of greater importance than the health and well-being of our children. Thanks to incredible advances in medical technology, it is now possible to test newborns for more than 50 genetic and metabolic disorders. Many of these disorders, if undetected, would lead to severe disability or death. However, babies that are properly diagnosed and treated can, in many cases, go on to live healthy lives. So newborn screening can literally save lives. Frighteningly, the disorders that newborn screening tests for can come without warning. For most of these disorders, there is no medical history of the condition in the family and no way to predict the health of a baby based on the health of the parents. Although the disorders that are tested for are quite rare, there is a chance that any one newborn will be affected. In that sense, this is an issue that has a direct impact on the lives of all families. Fortunately, some screening has become common practice in every state. Each year, over four million infants have blood taken from their heel after birth to detect these disorders that could threaten their life and long-term health. As a result, about one in 4,000 babies is diagnosed with one of these disorders. That means that newborn screening could protect the health or save the life of approximately 1,000 newborns each year. That is 1,000 tragedies that can be averted families that can know the joy of a new infant rather than absolute heartbreak. In 2004, the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) completed a report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services which recommended that every baby born in the U.S. be screened for twenty-nine disorders, including certain metabolic conditions and hearing deficiency. Unfortunately, as of February 2007, only 11 States and the District of Columbia require infants to be screened for all twenty-nine of these recommended disorders. If diagnosed early, all of these conditions can be successfully managed or treated to prevent or mitigate severe and often lifelong health problems. For every baby saved, another two are estimated to be born with potentially detectable disorders that go undetected because they are not screened. These infants and their families face the prospect of disability or death from a preventable disorder. The survival of a newborn may very well come down to the state in which it is born, because not all states test for every detectable disorder. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, released a report in 2003 highlighting the need for this legislation. According to the report, most states do not educate parents and health care providers about the availability of tests beyond what is mandated by a State. States also reported that they do not have the resources to purchase the technology and train the staff needed to expand newborn screening programs. Finally, even when States do detect an abnormal screening result, the majority do not inform parents directly. The legislation that we are introducing today will give states an additional helping hand toward meeting the advisory's committee's recommendation by providing $25 million for states to expand and improve their newborn screening programs. In order to access these resources, states will be required to commit to screening for all 29 disorders. Our legislation will also authorize $15 million for two types of grants. The first seeks to address the lack of information available to health care professionals and parents about newborn screening. Every parent should have the knowledge necessary to protect their child. The tragedy of a newborn's death is only compounded by the frustration of learning that the death was preventable. This bill authorizes grants to provide education and training to health care professionals, state laboratory personnel, families and consumer advocates. The second type of grant will support States in providing follow-up care for those children diagnosed by a disorder detected through newborn screening. While these families are the fortunate ones, in many cases they are still faced with the prospect of extended and complex treatment and major lifestyle changes. We need to remember that care does not stop at diagnosis. To ensure the quality of laboratories involved in newborn screening, so that tests are as accurate as possible and infants receive appropriate care, the legislation authorizes $5 million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, to carry out a number of functions such as quality assurance for newborn screening tests, performance evaluation services, and technical assistance and technology transfer to newborn screening labs. In the event of a public health emergency, such as Hurricane Katrina, newborn screening may seem like a low priority. However, if babies aren't tested and, when necessary, treated within the first few days of life, they may suffer irreparable harm or even death. In the wake of a public health crisis, contingency planning for newborn screening is essential. Our legislation requires the CDC, in consultation with the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, to develop a national contingency plan for newborn screening in the event of a public health emergency within 180 days of enactment of the bill. Finally, the bill directs the CDC, in consultation with HRSA, to establish a national surveillance program for newborn screening, and authorizes $15 million for that purpose. Such a program will help us conduct research to better understand these rare disorders, and will hopefully lead us toward more effective treatments and cures. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation so that every newborn child will have the best possible opportunity that America can offer to live a long, healthy and happy life. I look forward to working with the Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Senator Kennedy, and Ranking Member Enzi to advance this legislation as early as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my colleague Senator Hatch to introduce legislation to protect the most vulnerable members of our society: newborn infants. Many people know the joy of parenthood. These parents know the sense of worry about whether their kids are doing well, are feeling well, and are safe. Nothing is of greater importance than the health and well-being of our children. Thanks to incredible advances in medical technology, it is now possible to test newborns for more than 50 genetic and metabolic disorders. Many of these disorders, if undetected, would lead to severe disability or death. However, babies that are properly diagnosed and treated can, in many cases, go on to live healthy lives. So newborn screening can literally save lives. Frighteningly, the disorders that newborn screening tests for can come without warning. For most of these disorders, there is no medical history of the condition in the family and no way to predict the health of a baby based on the health of the parents. Although the disorders that are tested for are quite rare, there is a chance that any one newborn will be affected. In that sense, this is an issue that has a direct impact on the lives of all families. Fortunately, some screening has become common practice in every state. Each year, over four million infants have blood taken from their heel after birth to detect these disorders that could threaten their life and long-term health. As a result, about one in 4,000 babies is diagnosed with one of these disorders. That means that newborn screening could protect the health or save the life of approximately 1,000 newborns each year. That is 1,000 tragedies that can be averted families that can know the joy of a new infant rather than absolute heartbreak. In 2004, the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) completed a report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services which recommended that every baby born in the U.S. be screened for twenty-nine disorders, including certain metabolic conditions and hearing deficiency. Unfortunately, as of February 2007, only 11 States and the District of Columbia require infants to be screened for all twenty-nine of these recommended disorders. If diagnosed early, all of these conditions can be successfully managed or treated to prevent or mitigate severe and often lifelong health problems. For every baby saved, another two are estimated to be born with potentially detectable disorders that go undetected because they are not screened. These infants and their families face the prospect of disability or death from a preventable disorder. The survival of a newborn may very well come down to the state in which it is born, because not all states test for every detectable disorder. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, released a report in 2003 highlighting the need for this legislation. According to the report, most states do not educate parents and health care providers about the availability of tests beyond what is mandated by a State. States also reported that they do not have the resources to purchase the technology and train the staff needed to expand newborn screening programs. Finally, even when States do detect an abnormal screening result, the majority do not inform parents directly. The legislation that we are introducing today will give states an additional helping hand toward meeting the advisory's committee's recommendation by providing $25 million for states to expand and improve their newborn screening programs. In order to access these resources, states will be required to commit to screening for all 29 disorders. Our legislation will also authorize $15 million for two types of grants. The first seeks to address the lack of information available to health care professionals and parents about newborn screening. Every parent should have the knowledge necessary to protect their child. The tragedy of a newborn's death is only compounded by the frustration of learning that the death was preventable. This bill authorizes grants to provide education and training to health care professionals, state laboratory personnel, families and consumer advocates. The second type of grant will support States in providing follow-up care for those children diagnosed by a disorder detected through newborn screening. While these families are the fortunate ones, in many cases they are still faced with the prospect of extended and complex treatment and major lifestyle changes. We need to remember that care does not stop at diagnosis. To ensure the quality of laboratories involved in newborn screening, so that tests are as accurate as possible and infants receive appropriate care, the legislation authorizes $5 million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, to carry out a number of functions such as quality assurance for newborn screening tests, performance evaluation services, and technical assistance and technology transfer to newborn screening labs. In the event of a public health emergency, such as Hurricane Katrina, newborn screening may seem like a low priority. However, if babies aren't tested and, when necessary, treated within the first few days of life, they may suffer irreparable harm or even death. In the wake of a public health crisis, contingency planning for newborn screening is essential. Our legislation requires the CDC, in consultation with the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, to develop a national contingency plan for newborn screening in the event of a public health emergency within 180 days of enactment of the bill. Finally, the bill directs the CDC, in consultation with HRSA, to establish a national surveillance program for newborn screening, and authorizes $15 million for that purpose. Such a program will help us conduct research to better understand these rare disorders, and will hopefully lead us toward more effective treatments and cures. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation so that every newborn child will have the best possible opportunity that America can offer to live a long, healthy and happy life. I look forward to working with the Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Senator Kennedy, and Ranking Member Enzi to advance this legislation as early as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, Senator Smith and I are introducing the School-Based Health Clinic Establishment Act of 2007. This legislation will assist in the operation of school-based health clinics (SBHCs) which provide comprehensive and accessible primary health care services to medically underserved youth. Why is this legislation needed? Let's look at the facts. We have more than eight million children in this country who have no health insurance. According to recent data released by the Department of Health and Human Services, between 2003-2005, the percentage of high school students who reported smoking cigarettes was around 23 percent. In 2005, 30 percent of students in grades 11-12 reported binge drinking, which is five or more alcoholic drinks in a row. Twenty-two percent of students in grades 11 and 12 reported using marijuana in the past month. In addition, the same Department of Health and Human Services report found that the United States spends more on health per capita than any other country. The report, ``Health, United States 2006,'' specifically stated that ``much of this spending is for care that controls or reduces the impact of chronic diseases and conditions affecting an aging population.'' Fewer dollars are spent on preventative care for our children. Another fact I would like to bring to your attention is one found in a document released today by the United Nations Children's Fund. The U.N. Children's Fund report found that the United States ranks last in child health and safety, with the highest rates of relative child poverty and teenage obesity.'' The points I have just made should not only shock us, but should be a wake-up call to each member of this body and to the American people that we need to take action and we need to take it now. With the introduction of the School-Based Health Clinic Establishment Act of 2007, Senator Smith and I are seeking to change the data I have outlined. School-based health clinics, where available, have a demonstrated record of improving the health care of our nation's youth. A study by Johns Hopkins University found that SBHCs reduced inappropriate emergency room use and increased primary care utilization, which resulted in fewer hospitalizations for those who used SBHCs. SBHCs also save money. For example, the Emory University School of Public Health attributed a reduction in Medicaid expenditures related to inpatient care and emergency department registration to the use of SBHCs. In Connecticut, we have 73 school-based health clinics. The SBHCs have provided health care to many elementary, middle, and high school students who would not have access to care if SBHCs did not exist. The Connecticut clinics provide an array of services such as comprehensive physical and mental health assessments, dental care, asthma treatment, and conflict resolution. The bill we are introducing today will help enable school-based health clinics to continue providing these much needed services. Although these clinics function totally in accordance with state laws and regulations, the federal government needs to provide funding so these clinics can continue to be a key component of our health care delivery system. This year, we will be working on the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The program was created to provide health care to millions of children who were previously uninsured. SCHIP is an outstanding program. I believe the ``School- Based Health Clinic Establishment Act of 2007'' would be a good complement to SCHIP. The School-Based Health Clinic Establishment Act of 2007 is an important step in making sure that the next time the United Nations Children's Fund issues their rankings on children's quality of life, that the United States is no longer listed in last place. I look forward to working with Sen. Smith and my colleagues to see that this legislation is not only passed by this body soon, but that it is signed into law.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007--a bill to provide for the effective prosecution of terrorists and guarantee due process rights. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Leahy, Feingold, and Menendez as original cosponsors. This bill would make significant important changes to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which became law last October. I have served in this body for more than a quarter-century, but I remember few days darker than September 28, 2006, the day the Senate passed President Bush's Military Commissions Act. Let me be honest with you, I believe this body gave in to fear that day. I believe we looked for refuge in the rule of men, when we should have trusted in the rule of law. Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007 is more than mere tinkering with provisions of the Military Commissions Act. This legislation, which is similar to the bill that I introduced in the last Congress, makes major and important changes to that law in order to ensure we have the essential legal tools to achieve a lasting American victory without violating American values. What does this proposed legislation do? It restores the writ of habeas corpus for individuals held in U.S. custody. It narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States in a zone of active combat, who are not lawful combatants. It requires that the United States live up to its Geneva Convention obligations by deleting a prohibition in the law that bars detainees from invoking Geneva Conventions as a source of rights at trial. It permits the accused to retain qualified civilian attorneys to represent them at trial. It prevents the use of evidence in court gained through the unreliable and immoral practices of torture and coercion. It charges the military judge with the responsibility for ensuring that the jury is appropriately informed as to the sources, methods and activities associated with developing out of court statements proposed to be introduced at trial, or alternatively that the statement is not introduced. It empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable. It authorizes the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the military commissions. It limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight. It clarifies the definition of war crimes in statute to include certain violations of the Geneva Conventions. Finally, it provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions. To be clear--I absolutely believe that under very clearly proscribed circumstances military commissions can be a useful instrument for bringing our enemies to justice. But those who ask us to choose between national security and moral authority are offering us a false choice, and a dangerous one. Our Nation has been defeating tyrants and would-be tyrants for more than two centuries. And in all that struggle, we've never sold our principles--because if We did, we would be walking in the footsteps of those we most despise. In times of peril, throwing away due process has been a constant temptation--but that is why we honor so highly those who resisted it. At Nuremberg, America rejected the certainty of execution for the uncertainty of a trial, and gave birth to a half-century of moral authority. Today I am asking my colleagues to reclaim that tradition, to put the principles of the Constitution above the passion of the moment. That reclamation can begin today--if we remedy President Bush's repugnant law. We can do it--and keep America Secure at the same time. Freedom from torture. The right to counsel. Habeas corpus. To be honest, it still amazes me that we have to come to the floor of the Senate to debate these protections at all. What would James Madison have said if you told him that someday in the future, a Senator from Connecticut would be forced to publicly defend habeas corpus, the defendant's right to a day in court, the foundation of Our legal system dating back to the 13 century? What have we come to that such long- settled, long-honored rights have been called into question? But here we are. And now it is upon us to renew them. I'd like to talk in detail about several key components of my legislation. The Military Commissions Act eliminated habeas corpus. Habeas corpus allows a person held by the government to question the legality of his detention. In my view, to deny this right not only undermines the rule of law, but damages the very fabric of America. It is not who we are, and it is not who we aspire to be. My bill reopens the doors to the Court house by restoring the writ of habeas corpus for individuals held in U.S. custody. By approving the Military Commissions Act, Congress abdicated its constitutionally-mandated authority and responsibility to safeguard this principle and serve as a co-equal check on the executive branch. This law confers an unprecedented level of power on the president, allowing him the sole right to designate any individual as an ``unlawful enemy combatant'' if he or she engaged in hostilities or supported hostilities against the United States. In my view and in the view of many legal experts, this definition of ``unlawful enemy combatant'' is unmanageably vague. As we have all seen, ``unlawful enemy combatants'' are subject to arrest and indefinite detention, in many cases without ever being changed with a crime, let alone being found guilty. My bill would curtail potential abuse of the unlawful enemy combatant designation by narrowing the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States in ``a zone of active combat'', and who are not lawful combatants. This correction is desperately needed to restore America's standing in the world and to right injustices that have recently been documented by international human rights organizations. According to the Pentagon, last October, only 70 out of the 435 detainees housed at U.S. prison camps were expected to face a military trial, leaving hundreds of others to be held indefinitely. And while the Pentagon acknowledges that at least 110 of these detainees were labeled ``ready to release,'' for some reason they have been kept under lock and key. Then there are stories such as the one about Asif Iqbal, a British humanitarian aid volunteer who, according to a January 10, 2007 Associated Press story, was mistakenly captured in Afghanistan and subjected to isolation, painful positioning, screeching music, strobe lights, sleep deprivation, and extreme temperatures. After three months, of enduring such treatment, Iqbal was released in 2004 without any charges brought against him. Such sordid episodes have gravely undermined our apparent commitment to the Geneva Conventions and damaged our status both at home and in the global community. By failing to reaffirm our obligations under these vital treaties, the Military Commissions Act has only further eroded America's moral authority and perhaps ceded our nation's status as the leading proponent of international law and human rights. For this reason, the legislation I am offering today will reaffirm our obligations under the Geneva Conventions in several key ways. First, it would allow detainees to invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights in their trials, overturning a ban put in place by the Military Commissions Act. Second, this legislation will limit the authority of the President to interpret and redefine the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions by subjecting this authority to Congressional and judicial oversight. Lastly, my bill would statutorily define certain violations of the Geneva Conventions as war crimes. These provisions are all vitally important in allowing the United States to effectively wage the war on terror. The war that we are currently waging requires increasing international cooperation, but the President's plan puts us on a path of increasing isolation from even our staunchest allies. Furthermore, this path is undermining our government's commitments to fundamental tenets of the American legal system. One of these tenets entails the right of the accused not only to confront his/her accuser but also to retain an attorney to represent him/her at trial. This is a basic right afforded to even the most egregious criminals under domestic law. And yet, under the administration's plan, this measure is being abandoned. In response, my bill sets standards for legal representation and allows for civilian legal counsel in military commission proceedings. Even more importantly, my bill improves on these proceedings by prohibiting the use in court of any evidence that was gained through the unreliable and immoral practices of coercion. Incredibly, the Military Commissions Act lacks this blanket ban on evidence gained through torture. This is critically important for two very different reasons. Torture has been proven to be ineffective in interrogations, yielding highly unreliable information because a detainee, hoping to end the pain, will simply say whatever he believes an interrogator wants to hear. Second, torture allows foreign militaries to mistreat future American prisoners of war and use U.S. actions as an excuse. No one has said it with more authority than our colleague, Senator John McCain. As he stated last year, ``the intelligence we collect must be reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all our fighting men and women . . . the cruel actions of a few to darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions,'' To address these concerns, my bill restores to military judges the responsibility of ensuring that information introduced at trial has not been obtained through methods defined as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. Sadly, the Military Commissions Act shows disrespect for and mistrust of the highly trained professionals on our military's bench by stripping them of autonomy and authority. The legislation I am proposing today empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable. In addition, this bill will grant military judges discretion in the event that classified evidence has a bearing on the innocence of an individual but is excluded due to national security concerns and declassified alternatives are insufficient. America's military judges have been fully trained and prepared to handle classified information. The Bush administration's failure to recognize this fact is an insult to the men and women of our military's bench and an affront to our military's justice system. Unlike the current administration, I trust our courts to be able to handle the delicate legal and national security issues inherent in the cases involving so-called unlawful enemy combatants. This legislation therefore provides for appeals of the military commissions' decisions to be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. In my view, the right to an appeal is one of the most fundamental rights granted to anyone in our justice system. We 3 grant appeals to people accused of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable. We do this because we know that courts are not infallible. They can err in their decisions, and in order for these mistakes to be rectified and to avoid punishing innocent men and women, appeals must be allowed. All of these provisions are important. But perhaps none is more urgent than the final measure in my bill, which requires expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions. I believe that the United States Congress made a crucial mistake--that is why we must ensure that each provision of the Administration's Military Commissions Act is quickly reviewed by our Nation's courts. I believe that upon such review, those best qualified to make these judgments--members of our esteemed judiciary--will see to it that the most egregious provisions of this act will be overturned. All 100 members of this body have been given the gravest of responsibilities. The people of this country have entrusted us with this Nation's security; and they have entrusted us with this Nation's principles. But those who argue that our principles stand in the way of our security are sadly, sorely mistaken: They are the source of our strength. Five months ago, we departed from that source. But it is not too late to turn back. It is not too late to redeem our error. I implore my colleagues to join me.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007--a bill to provide for the effective prosecution of terrorists and guarantee due process rights. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Leahy, Feingold, and Menendez as original cosponsors. This bill would make significant important changes to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which became law last October. I have served in this body for more than a quarter-century, but I remember few days darker than September 28, 2006, the day the Senate passed President Bush's Military Commissions Act. Let me be honest with you, I believe this body gave in to fear that day. I believe we looked for refuge in the rule of men, when we should have trusted in the rule of law. Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007 is more than mere tinkering with provisions of the Military Commissions Act. This legislation, which is similar to the bill that I introduced in the last Congress, makes major and important changes to that law in order to ensure we have the essential legal tools to achieve a lasting American victory without violating American values. What does this proposed legislation do? It restores the writ of habeas corpus for individuals held in U.S. custody. It narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States in a zone of active combat, who are not lawful combatants. It requires that the United States live up to its Geneva Convention obligations by deleting a prohibition in the law that bars detainees from invoking Geneva Conventions as a source of rights at trial. It permits the accused to retain qualified civilian attorneys to represent them at trial. It prevents the use of evidence in court gained through the unreliable and immoral practices of torture and coercion. It charges the military judge with the responsibility for ensuring that the jury is appropriately informed as to the sources, methods and activities associated with developing out of court statements proposed to be introduced at trial, or alternatively that the statement is not introduced. It empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable. It authorizes the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the military commissions. It limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight. It clarifies the definition of war crimes in statute to include certain violations of the Geneva Conventions. Finally, it provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions. To be clear--I absolutely believe that under very clearly proscribed circumstances military commissions can be a useful instrument for bringing our enemies to justice. But those who ask us to choose between national security and moral authority are offering us a false choice, and a dangerous one. Our Nation has been defeating tyrants and would-be tyrants for more than two centuries. And in all that struggle, we've never sold our principles--because if We did, we would be walking in the footsteps of those we most despise. In times of peril, throwing away due process has been a constant temptation--but that is why we honor so highly those who resisted it. At Nuremberg, America rejected the certainty of execution for the uncertainty of a trial, and gave birth to a half-century of moral authority. Today I am asking my colleagues to reclaim that tradition, to put the principles of the Constitution above the passion of the moment. That reclamation can begin today--if we remedy President Bush's repugnant law. We can do it--and keep America Secure at the same time. Freedom from torture. The right to counsel. Habeas corpus. To be honest, it still amazes me that we have to come to the floor of the Senate to debate these protections at all. What would James Madison have said if you told him that someday in the future, a Senator from Connecticut would be forced to publicly defend habeas corpus, the defendant's right to a day in court, the foundation of Our legal system dating back to the 13 century? What have we come to that such long- settled, long-honored rights have been called into question? But here we are. And now it is upon us to renew them. I'd like to talk in detail about several key components of my legislation. The Military Commissions Act eliminated habeas corpus. Habeas corpus allows a person held by the government to question the legality of his detention. In my view, to deny this right not only undermines the rule of law, but damages the very fabric of America. It is not who we are, and it is not who we aspire to be. My bill reopens the doors to the Court house by restoring the writ of habeas corpus for individuals held in U.S. custody. By approving the Military Commissions Act, Congress abdicated its constitutionally-mandated authority and responsibility to safeguard this principle and serve as a co-equal check on the executive branch. This law confers an unprecedented level of power on the president, allowing him the sole right to designate any individual as an ``unlawful enemy combatant'' if he or she engaged in hostilities or supported hostilities against the United States. In my view and in the view of many legal experts, this definition of ``unlawful enemy combatant'' is unmanageably vague. As we have all seen, ``unlawful enemy combatants'' are subject to arrest and indefinite detention, in many cases without ever being changed with a crime, let alone being found guilty. My bill would curtail potential abuse of the unlawful enemy combatant designation by narrowing the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States in ``a zone of active combat'', and who are not lawful combatants. This correction is desperately needed to restore America's standing in the world and to right injustices that have recently been documented by international human rights organizations. According to the Pentagon, last October, only 70 out of the 435 detainees housed at U.S. prison camps were expected to face a military trial, leaving hundreds of others to be held indefinitely. And while the Pentagon acknowledges that at least 110 of these detainees were labeled ``ready to release,'' for some reason they have been kept under lock and key. Then there are stories such as the one about Asif Iqbal, a British humanitarian aid volunteer who, according to a January 10, 2007 Associated Press story, was mistakenly captured in Afghanistan and subjected to isolation, painful positioning, screeching music, strobe lights, sleep deprivation, and extreme temperatures. After three months, of enduring such treatment, Iqbal was released in 2004 without any charges brought against him. Such sordid episodes have gravely undermined our apparent commitment to the Geneva Conventions and damaged our status both at home and in the global community. By failing to reaffirm our obligations under these vital treaties, the Military Commissions Act has only further eroded America's moral authority and perhaps ceded our nation's status as the leading proponent of international law and human rights. For this reason, the legislation I am offering today will reaffirm our obligations under the Geneva Conventions in several key ways. First, it would allow detainees to invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights in their trials, overturning a ban put in place by the Military Commissions Act. Second, this legislation will limit the authority of the President to interpret and redefine the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions by subjecting this authority to Congressional and judicial oversight. Lastly, my bill would statutorily define certain violations of the Geneva Conventions as war crimes. These provisions are all vitally important in allowing the United States to effectively wage the war on terror. The war that we are currently waging requires increasing international cooperation, but the President's plan puts us on a path of increasing isolation from even our staunchest allies. Furthermore, this path is undermining our government's commitments to fundamental tenets of the American legal system. One of these tenets entails the right of the accused not only to confront his/her accuser but also to retain an attorney to represent him/her at trial. This is a basic right afforded to even the most egregious criminals under domestic law. And yet, under the administration's plan, this measure is being abandoned. In response, my bill sets standards for legal representation and allows for civilian legal counsel in military commission proceedings. Even more importantly, my bill improves on these proceedings by prohibiting the use in court of any evidence that was gained through the unreliable and immoral practices of coercion. Incredibly, the Military Commissions Act lacks this blanket ban on evidence gained through torture. This is critically important for two very different reasons. Torture has been proven to be ineffective in interrogations, yielding highly unreliable information because a detainee, hoping to end the pain, will simply say whatever he believes an interrogator wants to hear. Second, torture allows foreign militaries to mistreat future American prisoners of war and use U.S. actions as an excuse. No one has said it with more authority than our colleague, Senator John McCain. As he stated last year, ``the intelligence we collect must be reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all our fighting men and women . . . the cruel actions of a few to darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions,'' To address these concerns, my bill restores to military judges the responsibility of ensuring that information introduced at trial has not been obtained through methods defined as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. Sadly, the Military Commissions Act shows disrespect for and mistrust of the highly trained professionals on our military's bench by stripping them of autonomy and authority. The legislation I am proposing today empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable. In addition, this bill will grant military judges discretion in the event that classified evidence has a bearing on the innocence of an individual but is excluded due to national security concerns and declassified alternatives are insufficient. America's military judges have been fully trained and prepared to handle classified information. The Bush administration's failure to recognize this fact is an insult to the men and women of our military's bench and an affront to our military's justice system. Unlike the current administration, I trust our courts to be able to handle the delicate legal and national security issues inherent in the cases involving so-called unlawful enemy combatants. This legislation therefore provides for appeals of the military commissions' decisions to be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. In my view, the right to an appeal is one of the most fundamental rights granted to anyone in our justice system. We 3 grant appeals to people accused of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable. We do this because we know that courts are not infallible. They can err in their decisions, and in order for these mistakes to be rectified and to avoid punishing innocent men and women, appeals must be allowed. All of these provisions are important. But perhaps none is more urgent than the final measure in my bill, which requires expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions. I believe that the United States Congress made a crucial mistake--that is why we must ensure that each provision of the Administration's Military Commissions Act is quickly reviewed by our Nation's courts. I believe that upon such review, those best qualified to make these judgments--members of our esteemed judiciary--will see to it that the most egregious provisions of this act will be overturned. All 100 members of this body have been given the gravest of responsibilities. The people of this country have entrusted us with this Nation's security; and they have entrusted us with this Nation's principles. But those who argue that our principles stand in the way of our security are sadly, sorely mistaken: They are the source of our strength. Five months ago, we departed from that source. But it is not too late to turn back. It is not too late to redeem our error. I implore my colleagues to join me.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi, and Senator Alexander in introducing the Head Start for School Readiness Act. I am pleased that we are beginning the process of reauthorizing this important legislation early in the 110th Congress. Since 1965, Head Start has provided comprehensive early childhood development services to low-income children. The evidence is clear: Head Start works for the more than 900,000 children enrolled in centers throughout the country. As we reauthorize this bill, we have the opportunity to refine and improve the program to make it work even better. This reauthorization bill maintains the important characteristics of Head Start that have made it such an important program, aiding in the social, emotional, physical and cognitive development of low-income preschool children. The program is successful because each center addresses the needs of the local community. It is more than just a school readiness program; it addresses the comprehensive needs of children and their families by providing health and other services to the enrolled children. Families play the most important role in ensuring the success of their children, and our bill maintains an integral role for parents in the decision-making and day to day operations of the program. Parent involvement is a centerpiece of Head Start and I believe this bill strengthens that component. This reauthorization bill expands eligibility, improves accountability by clarifying program governance, strengthens school readiness for children and enhances teacher quality. In addition, collaboration and coordination with other early childhood development programs and outreach to underserved populations is greatly improved. The bill we're introducing enables more low-income children to get a head start by allowing programs to serve families with incomes up to 130 percent of the poverty level, while ensuring that the most vulnerable families below the poverty level are served first. This is important for Connecticut and other States where the cost of living is especially high and many working poor families aren't able to access services because they earn just above the poverty level. In addition, the bill expands access to services for infants and toddlers in Early Head Start by increasing the set-aside from 10 percent to 20 percent over the next 5 years. Programs are also provided more discretion to serve eligible individuals based on the needs of the each community. Although we do not go as far as I would personally like to see in funding for Head Start, we do authorize additional resources in this bill. Despite the tight budget situation, we authorize an increase of six percent from $6.9 billion to $7.35 billion in Fiscal Year 2008, to $7.65 billion in Fiscal Year 2009 and to $7.995 billion in Fiscal Year 2009. I continue to be gravely concerned about the lack of resources for Head Start--funding levels have been essentially flat since 2002. Currently, only half of eligible children are served in Head Start and fewer than 5 percent are served in Early Head Start. Across the country, Head Start providers are reporting rising costs in transportation, some more than 15 percent due to fuel prices. Other budget concerns include higher unemployment and health care premiums, facilities maintenance and training for staff. Rising operating costs are coinciding with State, local and private funding partners cutting back their contributions to local Head Start programs. This terrible budget crunch has caused providers to make deep cuts in already tight budgets, as they try desperately to not remove children from their enrollments. I understand the challenges facing the Federal budget and look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on the budget and appropriations committees to increase vital resources for Head Start. Research shows that child outcomes are directly related to the quality of the teachers and professionals who work with them on a daily basis. I am pleased that we establish goals in this Head Start bill for improving educational standards for Head Start teachers, curriculum specialists and teacher assistants. Understanding that dedicated Head Start teachers and staff work hard for relatively low wages, there will not be penalties associated with programs not meeting the goal we have established. I would hope that we could offer funding to help teachers meet these goals, but that is not possible at this juncture. I will continue to work toward increased funding to assist teachers in pursuing additional educational goals. When Head Start began more than 40 years ago, it was the only preschool program available for low-income children; now there are many approaches. Collaboration and coordination with other early childhood programs is also an essential piece of this Head Start bill, reducing duplication and encouraging opportunities for shared information and resources. I look forward to working with my colleagues as we move this bill through the Senate.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi, and Senator Alexander in introducing the Head Start for School Readiness Act. I am pleased that we are beginning the process of reauthorizing this important legislation early in the 110th Congress. Since 1965, Head Start has provided comprehensive early childhood development services to low-income children. The evidence is clear: Head Start works for the more than 900,000 children enrolled in centers throughout the country. As we reauthorize this bill, we have the opportunity to refine and improve the program to make it work even better. This reauthorization bill maintains the important characteristics of Head Start that have made it such an important program, aiding in the social, emotional, physical and cognitive development of low-income preschool children. The program is successful because each center addresses the needs of the local community. It is more than just a school readiness program; it addresses the comprehensive needs of children and their families by providing health and other services to the enrolled children. Families play the most important role in ensuring the success of their children, and our bill maintains an integral role for parents in the decision-making and day to day operations of the program. Parent involvement is a centerpiece of Head Start and I believe this bill strengthens that component. This reauthorization bill expands eligibility, improves accountability by clarifying program governance, strengthens school readiness for children and enhances teacher quality. In addition, collaboration and coordination with other early childhood development programs and outreach to underserved populations is greatly improved. The bill we're introducing enables more low-income children to get a head start by allowing programs to serve families with incomes up to 130 percent of the poverty level, while ensuring that the most vulnerable families below the poverty level are served first. This is important for Connecticut and other States where the cost of living is especially high and many working poor families aren't able to access services because they earn just above the poverty level. In addition, the bill expands access to services for infants and toddlers in Early Head Start by increasing the set-aside from 10 percent to 20 percent over the next 5 years. Programs are also provided more discretion to serve eligible individuals based on the needs of the each community. Although we do not go as far as I would personally like to see in funding for Head Start, we do authorize additional resources in this bill. Despite the tight budget situation, we authorize an increase of six percent from $6.9 billion to $7.35 billion in Fiscal Year 2008, to $7.65 billion in Fiscal Year 2009 and to $7.995 billion in Fiscal Year 2009. I continue to be gravely concerned about the lack of resources for Head Start--funding levels have been essentially flat since 2002. Currently, only half of eligible children are served in Head Start and fewer than 5 percent are served in Early Head Start. Across the country, Head Start providers are reporting rising costs in transportation, some more than 15 percent due to fuel prices. Other budget concerns include higher unemployment and health care premiums, facilities maintenance and training for staff. Rising operating costs are coinciding with State, local and private funding partners cutting back their contributions to local Head Start programs. This terrible budget crunch has caused providers to make deep cuts in already tight budgets, as they try desperately to not remove children from their enrollments. I understand the challenges facing the Federal budget and look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on the budget and appropriations committees to increase vital resources for Head Start. Research shows that child outcomes are directly related to the quality of the teachers and professionals who work with them on a daily basis. I am pleased that we establish goals in this Head Start bill for improving educational standards for Head Start teachers, curriculum specialists and teacher assistants. Understanding that dedicated Head Start teachers and staff work hard for relatively low wages, there will not be penalties associated with programs not meeting the goal we have established. I would hope that we could offer funding to help teachers meet these goals, but that is not possible at this juncture. I will continue to work toward increased funding to assist teachers in pursuing additional educational goals. When Head Start began more than 40 years ago, it was the only preschool program available for low-income children; now there are many approaches. Collaboration and coordination with other early childhood programs is also an essential piece of this Head Start bill, reducing duplication and encouraging opportunities for shared information and resources. I look forward to working with my colleagues as we move this bill through the Senate.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the confirmation of General George Casey to become the next Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army. Let us be clear. Our soldiers are fighting a grueling and dangerous war. They need to know that their leaders will have no higher priority than their safety and well-being. I believe that General Casey will do just that. He has been on the frontlines of the war in Iraq. As commander of U.S. forces there, he has overseen operations on the ground; he understands our soldiers' basic needs and will take action to keep them fighting safely and effectively. I believe that in this new position, like GEN Peter Schoomaker before him, he will work hard to ensure that our soldiers have the equipment and support they need to get the job done. Regrettably, I am concerned that some in this administration and in this Congress have decided to blame General Casey for the worsening situation on the ground. To them I would say that it is simply wrong, and frankly un-American, to hold one soldier responsible for the administration's policy failures in Iraq. In his book, ``Deriliction of Duty,'' H.R. McMasters put the blame for Vietnam on our military leaders. To McMasters, it was our generals who were at fault for not speaking out when they disagreed with the civilians at the Pentagon and White House. As a result of their silence, America became further entrenched in Vietnam. Nine years ago, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff GEN Hugh Shelton took this message to heart; requiring all 17 four-star general commanders to read Major McMasters' book. The book had an impact. As the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, we have seen our generals stand up to civilian leaders--putting their country before their careers--and courageously advocating for alternative, more sensible policies. Unfortunately, the same arrogance and incompetence that has blinded U.S. foreign policy for the past 6 years has also allowed the dire warnings from these generals to fall on deaf ears. The candor from the likes of Generals Shinseki and Riggs, and now Abizaid, Casey, and Schoomaker, has been rewarded with dismissal, transfer or demotion. In my private meeting with General Casey in Iraq 2 months ago, he explained his concern over proposals to ``surge'' additional troops into Iraq if Iraqis are unable to meet their own responsibilities to unite politically and contribute more meaningfully to their own security. He echoed these objections along with then-Central Command's top general, GEN John Abizaid, in a Washington Post report on December 21, 2006. Obviously, General Casey is uniquely qualified to make these statements. He has been thoroughly immersed in our Iraq operations. And it is for this reason that he is uniquely prepared to assume the Army Chief of Staff post. But there is another quality of his that I believe will also serve our Nation and our Army well during his tenure as Chief of Staff. It his is loyalty to our soldiers--from the newly enlisted private to the career officer. I observed this quality firsthand 3 years ago on a visit to Walter Reed Medical Center. I met with soldiers recuperating from injuries they had suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan, and expressed my gratitude for their brave service. General Casey happened to be at Walter Reed that day as well. I knew he was there for the same reason I was: to thank these soldiers for their service and to assure them that their sacrifices will never be forgotten. The Chief of Staff must constantly exhibit such loyalty to his troops. He must be their strongest advocate and continue to address their needs, even when doing so is in direct conflict with the orders being handed down from civilian leadership. General Schoomaker, the outgoing Chief of Staff, has been faced with this situation time and again as the administration proposed inadequate budgets to carry out their deeply flawed Iraq strategy. And he has performed superbly. As Chief of Staff for the last few years, General Schoomaker, has long voiced concern that the administration failed to budget for the replacement and repair of thousands of war-battered trucks, aircraft, and vehicles. In fact, it was General Schoomaker's testimony last year that compelled me to offer an amendment to fund these priorities and help begin restoring Army readiness. I regret that the White House decided to reward General Schoomaker's candor by replacing him at the Pentagon. At his recent confirmation hearing the other day, I was pleased to hear that General Casey will resume General Schoomaker's mission to ensure that our forces are outfitted with the equipment they need to get the job done. Mr. President, there are no easy answers in Iraq. But, when it comes to discerning tactics on the ground, our civilian leaders must defer to our generals. In this case, it is my sincere hope that the President takes heed of the advice of his newly installed Army Chief of Staff, to make the safety and well-being of our soldiers a top priority and not an afterthought. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this nominee for confirmation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my seatmate and colleague from West Virginia. I just want to add my voice to those who have spoken and those who are about to speak in saying that--just to repeat what Senator Leahy said well--we use the words ``Senator's Senator'' with some frequency here, but if I were to ask the question of which Senators reflected that expression more so than anyone else, it would have to be my colleague from West Virginia and my colleague from Mississippi. It is a pleasure to serve with him. I admire him immensely. He is exactly what a Senator ought to be: a good legislator and a good person who cares about his country, and I am proud to serve with him.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, legislation to provide for the investigation and prosecution of unsolved civil rights crimes. In this effort, I am proud to be joined by Senator Leahy. There are those who would say this bill is a case of ``too little, too late.'' In some ways they would be right. Where is the justice, I suppose, when a monster such as Edgar Ray Killen roamed free for literally decades after killing young civil rights workers in this country? That fact alone speaks to the inexcusable failures of our legal system to bring to justice those who committed brutal crimes based solely on racial prejudice. Not that many years ago, crimes of this type were rarely investigated in parts of our country. There was often little or no effort made whatsoever to determine who engaged in these brutal violent acts. In more recent history, of course, we have seen much stronger efforts and I applaud this work. However, I believe there remains good justification for dedicating an adequate amount of resources to go back and reopen the books on those tragic unsolved crimes. Those who engaged in these activities, who think they never have to worry another day in their lives about being pursued, take note--take note that you may never and should never have a sleep-filled night again, that we will pursue you as long as you live, that we will do everything in our power to apprehend you and bring you to the bar of justice. That is the message we want to convey to the families, the friends, and others who lost loved ones, who put their lives on the line by advocating for greater justice, helping our Nation achieve that ``more perfect union'' that our Founders spoke about, that Abraham Lincoln articulated brilliantly more than a century and a half ago. That is at the heart of this effort--to try to level this field. We will never be a perfect union, but each generation bears the responsibility for getting us closer to that ideal. America stands for the principle of equal justice for all. Yet for far too long, many Americans have been denied that equal justice, and many despicable criminals have not been held accountable for what they have done to deprive people of those equal opportunities. This is a failure we can never forget. So this Senate, in this Congress, on this date, early in the 21st century, is saying that we will not forget. This bill is on record. This bill seeks to right the wrongs of the past and to bring justice to people who perpetrated these heinous crimes because of racial hatred. We are saying that we want to create the mechanism to allow us to pursue these wrongdoers in the coming years. It cannot bring back and make whole those who have suffered and were murdered by a racist criminal hand. But it can reaffirm our Nation's commitment to seek the truth and to make equal justice a reality. To do this, we propose the creation of two new offices. The Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Investigative Office will be a division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation devoted to the aggressive investigation of pre-1970 cases in coordination with local law enforcement officials. The Unsolved Crimes Section will be an office within the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and will focus specifically on prosecuting those cases investigated by the new FBI office. The hour is, obviously, very late. Memories are dimming. Those who can bring some important information to the legal authorities are passing away. This bill may be the last and best chance we have as a nation to write a hopeful postscript in the struggle for racial equality in our Nation. We are pleased to be working with our friends in the House to help right these wrongs done in our past, especially Representative John Lewis, who has worked throughout his distinguished life to make sure that the promise of America can be realized for all our citizens. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, legislation to provide for the investigation and prosecution of unsolved civil rights crimes. In this effort, I am proud to be joined by Senator Leahy. There are those who would say this bill is a case of ``too little, too late.'' In some ways they would be right. Where is the justice, I suppose, when a monster such as Edgar Ray Killen roamed free for literally decades after killing young civil rights workers in this country? That fact alone speaks to the inexcusable failures of our legal system to bring to justice those who committed brutal crimes based solely on racial prejudice. Not that many years ago, crimes of this type were rarely investigated in parts of our country. There was often little or no effort made whatsoever to determine who engaged in these brutal violent acts. In more recent history, of course, we have seen much stronger efforts and I applaud this work. However, I believe there remains good justification for dedicating an adequate amount of resources to go back and reopen the books on those tragic unsolved crimes. Those who engaged in these activities, who think they never have to worry another day in their lives about being pursued, take note--take note that you may never and should never have a sleep-filled night again, that we will pursue you as long as you live, that we will do everything in our power to apprehend you and bring you to the bar of justice. That is the message we want to convey to the families, the friends, and others who lost loved ones, who put their lives on the line by advocating for greater justice, helping our Nation achieve that ``more perfect union'' that our Founders spoke about, that Abraham Lincoln articulated brilliantly more than a century and a half ago. That is at the heart of this effort--to try to level this field. We will never be a perfect union, but each generation bears the responsibility for getting us closer to that ideal. America stands for the principle of equal justice for all. Yet for far too long, many Americans have been denied that equal justice, and many despicable criminals have not been held accountable for what they have done to deprive people of those equal opportunities. This is a failure we can never forget. So this Senate, in this Congress, on this date, early in the 21st century, is saying that we will not forget. This bill is on record. This bill seeks to right the wrongs of the past and to bring justice to people who perpetrated these heinous crimes because of racial hatred. We are saying that we want to create the mechanism to allow us to pursue these wrongdoers in the coming years. It cannot bring back and make whole those who have suffered and were murdered by a racist criminal hand. But it can reaffirm our Nation's commitment to seek the truth and to make equal justice a reality. To do this, we propose the creation of two new offices. The Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Investigative Office will be a division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation devoted to the aggressive investigation of pre-1970 cases in coordination with local law enforcement officials. The Unsolved Crimes Section will be an office within the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and will focus specifically on prosecuting those cases investigated by the new FBI office. The hour is, obviously, very late. Memories are dimming. Those who can bring some important information to the legal authorities are passing away. This bill may be the last and best chance we have as a nation to write a hopeful postscript in the struggle for racial equality in our Nation. We are pleased to be working with our friends in the House to help right these wrongs done in our past, especially Representative John Lewis, who has worked throughout his distinguished life to make sure that the promise of America can be realized for all our citizens. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, let me commend my colleague from the State of Washington for her comments and her views. I associate myself with many of the things she expressed in the Senate. I congratulate her for her words, her passion, and her strong feelings about where we stand today on this issue. Let me also commend the Democratic leader for his efforts to engage in what is probably the single most important debate this Senate could possibly be engaged in. There are other very important matters at home and around the globe--but everyone would agree, regardless of your views on policy, that the issue of Iraq and where we stand and the effort by the President to increase the number of troops on the ground in Iraq, particularly to place them in the large, highly densely populated urban areas of Iraq, is one of the most serious issues facing our country. We have had a series of serious and thought-provoking hearings conducted by Chairman Biden of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee over the last number of weeks on this issue, with people who represent a variety of ideological perspectives. Yet without fear of contradiction, I believe the overwhelming majority of the witnesses who have appeared before that committee have expressed serious reservations about this escalation, this surge, placing some 21,000 of our young men and women into Baghdad to try and act as a referee in what we all admit today is clearly a civil war. Having this debate is important. I wish to take, if I can, the few minutes allotted to me to express my concerns about the process, my concerns about the surge, and my concerns about the overall direction of the policy in Iraq. There is not a lot of time to do that, but let me share some thoughts. First of all, I believe that every Member in this Chamber, regardless of his or her view on the issue before the Senate regarding Iraq, would do everything he or she could to make sure that our brave men and women in uniform, serving in harm's way, would receive everything they could possibly need to defend themselves. That ought not to be a debating point. I know of no one in this Senate who feels otherwise. And the fact that we have to have some discussion about this very point is a reflection, I think, of what has gone wrong in this debate already. In fact, I point out that over the last 4 years or so, there have been amendments offered by those of us here to provide different additional resources, such as for body armor, because we felt our troops were not getting what they needed. There has been significant discussion here in the wake of testimony offered by our senior military leaders about what has happened to the combat readiness of our troops as a result of our failure to continue to provide the kind of equipment and support they deserved over the years. Certainly what has happened to veterans coming back has also been the subject of debate. But, nonetheless, I believe most Members here, if not all Members here, believe our troops deserve the kind of support they ought to have when they are serving in harm's way. And so, the debate is not whether you support our troops. The debate is whether the policy direction the President wishes to lead us in is the right one. That is a debate which ought to occur in this Chamber. Frankly, in my view, it ought to be a debate that resolves around at least a legislative vehicle that might have some meaning to it, some bite, some teeth, some reality, some accountability. My leaders know I have strong reservations about a sense-of-the- Senate debate. Now, normally, we have sense-of-the-Senate resolutions when there is a consensus that develops. Normally, sense-of-the-Senate resolutions are offered around matters that are noncontroversial and we wish to express ourselves regarding these matters, so we all sign on or virtually everyone signs on. I would say if, in fact, the goal here was to get 70 or 80 Members of this Chamber--Republicans and Democrats--to sign on to a proposition that said we think the surge and escalation is the wrong thing to be doing, then the vehicle of a sense-of-the-Senate resolution would have value. But I would suggest here we are into the second day of this debate and we cannot even decide what sense-of-the-Senate resolution we want to debate. So if you are sitting out there watching this Chamber at this moment, in terms of where we ought to be going and what the effect of what we are about to do is, it is rather confusing, to put it mildly, as to where we stand in all of this. We cannot even decide what sense-of-the- Senate resolutions to bring up. If we are going to have a debate around here that is meaningful, why not debate something that is meaningful? So my concerns are, in many ways, that given this moment in time, before these young men and women are placed in harm's way--because I know full well, after a quarter of a century here, once they are on the ground, once they are in place, the debate changes. The debate changes. So if we are truly concerned about dealing with the surge and escalation, then I believe we ought to be engaging in a debate that has some meaningful outcomes when it comes to the decision of whether we go forward. I, for one, would like to see a new authorization come to this body to be debated. The resolution on which we are operating today is one that was crafted 5 years ago. It was fundamentally linked to weapons of mass destruction and the conduct of Saddam Hussein. The first argument was, of course, a fiction. There were no weapons of mass destruction. And the second argument is no longer viable. Saddam Hussein is gone. Today, we are being asked to place men and women in uniform in the middle of a civil war. It seems to me that if the President of the United States wants that to be a policy endorsed by the American people through the actions of this body, then we ought to be voting on a matter that says this is something we agree with and go forward. That would have some meaning to it, it seems to me. If we rejected it, then the President would have a strong answer from the Congress about whether we are about to continue to finance and support that activity--again, not undercutting the needs of our troops in harm's way but a legitimate debate about a real issue that requires Members to stand up and vote yes or no. I realize I am in sort of a minority of one or two here who believes the vehicles we are choosing to debate over the next several days, if, in fact, the debate goes on, are ones that in the final analysis are nothing more than really message proposals. If we are highly divided over which one to bring up, what is the message, in effect, if we cannot even decide which vehicles we want to choose to discuss? Regarding the surge itself and regarding the Warner-Levin or Levin- Warner proposal, I have some problems with the language of that proposal. It essentially abdicates the power of the purse. It calls for selective diplomacy in the region instead of engaging all of Iraq's neighbors. The language opposing the surge is weak to the point of being nonexistent. And there is language that suggests that nothing in this resolution ought to imply a call for redeployment--something I wholeheartedly believe we should be pursuing in a phased manner. But those are my concerns about it, both in terms of the process and the language under consideration. I realize other Members do not have those problems. I respect that. But those are my concerns. Now, regarding the surge itself, again this has been stated by others who have examined this proposal in great detail, including our senior military people and senior diplomats. As I said a moment ago, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, they have spoken eloquently about their concerns that this proposal does nothing but contribute to the chaos that reins in Iraq. There are some 6 million people who live in the city of Baghdad. To suggest we are going to send 17,000 or 18,000 service men and women into a city of 6 million, where there are at least 23 militias along with insurgents, Baathists, hardened criminals, and possibly some al- Qaida elements, and that we are going to sort this out in a way that is going to move us toward a political settlement in the country is I believe, frankly, beyond dreaming. I do not think it has any viability whatsoever. In fact, I think it contributes to a further escalation of the conflict in the country and delays even further what everyone agrees must occur: some sort of political accommodation between Shias and Sunnis and Kurds--between Shias and Shias, for that matter. The idea that placing our troops as a referee in the middle of this civil conflict is going to get us closer to that result, I think, has been successfully argued against by those whom we respect and admire in these debates. Secondly, may I say that, in fact, if you are trying to encourage those elements to get together and you are also trying to encourage regional diplomacy to play a role here, then it seems to me we ought to be talking about how best we can achieve that. When you have an administration that refuses to even engage in any kind of conversation or negotiations with governments in the region with which we have serious disagreements, then I think we get even further away from the suggestions made by the Baker-Hamilton study group on Iraq that proposed what I thought were very commonsense, sober, and sound recommendations that would allow us to have a greater likelihood of achieving the success we ought to be pursuing. I see little likelihood of that occurring if, in fact, we are talking about a further military escalation of the conflict here. Every single person who has looked at the situation in Iraq has drawn the following conclusion: There is no military solution--no military solution--in Iraq. So continuing to pursue that option, continuing to pursue that particular goal in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, I believe is a major, major mistake for this country. I think this body--the Senate--ought to be on record expressing its opinion about it and that we ought to go forward in a meaningful, real, accountable way. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen. In fact, we may end this debate without voting on anything at all regarding Iraq, as we need to move on to other items that the leadership clearly must address in the coming weeks. So we are missing an opportunity, other than to express our views, which most people have done. I know of no Member in this Chamber who has not spoken out publicly about whether they think the surge is the right direction to go in, what alternatives they would offer in terms of how we might begin to talk about redeployment, and the need for the Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own country. The American people have also publicly spoken out. They voted for a change of course in Iraq last November and according to recent polls, a majority of Americans oppose a surge. Now I do not believe polling data ought to be the way you conduct foreign policy, but the fact is that the American public is exhausted and fed up, to put it mildly, with our Iraq policy. And let's consider the following data out of Iraq: Over 80 percent of the people in that country believe that our continued presence in that country contributes to the chaos they are facing, and over 60 percent of Iraqis believe it is appropriate to attack American service men and women. Over 60 percent of the people in Iraq believe that. How do you justify supporting an escalation, a surge in our military presence, when the very people whom we are told we are trying to help in this case believe that, one, we contribute to the chaos, and only a slightly smaller number believe it is appropriate to attack our service men and women? For the life of me, I do not understand how an American President could possibly support a policy that takes us further down that road. Now we are not just talking about only two options here of escalating or leaving. There are policies that come in far between these two. For example, there have been suggestions about redeployment, with our service men and women filling other roles like training the Iraqi military, which was suggested by Baker-Hamilton. I think we should do this. We could engage in counterterrorism activities. Border security; we could play a very meaningful role in that as well. So there are those of us here who believe we ought to be redeploying, bring down those numbers, but none of us whom I know of have suggested we ought to be just packing our bags over the next 6 months and leaving Iraq. We are talking about other roles we can perform, as the 300,000 Iraqi soldiers and police take over the responsibility of their country. Madam President, I am telling you as I stand before you today, if we continue to provide the kind of level of support militarily we are engaging in, there is less and less likelihood that the Iraqis are going to assume the responsibility, both politically and militarily, to take over leadership of their country. For those reasons, I urge that we find a means and a vehicle, sooner rather than later, for this body--the Senate, this coequal branch of Government--to say to the administration and to others: We believe in a different direction. We would like a new authorization. We would like debate on a meaningful proposal that would allow us to be accounted for, yes or no, as to whether you want to move forward. Again, with all due respect to those who crafted this, I have no greater admiration for any two Members than I do for Carl Levin and John Warner, people I have served with here for many years. I respect immensely the effort they have engaged in here to try to build a proposal that would attract a substantial majority of our colleagues to support. If you could do that, then sense-of-the-Senate resolutions have value. But I rest my case on what is occurring at the very moment I stand before you this afternoon. We are divided here. We have some four or five different resolutions. All of them are sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. None of them have any meaning in law at all. And we cannot seem to come around a single debate. We ought to be having one about whether we believe our resources and our young men's and women's lives ought to be placed in harm's way. That is the debate which ought to be occurring here. It is not occurring yet. I think that is unfortunate. It is tragic. My hope is we will find a means to address that in short order. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I honor a dedicated public servant, Marvin Farbman, who is retiring after 30 years of tireless work at Connecticut Legal Services, CLS, on behalf of the people of Connecticut. Mr. Farbman came to Connecticut Legal Services in 1977 with an impressive academic record. He received his undergraduate degree in biology at Boston University, his M.A. in Philosophy from the University of Western Ontario, and finally his law degree at the University of Connecticut, where he graduated with honors. Connecticut Legal Services hired him as a staff attorney, where he quickly took on more than 100 client cases per year, serving as counsel for low-income Connecticut families. Over the past 30 years, Marvin Farbman worked tirelessly to provide better housing for low-income residents of Connecticut. Only a year after joining the staff of Connecticut Legal Services, he created Equity in Housing, a ground-breaking housing cooperative that continues serving low-income households today. Within 2 years, Mr. Farbman was promoted to the position of managing attorney of the Middletown office of Connecticut Legal Services. During his years as managing attorney, Mr. Farbman continued to lead the fight for low-income housing improvements both in and out of the courtroom. He served as lead counsel in several influential court cases, including Korsko v. Harris, which stopped the conversion of a federally-subsidized 200-unit housing project into private condominiums with no assistance for low-income residents, Nelson v. Heintz, a successful lawsuit against the City of Bridgeport to obtain more reasonable shelter payment levels for low-income citizens, and Father Panik Village Tenants Assoc. v. Cisneros, which obtained a preliminary court settlement requiring the Bridgeport Housing Authority to replace more than 1,000 demolished public housing units. Mr. Farbman's dedication and continued success in court was matched by the success of his other efforts to improve the community. In 1985, he led the effort to create the Middlesex Red Cross homeless shelter, the first apartment-based family shelter in Connecticut. He also organized a local coalition to renovate Arriwani Hotel, a single room flophouse, into a nonprofit apartment building with support services for residents. When he was promoted to executive director of CLS in 1995, Mr. Farbman successfully guided the agency in the establishment of an operating plan to begin rebuilding its service capacity. Over his tenure as executive director, Connecticut Legal Services handled approximately 50,000 client cases, improving the lives of countless Connecticut residents and the communities where they live. Millions of Americans live in poverty, and many must depend on people like Marvin Farbman to fight for their basic needs in court. Mr. Farbman has dedicated his life to improving the lives of low-income families, and his influence can be seen throughout Connecticut. For his dedicated service, Connecticut, and indeed, the whole nation owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude. On February 8, a dinner will be held in honor of Marvin Farbman's many contributions to Connecticut Legal Services and the field of legal representation for low-income families. This dinner will be a wonderful tribute to Marvin's dedication to serving underprivileged residents of Connecticut. Once again, I extend my deep thanks to Marvin Farbman for his long legacy of service to his community, to the people of Connecticut, and to our Nation. I wish to congratulate him, his wife Evelyn, and his sons Daniel and Herschel on this wonderful occasion, and I wish him well as he embarks on this new chapter in his life.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fair Access to Clinical Trials (FACT) Act. I want to begin by thanking Senators Grassley, Wyden, Bingaman, Durbin, and Harkin for joining me in introducing this legislation. I also would like to recognize the leadership of Senator Johnson who was involved in the crafting of this legislation from the beginning and who has been a long-standing supporter of the FACT Act. Our bill will create an electronic databank for clinical trials of drugs, biological products, and medical devices. Such a databank will ensure that physicians, researchers, the general public, and patients seeking to enroll in clinical trials have access to basic information about those trials. It will require manufacturers and other researchers to reveal the results of clinical trials so that clinically important information will be available to all Americans, and physicians will have all the information necessary to make appropriate treatment decisions for their patients. Events of the past few years have made it clear that such a databank is needed. For example, serious questions were raised about the effectiveness and safety of antidepressants when used in children and youth. It has now become clear that the existing data indicates that these drugs may very well put children at risk. However, because the data from antidepressant clinical trials was not publicly available, it took years for this risk to be realized. In the meantime, millions of children have been prescribed antidepressants by well-meaning physicians. While these drugs undoubtedly helped many of these children, they also led to greater suffering for others. The news is similarly disturbing for a popular class of painkillers known as Cox-2 inhibitors. These medicines, taken by millions of Americans, have been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events, such as heart attack and stroke. It has been suggested that one of these medicines, which has since been pulled from the market, may have been responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. Most recently, a drug manufacturer acknowledged that it did not inform the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the public about the results of a 67,000 person study it conducted of an FDA-approved drug used commonly during heart surgery to reduce the need for a transfusion. The study revealed the drug may increase patients' risk of death, serious kidney damage, congestive heart failure, and stroke. Unfortunately, these are just a few examples of stories that have become all too common. It has been suggested that negative data might actually have been suppressed; and if this is discovered to be the case, those responsible should be dealt with harshly. However, because of what is known as ``publication bias,'' the information available to the public and physicians can be misleading even without nefarious motives. The simple fact is that studies with a positive result are far more likely to be published, and thus publicly available, than a study with a negative result. Physicians and patients hear the good news. Rarely do they hear the bad news. In the end, the imbalance of available information hurts patients. Our bill would correct this imbalance in information, and prevent manufacturers from suppressing negative data. It would do so by creating a two-part databank, consisting of an expansion of clinicaltrials.gov--an existing registry that is operated by the National Library of Medicine (NLM)--and a new database for clinical trial results. Under the FACT Act, the registry would continue to operate as a resource for patients seeking to enroll in clinical trials for drugs and biological products intended to treat serious or life-threatening conditions--and for the first time, it would also include medical device trials. The new results database would include all trials (except for preliminary safety trials), and would require the submission of clinical trial results data. Our legislation would enforce the requirement to submit information to the databank in two ways. First, by requiring registration as a condition of Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, no trial could begin without submitting preliminary information to the registry and database. This information would include the purpose of the trial, the estimated date of trial completion, as well as all of the information necessary to help patients to enroll in the trial. Once the trial is completed, the researcher or manufacturer is required to submit the results to the database. If they refuse to do so, they are subject to monetary penalties or, in the case of federally-funded research, a restriction on future federal funding. It is my belief that these enforcement mechanisms will ensure broad compliance. However, in the rare case where a manufacturer does not comply, this legislation also gives the FDA the authority to publicize the required information. Let me also say that any time you are collecting large amounts of data and making it public, protecting patient privacy and confidentiality is paramount. Our legislation would in no way threaten patient privacy. The simple fact is that under this bill, no individually-identifiable information would be available to the public. I believe that the establishment of a clinical trials databank is absolutely necessary for the health and well-being of the American public. But I would also like to highlight two other benefits that such a databank will have. First, it has the potential to reduce health care costs. Studies have shown that publication bias also leads to a bias toward new and more expensive treatment options. A databank could help make it clear that in some cases less expensive treatments are just as effective for patients. In addition, a databank will ensure that the sacrifice made by patients who enroll in clinical trials is not squandered. We owe it to patients to make sure that their participation in a trial will benefit other individuals suffering from the same illness or condition by making the results of the trial public, no matter the outcome of the trial. The problems associated with publication bias have recently drawn more attention from the medical community, and there is broad consensus that a clinical trials registry is one of the best ways to address the issue. Accordingly, the American Medical Association (AMA) has recommended creating such a databank. Additionally, the major medical journals have established a policy that they will only publish the results of trials that were registered in a public database before the trial began. Our legislation meets all of the minimum criteria for a trial registry set out by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. In fact, our bill closely follows recommendations issued by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in its recent report on drug safety. To its credit, the pharmaceutical industry has also acknowledged the problem, and has created a database where manufacturers can voluntarily submit clinical trials data. I applaud this step. However, if our objective is to provide the public with a complete and consistent supply of information, a voluntary database is unlikely to achieve that goal. Some companies will provide information, but others may decide not to participate. We need a clinical trials framework that is not just fair to all companies, but provides patients with the peace of mind that they will receive complete information about the medicines they rely on. The American drug industry is an extraordinary success story. As a result of the innovations that this industry has spawned, millions of lives have been improved and saved in our country and around the globe. Due to the importance of these medicines to our health and well-being, I have consistently supported sound public policies to help the industry succeed in protecting the public's health and well-being. This legislation aims to build upon the successes of this industry, and help ensure that the positive changes to our health care system that prescription drugs have brought are not undermined by controversies such as the ones surrounding antidepressants and Cox-2 inhibitors, which are at least in part based on a lack of public information. This bill will help ensure that well-informed patients will use new and innovative medicines. Creating a clinical trials databank is a critical step toward ensuring the safety of drugs, biological products, and medical devices in this country--but it should not be the end of our efforts. However, other steps are necessary to fully restore patient confidence in the safety of the medicines they rely on. That is why today I am also introducing the Food and Drug Administration Safety Act (FDASA) with Senator Grassley. We are joined by Senators Mikulski and Bingaman in introducing this legislation and thank them for their support for reforming our nation's system to ensure that FDA-approved drugs being used by millions are safe and effective. Our legislation would enhance the FDA's drug-safety monitoring system by setting up an independent center within the FDA called the Center for Postmarket Evaluation and Research for Drugs and Biologics (CPER). This Center would be responsible for monitoring the safety of drugs and biologics once they are on the market, in consultation with other existing Centers at the FDA, and would have the authority to take corrective action if a drug or biologic presents a risk to patients. Under the bill, the Center Director is authorized to require manufacturers to conduct post-market clinical or observational studies if there are questions about the safety or efficacy of a drug or biologic once it is already on the market. The Center Director can take corrective actions to include labeling changes, restricted distribution, and other risk management tools if an unreasonable risk is found to exist. The bill also gives the Center Director the authority to review drug advertisements before they are disseminated, and to require certain disclosures about increased risk, and in extreme cases, the authority to pull the product off the market. Our bill authorizes $500 million over the next 5 years to provide the new center with the resources necessary to carry out the critically important provisions of this legislation. Under our legislation, the Director of CPER will report directly to the FDA Commissioner. Our bill will ensure that CPER consults with the other Centers at FDA as it conducts risk assessments, benefiting from their knowledge and expertise, but not being beholden to them if corrective action is needed. These new authorities will allow the FDA to act quickly to get answers when there are questions about the safety of a drug, and to act decisively to mitigate the risks when the evidence shows that a drug presents a safety issue. With these authorities, we will never again have a situation where a critical labeling change takes 2 years to complete, as was the case with Vioxx. When we are talking about drugs that are already on the market and in widespread use, any delay can put millions of patients in harm's way. By creating CPER we hope to restore confidence in the medicines that so many Americans rely on to safeguard their health and well-being. Patients should have the peace of mind that the drugs they take to help them will not hurt them instead. We must restore public confidence in the words ``FDA-Approved.'' Unfortunately, events of the past few years have seriously tarnished the FDA's image and put millions of patients at undue risk. Recent developments have cast into doubt the FDA's ability to ensure that the drugs that it approves are safe--especially once they are on the market. These concerns are bad for patients, bad for physicians, and bad for the pharmaceutical industry. Like many Americans, I have been deeply disturbed by the revelations of the significant risk associated with widely-used medications to treat pain and depression. These revelations raise legitimate questions about the safety of drugs that have already been approved. It would be one thing if these drugs were in a trial phase, but safety issues are being identified in drugs once they are on the market and in widespread use. Health risks significant enough to remove drugs from the market or significantly restrict their use are becoming clear only after millions of Americans have been exposed to real or potential harm. It has been estimated that more than 100,000 Americans might have been seriously injured or killed by a popular pain medication, while millions of children have been prescribed antidepressants that could put them at risk. This recent spate of popular medicines being identified as unsafe underscores the need to take additional steps to monitor and protect patient safety after a drug has been approved. Allowing the status quo on drug safety at the FDA is unacceptable. Real reform is needed now. An internal study conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the Inspector General in 2002 revealed that approximately one-fifth of drug reviewers were pressured to approve a drug despite concerns about safety, efficacy, or quality. In addition, more than one-third said they were ``not at all'' or only ``somewhat'' confident that final decisions of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) adequately assessed safety. A more recent survey of 997 FDA scientists conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility found that 420 FDA scientists reported that they knew of cases in which HHS or FDA political appointees inappropriately injected themselves into FDA determinations or actions. I look forward to working with industry, physicians, medical journals, patient groups, and my colleagues--including the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi--to move this legislation forward. These bills have already been endorsed by Consumers Union, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), the National Women's Health Network, and Public Citizen. I thank these organizations for lending their expertise as we crafted these bills. I also want to recognize the New England Journal of Medicine and the American Psychiatric Association for their support in the crafting of the FACT Act. Clinical trials are critically important to protecting the safety and health of the American public. For this reason, clinical trial results must not be treated as information that can be hidden from scrutiny. Recent events have made it clear that a clinical trials databank is needed. Patients and physicians agree that such a databank is important to our public health. At the same time, there have been disturbing reports that suggest the FDA does not place enough emphasis on drug safety, and that concerns raised by those in the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology (formerly the Office of Drug Safety) at CDER are sometimes ignored and even suppressed. Our legislation will ensure that those who are responsible for monitoring the safety of drugs already on the market at the FDA will have the independence, resources, and authority to ensure medicines intended to help patients won't instead end up causing them harm. I urge my colleagues to support these bills, and I am hopeful that they will become law as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the American Psychiatric Association supporting the FACT Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, 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 Fair Access to Clinical Trials (FACT) Act. I want to begin by thanking Senators Grassley, Wyden, Bingaman, Durbin, and Harkin for joining me in introducing this legislation. I also would like to recognize the leadership of Senator Johnson who was involved in the crafting of this legislation from the beginning and who has been a long-standing supporter of the FACT Act. Our bill will create an electronic databank for clinical trials of drugs, biological products, and medical devices. Such a databank will ensure that physicians, researchers, the general public, and patients seeking to enroll in clinical trials have access to basic information about those trials. It will require manufacturers and other researchers to reveal the results of clinical trials so that clinically important information will be available to all Americans, and physicians will have all the information necessary to make appropriate treatment decisions for their patients. Events of the past few years have made it clear that such a databank is needed. For example, serious questions were raised about the effectiveness and safety of antidepressants when used in children and youth. It has now become clear that the existing data indicates that these drugs may very well put children at risk. However, because the data from antidepressant clinical trials was not publicly available, it took years for this risk to be realized. In the meantime, millions of children have been prescribed antidepressants by well-meaning physicians. While these drugs undoubtedly helped many of these children, they also led to greater suffering for others. The news is similarly disturbing for a popular class of painkillers known as Cox-2 inhibitors. These medicines, taken by millions of Americans, have been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events, such as heart attack and stroke. It has been suggested that one of these medicines, which has since been pulled from the market, may have been responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. Most recently, a drug manufacturer acknowledged that it did not inform the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the public about the results of a 67,000 person study it conducted of an FDA-approved drug used commonly during heart surgery to reduce the need for a transfusion. The study revealed the drug may increase patients' risk of death, serious kidney damage, congestive heart failure, and stroke. Unfortunately, these are just a few examples of stories that have become all too common. It has been suggested that negative data might actually have been suppressed; and if this is discovered to be the case, those responsible should be dealt with harshly. However, because of what is known as ``publication bias,'' the information available to the public and physicians can be misleading even without nefarious motives. The simple fact is that studies with a positive result are far more likely to be published, and thus publicly available, than a study with a negative result. Physicians and patients hear the good news. Rarely do they hear the bad news. In the end, the imbalance of available information hurts patients. Our bill would correct this imbalance in information, and prevent manufacturers from suppressing negative data. It would do so by creating a two-part databank, consisting of an expansion of clinicaltrials.gov--an existing registry that is operated by the National Library of Medicine (NLM)--and a new database for clinical trial results. Under the FACT Act, the registry would continue to operate as a resource for patients seeking to enroll in clinical trials for drugs and biological products intended to treat serious or life-threatening conditions--and for the first time, it would also include medical device trials. The new results database would include all trials (except for preliminary safety trials), and would require the submission of clinical trial results data. Our legislation would enforce the requirement to submit information to the databank in two ways. First, by requiring registration as a condition of Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, no trial could begin without submitting preliminary information to the registry and database. This information would include the purpose of the trial, the estimated date of trial completion, as well as all of the information necessary to help patients to enroll in the trial. Once the trial is completed, the researcher or manufacturer is required to submit the results to the database. If they refuse to do so, they are subject to monetary penalties or, in the case of federally-funded research, a restriction on future federal funding. It is my belief that these enforcement mechanisms will ensure broad compliance. However, in the rare case where a manufacturer does not comply, this legislation also gives the FDA the authority to publicize the required information. Let me also say that any time you are collecting large amounts of data and making it public, protecting patient privacy and confidentiality is paramount. Our legislation would in no way threaten patient privacy. The simple fact is that under this bill, no individually-identifiable information would be available to the public. I believe that the establishment of a clinical trials databank is absolutely necessary for the health and well-being of the American public. But I would also like to highlight two other benefits that such a databank will have. First, it has the potential to reduce health care costs. Studies have shown that publication bias also leads to a bias toward new and more expensive treatment options. A databank could help make it clear that in some cases less expensive treatments are just as effective for patients. In addition, a databank will ensure that the sacrifice made by patients who enroll in clinical trials is not squandered. We owe it to patients to make sure that their participation in a trial will benefit other individuals suffering from the same illness or condition by making the results of the trial public, no matter the outcome of the trial. The problems associated with publication bias have recently drawn more attention from the medical community, and there is broad consensus that a clinical trials registry is one of the best ways to address the issue. Accordingly, the American Medical Association (AMA) has recommended creating such a databank. Additionally, the major medical journals have established a policy that they will only publish the results of trials that were registered in a public database before the trial began. Our legislation meets all of the minimum criteria for a trial registry set out by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. In fact, our bill closely follows recommendations issued by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in its recent report on drug safety. To its credit, the pharmaceutical industry has also acknowledged the problem, and has created a database where manufacturers can voluntarily submit clinical trials data. I applaud this step. However, if our objective is to provide the public with a complete and consistent supply of information, a voluntary database is unlikely to achieve that goal. Some companies will provide information, but others may decide not to participate. We need a clinical trials framework that is not just fair to all companies, but provides patients with the peace of mind that they will receive complete information about the medicines they rely on. The American drug industry is an extraordinary success story. As a result of the innovations that this industry has spawned, millions of lives have been improved and saved in our country and around the globe. Due to the importance of these medicines to our health and well-being, I have consistently supported sound public policies to help the industry succeed in protecting the public's health and well-being. This legislation aims to build upon the successes of this industry, and help ensure that the positive changes to our health care system that prescription drugs have brought are not undermined by controversies such as the ones surrounding antidepressants and Cox-2 inhibitors, which are at least in part based on a lack of public information. This bill will help ensure that well-informed patients will use new and innovative medicines. Creating a clinical trials databank is a critical step toward ensuring the safety of drugs, biological products, and medical devices in this country--but it should not be the end of our efforts. However, other steps are necessary to fully restore patient confidence in the safety of the medicines they rely on. That is why today I am also introducing the Food and Drug Administration Safety Act (FDASA) with Senator Grassley. We are joined by Senators Mikulski and Bingaman in introducing this legislation and thank them for their support for reforming our nation's system to ensure that FDA-approved drugs being used by millions are safe and effective. Our legislation would enhance the FDA's drug-safety monitoring system by setting up an independent center within the FDA called the Center for Postmarket Evaluation and Research for Drugs and Biologics (CPER). This Center would be responsible for monitoring the safety of drugs and biologics once they are on the market, in consultation with other existing Centers at the FDA, and would have the authority to take corrective action if a drug or biologic presents a risk to patients. Under the bill, the Center Director is authorized to require manufacturers to conduct post-market clinical or observational studies if there are questions about the safety or efficacy of a drug or biologic once it is already on the market. The Center Director can take corrective actions to include labeling changes, restricted distribution, and other risk management tools if an unreasonable risk is found to exist. The bill also gives the Center Director the authority to review drug advertisements before they are disseminated, and to require certain disclosures about increased risk, and in extreme cases, the authority to pull the product off the market. Our bill authorizes $500 million over the next 5 years to provide the new center with the resources necessary to carry out the critically important provisions of this legislation. Under our legislation, the Director of CPER will report directly to the FDA Commissioner. Our bill will ensure that CPER consults with the other Centers at FDA as it conducts risk assessments, benefiting from their knowledge and expertise, but not being beholden to them if corrective action is needed. These new authorities will allow the FDA to act quickly to get answers when there are questions about the safety of a drug, and to act decisively to mitigate the risks when the evidence shows that a drug presents a safety issue. With these authorities, we will never again have a situation where a critical labeling change takes 2 years to complete, as was the case with Vioxx. When we are talking about drugs that are already on the market and in widespread use, any delay can put millions of patients in harm's way. By creating CPER we hope to restore confidence in the medicines that so many Americans rely on to safeguard their health and well-being. Patients should have the peace of mind that the drugs they take to help them will not hurt them instead. We must restore public confidence in the words ``FDA-Approved.'' Unfortunately, events of the past few years have seriously tarnished the FDA's image and put millions of patients at undue risk. Recent developments have cast into doubt the FDA's ability to ensure that the drugs that it approves are safe--especially once they are on the market. These concerns are bad for patients, bad for physicians, and bad for the pharmaceutical industry. Like many Americans, I have been deeply disturbed by the revelations of the significant risk associated with widely-used medications to treat pain and depression. These revelations raise legitimate questions about the safety of drugs that have already been approved. It would be one thing if these drugs were in a trial phase, but safety issues are being identified in drugs once they are on the market and in widespread use. Health risks significant enough to remove drugs from the market or significantly restrict their use are becoming clear only after millions of Americans have been exposed to real or potential harm. It has been estimated that more than 100,000 Americans might have been seriously injured or killed by a popular pain medication, while millions of children have been prescribed antidepressants that could put them at risk. This recent spate of popular medicines being identified as unsafe underscores the need to take additional steps to monitor and protect patient safety after a drug has been approved. Allowing the status quo on drug safety at the FDA is unacceptable. Real reform is needed now. An internal study conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the Inspector General in 2002 revealed that approximately one-fifth of drug reviewers were pressured to approve a drug despite concerns about safety, efficacy, or quality. In addition, more than one-third said they were ``not at all'' or only ``somewhat'' confident that final decisions of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) adequately assessed safety. A more recent survey of 997 FDA scientists conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility found that 420 FDA scientists reported that they knew of cases in which HHS or FDA political appointees inappropriately injected themselves into FDA determinations or actions. I look forward to working with industry, physicians, medical journals, patient groups, and my colleagues--including the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi--to move this legislation forward. These bills have already been endorsed by Consumers Union, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), the National Women's Health Network, and Public Citizen. I thank these organizations for lending their expertise as we crafted these bills. I also want to recognize the New England Journal of Medicine and the American Psychiatric Association for their support in the crafting of the FACT Act. Clinical trials are critically important to protecting the safety and health of the American public. For this reason, clinical trial results must not be treated as information that can be hidden from scrutiny. Recent events have made it clear that a clinical trials databank is needed. Patients and physicians agree that such a databank is important to our public health. At the same time, there have been disturbing reports that suggest the FDA does not place enough emphasis on drug safety, and that concerns raised by those in the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology (formerly the Office of Drug Safety) at CDER are sometimes ignored and even suppressed. Our legislation will ensure that those who are responsible for monitoring the safety of drugs already on the market at the FDA will have the independence, resources, and authority to ensure medicines intended to help patients won't instead end up causing them harm. I urge my colleagues to support these bills, and I am hopeful that they will become law as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the American Psychiatric Association supporting the FACT Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, about a month ago, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and I were in the Middle East, and at sundown on an evening in Baghdad, as we landed in our helicopter in the Green Zone, a young man walked up to Senator Kerry and me. I could hardly see him. He was about 6 feet 2 inches, 6 feet 3 inches, a captain, and a West Point graduate. He talked to us about his concerns and what was going on in Iraq. This was back in the mid part of December before the Christmas holidays. His name was Brian Freeman. The conversation did not last very long. It was not one of those long conversations. It may have lasted 15, 20 minutes, at best. I do not even have a clear picture in my mind of what he looked like because it was dark, as the conversation went on for 15 or 20 minutes. But it is one of those meetings all of us have had in our lives, where you do not forget a person, an individual. For whatever reason, he was compelling, he was sincere. He sought us out. He wanted us to know how he felt about what was happening in Iraq. I mentioned him on ``Meet the Press'' a few weeks later in talking about Iraq. I did not mention his name. I did not wish to put him in that position. But I talked about this young Army captain, a West Point graduate, whom I met. He apparently saw the program in Baghdad and e- mailed me, and we began this conversation between my office and himself over the last month or so, in which we talked about the surge, and he talked about the problems associated with it, the jobs he was being asked to do. He said to me--I am quoting him now-- Senator, it's nuts over here. Soldiers are being asked to do work we're not trained to do. I'm doing work that the State Department people are far more prepared to do in fostering democracy, but they're not allowed to come off the bases because it's too dangerous here. It doesn't make any sense. CPT Brian Freeman, a West Point graduate, was killed in Iraq last Saturday. I have spoken to his family over the last number of days, his wife Charlotte, his two young children, his parents and his in-laws, trying to express on behalf, I am sure, of all us the sense of grief we feel about this young man's loss of life and his contribution to our country. I cannot tell you how exciting it was for me to meet him. This young man had nothing but potential and a great interest in seeing his country do better and grow stronger. And he wanted to be a part of it and make a contribution to our land. Today, I am here to say enough is enough. I think all of us feel this way. We are coming to a point next week when we will have a debate about this. We are going to discuss various resolutions before us. I firmly believe we have to do everything we possibly can to ensure that the tragedy of Brian Freeman does not continue to be replicated over and over again. That is why we must say no, in my view, to the decision by the President of the United States to send thousands more of our brave young men and women in uniform to the streets of Baghdad to risk their lives for a plan which just ``doesn't make any sense,'' to quote Brian Freeman. I, as one Senator, intend to speak loudly, as I have already, against this ill-conceived policy. But more than just speak out, I intend, at every available opportunity, to ask this body and the other body to go on record in a meaningful way against the President's specific decision to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq and against the continuation of our failed military strategy in Iraq. This administration's Iraq policy has been a total failure. And this ``escalation'' or ``surge''--call it whatever you will--of 21,500 more Americans is not going to work. I think all of us in this Chamber know it. General Powell, General Abizaid, and General Casey know it. The British and the rest of our allies know it. Nearly every expert who has come before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, regardless of their political persuasion or ideology, over the last several weeks of hearings Senator Biden has held, knows it as well. That was their testimony. But most importantly, two-thirds of the American people flatout oppose it, according to a recent survey done in our country--not that surveys ought to determine policy. But you cannot sustain a policy when the American people no longer feel you are on the right track. And they are right about it. As my good friend from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, so eloquently and passionately said: [W]e owe the military and their families a policy worthy of their sacrifices . . . and I don't believe we have that policy today. I could not agree with him more. As we all know, we have lost more than 3,000 young men and women. More than 20,000 American troops have been grievously injured. According to many estimates, several hundred thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed or maimed over the last 4 years. And now estimates suggest this war will end up costing the American people over $1.2 trillion. We have stretched our military to the breaking point. As Congressman Murtha testified before the Foreign Relations Committee last week: At the beginning of the Iraq war, 80 percent of all Army units and almost 100 percent of active combat units were rated at the highest state of readiness. Today, virtually all of our active-duty combat units at home and all of our guard units are at the lowest state of readiness-- ``the lowest state of readiness''-- primarily due to equipment shortages resulting from repeated and extended deployments to Iraq. I strongly believe we must demonstrate to the American public that we share their deep concerns and doubts about the President's proposed plans to escalate our involvement in Iraq. I think we need to demonstrate we are prepared to lead on this issue--not simply sit back, fearful of taking positions most of us believe are in the interests of our country. Earlier this week in committee, I offered an amendment to the Foreign Relations Committee proposal that was offered by my friend, the chairman of the committee, Senator Biden, and Senator Hagel and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin. My amendment called for capping the number of troops in Iraq and required the President to seek a new authorization--after 5 years, a new authorization; it has been 5 years since we voted on the justification to go into Iraq--but to get that new authorization from Congress immediately prior to any future troop increases in Iraq--an authorization, I would quickly add, I would vigorously oppose, but it would be an opportunity to debate on the floor of the Senate. My amendment was not about setting a floor, as some have suggested. It was about exactly the opposite. It was about the first step in fundamentally altering the status quo in Iraq and forcing the President to listen to the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Study Group to fundamentally change our mission in Iraq and begin the phased redeployment of U.S. combat troops. It was also about preventing more troops from being put in harm's way for a flawed tactic to a failed strategy. Although my amendment failed, I voted in support of the Biden resolution. But I believe it is absolutely essential that the final resolution the Senate adopts next week be one with more clarity than is currently to be found in the words of this resolution or the competing Warner-Collins resolution, which was introduced by our good friend, the Senator from Virginia, Mr. John Warner. Regardless of how effective I and others are in bringing more clarity to the resolution through the amendment process, we need to also take, at some point in the very near future, concrete legislative action such as was attempted last week in the committee on Wednesday but which is not possible in the context of the concurrent resolution we will consider next week. We need to face the hard facts. The President of the United States has already said he will ignore Congress when it comes to his recent proposals on Iraq. He has said loudly he will ignore what we do. So it is all the more important we do something that is meaningful. Sense-of-the-Senate resolutions are the easiest things to ignore. They require absolutely no Presidential recognition whatsoever. They are merely opportunities for us to express our views on various important matters. I recognize it has a value, to some degree. But there are people out there wondering whether we are actually going to take advantage of this time to do something more than send a message, which all of us have sent, either privately or publicly, that this policy must change. We are beyond the message-sending time. We all know what the message is. Now the question is whether this body, this historic body, that has an obligation beyond the roles and the opportunities or the obligations of the other body, will take a clear and strong position when it comes to this most recent decision. The Vice President has recently said that the nonbinding resolution passed by this coequal branch of Government ``won't stop us,'' to quote him. Mr. Cheney went on to say: ``I think it would be detrimental from the standpoint of the troops'' to pass this. ``Detrimental from the standpoint of the troops''? Refereeing a civil war is detrimental from the standpoint of the troops. Surging into the streets of Baghdad with no clear mission is not detrimental to our troops? Sending Americans into combat with insufficient body armor is not detrimental to our troops? But stopping the President from sending more young men and women into Baghdad is most certainly not detrimental to our troops. Two-thirds of the American public and two-thirds of our troops oppose a surge, according to a recent survey done by the Military Times--two- thirds of the American public and two-thirds of our troops. But it is not public opinion polls that shape my conclusions that our policies in Iraq are terribly flawed. It is the facts on the ground, which I have learned, as I know others have as well in our recent visits to Iraq, as well as the judgments of former and current military and foreign policy experts. What is it going to take to make this administration change course? It is going to take a Congress, in my view, that does not allow the blank checks over the last 5 years to continue. It is going to take a Congress--and I am confident this one will be one--that has the courage to stand up and clearly say we will not support more troops nor the current failed policy. And if the President refuses to listen, it is going to take a Congress that is prepared to legislatively force the President to change this disastrous course. So next week we will begin the process of attempting to make it crystal clear in the language of whatever concurrent resolution we adopt that this Congress is opposed to more troops, opposed to a policy that makes our troops remain referees in a civil war, and in favor of a changed policy which begins the process of the phased redeployment of our troops, which last year the Congress had anticipated would begin in 2006. There are those who say we should not try to tinker with the wording of carefully crafted Iraq resolutions because they are delicate compromises and to propose anything more forceful would be politically divisive and that Congress ought to speak with one voice. Well, I wish we could speak with one voice. But to them I would say, I believe in consensus. I believe in bipartisanship. My 25-year record in this body has amply demonstrated the value of that. But when the quest for consensus paralyzes our ability and prevents us from taking real action to stop the senseless death of young Americans, then I do not think consensus ought to be the goal. Stopping this insanity ought to be the goal. If you can do it 51 to 49, then do it. If you can do it 100 to nothing, obviously, that is preferable. But waiting around for consensus on this issue worries me deeply, that we are going to miss an opportunity to fulfill our obligations to stand up and say: Enough of this stuff. Stop it now. There are those who say that opposing the surge betrays our troops. Quite the contrary is true. I say to them, what truly betrays our troops is sending them into a civil war they cannot and should not have to stop. More than 60 percent of the Iraqi people do not want us in their country. How do you send people into harm's way when the people you are trying to help do not want you to stay? Of course, stopping the escalation of U.S. forces is only the first step as part of a broader policy to stabilize Iraq and bring our troops home. There must also be meaningful deescalation of U.S. combat activities in Iraq. We must begin the redeployment of U.S. forces away from the urban areas where the sectarian conflict is greatest, to enclaves within Iraq and to elsewhere within the region--Afghanistan, of course, being the principal place where our troops could be used. This will enable U.S. forces to concentrate on training Iraqi forces, securing Iraq's borders, and conducting counterterrorism operations to protect U.S. vital security interests in the region. In the coming days, every American should be able to know whether his or her Senator is prepared to go further and attempt to legally bind the President from continuing this policy of folly. That is why I will not be satisfied if the resolution we adopt next week is the last step this Congress takes to right the wrong that the President is perpetrating on our brave young men and women in uniform and on the American people as a whole. That is why I will find opportunities, if I can, to bring binding legislation to a vote in this body so that every American can know where we stand on this issue. The American people want this Congress to live up to its responsibilities. I am confident we can and will under our leadership. The time has come for us to weigh in and change the course of U.S. involvement in Iraq, something we all know in our hearts needs to be done. If we were able to authorize the President to go to war in 2002-- a vote that I deeply regret having cast in favor of--5 years ago on grounds of weapons of mass destruction and the behavior of Saddam Hussein--one of which was not true, and the other doesn't exist anymore--it is time for us to debate this new argument for our involvement in Iraq and decide, up or down, whether we believe it is the right course of action. This Nation of ours is at a critical crossroads. The President wants to deepen our involvement in the war. I think most of us here want to responsibly end our involvement after 4 painful years that have taken a tragic toll on our country. I have met with countless families, in my own State and in others, who have been through the tragedy of losing loved ones in Iraq. Talking to Brian Freeman's family in Utah the other night was painful. His 14- month-old and his 3-year-old don't have a father any longer. Our country lost a wonderful young man whom Senator Kerry and I had the privilege of meeting for such a brief time. But both of us were profoundly affected by his courage and commitment. I say to them and others that in this body we will stand up in the coming days and bring an end to this insanity. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, a month ago, I traveled to Iraq to meet there with our men and women in uniform. One soldier in particular stood out to me, a bright young West Point graduate, CPT Brian Freeman. Our conversation lasted for no more than 5 minutes, and yet I was immediately struck by his outspoken intelligence. ``Senator, it is nuts over here. Soldiers are being asked to do work we're not trained to do,'' he told me. ``I'm doing work that State Department people are far more prepared to do in fostering democracy, but they're not allowed to come off the bases because it's too dangerous here. It doesn't make any sense.'' Now those words have taken on a tragic resonance. Four days ago, according to media accounts, 30 gunmen disguised as U.S. officials penetrated an Iraqi checkpoint in Karbala. Once inside the Army compound, the reports say, they opened fire and mortally wounded five American soldiers. On Sunday, Charlotte Freeman was visiting her family in Utah when she found a message on her cell phone. Army chaplains had been to her house in California. The daily e-mails from her husband Brian had stopped. I imagine that few things have more anguish in them than waiting, in suspended fear, for the news of a loved one's death. Late that afternoon, the news came. So I rise to honor Captain Freeman and to add my voice to his family's prayers. His giving spirit and his self-sacrifice embodied all the best of our Armed Forces, whether he was working to take the son of a Karbala policeman to America for heart surgery or fighting to secure death benefits for the family of his murdered interpreter or organizing a charity to fund medical care for Iraqi children. In his duty as a liaison between the Army and the Government of Karbala Province, he proved every day his dedication to the Iraqi people; the Governor of Karbala praised him as ``a soldier and a statesman.'' But the virtues we saw in Brian shone through even clearer to those who loved him: Charlotte, his wife; his 3-year-old son Gunnar and his 14-month-old daughter Ingrid; his father Randy and his stepmother Kathy; his mother and his stepfather, Kathleen and Albert Snyder. ``Brian is a beautiful man,'' his mother-in-law, Ginny Mills, wrote to me shortly after his death. ``He is loving, funny, and intelligent. He had a spirit in him that saw the good in life. A man who put his life on the line to help those less fortunate than himself. A man who was a loving husband and a devoted father. A man whose daughter will never know him first-hand.'' In the place of a husband and father who will never see his children grow up, Brian Freeman's young family will have to live on with the warm memories of the man who loved them and who risked his life in the service of his country. Memories and words of comfort are so insufficient, so small, next to the flesh and blood. But there is nothing else to put in their place. I have nothing else to add--except to note that the scenes of grief and comfort in the home of Charlotte Freeman have played themselves out, in some form or another, 3,000 times, in 3,000 families, for 3,000 lives. ``Each story is the same,'' wrote Ginny Mills. ``A wonderful, beautiful soul sacrificed.'' ``I cannot understand that this war goes on and on,'' she wrote. ``It has to stop. It has to stop now and I need to know how to do that.'' May God send comfort to her and to all of Captain Freeman's family and to every family that is bereaved. And may we remember, in every hour of our deliberations, the young lives that bear the burden of the choices we make in this Chamber.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise to thank the Senator from Kansas for offering this amendment. Back about 20 years ago, the Senator from Utah and I, along with Senator Kennedy and others, authored the first childcare development block grant ever to be proposed by the Congress. We had hoped in those days that we would be able to expand the availability, affordability, and quality of childcare to millions of Americans and their children who are lacking those resources. Over the years, we have provided some good assistance. I am grateful to my colleagues over the years who have been supportive. We have gone stale on the commitment over the last 5 or 6 years. The funding has not gone up at all and demand continues to grow. We have done a fairly good job in serving some of the working poor. We must do better, however. We have not done a good job, in my view, on the most critical issue most parents and others care about, and that is the quality of childcare. This amendment gets to the quality of child care by providing small businesses the opportunity to use the grant for facilities and to create partnerships with local organizations such as health departments. What is happening with our colleague's amendment is that it is trying to expand opportunities for families, and I am grateful to him for proposing it. Everyday I hear about the communities in which the demand for child care for exceeds the supply. This amendment would increase the supply and allow more parents to go to work knowing that their children are safe. I am supporting it. I think it is worthwhile, and it will help make a difference of expanding quality and access. It is good for everyone involved. A lot of times we offer legislation with winners and losers. Here, everybody wins. From a business standpoint, they are retaining good employees, allowing parents' minds to be focused on their jobs. In no small measure, this depends on how you feel, where your children are, who is caring for them, and what the conditions are. In terms of productivity and retention, all the elements businesses desire for employees, childcare is a major component. For the parents, obviously, not to be worried or concerned about the quality of the care their children receive and whether they can afford it is a major issue. I am preaching to the choir for those who understand what I am talking about. Obviously, from the child's perspective, it's essential to be able to have that good, nurturing environment. There is not a guarantee they will get it in every case, but it is more likely if this amendment passes. The difficult area is with smaller businesses. Many larger corporations have installed childcare facilities onsite. In fact, in some cases they have offered less in salaries and wages in exchange for providing better childcare; I am not saying that is great, but people are so hungry to have a good, safe, childcare environment, they will opt for lesser wage or salary in exchange for the assurance their children are in a safe place. Smaller businesses cannot do that. Some of them are at shopping malls, and they develop consortiums and set aside space. There are a lot of creative ideas. But it is the hardest thing in the world for smaller business to provide child care. It is not that they do not recognize the need for it. They understand the value of it. This amendment, from a child's perspective, from a parent's perspective, and from a business perspective is a win for all. I commend my colleague. We have talked of this in the past and agreed on its importance. I thank Senator Enzi. While I am here, I would like to talk about the underlying bill, to raise the minimum wage. Exactly because of what the Senator from Kansas has offered, it is important to know that his amendment is a related matter when it comes to children. The increase in the minimum wage has a huge impact on children. So I am taking advantage of a couple of minutes on his amendment to highlight this point. In the last 5 years, we have watched child poverty in this country increase by 1.3 million children. This figure is from the U.S. Census Bureau, not a private think tank making this up. Nearly 12.9 million children in this country live in poverty. Obviously, that is a matter of great concern, I hope to all of us. What is bothersome to me and should be to every single one of us--I don't care what your politics are or your political persuasion--the fact that the United States of America, at the outset of the 21st century, has one of the highest rate of child poverty among all the industrialized nations. That is something that ought to concern each and every one of us, not just because of what a shameful statistic that is. As we look to the 21st century, watching our country grow, meeting the challenges in front of us, we have to do a better job if we are going to have a well- prepared generation to meet the challenges. Aside from providing decent child care, we know by increasing the earning capacity of parents we make a difference. In fact, nearly 6 million children will benefit from a minimum wage increase. Children whose parents are economically secure--and this increase is not going to guarantee security, but it moves a family closer to it-- have better attendance in school and have a higher concentration on the work they are asked to do. Performance levels go up, test scores go up, and graduation rates increase when a family's economic circumstances are far more stable. In addition, children have stronger immune systems, better health, fewer expensive hospital visits and fewer run- ins with the juvenile justice system. Those are facts when you have a family doing better economically. For the families who have the greatest economic stability at home, these statistics improve in almost every category. Because of what the Senator from Kansas has offered, focusing on childcare, combined with what the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, is leading today on the minimum wage, we can make a difference for these children. That is the point I wanted to make to my colleagues. I commend them both. It is long overdue. My hope is that the amendment from my friend from Kansas will be a forerunner this year for increasing our commitments to child care. My colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, has been terrific on this issue over the years. Senator Hatch was my principal cosponsor on this many years ago. It was courageous of him then. A lot of people did not realize the value of it. I am remiss not mentioning those who played a significant role. And let me add my colleague, Senator Roberts, for his leadership on this issue. I thank him immensely. I thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership on minimum wage. We can make a difference for children with both of these proposals.