Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I recognize the accomplishments of Colonel Richard Root, of the U.S. Army, who was recently promoted from the rank of lieutenant colonel. Until his recent transfer to the highly competitive Senior Service College, Colonel Root worked for more than 3 years in the Army's Legislative Affairs Office as a Senate liaison officer. I had the pleasure of working with Colonel Root frequently during that time, and was therefore proud to be able to join my colleague and good friend Senator Corker in hosting his promotion ceremony in the Capitol. I would like to extend my sincere congratulations to Colonel Root and his family for this well-deserved recognition. For more than 21 years, including 3 in combat, Colonel Root has been faithfully serving our Nation as a member of the Armed Forces. Beginning in 1989, when he was commissioned as a field artillery lieutenant, Colonel Root's assignments have taken him around the country and the world, including several deployments during Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and, more recently, during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Throughout his more than two decades in the Army, Colonel Root has been recognized on a number of occasions for his superior service and valor, receiving, among other decorations, the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Air Assault Badge, Army Staff Badge, and Combat Action Badge. Most recently, in his role as a liaison officer to the U.S. Senate, Colonel Root once again distinguished himself, developing outstanding relationships with Senators and staff members alike. During his 3 years of service in the Office of Legislative Affairs, Colonel Root escorted 40 congressional and staff delegations, accompanying Members to more than 50 countries, including active combat theaters. I myself travelled with Colonel Root on a number of occasions during his time in the Senate, and was always extremely impressed by his close attention to detail, flexibility, and unflinching dedication to his work. I know many of my colleagues felt the same way, and it is therefore no surprise that Colonel Root was often requested by name to help assist in the planning and coordination of congressional fact- finding and oversight delegations. And so, once again, it is a great honor to be able to congratulate Colonel Root today on this seminal achievement. His unwavering commitment to serving his country as a professional soldier in the Army is truly laudable, and I would like to extend my sincere thanks to him for his years of service. Colonel Root, and all of the men and women of our Armed Forces, are an indispensable asset to this country, and I hope my colleagues will join me today in honoring this top-notch soldier and dear friend, and wonderful human being.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. I am pleased to join my good friend, the senior Senator from Tennessee, in this effort. Five years ago, we stood on this floor discussing the risks, costs, and toll of premature birth. Following three decades of increases, in 2008, the Nation achieved the first 2-year decline in the preterm birth rate to 12.3 percent. This rate is still too far from the Healthy People 2010 goal of 7.6 percent and our Nation earns only a ``D'' on the March of Dimes annual prematurity report card. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in an average week in Connecticut, 84 babies are born preterm. More than half a million babies still are born preterm each year, a serious health problem that costs the United States more than $26 billion annually, according to the Institute of Medicine. I believe that the recent 2-year nationwide decline, albeit small, is encouraging and this should be the beginning of a positive trend. The recent developments must be supported by access to better health care, new research and new programs to lower the risk of preterm birth. This is why the Senator from Tennessee and I have introduced the Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers Who Deliver Infants Early Act. This important bill expands research into the causes and prevention of prematurity and increases education and support services related to prematurity. The March of Dimes has been an important partner through its leadership of a national prematurity campaign, but they cannot combat this serious and costly public health crisis alone. The Federal Government must partner with them to increase research on the causes of preterm birth. I hope more of my colleagues will join us in supporting this important bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of a friend and former colleague, former Senator Ted Stevens, who passed away this August in a plane crash. I know that I speak for all of my colleagues when I say how difficult it was to receive news of Ted's passing this summer, and I would like to take this moment to convey my heartfelt condolences to everyone who knew, worked with, and enjoyed Ted during his life. I believe that Ted will long be remembered as a man of the Senate. First appointed to his seat more than four decades ago, Ted Stevens became the longest-serving Republican in the history of this body in 2007. Throughout his tenure in Washington, Ted served in a number of key leadership positions, including as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and as President pro tempore. Over the years, I had the pleasure of being able to collaborate with Ted on a number of critically important issues, including, perhaps most recently, legislation that I introduced during the 110th Congress to provide paid leave to workers under the auspices of the Family and Medical Leave Act. And while Ted and I did not substantively agree on much, he didn't shy away from reaching out across the partisan divide to get things done. In fact, it was his willingness to work with Democrats--to seek out common ground and compromise on areas of contention when necessary--that made him such a prolific, effective, and well-respected member of this body. The incredibly strong bonds Ted forged with his colleagues over the years were in full display at his memorial service in Alaska over the summer. I made the trip up north to attend his funeral, and I found it incredibly moving to hear the words of Ted's longtime friend, my colleague Senator Inouye, who delivered Ted's eulogy, and our Vice President Joe Biden, who also made some remarks during the service. Clearly, this was a person who left not only an indelible mark on the Senate as a body, but on many of the individual Senators who had the opportunity to serve with him over the years. That was certainly the case for me. Years ago, Ted Stevens and I participated in the U.S.-Canadian interparliamentary meeting together. It was one of the most enjoyable 4 days I spent in my 30 years in the Senate for one simple reason--in addition to all his substantive talents, Ted Stevens was great fun--he loved his family, Alaska, his country and his friends. And on that last point, while it is true that Ted was a creature of the Senate, I believe Ted Stevens will be remembered far into the future first and foremost as a man of Alaska. Ted truly loved his home State, and over the years, he cultivated a strong reputation as one of its greatest champions. Indeed, Ted's own life was inextricably linked to many of the major events and advancements that occurred in Alaska's history over the past half century. Having served with distinction in World War II as a pilot for the U.S. Army Air Corps in Asia, Ted graduated from Harvard Law School in 1950 and moved to Fairbanks to practice law. Several years later, Ted was brought on to work for the Interior Department under President Eisenhower. In that capacity, Ted advocated very persistently for Alaskan statehood, finally helping make that goal a reality in 1959. Later on, as a Senator, Ted once again worked hard on behalf of his State, its people and interests, fighting to direct federal resources to that vast, sparsely populated, and incredibly beautiful corner of our country. Ted viewed himself as Alaska's chief advocate here in Washington, and throughout his four decades in the Senate, he never deviated from that mission. Known by many of the Alaskans he helped over the years simply as ``Uncle Ted,'' Ted Stevens was singularly devoted to serving his constituents and ensuring their needs and concerns were given a voice on Capitol Hill. And it is that level of dedication to the people who sent him here to represent their interests that will ultimately be Ted Stevens' greatest legacy. Once again, I would like to express my sincere condolences to Ted's wife Catherine; his children Susan, Elizabeth, Walter, Theodore, Ben, and Lily; and his 11 grandchildren. And I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Ted for his years of tireless and selfless service on behalf of his State and country.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Paycheck Fairness Act, a critically important bill to guarantee women equal pay for equal work. I am proud to lead the effort in the Senate to pass this legislation, which my dear friend and colleague Rosa DeLauro has already shepherded through the House of Representatives. I am pleased that the Senate is finally considering this commonsense legislation and am grateful to the majority leader for his strong support and his recognition of how important this bill is to American families. Americans must be assured of equity in the workplace. Unfortunately, the fundamental principle of equal pay for equal work has yet to be realized in this country. In my view, it is high time that Congress step in to remedy this injustice. Despite passage of the Equal Pay Act over 40 years ago, which was intended to ensure that women are paid the same as their male counterparts, a large wage gap still persists. Women are paid, on average, just 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. To put it another way, the pay gap means that the average woman is paid more than $10,000 less per year than she deserves. The gap is even larger in the African American and Hispanic communities, with black women earning 70 cents and Hispanic women earning merely 67 cents for every dollar a man earns. In my view, it is an outrage that in the year 2010 we are still not treating women as equals in the workplace. Even a college education doesn't suffice to correct this inequality. In my home State of Connecticut, the median wage for a woman with a bachelor's degree is $55,000--which puts her on par with a man who only has a high school diploma. This wage gap means that, cumulatively, a working woman will be shortchanged by $400,000 to $2 million over her lifetime in lost wages, pensions, and Social Security benefits. Now, some will argue that the wage gap is a product of the choices women make, such as what they study in college, what field they pursue careers in, and whether to take time off to raise their children. But study after study has corrected for every possible variable, and still has found that only part of the wage gap can be explained by measurable factors. The rest of the gap is a result of discrimination in the workplace. One study compared men and women who had pursued the same majors, attended equally good schools, and were entering the same industry, and found that women are already paid less than these identically qualified men just one year out of college. This is not just a matter of fairness but of economic necessity. Every dollar that women are shortchanged means a dollar less spent in her community, to take care of her family. The problem is particularly acute during the current economic recession, in which women are increasingly the primary or sole breadwinners for their families. Since the recession began, approximately 70 percent of jobs lost were jobs that had been held by men. In the typical married-couple family, this translates into forcing the family to survive on just 42 percent of its former income. This means families have less money to spend on everything--groceries, going out to eat, new school clothes, home and car repairs--all of which means less money going into our local economies. Paying women fairly is not just the right thing to do, it is also an immediate economic boost. The Paycheck Fairness Act would finally give women tools strong enough to end wage discrimination. It provides a long-overdue update to the Equal Pay Act, which has not been amended since it was signed into law by President Kennedy in 1963. I would add to my colleagues who may be undecided on whether to support the upcoming cloture vote--it has been forty-seven years since the Equal Pay Act was enacted. If we fail to pass this critically important legislation now, there may not be another opportunity to do so for a decade or more. The Paycheck Fairness Act improves on the Equal Pay Act by toughening penalties for pay discrimination. It puts gender-based discrimination on equal footing with discrimination based on race or ethnicity by allowing women to sue for compensatory and punitive damages. It closes a significant loophole in the Equal Pay Act that for too long has allowed to justify unequal pay without a legitimate business need. It prohibits employers from punishing whistleblowers. Furthermore, it will require better data collection by the Department of Labor and Equal Opportunity Commission and set up training programs to help women learn more effective salary negotiation skills. To continue our economic recovery, I believe that we must not only work to create jobs. We must also ensure that those jobs are good jobs. Making sure that all workers are confident that they are being treated and compensated fairly is critical to that goal. This bill will ensure that workers are paid what they deserve and will provide them with security and fairness in the workplace. I urge my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a very serious issue that affects many Americans, and that is premature births. More than half a million babies will be born preterm this year and approximately 28,000 babies will die before they turn 1 year old. In my home State of Connecticut, there were more than 4,000 preterm births in 2007, representing approximately 11 percent of all live births in the State. Between 1997 and 2007, the rate of infants born preterm in Connecticut increased 3 percent. The incidence of preterm birth represents a huge disconnect between our scientific knowledge and our capacity to meet basic and critical needs in maternal-child health. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, babies who died from preterm birth-related causes accounted for more than 36 percent of infant deaths in 2006. For newborns, prematurity is the leading cause of death. Of the surviving preemies, approximately one-fourth will have serious health complications including hearing loss, cerebral palsy, intellectual disabilities, acute respiratory diseases, and other maladies. These health problems not only affect the child, but also place a financial and emotional burden on many families. According to the Institute of Medicine, the annual societal costs associated with preterm birth were $26.2 billion in 2005 or $51,600 per infant born preterm. Nearly two-thirds of this cost was for medical care. More importantly, the $26.2 billion estimate does not include the cost of medical care beyond early childhood or caretaker costs such as lost wages. In nearly half of all cases, physicians and scientists cannot pinpoint a cause for preterm labor and delivery. However, research has shown that causes of preterm birth may include neighborhood characteristics, environmental exposures, biological factors, and medical conditions. Many of these factors can occur in combination, particularly for those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged and minority groups. Accordingly, there are significant disparities in the rates of preterm birth across these groups, with the highest rate of preterm births for non-Hispanic African Americans at 17.5 percent in 2008, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. It is clear that a greater commitment to eliminating these inequalities is needed. As the chairman of the U.S. Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions' Subcommittee on Children and Families, ensuring the health of America's children has been my life's work, making the correction of these inequalities an issue of great importance. In 2006, my colleague Senator Alexander and I worked to pass the Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers who deliver Infants Early Act or PREEMIE Act, Public Law 109-450, which authorized finding to enhance Federal research related to preterm labor and delivery and increased public and provider education and support services. Among the results of the PREEMIE Act were the 2008 Surgeon General's Conference on Preterm Birth and expanded research activities at CDC. The most notable accomplishment to date is a 3 percent decline in the preterm birth rate from 2007 to 2008. But there is still much work to be done. We must build on the progress recently achieved and use both public and private efforts to accelerate this decrease in the rate of preterm birth. For these reasons, I rise today to join my colleague from Tennessee to introduce the PREEMIE Act to reauthorize these vital activities. It is my hope that this legislation will complement many of the efforts being conducted by the private sector, such as the March of Dimes campaign to raise public awareness and reduce the rate of preterm births. I urge my colleagues to join me in promoting a healthy start for America's children by supporting this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Keeping All Students Safe Act to create a safe environment for students and school personnel by creating minimum standards around the use of seclusion and restraint in schools. In December, I introduced a similar bill. But today, I come to the floor with my good friend and colleague Senator Burr, with a revised act that incorporates additional protections for students. In 1998, the Hartford Courant ran an award-winning series of stories about the use of seclusion and restraint in hospitals, residential facilities, and group homes for individuals with psychiatric and developmental disabilities. The Courant uncovered a hidden epidemic, confirming 142 deaths occurring during or after the use of seclusion or restraint. One of those 142 cases was an 11-year-old boy from my home State of Connecticut. He was restrained face-down in a position that restricted his air flow. He died as a result. In response, I led the charge to establish Federal standards to prevent the misuse of these practices. I helped pass The Children's Health Act of 2000, which included the Compassionate Care Act that I originally drafted to put these standards in place in certain hospitals and residential facilities. We wanted to include schools in this legislation, but were unable to do so. Sadly, the need could not have been greater. Over the past year, reports from the National Disability Rights Network, NDRN, the Alliance to Prevent Restraint, Aversive Interventions, and Seclusion, APRAIS, the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc., COPAA, and the Government Accountability Office, GAO, have painted a picture disturbingly similar to the one the Hartford Courant discovered more than a decade ago. The statistics are chilling--hundreds of incidents of physical injury, psychological trauma, even death--but the stories are even more devastating. The GAO found many examples of the inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint in the report it released on May 19, 2009. A 14 year-old boy was restrained face-down by a teacher because he would not stay seated in class. The 230 lb. teacher sat on the 129 lb. boy, restricting his airflow and resulting in the boy's death. A 4 year-old girl with cerebral palsy and autism was restrained in a wooden chair with leather straps for being ``uncooperative.'' In one school district, children with disabilities as young as six years old were allegedly placed in strangleholds, restrained for extended periods of time, confined to dark rooms, and tethered to ropes and prevented from using the restroom until they urinated on themselves. To be clear, school personnel go to work every day with the goal of educating children, not harming them. I have the utmost respect and appreciation for the difficult job they do and want to make it clear that my concern signifies no disrespect for their challenging jobs, or the dangers they sometimes face. However, these tragic stories reflect inadequate training and a lack of resources on the state and local levels to implement effective interventions, such as school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports. According to a report by COPPA, over 71 percent of the 185 incidents they identified occurred in schools with no positive behavioral interventions or supports. If school personnel are provided with the necessary tools to prevent dangerous situations, the number of incidents requiring restraint and seclusion will decrease. Just as students have a right to learn in a safe environment, educators have a right to work in a safe environment. They should be provided with the proper training and support to prevent injury to themselves and others. In some states, parents have successfully advocated for laws that provide these resources, as well as guidelines to ensure that they are used effectively. But the patchwork of state laws and regulations is confusing and especially troublesome for transient students. According to the GAO study, 19 states have no law or regulations concerning seclusion and restraint in schools. Some laws apply to only certain schools or situations, and some apply to restraint but not seclusion. Only 19 states require parental notification, only 17 states require staff training, and only eight specifically prohibit restraints that restrict air flow. Therefore, Senator Burr and I will today introduce the Keeping All Students Safe Act, a bill that will address these issues. Our bill will establish clear minimum standards for the use of restraint and seclusion in schools, closely based on the Children's Health Act of 2000. It will also provide resources to assist with policy implementation and provide school personnel with necessary tools, training, and support. It will improve data collection, analysis, and identification of effective practices to prevent and reduce seclusion and restraint in schools, so we may better understand the scope of the problem and the effectiveness of our solutions. Specifically, the legislation will prohibit the use of seclusion and restraint in schools unless a student's behavior poses an immediate danger of serious physical injury and less restrictive interventions would be ineffective. It will prohibit the use of mechanical, chemical, and physical restraints that restrict air flow to the lungs. This legislation will require adequate training and state certification of school personnel imposing seclusion or restraint, immediate parental notification when such an incident occurs, and a debriefing session to prevent future incidents. As a result of this act, the Department of Education will conduct, and provide to Congress, a national assessment that analyzes data on seclusion and restraint and determines effective practices in preventing and reducing the number of incidents. This assessment will provide us with a more accurate picture of the extent of seclusion and restraint in schools, and will help direct additional future efforts to ensure that our children and those who educate them are safe. The Keeping All Students Safe Act includes language that solidifies Protection and Advocacy agencies', P&A, abilities to serve the students who are in need of protection. This legislation is meant to ensure that these P&As are spending their time and resources protecting our Nation's children in schools, and not in court about this already settled issue. Finally, this legislation will amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as well as the Higher Education Act, to provide additional planning for and training on the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports. I want to thank the many organizations representing individuals with disabilities, students, teachers, and schools that all came to the table with recommendations. Their time, energy, and input made this a much stronger and more effective bill, and I truly appreciate their hard work and support. I am especially thankful for Senator Burr's commitment to this issue and his insights that have strengthened the bill. I am also grateful to Secretary Duncan for his leadership on this issue at the Department of Education. Finally, I want to thank my colleague and good friend, Chairman George Miller in the House of Representatives. Earlier this year, he introduced companion legislation that passed the House in March. Senator Burr and I look forward to working with him to pass this into law. Every child has a right to be safe in the place where he or she goes to learn and grow. Every educator deserves the training and support he or she needs to do his or her job safely and effectively. The Keeping All Students Safe Act will help to prevent tragedies in our schools. I am proud to introduce it today, and I urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a very serious issue that affects many Americans, and that is premature births. More than half a million babies will be born preterm this year and approximately 28,000 babies will die before they turn 1 year old. In my home State of Connecticut, there were more than 4,000 preterm births in 2007, representing approximately 11 percent of all live births in the State. Between 1997 and 2007, the rate of infants born preterm in Connecticut increased 3 percent. The incidence of preterm birth represents a huge disconnect between our scientific knowledge and our capacity to meet basic and critical needs in maternal-child health. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, babies who died from preterm birth-related causes accounted for more than 36 percent of infant deaths in 2006. For newborns, prematurity is the leading cause of death. Of the surviving preemies, approximately one-fourth will have serious health complications including hearing loss, cerebral palsy, intellectual disabilities, acute respiratory diseases, and other maladies. These health problems not only affect the child, but also place a financial and emotional burden on many families. According to the Institute of Medicine, the annual societal costs associated with preterm birth were $26.2 billion in 2005 or $51,600 per infant born preterm. Nearly two-thirds of this cost was for medical care. More importantly, the $26.2 billion estimate does not include the cost of medical care beyond early childhood or caretaker costs such as lost wages. In nearly half of all cases, physicians and scientists cannot pinpoint a cause for preterm labor and delivery. However, research has shown that causes of preterm birth may include neighborhood characteristics, environmental exposures, biological factors, and medical conditions. Many of these factors can occur in combination, particularly for those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged and minority groups. Accordingly, there are significant disparities in the rates of preterm birth across these groups, with the highest rate of preterm births for non-Hispanic African Americans at 17.5 percent in 2008, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. It is clear that a greater commitment to eliminating these inequalities is needed. As the chairman of the U.S. Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions' Subcommittee on Children and Families, ensuring the health of America's children has been my life's work, making the correction of these inequalities an issue of great importance. In 2006, my colleague Senator Alexander and I worked to pass the Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers who deliver Infants Early Act or PREEMIE Act, Public Law 109-450, which authorized finding to enhance Federal research related to preterm labor and delivery and increased public and provider education and support services. Among the results of the PREEMIE Act were the 2008 Surgeon General's Conference on Preterm Birth and expanded research activities at CDC. The most notable accomplishment to date is a 3 percent decline in the preterm birth rate from 2007 to 2008. But there is still much work to be done. We must build on the progress recently achieved and use both public and private efforts to accelerate this decrease in the rate of preterm birth. For these reasons, I rise today to join my colleague from Tennessee to introduce the PREEMIE Act to reauthorize these vital activities. It is my hope that this legislation will complement many of the efforts being conducted by the private sector, such as the March of Dimes campaign to raise public awareness and reduce the rate of preterm births. I urge my colleagues to join me in promoting a healthy start for America's children by supporting this legislation.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Keeping All Students Safe Act to create a safe environment for students and school personnel by creating minimum standards around the use of seclusion and restraint in schools. In December, I introduced a similar bill. But today, I come to the floor with my good friend and colleague Senator Burr, with a revised act that incorporates additional protections for students. In 1998, the Hartford Courant ran an award-winning series of stories about the use of seclusion and restraint in hospitals, residential facilities, and group homes for individuals with psychiatric and developmental disabilities. The Courant uncovered a hidden epidemic, confirming 142 deaths occurring during or after the use of seclusion or restraint. One of those 142 cases was an 11-year-old boy from my home State of Connecticut. He was restrained face-down in a position that restricted his air flow. He died as a result. In response, I led the charge to establish Federal standards to prevent the misuse of these practices. I helped pass The Children's Health Act of 2000, which included the Compassionate Care Act that I originally drafted to put these standards in place in certain hospitals and residential facilities. We wanted to include schools in this legislation, but were unable to do so. Sadly, the need could not have been greater. Over the past year, reports from the National Disability Rights Network, NDRN, the Alliance to Prevent Restraint, Aversive Interventions, and Seclusion, APRAIS, the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc., COPAA, and the Government Accountability Office, GAO, have painted a picture disturbingly similar to the one the Hartford Courant discovered more than a decade ago. The statistics are chilling--hundreds of incidents of physical injury, psychological trauma, even death--but the stories are even more devastating. The GAO found many examples of the inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint in the report it released on May 19, 2009. A 14 year-old boy was restrained face-down by a teacher because he would not stay seated in class. The 230 lb. teacher sat on the 129 lb. boy, restricting his airflow and resulting in the boy's death. A 4 year-old girl with cerebral palsy and autism was restrained in a wooden chair with leather straps for being ``uncooperative.'' In one school district, children with disabilities as young as six years old were allegedly placed in strangleholds, restrained for extended periods of time, confined to dark rooms, and tethered to ropes and prevented from using the restroom until they urinated on themselves. To be clear, school personnel go to work every day with the goal of educating children, not harming them. I have the utmost respect and appreciation for the difficult job they do and want to make it clear that my concern signifies no disrespect for their challenging jobs, or the dangers they sometimes face. However, these tragic stories reflect inadequate training and a lack of resources on the state and local levels to implement effective interventions, such as school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports. According to a report by COPPA, over 71 percent of the 185 incidents they identified occurred in schools with no positive behavioral interventions or supports. If school personnel are provided with the necessary tools to prevent dangerous situations, the number of incidents requiring restraint and seclusion will decrease. Just as students have a right to learn in a safe environment, educators have a right to work in a safe environment. They should be provided with the proper training and support to prevent injury to themselves and others. In some states, parents have successfully advocated for laws that provide these resources, as well as guidelines to ensure that they are used effectively. But the patchwork of state laws and regulations is confusing and especially troublesome for transient students. According to the GAO study, 19 states have no law or regulations concerning seclusion and restraint in schools. Some laws apply to only certain schools or situations, and some apply to restraint but not seclusion. Only 19 states require parental notification, only 17 states require staff training, and only eight specifically prohibit restraints that restrict air flow. Therefore, Senator Burr and I will today introduce the Keeping All Students Safe Act, a bill that will address these issues. Our bill will establish clear minimum standards for the use of restraint and seclusion in schools, closely based on the Children's Health Act of 2000. It will also provide resources to assist with policy implementation and provide school personnel with necessary tools, training, and support. It will improve data collection, analysis, and identification of effective practices to prevent and reduce seclusion and restraint in schools, so we may better understand the scope of the problem and the effectiveness of our solutions. Specifically, the legislation will prohibit the use of seclusion and restraint in schools unless a student's behavior poses an immediate danger of serious physical injury and less restrictive interventions would be ineffective. It will prohibit the use of mechanical, chemical, and physical restraints that restrict air flow to the lungs. This legislation will require adequate training and state certification of school personnel imposing seclusion or restraint, immediate parental notification when such an incident occurs, and a debriefing session to prevent future incidents. As a result of this act, the Department of Education will conduct, and provide to Congress, a national assessment that analyzes data on seclusion and restraint and determines effective practices in preventing and reducing the number of incidents. This assessment will provide us with a more accurate picture of the extent of seclusion and restraint in schools, and will help direct additional future efforts to ensure that our children and those who educate them are safe. The Keeping All Students Safe Act includes language that solidifies Protection and Advocacy agencies', P&A, abilities to serve the students who are in need of protection. This legislation is meant to ensure that these P&As are spending their time and resources protecting our Nation's children in schools, and not in court about this already settled issue. Finally, this legislation will amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as well as the Higher Education Act, to provide additional planning for and training on the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports. I want to thank the many organizations representing individuals with disabilities, students, teachers, and schools that all came to the table with recommendations. Their time, energy, and input made this a much stronger and more effective bill, and I truly appreciate their hard work and support. I am especially thankful for Senator Burr's commitment to this issue and his insights that have strengthened the bill. I am also grateful to Secretary Duncan for his leadership on this issue at the Department of Education. Finally, I want to thank my colleague and good friend, Chairman George Miller in the House of Representatives. Earlier this year, he introduced companion legislation that passed the House in March. Senator Burr and I look forward to working with him to pass this into law. Every child has a right to be safe in the place where he or she goes to learn and grow. Every educator deserves the training and support he or she needs to do his or her job safely and effectively. The Keeping All Students Safe Act will help to prevent tragedies in our schools. I am proud to introduce it today, and I urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as a co-chair of the Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus, I rise today to introduce the Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2010 with my colleague, Senator Sherrod Brown. This legislation provides an excellent opportunity to address a critical disparity that exists in our Nation's health care system. Individuals with disabilities can face a myriad of challenges in accessing the health care they need and deserve. Such was the case for Debbie Blanchard, a woman who lived with Spina Bifida for nearly 56 years, and who passed away in August 2008 from cervical cancer. Due to the challenges she faced in finding a physician whose office and examination tables were accessible for individuals with disabilities, Debbie was not able to seek regular well-woman exams, including cervical cancer screenings. The barriers Debbie faced in physically accessing the regular preventive care she needed unfortunately contributed to her cervical cancer going undetected until it was too late. The lack of accessible care clearly contributed to her untimely death. The Spina Bifida community is devastated by Debbie Blanchard's tragic passing, and we in the Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus wish to help ensure that the challenges and barriers that contributed to her illness and death are eliminated. To that end, we have developed the Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act in an effort to help facilitate access to health care by individuals with disabilities, including, but not limited to, those with Spina Bifida, and help them to identify providers whose offices and examination rooms are accessible for individuals with disabilities. Before I discuss the details of this bill, I believe it is important to recognize the scope of the problem we are dealing with. According to the U.S. Census, more than 54 million Americans, about one out of every five, live with some level of disability. Approximately 34 million of those are classified as having a severe disability. In Connecticut, more than 540,000 individuals are living with some level of disability. Of those individuals, close to 22,000 have physical disabilities. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found that individuals with disabilities have difficulty in accessing routine and specialized health care. Numerous barriers exist for these patients, including the inability to find a health care provider who understands how to treat individuals with disabilities and is willing to have those individuals as patients. According to a survey commissioned by the National Organization on Disability, 19 percent of persons with disabilities reported they needed medical care within the previous year and did not get it. This is a number more than three times the percentage for those without disabilities. Women with disabilities are particularly vulnerable. A study by the Center for Research on Women with Disabilities showed that nearly one- third of women with disabilities surveyed reported being denied services at a physician's office solely because of their disability, and 56 percent described their physicians' offices and hospitals as ill-prepared to accommodate their specific needs. Research by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research shows that women with disabilities are less likely to have Pap smears and mammograms and are more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage of breast cancer. These women are less likely to receive standard treatments and more likely to have poor outcomes. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PL 111-l48, includes an important component to establish standards for medical diagnostic equipment such as examination tables and chairs to improve access to health care for individuals with disabilities and I applaud Senator Harkin for his leadership on that provision. As such, the legislation I propose today seeks to complement existing programs and other pending proposals. The Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act would empower individuals with disabilities with the information and tools they need to identify accessible providers. It would also increase awareness among health professionals of the need to provide an accessible environment. The bill provides for four key programs to achieve these goals. First, this bill authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to provide formula-based grants to States to create on-line directories of health care providers accessible to individuals with disabilities. States would not be required to engage in this activity, and the grants are strictly voluntary. Second, it authorizes HHS to develop a pilot program to increase health care provider awareness of the need to provide accessible environments, examination rooms, and examination tables for individuals with disabilities. Third, it authorizes the HHS Office on Disability, with the help of national organizations representing individuals with disabilities, to develop resources to support individuals with disabilities in their efforts to find accessible providers. Such resources include ``tips cards'' and questions to ask when calling a provider for the first time to make an appointment. Finally, the bill authorizes HHS to create a National Advisory Committee on Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities to ensure intra-agency coordination of efforts to improve access to care for individuals with disabilities. The Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act would be a significant step in ensuring health care equity for the more than 50 million Americans who live with a disability. Debbie Blanchard's tragic passing should serve as a lesson on the barriers that exist for individuals with disabilities in accessing basic quality health care. We should take action to ensure that these barriers are eliminated to prevent Debbie's story from being repeated. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to mark the passing and honor the service of Army soldier, PFC Gebrah Noonan of Watertown, CT. Private First Class Noonan died in Fallujah, Iraq, on September 24. He was a member of the Headquarters Company of the Third Infantry Division stationed out of Fort Stewart, GA. His company had deployed to Iraq in July and Gebrah was eager for the opportunity to serve his country-something he had always wanted to do. Gebrah Noonan graduated from Watertown High School in 2002, where he is fondly remembered by friends for having a larger than life personality, a smile on his face and a joke to share. His humor and wit earned him the title of class clown his senior year. Gebrah loved life and was an avid Yankees fan, but even more so a Michael Jackson enthusiast. He even dressed up like Michael Jackson during School Spirit Days. Private First Class Noonan was always outspoken about his love of country. He enlisted in the Army last October because he felt it was an opportunity to serve his country as well as an opportunity for self- improvement. Private First Class Noonan's Army recruiter remembered him as a committed soldier who also brought his fun personality to everything he did. He truly had an infectious smile. Private First Class Noonan leaves behind a family that has supported him through every part of his young life. Our thoughts and prayers are with his parents William and Ling Noonan, as well as his brothers and sister. There are no words to express the debt of gratitude we owe to Gebrah and his family. PFC Gebrah Noonan's selflessness and sacrifice will not be forgotten by those of us who mourn his tragic loss.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I express my gratitude to my friend and colleague from Iowa and his terrific work. He, along with so many others, brought us to the point that has defied administrations and Congresses for more than half a century. Together, we were finally able to expand access, try to stabilize costs, and increase the quality of health care. It is no easy task. These efforts, obviously, consumed a great amount of this Congress's time and attention. Despite the rigid opposition of those opposed to these changes, without an alternative ever being offered, for the first time the American people can look forward in the years to come to having increased access to health care, improved quality, in my view, but also stabilizing costs. Without these changes, we would put our great economy in this country at significant risk, beyond the other problems we are grappling with today. I say respectfully--because my friend from Wyoming knows he and I have worked together on many issues over my tenure and his--it is with a deep sense of respect for him that I rise today in opposition to what his resolution would attempt to achieve and to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Harkin, Senator Baucus, and others who worked day to day, along with their staffs, to achieve this health care reform package. We are told health reform is not popular. I listened to one of my colleagues give a presentation that this is not terribly popular in the polls, as if somehow that is going to determine whether what we are doing is right or wrong. I recall 1948, the Marshall Plan. If popularity in the polls had been the deciding factor as to whether we passed the Marshall Plan, it would have failed miserably. About 17 percent of Americans thought we should rebuild Europe. The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act--I can guarantee to this day there were those who said this was not a terribly popular idea. I am not sure how it would fare in certain quarters. I do not think anybody in this Chamber would disagree we are a better country today because of what we did in the Marshall Plan, what we did with the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, and others. I think it is disturbing that we ought to determine the outcome of trying to make America achieve its great potential by the results of polling data. I know that has become the standard some people use. It ought not be the standard by which the Senate determines its course of action. Health reform is the culmination of more than a half century--in fact, arguably going back to Teddy Roosevelt's day, almost a century ago--a struggle by Democrats, Republicans, and Congresses to try and get to a point where we can get our arms around this very important issue. At long last, we set ourselves on a course to manage this issue. At the center of that struggle was the question: Who would control a person's health care? On this issue there seems to be unanimity. I think all of us would like individuals and their health care providers to be in control when it comes to deciding what a person's health care coverage would be, and not the insurance industry that has a history of abusing those who fall ill and need coverage. Just 6 months ago, we answered this question definitively. Americans should be able to control their own health care, and the insurance industry should not. This resolution before us today would take us backwards once again on that fundamental, underlying question at the heart of the long debate that consumed this Congress: Who would control whether a person had good health care, the insurance industry or the individual, their family, and their providers? The law we passed phases in many new protections over several years protecting Americans' rights while ensuring stability of the health care system. Just last Thursday on the 6-month anniversary of the passage of the health care reform bill, many consumer protections came into effect making up what we call the Patients' Bill of Rights. This Patients' Bill of Rights, which my colleagues and I fought so very hard to include in our final bill, provides that sense of security to people across the Nation and in each of our respective States by prohibiting the worst of the insurance companies' abuses and practices. These abuses went on year in and year out, disadvantaging average citizens in our country. As a result of that bill of rights we adopted in our health care reform bill and as a result of last Thursday, the following rights became the law of this land: All insurance plans must end lifetime limits on coverage. How long have we heard that debate and how important is it today that protection exists? All insurance plans must stop canceling coverage when you get sick. How many of my colleagues at townhall meetings heard the frustrations expressed by our constituents that just when they needed the coverage the most, they would be dropped by the insurance industry? And, today, parents who have adult children but under the age of 26 know they can carry those kids on their plan. How many families, because of the economy we are in with high unemployment, particularly among younger people, go through sleepless nights worrying about their children who have been dropped from their plans, knowing they are struggling to get on their feet? The law today protects those families and those young adults. New insurance plans must offer additional benefits and protections to consumers under our bill such as preventive services--which Senator Harkin championed day in and day out to be included as part of this bill--covered with no cost sharing, an increased choice of providers, and no prior authorization requirement for emergency care. Those protections benefit millions of people across this country. If they knew what was at stake with this kind of a resolution, which can throw these back and change these plans in such a way, I suspect those using polling numbers to identify a reason for being for this resolution or against the health care bill might have second thoughts. When we began to debate the health care reform bill, the President of the United States made clear that part of having control of one's health care was having the right to keep what you have. We enshrined that in the bill during the HELP Committee markup, the Finance Committee markup, and the Senate debate on this bill. No matter how important we thought those protections were, we said you can keep what you have, if that is what you want. But this was not carte blanche for the insurance industry to ignore the new law and continue abusive practices that have been in place for too long. They can continue their old plans as long as they did not dramatically increase the cost to their customers. It made no significant negative changes to the coverage consumers were paying for. In other words, you can keep what you have. But if the insurance companies try to take away what you have, the law will protect you. In the parlance of Washington, this is called grandfathering. To clarify to businesses, insurers, and all Americans what this meant in practice, the administration released a regulation on June 17. This regulation strikes an important balance of keeping our businesses strong while ensuring that employees and their families are able to weather difficult economic times, such as the ones we are in. Under the regulation adopted on June 17, grandfathered plans are not required to offer the additional benefits included in the Patients' Bill of Rights. I wish they were, but they are not. The grandfather regulation provides insurers and businesses flexibility to continue to innovate and to grow and still maintain their status. Businesses' health plans will not lose their grandfather status unless significant changes are made to policies which unduly burden employees and average American families. For example, if a health plan increases co-payment charges for a working mother in Hartford, CT, as has been pointed out by Senator Harkin, by more than 15 percentage points, it will lose the grandfather status. Or if a health care plan significantly reduces benefits for a family in New Haven, CT, it loses its grandfather status, as it should. These are not unreasonable requirements as we strive to protect average families in our country. My colleague from Wyoming and I disagree about this new law. We sat together day in and day out during those long markup periods. He is a good man, a good Senator, and a good friend. But I disagree with him strongly on this resolution. In my view, he wrongly claims this repeal would benefit small businesses. I say today that adopting this resolution would not only hurt small businesses but also roll back the important consumer protections that ended some of the worst insurance industry abuses across our country. If we repeal the grandfather regulations, we will harm small businesses and their employees because nothing would protect them from the insurance companies raising premiums by double digits each year, without offering any new and better benefits to the very people who would suffer. Nothing would protect them from insurance companies deciding to drop benefits or price them out of reach for these very employees. This resolution would not guarantee the right to keep what you have. What this resolution does guarantee is that the insurance industry can decide what you are going to get from them--not what you want. That is the fundamental difference if we adopt this resolution. Health reform changed that by handing control, as we all agreed on, back to you and your family. If we adopt this resolution we fundamentally shift that equation once again. In order to help small businesses more easily provide coverage to their workers and make premiums more affordable, the law provides tax credits for that coverage. In Connecticut alone, there are 54,000 small businesses that will benefit from these tax credits. This is just the first step toward bringing health care costs down, as we all want, and ensuring quality care, as we all want as well, for coverage of average Americans and their providers. This resolution is not about small businesses and harming them. This is another effort to dismantle health reform, and I believe it is fundamentally wrong for thousands of small businesses and employees across the country. It is a gift to the insurance industry, which all of us agree should no longer be the ones to decide what you get based on what they want to charge you, but whether you have insurance and confidence you are going to get for your family what you need not what they decide you get. For those reasons, I strongly oppose this resolution and hope my colleagues will join us in that effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as a co-chair of the Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus, I rise today to introduce the Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2010 with my colleague, Senator Sherrod Brown. This legislation provides an excellent opportunity to address a critical disparity that exists in our Nation's health care system. Individuals with disabilities can face a myriad of challenges in accessing the health care they need and deserve. Such was the case for Debbie Blanchard, a woman who lived with Spina Bifida for nearly 56 years, and who passed away in August 2008 from cervical cancer. Due to the challenges she faced in finding a physician whose office and examination tables were accessible for individuals with disabilities, Debbie was not able to seek regular well-woman exams, including cervical cancer screenings. The barriers Debbie faced in physically accessing the regular preventive care she needed unfortunately contributed to her cervical cancer going undetected until it was too late. The lack of accessible care clearly contributed to her untimely death. The Spina Bifida community is devastated by Debbie Blanchard's tragic passing, and we in the Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus wish to help ensure that the challenges and barriers that contributed to her illness and death are eliminated. To that end, we have developed the Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act in an effort to help facilitate access to health care by individuals with disabilities, including, but not limited to, those with Spina Bifida, and help them to identify providers whose offices and examination rooms are accessible for individuals with disabilities. Before I discuss the details of this bill, I believe it is important to recognize the scope of the problem we are dealing with. According to the U.S. Census, more than 54 million Americans, about one out of every five, live with some level of disability. Approximately 34 million of those are classified as having a severe disability. In Connecticut, more than 540,000 individuals are living with some level of disability. Of those individuals, close to 22,000 have physical disabilities. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found that individuals with disabilities have difficulty in accessing routine and specialized health care. Numerous barriers exist for these patients, including the inability to find a health care provider who understands how to treat individuals with disabilities and is willing to have those individuals as patients. According to a survey commissioned by the National Organization on Disability, 19 percent of persons with disabilities reported they needed medical care within the previous year and did not get it. This is a number more than three times the percentage for those without disabilities. Women with disabilities are particularly vulnerable. A study by the Center for Research on Women with Disabilities showed that nearly one- third of women with disabilities surveyed reported being denied services at a physician's office solely because of their disability, and 56 percent described their physicians' offices and hospitals as ill-prepared to accommodate their specific needs. Research by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research shows that women with disabilities are less likely to have Pap smears and mammograms and are more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage of breast cancer. These women are less likely to receive standard treatments and more likely to have poor outcomes. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PL 111-l48, includes an important component to establish standards for medical diagnostic equipment such as examination tables and chairs to improve access to health care for individuals with disabilities and I applaud Senator Harkin for his leadership on that provision. As such, the legislation I propose today seeks to complement existing programs and other pending proposals. The Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act would empower individuals with disabilities with the information and tools they need to identify accessible providers. It would also increase awareness among health professionals of the need to provide an accessible environment. The bill provides for four key programs to achieve these goals. First, this bill authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to provide formula-based grants to States to create on-line directories of health care providers accessible to individuals with disabilities. States would not be required to engage in this activity, and the grants are strictly voluntary. Second, it authorizes HHS to develop a pilot program to increase health care provider awareness of the need to provide accessible environments, examination rooms, and examination tables for individuals with disabilities. Third, it authorizes the HHS Office on Disability, with the help of national organizations representing individuals with disabilities, to develop resources to support individuals with disabilities in their efforts to find accessible providers. Such resources include ``tips cards'' and questions to ask when calling a provider for the first time to make an appointment. Finally, the bill authorizes HHS to create a National Advisory Committee on Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities to ensure intra-agency coordination of efforts to improve access to care for individuals with disabilities. The Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act would be a significant step in ensuring health care equity for the more than 50 million Americans who live with a disability. Debbie Blanchard's tragic passing should serve as a lesson on the barriers that exist for individuals with disabilities in accessing basic quality health care. We should take action to ensure that these barriers are eliminated to prevent Debbie's story from being repeated. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today Senator Grassley and I resubmitted a resolution designating the third week of October as National Character Counts Week. Last year, Senator Grassley and I worked together on the issue of character education, and I am pleased to continue to designate a special week to this cause. I hope that with this resolution we may highlight the importance of character building activities in schools not only this week but all year long. Since 1994, when the Partnerships in Character Education Pilot Project was first established, I have worked to commemorate National Character Counts Week. Character Counts was founded on a simple notion: our core ethical values are not just important to us as individuals-- they form the very foundation of democratic society. We know that in order to face our challenges as communities and as a Nation, we need our children to be both well-educated and trained--and that begins with instilling character in our children. Trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship--these are the six pillars of character. Character education provides students a context within which to learn those values and integrate them into our daily lives. Indeed, if we view education simply as the imparting of knowledge to our children, then we not only miss an opportunity, but we also jeopardize our future. The American public wants character education in our schools, too. Studies show that approximately 90 percent of Americans support schools teaching character education. Character education programs work. Currently, there are character education programs across all 50 States in rural, urban and suburban areas at every grade level. Schools across the country that have adopted strong character education programs report better student performance, fewer discipline problems, and increased student involvement within the community. This renewed focus on character sends a wonderful message to Americans and will help reinvigorate our efforts to get communities and schools involved. With this resolution, it is my hope that even more communities will make character education a part of every child's life. I hope that my colleagues will support this important effort.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today Senator Ensign and I have submitted a resolution designating October 21, 2010, Lights On Afterschool Day. Lights On Afterschool brings students, parents, educators, lawmakers, and community and business leaders together to celebrate afterschool programs. This year, more than 1 million Americans are expected to attend about 7,500 events designed to raise awareness and support for these much needed programs. In America today, one in four youth--more than 15 million children-- go home alone after the school day ends. This includes more than 40,000 kindergartners and almost 4 million middle school students in grades six to eight. On the other hand, only 8.4 million children, or approximately 15 percent of school-aged children, participate in afterschool programs. An additional 18.5 million would participate if a quality program were available in their community. Lights On Afterschool, a national celebration of afterschool programs, is celebrated every October in communities nationwide to call attention to the importance of afterschool programs for America's children, families and communities. Lights On Afterschool was launched in October 2000 with celebrations in more than 1,200 communities nationwide. The event has grown from 1,200 celebrations in 2001 to more than 7,500 today. This October, 1 million Americans will celebrate Lights On Afterschool. Mr. President, quality afterschool programs should be available to children in all communities. These programs support working families and prevent kids from being both victims and perpetrators of violent crime. They also help parents in balancing work and home-life. Quality afterschool programs help to engage students in their communities, and when students are engaged, they are more successful in their educational endeavors. As co-chairmen of the Senate Afterschool Caucus, Senator Ensign and I have been working for more than 5 years to impress upon our colleagues the importance of afterschool programming. It is our hope that they will join us on October 21 to celebrate the importance of afterschool programs in their communities back home.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I honor the life of Connecticut State trooper first class Kenneth Ray Hall of Hartford, CT, who was killed in the line of duty earlier this month. I would like to take this opportunity to extend my deepest condolences to Trooper Hall's family, his colleagues on the Connecticut State Police force, and all those who knew and loved him. The sense of loss they must feel is undoubtedly immense, and I know that I speak for all residents of the State of Connecticut when I say that we stand with them during this time of unimaginable grief. Every single day, in communities large and small throughout this country, law enforcement officers take on incredible personal risks to safeguard our lives and property. Trained to act bravely and selflessly even in the most harrowing of situations, these heroic men and women frequently put themselves in danger to protect people they have never even met. And all too often, these individuals are called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice, giving their own lives in defense of their fellow citizens. Indeed, since the department's founding in 1903, 18 Connecticut State troopers have died in the line of duty. Trooper Kenneth Hall was no different in that regard. A 22-year veteran of the Connecticut State Police who also served as a marine sniper in Vietnam, Trooper Hall's life exemplified the kind of personal courage and unflinching dedication to public service that are so engrained in the culture of America's law enforcement community. Trooper Hall loved his job and was absolutely devoted to helping and protecting the people of his State and Nation. And that was ultimately what he died doing. Late in the afternoon on September 2, Trooper Hall stopped a vehicle on I-91 in Enfield, CT, for a routine traffic violation. While he was pulled over on the side of the road filling out paper work, Trooper Hall's police cruiser was struck from behind by a pickup truck. The car was severely damaged, and Trooper Hall was rushed to Baystate Medical Center, just across the border in Springfield, MA. Tragically, in spite of the best efforts of first responders to save his life, Trooper Hall passed away not long after the accident. He was only 57. In death, Trooper Hall left behind a number of significant, enduring legacies. He was beloved by his colleagues on the Connecticut State Police force, who saw him not only as a wonderful officer, but as a first-rate friend. And he was also part of a larger family of local and State law enforcement officers across the country who considered him a brother in arms. Is it any wonder then, that thousands of police officers, some from as far away as Louisiana and California, gathered at his funeral in Hartford on September 11? What a fitting tribute for such an amazing officer, a man who dedicated the better part of his life to serving the public good. But perhaps the most important of the numerous legacies Trooper Hall left behind is his large, closely-knit, and incredibly loving family. For his wife Sheila, seven adult children, Tara, Troy, Norman, Teon, Tyco, Andrea and Michael, and countless other family members, Trooper Hall was more than just a dedicated member of Connecticut's State Police force. He was the consummate family man--an individual who relished every opportunity to spend an afternoon with relatives or dote on his grandchildren. So, it is with great sadness that I join Trooper Hall's loved ones, friends, colleagues, and everyone else whose life was touched in some way by this wonderful man, in mourning his untimely death. While I realize there are few words that can assuage the enormous sense of grief they undoubtedly feel, it is my hope that Trooper Hall's years of commendable service to his State, love for his family, and devotion to his friends will provide them with some measure of comfort during the months and years that lie ahead.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise today to express my profound disappointment that we were unable to proceed to the Defense authorization bill. First and foremost, this is an important bill that provides our men and women in uniform with the resources they so desperately require while they bravely fight overseas. Day in and day out they make sacrifices to keep us safe, and the fact that we were unable to proceed to a bill that provides them not only with the equipment they need, but also provides for their families, is extremely disheartening. Not only does this bill provide necessary requirements for our armed services, but it also contains landmark legislation that would finally lead to the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. Today, my colleagues and I, had a historic opportunity to put a stop to this discriminatory policy, and the fact that the Republicans blocked the bill from being debated is discouraging. The current policy actively discourages a significant portion of our population that is willing, capable, and able from serving in our military at a time when our Nation is at war and needs our best and brightest to serve. We owe it to the gay and lesbian community to repeal this law. I am confident that today's military is ready for this change, and most importantly, it is the right thing to do. Since 1993, when don't ask, don't tell was implemented, over 14,000 men and women have been discharged from the service at a cost of over $600 million to the American taxpayer. These gay and lesbian service members, who are proud to serve in our military, and are often serving in critical specialties, are being denied the opportunity to fight based solely on their sexual orientation. We cannot afford to continue to discharge these brave soldiers in whom we have invested time, resources, and training. We cannot afford this policy monetarily, but most importantly, we cannot afford this policy because it negatively affects our national defense. It has been estimated that approximately 48,000 gay and lesbians are currently serving in today's military. That means that there are 48,000 men and women who on a daily basis are being forced to lie about who they are so they can continue to serve their Nation proudly. These are patriotic Americans who are willing to put their lives on the line in defense of our country but are unable to do so openly, simply because of who they are. Gay and lesbian service members fight, and die, alongside their fellow troops. It is time we stop asking them to live a lie. I have travelled overseas many times and have met with our troops-- all kinds of men and women--first generation Americans and those with a long family history of service, members of every race and religion, and, yes, gays and lesbians. No matter what their religious background, nationality, or sexual orientation they are all unmistakably proud to be serving the United States of America. It makes no sense to me why we would deny that right to serve to any American who is brave enough to answer the call of duty. As we forge ahead in the coming weeks, I urge my colleagues to fully repeal don't ask, don't tell. The time to do so is now; we can afford to wait no longer. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to mark the passing and honor the service of Army National Guard soldier SGT Steven DeLuzio of South Glastonbury, CT. Sergeant DeLuzio died August 22 during a fierce small arms attack while serving with the Vermont National Guard in Paktika, Afghanistan. He had only 19 days left before he was due home to his family and loved ones. Sergeant DeLuzio graduated from Glastonbury High School, where he was a born leader and active in school activities. He served as freshman class secretary and is best known for leading the Glastonbury hockey team to a State championship his senior year as cocaptain. Feeling a call to serve after the events of 9/11 he signed up to serve with the Vermont National Guard in 2004, just like his older brother, Scott. He served one tour of duty in Iraq in 2006 and was deployed to Afghanistan in March of this year. In his too short time, Sergeant DeLuzio proved himself as a selfless and heroic soldier. Many in the small town of South Glastonbury speak of Steven as always putting family and country first. His father, Mark DeLuzio, told the local paper that ``Steven is a hero and the greatest son.'' Due to his heroic actions on the day of his death, Steven was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart. As a tribute to such an extraordinary young man hundreds of mourners attended funeral services for Steven this past weekend at St. Patrick's church in South Glastonbury. His brother, Scott, who is currently serving in Afghanistan as well, said that Steven was ``a best friend. He was more than just a brother. He was all you can ask for in a friend.'' Steven DeLuzio was a man of dauntless courage and bravery. His service and his sacrifice are a credit to his parents, Mark and Diane. I know how proud they, along with the rest of their community, are of him, and I hope they know that we grieve alongside them. They, along with Steven's fiancee, Leeza Gutt, are in our hearts. Our freedom is won and our country endures because of the selfless sacrifice of heroic young men and women such as SGT Steven DeLuzio. All of us in Connecticut and across America mourn this tragic loss, and none of us will ever forget the debt of gratitude we owe to him and his family.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, today I wish to commemorate the life of Venture Smith, who passed away nearly 205 years ago on September 19, 1805. A Connecticut man who lived not far from where my home in East Haddam currently stands, Venture Smith's life is one of the best documented of the millions of Africans who were kidnapped from their homes and brought to the Americas as part of the transatlantic slave trade. A remarkable individual of uncommon strength and valor, Venture Smith's compelling story of perseverance in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds still serves as a potent source of inspiration and hope more than two centuries after it happened. Originally born Broteer Furro in 1728--the first son of a West African king--Venture's childhood was cruelly interrupted at the tender age of ten, when he was captured by slave traders, forced to board a crowded slave ship destined for the New World, and sold to Robinson Mumford of Long Island for four barrels of rum and a piece of calico. After more than a decade in the Mumford household, Venture was sold twice more, finally ending up with Colonel Oliver Smith of Stonington, CT, in 1760. In 1798, by that time an elderly man, Venture dictated his life story to Elisha Niles, a Connecticut schoolteacher, who had it published that same year in New London. One of perhaps only a dozen firsthand accounts of that period in our Nation's history by enslaved Africans, Venture Smith's narrative is a seminal work of early American literature that traces many of the defining moments of his life, beginning with his childhood in Africa. And while many of the experiences related in Venture's autobiography would be heartbreakingly familiar to anyone who has studied this dark chapter in our Nation's history, Venture's life breaks the mold in one crucial respect. In spite of the tremendous challenges that he faced at nearly every turn Venture was able to win back his freedom through hard work, courage, and an unbreakable spirit. By the time he was sold to his third and final owner, Colonel Smith, Venture had already spent the vast majority of his formative years in slavery. Having struck a deal with this new owner that would allow him to work for his freedom, Venture labored with incredible determination--fishing and growing food for sale, cutting and cording wood, and hiring himself out during seasonal hiatuses from his duties as Colonel Smith's slave--to acquire the 85 pounds and ten shillings needed to purchase his freedom. Such a sum was considered quite steep by the standards of 18th century colonial America, and even more so for an individual of Venture's means. But in spite of the tremendous hurdles that stood in his path, Venture successfully earned that money and bought his freedom in just over 5 years. But Venture's story of hard work and dogged persistence in the face of unending challenges did not end there. During the four decades that followed, Venture fought tirelessly to free his wife Meg and three children, who were also enslaved in Connecticut, as well as to build a new life for himself as a free man. Harnessing those same unshakeable qualities of dedication, resourcefulness, and frugality that allowed him to secure his own freedom, Venture not only earned enough money to liberate his entire family from bondage, but also three men he barely even knew. And if that wasn't remarkable enough, Venture Smith accomplished yet another feat that--in light of the serious financial and legal constraints that existed at the time--was exceedingly rare for a freed slave in colonial Connecticut: become a landowner. In 1775, just 1 year before the Thirteen American colonies declared independence from Great Britain, Venture purchased the first of what would become a nearly 130- acre farm on Haddam Neck, right at the mouth of the Salmon River. And it was there, in 1805, that Venture Smith ultimately died at the ripe old age of 77, having amassed a considerable fortune from his involvement in an array of commercial activities, from fishing and farming to the commodities trade. Madam President, there are a significant number of historical lessons that can be gained from the life of this remarkable man--from firsthand insights into the evils perpetrated by the institution of slavery in this country, to a more complete understanding of the unique challenges faced by slaves who were able to gain their own freedom. But perhaps just as important are those lessons that transcend the period in which Venture Smith himself lived. For, after losing almost everything--including that most fundamental of human rights, his freedom--Venture Smith set about tearing down the seemingly impenetrable barriers erected by slavery and racism that kept him from enjoying the same privileges as his White neighbors. And while his journey from slave to wealthy Connecticut landowner was long and arduous, filled with its share of disappointments and setbacks, Venture Smith never lost sight of his goals, ultimately achieving them through nothing more than grit, intelligence, and determination. In this way, Venture Smith is much more than a mere historical figure. Rather, Venture's life is a testament to the sheer strength of the human spirit. It is a symbol of how a single individual can challenge societal norms and impact history. Perhaps most importantly, it is the embodiment of the principle that, even in the most dire and seemingly hopeless of circumstances, human beings are still capable of truly extraordinary achievements. As we approach the 205th anniversary of his death, I would like to thank the Documenting Venture Smith Project for all of the wonderful work they have done over the past 5 years to help improve our understanding of this incredible individual. It is my hope that with continuing academic interest in Venture's life, new generations of Americans will be inspired by this timeless story of triumph in the face of adversity for years to come.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I think my friends and colleagues on the other side have blocked out some time. If they would not mind, I would be very grateful if I could take 5 or 6 minutes to make some comments about the Kagan nomination. I see heads nodding affirmatively, so I appreciate it.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to express my very strong support for the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to serve as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. I would like to thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions for their work during the Judiciary Committee's recent hearings, as well as Majority Leader Reid for moving Solicitor General Kagan's nomination through the Senate confirmation process as he has. There are very few powers exercised by this body that are more important than its constitutionally mandated duty to give advice and consent on the President's judicial nominations. The very essence of our Nation's government rests on the supremacy of the rule of law, and the Constitution is the highest embodiment of that principle. The men and women whom we confirm to this Court are more than just judges. As the chief interpreters of that seminal document, the Constitution, they are guardians of the supremacy of the rule of law, upon which the integrity of our entire system of justice has been built. It is, therefore, no surprise that nominees to our Nation's highest Court are subjected to such an intense level of scrutiny during the Senate's confirmation process. Nevertheless, the Constitution does not lay out a precise roadmap for how to do this. Therefore, each Senator must decide for him or herself what criteria to use when evaluating the merits of an individual Supreme Court nominee. For my part, I have used the same, simple three-part test for Supreme Court nominees since 1981, when I voted to confirm Sandra Day O'Connor as the Court's first female Justice. Indeed, this is the 13th Supreme Court nomination I have considered during my 30-year tenure in the Senate--from Justice O'Connor to Elena Kagan today. First, does the nominee have the technical competence and legal experience to do the job of a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court? Second, does the nominee have the proper character and temperament to serve on the High Court? Third, does the nominee's record demonstrate respect for and adherence to the principles underlying our legal system--that of equal justice under the law? For anyone who has read about her life or watched her performance during the confirmation hearings held by the Judiciary Committee earlier this summer, I believe it is abundantly clear that Elena Kagan passes all three of these tests with flying colors. On the question of Solicitor General Kagan's competency and experience, I think there is little doubt that we are dealing with a superbly qualified nominee. Since her graduation from Harvard Law School in 1986, Elena Kagan has enjoyed an illustrious legal and academic career. After her graduation, Solicitor General Kagan had the honor of clerking for two extremely distinguished and highly influential Federal judges: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit judge Abner Mikva, with whom I served in the House of Representatives, and has been a great friend of mine for many years; and Thurgood Marshall, the Nation's first African-American Supreme Court Justice. Subsequently, after nearly a decade of legal work in the private sector, as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, and as an Associate Counsel in the White House under the administration of President Clinton, Ms. Kagan returned to her prestigious alma mater, serving first as a professor of law and then as dean of the Harvard Law School. In an auspicious return to public service, Elena Kagan became the Federal Government's chief lawyer before the Supreme Court last year when she was confirmed by this body as our Nation's 45th Solicitor General--a position often referred to, I might add, as the Court's ``10th Justice'' because of the extensive legal knowledge and close working relationship with the Federal bench it requires. I realize some of my colleagues have questioned Solicitor General Kagan's nomination because of her lack of judicial experience--that because Solicitor General Kagan has never been a judge in either a State or Federal court she cannot be an effective Supreme Court Justice. I would, however, gently remind my colleagues that there is absolutely no constitutional requirement that a Supreme Court nominee have served previously as a judge. In fact, there is no requirement to be a lawyer to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. Since our country's founding, well over one-third of the 111 individuals who have served on our Nation's highest Court never put on a judge's robe before their confirmation. Indeed, William Rehnquist, who served as Chief Justice from 1986 until his death in 2005, had no prior work experience as a judge when he was first appointed to the Court by President Nixon in 1971. Nor did Justice Robert Jackson, a very close and dear personal friend of my father who served with him at the Nuremberg Trials in 1945 and 1946. Robert Jackson served as U.S. Attorney General under Franklin Roosevelt before being appointed to the Supreme Court in 1941. I would, therefore, submit to my colleagues that there are other important measures of the quality of a Supreme Court nominee besides the depth of his or her experience on the bench. Solicitor General Kagan's impressive list of career accomplishments and extensive base of legal knowledge will, I believe, hopefully put those unfounded doubts over her experience to rest. Moving on to the two remaining parts of my test, Elena Kagan once again proves she would make an excellent addition to our Nation's highest Court. As to her character, her graceful performance before the Judiciary Committee and extensive list of enthusiastic recommendations from Democrats, Republicans, and others across the entire spectrum reveal her to be a person of the utmost integrity, professionalism, and sound judgment. They also reveal, I think, a key aspect of her legal philosophy--a deep and abiding respect for the rule of law and our Nation's cherished principle of equality under the law. As I said previously, Supreme Court Justices are not just judges, they are stalwarts of our Nation's democratic values, guardians of the idea that the rule of law should always transcend the rule of men. Each of the Federal judicial nominees confirmed in this body has the ability to shape every facet of the law and, in a larger sense, American society in general. As a result, it is absolutely critical, in my view, that we have members of the Supreme Court whose first obligation, above all else, is to safeguard those guiding constitutional principles that form the foundation of our democratic system of government and to fight for the principle of equal justice under law. I firmly believe that, when confirmed, Solicitor General Kagan will hew closely to those critically important values and work to ensure they are protected. Once again, I wish to thank Chairman Leahy, our colleague Senator Sessions, the ranking minority member, and the members of the Judiciary Committee, who I think gave her a very fair, competent, and thorough hearing during the nomination process. I also wish to commend Majority Leader Reid for his hard work during this process. I urge my colleagues to join those of us who believe this is a quality nominee who will serve our country well as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues on the other side for giving me a few minutes to express my views on this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I honor the life of a true American hero. Police SGT Orville Smith, a 39-year veteran of the Shelton, CT, Police Department, died July 7, 2010, of injuries he sustained while in the line of duty. I express my deepest condolences to his family, colleagues on the Shelton Police Force, and the entire community of Shelton for this tragic loss. It goes without saying that American law enforcement officers such as Sergeant Smith are a very rare and special breed. Every day, police officers around the country go to work with a singular objective--to selflessly protect the communities and the people that they know and love. It is an incredibly rewarding career, but one fraught with potential dangers and sacrifices. And unfortunately, men and women in law enforcement are all too often forced to make the ultimate sacrifice, giving their own lives in defense of their fellow citizens. That is exactly what Orville Smith, the first Shelton police officer to be killed in the line of duty since 1964, did. Late in the evening on July 3, while directing traffic outside of a local fireworks event commemorating the July 4 holiday, Sergeant Smith was struck by a drunk driver. He passed away 4 days later, leaving behind a loving wife, two children, four grandchildren, and a legion of fellow police officers who, during his nearly four decades of service on the force, came to know Sergeant Smith for his fearlessness and unflinching dedication to his job. Indeed, to say that Sergeant Orville Smith was committed to public service and helping his fellow citizens regardless of the personal sacrifice required is, in my view, a bit of an understatement. From his service as a U.S. marine in the Vietnam war to his work as a volunteer firefighter, Sergeant Smith made protecting and defending his community and countrymen his life's mission. While he planned to retire from the force next year, his heart truly belonged to the Shelton Police Department. It is therefore fitting that Shelton Police Chief Joel Hurliman called him ``one of the bravest guys I ever met'' and went on to say, ``He wasn't scared of anything, except retirement.'' It was that kind of professional dedication and unwavering commitment to public service that made Sergeant Smith not only an exemplary police officer but a wonderful human being. He spent his entire life devoted to helping others and relished every minute of it. Several weeks ago, on the eve of Independence Day, he died that way, too--loyally and courageously fulfilling his duty to ``protect and serve'' until the very end. I express my deepest gratitude to Sergeant--Smith or ``Smitty'', as he was more commonly known by his friends at the Shelton Police Department--for his tremendous record of service to the people of my State and the Nation. I once again extend my most heartfelt condolences to all those who knew and loved him. While the death of a loved one is never easy to accept, it is my hope that the fact that Sergeant Smith died doing what he loved will bring them some measure of comfort during the months and years ahead.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I pay tribute to LT Steven Velasquez, who sadly lost his life on July 24, 2010. We have all felt our chests tighten and our pulses quicken with anxiety at the sound of a fire engine screaming through town. For most of us, this signals two important things: There is an emergency somewhere nearby, and--more importantly--that help is on the way. Of course, for the people riding on those rigs, all the commotion is just another day at the office. They are focused solely on the task at hand. When the unthinkable happens--a devastating hurricane, industrial accident, terrorist attack, or three-alarm fire--these brave men and women are the first on the scene and the last to leave. In between, they give all they have to make sure the emergency is contained and our communities are safe. They do this every day of the week, every week of the year. Being a firefighter certainly isn't a job for the faint of heart. In fact, it is not so much a job as it is a calling. At least it was for Steven Velasquez. His 20-year career took him from a position with the Fire Department of Prince Georges County, MD, to the rank of Lieutenant in the Bridgeport Fire Department in my home State of Connecticut. Along the way, he built a reputation as a tremendously dedicated team member and as someone whose discipline and bravery made him a leader. This reputation, and the urging of many of his colleagues, helped secure him a place on the department's elite Rescue Squad--despite the fact that there were others in line for the prestigious assignment before him. In his 16 years in Bridgeport, Velasquez never took a sick day. He was committed to his family, his community, and to his fellow firefighters. His attitude and work ethic led to his being awarded the Bridgeport Fire Department's third highest honor in 2000, the Medal of Merit. But awards and accolades were not why Lieutenant Velasquez became a firefighter. In fact, he never displayed the many citations he had received throughout his career on his uniform. He also turned down a job with the New York City Fire Department. The reason being?--Bridgeport has more fires. For Lieutenant Velasquez, and firefighters all over our Nation, the call to serve means facing danger every day. The commotion of an emergency becomes secondary to the need to help people, and the dangers they personally face must take a backseat to the task at hand. That was the case on the afternoon of July 24, 2010, when Lieutenant Velasquez and his colleague, Michel Baik, were conducting a search-and- rescue mission on the third floor of a burning house in Bridgeport. They were deep into the blaze, looking for anyone who may need help, and trying to ventilate the structure. None of the inhabitants of the home were injured. But tragically, both of these courageous men lost their lives, despite the quick action of their colleagues to pull them out of danger and get them to the hospital. Tragedies are inherent in this profession, and the risks are shared by every single person who has ever gotten the call, rushed to their gear, and has run headlong into danger in order to save the life of someone else. These shared risks help to bind those called to take them together in a solemn way. Firefighters will do anything for one another, both on the job, and when the worst happens. The more than 7,000 of their fellow firefighters--from as far away as western Canada--who attended the memorial services for Steven Velasquez and Michel Baik were an impressive testament to that bond. I believe that the eulogy offered in tribute to Lieutenant Velasquez by International Association of Fire Fighters President Harold Schaitberger at his memorial service speaks well of this solemn commitment. Through these difficult times, the community which Steven served, and those he served with, can provide support and comfort to his loved ones. Of course, no tribute will ever be enough to ease the suffering of their families. I offer my deepest condolences to Lieutenant Velasquez's wife Marianne, his son Aaron, his daughter Salina, and to his entire family. Their sacrifice is unimaginable, and they will always be in our thoughts and prayers. I know that we can never make this right for them. But we must celebrate the life and service of Lieutenant Velasquez and make sure that his memory--as a role model and true hero--live on and help to inspire others to take up the call to serve. I ask to have printed in the Record President Schaitberger's words to which I referred. The material follows: International Association of Fire Fighters President Harold Schaitberger Eulogy for Lt. Steven Velasquez, Bridgeport Local 834, Friday, July 30, 2010 Lieutenant and IAFF Local 834 member Steven Velasquez--just 40 years on this Earth--was taken too soon. To Steven's mother, Carol, thank you for giving me the honor of being here today to celebrate your son's life. To his bride Marianne, his son Aaron and his daughter Salina, to his sister Cindy and his brother Jason, to his family and friends, to his brothers and sisters in the Bridgeport Fire Department, and to his extended fire fighter family, I have traveled here today to make sure you know that the thoughts and prayers of our General Secretary-Treasurer, our entire International Executive Board, and the more than 298,000 members of the International Association of Fire Fighters, the Bravest in North America, are with you today. I know that my words won't make you forget your pain or forget your loss. But I hope I can help you understand that to those of us who have come from cities and towns across two great countries--``Stevie V.'' was family to us. Even though many of us didn't have the privilege of knowing Stevie personally, we know who he was. We know him because there is so much about those who enter this profession of ours that are so similar. A quiet courage, humble, understated--never wanting to bring attention to themselves or their work. Their willingness to serve a community and a public and their readiness to sacrifice--that's how we know who ``Stevie V.'' was. Everyone who goes on what we call ``The Job'' becomes part of this extended family. We all know what this career can demand and we all know how cruel the consequences can be. Everyone who has taken the oath to serve in our profession comes into it knowing the risk, and being here today reaffirms just how dangerous this job is. We know when we get into this calling that it could take any one of us at any time. It can take us after 30 years on the job or after 30 days. That's why we are one big family--no matter where we really call home--because everyone here knows just how rewarding-- and yet how brutal, this job is. And even while we know the consequences nothing prepares us to cope with the grief that we feel when we lose a brother or a sister in the line of duty--let alone two. Many of us are together for the first time today. We will come together again this afternoon to honor Mitch Baik. We will come together and we will be there for each other because no one in our fire service family should ever have to go through this alone. And no family member of a fallen fire fighter should ever have to go through this alone. But Mitch's loss and Stevie's loss will not prevent us from celebrating their lives today. It will not prevent us from celebrating their service to their community today. It will not prevent me from saying that my heart is broken that they are gone but we were blessed to have them in our lives. Stevie Velasquez was both a young man and a grizzled veteran. At just 40 years of age he already had two decades in the fire station. He already was wise beyond his years. For 20 years in two departments Stevie demonstrated his work ethic and set an example for others to follow. That's why he received the Medal of Merit--the department's third-highest award--in? 2000. That's why he made lieutenant five months ago. Bursting at the seams with enthusiasm ready to hop on a rig and respond to any call afraid of nothing, eager to experience everything, and ready to give everything he had to do The Job. He had an efficient, studious approach. He understood the importance of training and the importance of being prepared. Committed, duty bound, ready to serve in the hardest, most rewarding job imaginable--that's who Stevie was. Ready to rush to the aid of strangers, no questions asked-- that's who he was. Ready to protect his community, ready to comfort those in need, ready to lead people to safety who couldn't find their way out--that's who he was. A devoted family man standing vigil over his newborn daughter's bedside while she gained the strength she needed to persevere--that's who he was. He protected his community and his family--that's who ``Stevie V'' he was. Like many of us he probably considered himself lucky to be a fire fighter, lucky to be able to answer the call, lucky to do something he loved. But we were the lucky ones. The Bridgeport Fire Department, Local 834, the IAFF--we were the lucky ones. His brothers and sisters in Prince George's County Maryland where Stevie started his career in the fire service--they were the lucky ones. His wife, his children, his parents, his brother and sister--you were the lucky ones. That's what I would tell him if he were standing here today. We had quite a gift in Lieutenant Steven Velasquez. And that's why we feel cheated that we have to give him back to the Lord so soon. But we will not forget him. How could we? A young gun . . . a rising star. A shining example of courage, of professionalism. Stevie's name will be etched in our Wall of Honor in Colorado Springs. His name will remain there forever, engraved in that beautiful granite wall--to be honored every year as part of our Fallen Fire Fighter Memorial service. To Stevie's family, we want you to know that you aren't alone. You should know that long after the last word of the last eulogy, the IAFF and Local 834 will be here for you. Today, tomorrow, and for years to come. To Lieutenant Steven Velasquez, who gave his life so others could live, from your 298,000 brothers and sisters in the IAFF--thank you for the gift of your life. May you rest in peace. God bless you and may God bless the fire fighters on the front lines everywhere.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of Theodore H. Focht, a former lawyer, educator, and public servant who passed away on April 22, 2010, at the age of 75. I extend my deepest condolences to his wife of 53 years, Joyce, his sons, David and Eric, and his grandson Jason. Over the course of more than four decades, starting with his graduation in 1959 from law school at the College of William and Mary, Theodore--or Ted, as he was more commonly known to his family and friends--enjoyed an illustrious legal career that took him from academia to the halls of Congress to senior leadership positions at the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, or SIPC. Throughout his career, Ted earned a well-deserved reputation as an extremely knowledgeable and experienced voice on matters related to securities law and as a dedicated and hardworking public servant. Following a stint as a legal assistant at the Securities and Exchange Commission in the early 1960s, Ted became a faculty member at the University of Connecticut School of Law in my home State, where he taught classes on securities regulation, administrative law, and property law. In 1969, Ted took a leave of absence from his work at UCONN and moved to Washington, DC, to take on a temporary assignment as special counsel to the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. When Ted took that position on Capitol Hill, the House Commerce Committee was in the middle of working to pass legislation that would provide critical new protections to U.S. investors from bankrupt and financially troubled brokerage firms. As the committee's special counsel on securities policy, Ted jumped right into the issue, playing an absolutely instrumental role in crafting the Securities Investor Protection Act. This legislation, which was signed into law by President Nixon, created the SIPC--a nonprofit entity that insures the assets of investors against brokerage firm failures--and with it, an important new layer of security and sense of confidence for Americans who wanted to invest in the stock market. But Ted's work on investor protection issues did not end with the enactment of that landmark bill. Following its creation, Ted became the SIPC's president and general counsel, where he successfully shepherded the corporation through its first two decades of existence. Between 1971, when he took the helm at the SIPC, until 1994, when he retired from the corporation, Ted became inextricably linked to the organization's work and mission. Indeed, I believe that Ted's work with SIPC, both in helping to build the organization as a young congressional staffer and run it after establishment, are among the most striking aspects of his impressive professional legacy. And so I would like to take this opportunity today to thank Ted for his years of dedication to the law--whether as a professor helping to shape the minds of young law students at UCONN, or as a senior executive at the SIPC working to build a safer environment for Americans to invest. And I once again extend my most heartfelt condolences to all of the people who knew and loved him.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of former Connecticut Congressman Emilio Daddario who passed away on July 6, 2010. One of the unique strengths of the United States of America is that our government derives its power from the people. It is dependent upon an educated populace, engaged in public affairs, and prepared to offer their services to make our society better and fairer for all of our benefit. That system has worked well for more than 200 years thanks to citizens such as Emilio Daddario. He was born in Newton Center, MA, on September 24, 1918. As a young man, he moved south to Middletown, CT, to attend Wesleyan University where he starred on the baseball and football teams. He was an exemplary athlete who twice received MVP honors in football, and was named team captain in 1938. Upon his graduation in 1939, Emilio chose to pursue a career in law. After beginning law school at Boston University, he graduated from the University of Connecticut in 1942. He successfully passed the bar and moved back to Middletown to begin private practice. But then the call to serve his country came. In 1943, he enlisted as a private in the U.S. Army. He was sent to the Mediterranean theater during World War II. There he was a key member of the team which captured Rodolfo Graziani, then-chief of staff to Italian Dictator Benito Mussolini, at the Hotel Milan in 1945. His distinguished service earned him the rank of captain, as well as the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star Medal, and the Italian Medaglia d'Argento. After the war, he could have easily gone back to private legal practice and no doubt would have been very successful at it. Instead, he chose to continue his military service as a member of the Connecticut National Guard and to pursue a life in the public arena by running for mayor of Middletown. At just 28 years old, fresh from his service overseas, Emilio Daddario won that election. He served as mayor from 1946 until 1948 and was appointed judge of the Middletown Municipal Court. In 1950, the Nation called on him again. This time, the 43 Division of the Connecticut National Guard, of which he was a member, was sent to engage in the Korean war. His military service in that conflict as a member of the Far East Liaison Group earned him promotion to the rank of major. Upon returning to the United States in 1952 he chose to resume private law practice, this time in Hartford, CT. But the call to serve proved to be too strong, and in 1958, Daddario ran for the opportunity to serve the people of Connecticut's 1st Congressional District. He won that election, as well as five more, serving as a member of the U.S. Congress until 1971. While in Congress, he sat on the House Science Committee where he became an advocate for science and technological innovation. He chaired two subcommittees and also in the planning and development of the Apollo missions to the moon. In 1970, Emilio decided not to run for reelection to the House, and instead ran for Governor of Connecticut. He did not win that race. But he sought ways to remain involved in public policy, in particular issues related to science and technology. He returned to Congress in 1973, not as a member, but as the Director of the Office of Technology Assessment. He also went on to serve as the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and as cochair of the American Bar Association's Association for the Advancement of Sciences, Conference of Lawyers and Scientists. Emilio Daddario was just the sort of American citizen that our Nation's Founders were hoping for, and his legacy is one of exemplary public service, and commitment to making our Nation a better place for future generations. He was a devoted husband and father, and I know that he will be deeply missed. My deepest sympathies and prayers go out to his children, Richard, Anthony, and Stephen, and to the rest of his family.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that today I pay tribute to fire fighter Michel Baik, who sadly lost his life on July 24, 2010. A lifelong resident of Bridgeport, Michel graduated from Central High School, where he played football. Throughout his life, he remained engaged in sports playing softball and basketball and was also an active member of the St. Nicholas Antiochian Orthodox Church congregation. He was well known as a loving husband and father who was very engaged in the lives of his children, Andrew, Thomas, and Margaret. He coached Junior Varsity basketball, volunteered with the Boy Scouts, and was a constant presence at their various school plays, sports events, and dance recitals. For many years, Michel worked for companies like Norelco and Alcon Data, as well as at the Connecticut Post newspaper as distribution manager. He also helped teach computer skills to the unemployed as an instructor at a nonprofit workforce development organization called Career Resources. Then, in 2007, he decided to take on a new challenge. He trained hard, studied hard, and ultimately became--at the age of 47--the oldest ``probey,'' or rookie, member of the Bridgeport Fire Department. It was a job he loved, and he was proud to have been able to serve his community as a member of the department and the Ladder 11 team. When a person becomes a firefighter, they are not simply taking a job; they are following a calling. We have all felt our chests tighten and our pulses quicken with anxiety at the sound of a fire engine screaming through town. For most of us, this signals two important things: There is an emergency somewhere nearby, and--more importantly--that help is on the way. Of course, for the people riding on those rigs, all the commotion is just another day at the office. They are focused solely on the task at hand. When the unthinkable happens--a devastating hurricane, industrial accident, terrorist attack, or three-alarm fire--these brave men and women are the first on the scene and the last to leave. In between, they give all they have to make sure the emergency is contained and our communities are safe. For Michel Baik and firefighters all over our Nation, the call to serve means facing danger every day. The commotion of an emergency becomes secondary to the need to help people, and the dangers they personally face must take a backseat to the task at hand. That was the case on the afternoon of July 24, 2010, when Michel and his colleague, fire lieutenant Steven Velasquez, were conducting a search-and-rescue mission on the third floor of a burning house in Bridgeport. They were deepest into the blaze, looking for people in need of assistance and trying to ventilate the structure. None of the inhabitants of the home were injured. But tragically, both of these courageous men lost their lives, despite the quick action of their colleagues to pull them out of danger and get them to the hospital. Tragedies are inherent in this profession, and the risks are shared by every single person who has ever gotten the call, rushed to their gear, and has run headlong into danger in order to save the life of someone else. These shared risks help to bind those called to take them together in a solemn way. Firefighters will do anything for one another, both on the job and when the worst happens. The more than 7,000 of their fellow firefighters--from as far away as western Canada--who attended the memorial services for Fire Fighter Baik and Lieutenant Velasquez were an impressive testament to that bond. I believe that the eulogy offered in tribute to Michel Baik by International Association of Fire Fighters president Harold Schaitberger at his memorial service speaks well of this solemn commitment. Through these difficult times, the community which Michel served, and those he served with, can provide support and comfort to his loved ones, and I will ask that President Schaitberger's words be printed in the Record. Of course, no tribute will ever be enough to ease the suffering of their families. I offer my deepest condolences to Mich's wife Laurie, his children, and his entire family. Their sacrifice is unimaginable, and they will always be in our thoughts and prayers. I know that we can never make this right for them. But we must celebrate the life and service of Firefighter Michel Baik and make sure that his memory--as a role model and true hero--lives on and helps to inspire others to take up the call to serve. I ask that President Schaitberge's words to which I referred be printed in the Record. The information follows: International Association of Fire Fighters President Harold Schaitberger Eulogy for Fire Fighter Michel Baik, Bridgeport Local 834, July 30, 2010 To Fire Fighter Michel Baik's mother Mary, to his wife Laurie, to his children Andrew, Thomas and Margaret, and to his sister Rania--thank you for allowing me the honor of taking part in this beautiful service to commemorate Mitch's life, his service, and his sacrifice. To Mitch's family, to his friends, to his brothers and sisters in the Bridgeport Fire Department and Local 834, and to his extended fire fighter family, I stand before you like the man we honor today, a servant unto God, to offer the thoughts and prayers on behalf of our General Secretary Treasurer, our Executive Board, and the 298,000 fire fighters we represent across two great nations. These are the times that words are a poor substitute as we try to make sense of such a profound loss and provide comfort to each other in this time of great sadness. I know words can do little to heal the heart-wrenching pain that we all feel. But I also know that I--and that all of Mitch's brothers and sisters in the fire service who traveled from across two nations to be here--want you, Mitch's family, to see and feel the love and the sorrow that each and every brother and sister in the fire service family feels today. These emotions are as strong and as heart-felt as anything I can say. They are as genuine as anything I've written on these pieces of paper in my hand. I want you to know that all of us have come here today to put our collective arms around you. Many of us are gathering for a second time today. We also paid tribute to Lieutenant Steven Velasquez. Sadly, we are back together again and it's no easier the second time to say goodbye to one of our own. Many outside of our ranks will refer to Mitch and Steven as heroes. But they didn't set out to be heroes and they didn't think of themselves that way. No, if they were here they would simply tell you they were just doing their jobs. I did not have the honor of knowing Mitch personally, but I do know who he was. I do know that like many who came before him Mitch was drawn to ``The Job'' like countless young men and women who follow their childhood dreams--who experience the calling to service to become fire fighters. But for much of his life Mitch pursued other dreams, and at age 47--two years ago--he answered the calling. He entered this close knit profession like so many of his brothers and sisters in dress blues who surround us now, with a humble confidence, eager to put in the hours with no expectation or desire for public recognition. He summoned the quiet courage that resides in all who come to this work, and he decided he could do it. He was determined--not only that he wanted to do it--but that he needed to do it. And at age 47 he realized a life-long dream, and he joined us on ``The Job.'' Mitch was so excited and so proud when he became a fire fighter. He held up his badge to show his kids what Dad had done. He was Local 834's oldest probey. Though he was a rookie, Mitch approached the job like the man he was--accustomed to hard work and long hours and eager to sacrifice for his family and his community. The journey he took to get on the job is remarkable. Sadly, it takes a tragedy like this to remind us just how fragile life can be and how our own journeys can end all too quickly. Sadly, too often it takes a tragedy for a community and its citizens to recognize the courage, dedication, commitment, sacrifice, and service that people like Mitch make day in and day out. And sadly, it takes a tragedy for the rest of the world to see the sacrifice that their families make. So today as we pay our respects to Mitch we also pay our respects to his family--for giving more than you should ever be asked to give. And we pay our respects to you for the sacrifice you have made. Remembering and honoring our fallen is the most solemn, most revered tradition in the fire service. Every year across the United States and Canada a hundred or more fire fighters make the ultimate sacrifice. And when one of our brothers or sisters falls, the fire service family comes together. We come together no matter how near or how far to make it clear to you--Mitch's family--that our hearts ache. We want you to know that his brothers and sisters in the fire service loved him--but we understand that you loved him more. We want you to know that we will miss him tremendously--but we know you will miss him more. We have gathered to embrace you and let you know that your extended family is here, standing with you--and we're not going away. For almost a century we've come together in times of loss to show the love and respect we have for our family and to stand strong for our IAFF brothers and sisters, including here in Bridgeport. We use the tradition-bound symbols of our profession--the men and women in their crisp dress blues, the bagpipers and drummers who play their mournful songs, the Honor Guard standing at attention--to salute those we have lost. And then the ring of the Bell sends them home. This is how we cope. This is how we mourn. This is also how we salute YOU. From all of us in this great union--this brother and sisterhood called the IAFF--we want you to know that your loved one may be gone--but he will never be forgotten. Mitch's name will remain, forever etched in the granite walls of our Fallen Fire Fighters Memorial in Colorado Springs. We do that to show that he left an indelible mark on our lives, that he will forever be a part of our fire fighter family--and so will all of you. Thank you Brother Baik for the gift of your life. May you rest in peace. God bless you and may God bless the fire fighters on the front lines everywhere.