Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all amendments to S. 2284 must be offered during Thursday's session, May 8; that the only amendments in order on Monday be the pending substitute amendment; further that a managers' amendment still be in order if cleared by the managers and leaders, the McConnell amendment No. 4720, with the Allard amendment No. 4721 withdrawn prior to a vote in relation to the McConnell amendment; a Reid and others amendment relating to the subject of energy; that the McConnell and Reid amendments be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; that if either amendment achieves that threshold, then the amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that if neither achieves the 60-affirmative- vote threshold, then it be withdrawn; that the vote with respect to the McConnell amendment No. 4720 occur at 5:30 p.m. Monday, May 12, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Reid, et al., amendment; that upon disposition of all amendments, the substitute amendment, as amended, if amended, be agreed to; the bill read a third time, and the Senate then vote on passage of S. 2284, as amended; further that the previous order which referenced H.R. 3121 be changed to reflect passage of a flood insurance bill, either S. 2284 or H.R. 3121, and the cloture motion on amendment No. 4720 be withdrawn.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank all involved. I thank the majority staff, the minority staff, and the respective Members who helped us put this agreement together. Basically, what it says is we have to offer, debate, and vote on all amendments by the end of business tomorrow, and then leaving off until next week the issue involving the energy issues which the majority leader talked about earlier this evening. That will allow us to hopefully complete consideration of the flood insurance bill. I know I speak for Senator Shelby and other members of the committee, as I mentioned earlier, we passed this bill unanimously out of the Banking Committee some months ago. The fact that we will be able to come to closure on the bill by the end of business tomorrow is good news for literally millions of people who are counting on having a good flood insurance program. I would like to make some unanimous consent requests.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the disposition of H.R. 3121, the House-passed Flood Insurance Act, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 275, H.R. 980, an act to provide collective bargaining rights for public safety officers employed by States and political subdivisions.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote occur on Monday, May 12, upon disposition of H.R. 3121; and that on Monday, May 12, all time after the Senate convenes until 5:30 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the mandatory quorum waived, and I withdraw the motion.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I understand that S. 2991, introduced earlier today by Senator Reid of Nevada, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a message from the House on the bill, S. 2929, to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives:

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the House amendment, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor of that resolution as well.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 308, which was received from the House.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I understand now there will be a period of 30 hours of debate on the motion to proceed. My understanding is--and my friend and colleague from Alabama will correct me if I misspeak at all--over this evening people are going to be discussing the various amendments that can be offered. We have actually had meetings with a number of our colleagues who have amendments they want to offer on this bill. Our sincere hope is all of these amendments will be considered. I have been informed, Senator Shelby has by the authors of these amendments, their intention is to take whatever limited amount of time they need to make their case. So my hope tomorrow is we will be able to vitiate the 30 hours, get right to the bill in the morning, and then move forward on these various ideas that are going to be offered by our colleagues, with the goal in mind of completing the work on this legislation hopefully by tomorrow. There are a number of amendments out there, but I think as the authors of these amendments have indicated, they will not necessarily take a lot of time for debate. Let me also take advantage, if I can, in offering to our colleagues on this side of the aisle--we have heard from several members. Senator Landrieu has some strong interest in this legislation but others may as well. I have asked them to come forward if they would, either this afternoon or early this evening, and let our staffs know what these amendments are so we can go over them with them and try to set up some orderly process by which we can consider the amendments over the course of business tomorrow as well. I make this request of our colleagues who have amendments to the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act: Would you please let us know as soon as possible what those amendments are so we can consider them, or at least set up a timeframe for you to offer them on the floor. With that in mind, let me offer some initial thoughts, if I can. First, let me thank the majority leader. We are here today because the majority leader has created some time for us to do this. This is an interest in which all of us should have a deep concern and deep interest; I note with obvious importance my colleague from Alabama and others in the Gulf State areas. Flood insurance is a critical issue for the coastal region of the country as well as other areas. This is a vitally important piece of legislation we are considering, S. 2284. It is the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007. As I have indicated, it is a strong bipartisan bill that enhances the long-term viability of the National Flood Insurance Program, helping to provide critical insurance coverage for millions of homes and business owners throughout the country. The substitute amendment, which I will offer later, will be offered by myself and Senator Shelby, and contains two parts, both of which passed the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with the support of every member of the committee, Republican and Democrat. The substitute amendment contains the flood insurance reform package exactly as was passed by the committee as well as a bill to establish a Commission on Natural Catastrophe Risk Management and Insurance. This is a very important issue, I might point out to Members. The unanimous votes on these bills clearly show the importance of flood insurance and the strength of the bill we are considering. Senator Shelby and I have joined to urge our colleagues to support our efforts to strengthen flood insurance for three key reasons. The first reason is this bill provides much needed relief to hard-working Americans who have paid flood insurance premiums for years and through no fault of their own will face new stiff premium increases to reduce the massive debt owed by FEMA as a result of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. This bill is fiscally responsible, No. 2, and greatly reduces the exposure of the Federal taxpayer under the flood program. No. 3, this bill creates environmentally sound flood policy which is needed to preserve our Nation's most precious natural resources. I want to touch on each of these three points because I think too often we get so into the details we miss the larger picture that is involved with a piece of legislation such as this. This bill is complicated and it makes a number of significant reforms, but taken all together, it contains key policies that truly help millions of our fellow citizens. As I said, this bill is needed to provide relief for those who suffered flood losses as a result of the 2005 hurricanes. These home and business owners did exactly what they were supposed to do. They purchased flood insurance and paid premiums--some had done so for decades--to cover their losses in the event of a flood. If we lay the entire $17 billion debt now owed by FEMA at their feet, we will force many of them out of the program. To pay the interest on the debt alone, rates would have to nearly double, and they would have to increase many times over to make a dent in that debt. Skyrocketing premiums will create massive disincentives to purchasing flood insurance at exactly the time we need to encourage participation. At this time of increased hurricane activity, our efforts should be focused on getting as many people to purchase flood insurance as possible, so they will be able to rebuild after a storm and not have those larger costs be spread out to people across the country. Discouraging the purchase of flood insurance would also increase the future liability of the American taxpayer. Those who flood will be underinsured or have no insurance at all, and they will turn to the Federal Government for disaster assistance. Prior to the inception of the National Flood Insurance Program, that is exactly what happened year after year after year. After severe flooding in the 1950s, Congress established the National Flood Insurance Program because there was no private flood insurance and the lack of coverage resulted in significant Federal disaster aid payments. The flood program was designed to provide insurance while requiring safer development so people were better protected from nature's wrath. And while we are now looking at a significant debt, I want to underscore the fact that the flood program has historically been self- sustaining, paying claims, for the most part, through premiums. Hurricane Katrina, and the storms that followed, devastated the entire gulf region and produced flooding unlike any other storm in our lifetime. Millions of people were driven from their homes and over 1,800 people were killed. There was no mechanism in the Federal flood program to pay for the losses of the magnitude experienced in the 2005 storms, so it borrowed funds from the U.S. Treasury to meet those obligations and ensure that families in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Florida, and Alabama could rebuild. We are now faced with a choice, to forgive the debt so that flood insurance continues to be available to home and business owners throughout the country or substantially raise premiums on all policyholders, an action which would hurt the very people who are trying desperately to rebuild their lives after these hurricanes. The bill before us makes what I believe is the right choice. The second reason this bill is necessary is that it establishes fiscally responsible policies to ensure that flood insurance will continue to be available, while reducing the likelihood that taxpayers would be on the hook for those flood losses. This bill strengthens flood insurance so the next time a hurricane hits, whether it be in Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Alabama, Connecticut, or any other State that borders on our coasts, flood claims can be paid without relying on taxpayer funds across the country. It does this by requiring flood insurance in additional at-risk areas, moving the program toward actuarial soundness and requires the program to build up reserves to pay for losses. These changes will help guarantee additional premium income while maintaining affordability for most homeowners. As I also indicated, this bill contains environmentally sound flood policies. These reforms, especially to the flood mapping program, will allow communities, homes, and business owners throughout the country to accurately assess their flood risk and will encourage responsible and environmentally friendly development decisions. Communities cannot make decisions to protect fragile areas along our coasts and riverbeds if maps are not accurate and risks are unknown. The mapping provisions contained in this bill ensure that flood maps will be accurate, up to date, and readily available. No longer should communities and homes and business owners have to rely on outdated and inaccurate information. Senator Reed of Rhode Island is to be commended for his work on the mapping provisions of this bill that are critical to the flood insurance program. This is a strong and needed bill which will extend the flood insurance program for 5 additional years, put it in a financial position to be able to continue to make flood insurance available to the millions of families at risk throughout our Nation, while at the same time reducing the risk of taxpayer assistance. I want to take a moment to let my colleagues know of the range of support for this bill. This is a very diverse and somewhat unique coalition of organizations that has come out in support of this piece of legislation. These organizations, I believe, are worth mentioning because of their diversity. We have the support of the following: The Consumer Federation of America, the American Insurance Association, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Defenders of Wildlife, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Financial Services Roundtable, Freedom Works, Friends of the Earth, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, the National Wildlife Federation, the Property Casualty Insurers of America, the Reinsurance Association of America, and Taxpayers for Common Sense. That is not normally a coalition you put together around a piece of legislation, covering the financial services industry as well as environmental groups and consumer groups as well. I commend all of them for working with us, going through the long process of developing this bill in the way we figure comprehensively deals with this issue. I realize these groups are not normally united in the support of a single piece of legislation, but they have all come out in favor of a reasonable, balanced approach that we have taken to the flood insurance program. As I said earlier, the substitute amendment we will be offering also establishes a Commission on Natural Catastrophe Risk Management and Insurance. There has been a good deal of discussion about adding wind and other risks to the flood insurance program. These are arguments hard to answer because there is a very strong and legitimate claim to be made. However, it was the judgment of the Banking Committee that while these ideas have merit--and I strongly indicate and support that--they deserve further study so we can understand the implications of what a major shift would be in this program and how the natural catastrophes are insured. To that end, the committee unanimously passed legislation to establish a blue ribbon commission that would in very short order examine the availability and affordability of natural catastrophe insurance and make recommendations posthaste to the Congress and to the administration on whether, how, and to what extent additional Federal action in this area would be appropriate. Until we have that information, I honestly could not stand before my colleagues and give them any idea of the magnitude of the cost of this program. We would literally be in the dark entirely if we tried to expand it. That is not to suggest there is not legitimacy to the request. But we ought to deal with it in as thoughtful a manner as we can so we are not here again next year or the year after, once again forgiving debt, trying to come up with another program to deal with the result of a massive infusion of taxpayers' dollars to deal with disasters with which people are coping. To that end the committee unanimously passed the legislation to establish this commission. What is clear is that millions of Americans, some of whom were devastated by hurricanes, have seen increased premiums and constrained availability of insurance. We are all committed to doing everything we can to ensure that people at risk are able to insure their homes and businesses. We believe this commission will provide the information we need to undertake that effort in a sensible and effective way. I thank Senator Shelby and his staff who worked so closely with us on this bill. Senator Shelby has been a very strong advocate of flood insurance. Under his leadership and chairmanship of the committee, the Banking Committee passed a similar bill in the last Congress. I also thank Senators Reed of Rhode Island, Bunning, and Carper for their work on the legislation, particularly on the flood insurance portion. The status quo on flood insurance is not an option. Families in every State rely on flood insurance to rebuild when they are flooded out. The national flood insurance program must be reformed and strengthened. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that our constituents can continue to rely on a strong and stable national flood insurance program. I urge colleagues who have amendments and ideas to offer to this legislation to please let us know of these ideas immediately so we can consider them and put them in a proper order for consideration when we resume consideration of the legislation tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that today I honor Mr. Michael P. Price on his 40th anniversary as executive director of Goodspeed Musicals in East Haddam, CT. Since assuming the role of executive director in 1968, Mr. Price has produced more than 200 musicals, including 63 world premiere productions. Sixteen of the musicals Mr. Price premiered at Goodspeed Musicals ultimately made their way to Broadway, including now world- famous productions such as ``Shenandoah'' and ``Annie.'' During his 40 years of service at Goodspeed Musicals, Mr. Price has shared his talent and vision with more than 5,000 actors, directors, musicians, and technicians and has touched the lives of 4 million theatergoers, captivating and inspiring audiences of all ages. Goodspeed Musicals' commitment to the advancement of musical theater is world renowned, and the theatre is considered by many to be the ``Home of the American Musical.'' Goodspeed is also the only theatre in America to have received two Tony Awards for Excellence in Theatre, once in 1980 and again in 1995. These tremendous distinctions are thanks, in no small part, to the leadership, talent, and dedication of its Executive Director. Mr. Price's dedication to the arts and the community extends well beyond the walls of Goodspeed Opera House. Mr. Price currently serves as chairman of the Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism and was the longest serving Connecticut arts commissioner. Mr. Price is also an active member in the national theatrical community, serving as treasurer of the American Theatre Wing and a member of the Tony Management Committee. Today, I have the distinct pleasure and honor of joining Mr. Price's wife, Jo-Ann Nevas, his children, Daniel and Rebecca, and the many members of the Goodspeed community in extending my most sincere congratulations to Mr. Price for all of his achievements. I know I speak for many across Connecticut and around the world who have been touched by Mr. Price's work when I say that I look forward to many more years of his continued presence and vision at Goodspeed Musicals.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Improvised Explosive Device, IED, Preparedness and Prevention Act of 2008. This bill will ensure that the brave men and women who are called on to respond to bomb threats around the country have the necessary tools, training, and personnel to keep our communities safe. Furthermore, this bill gives our State and local responders unprecedented access to the federal policy making committees directing the national agencies that keep our homeland secure. Regrettably, over the years, our people have suffered attacks from home-made bombs, not only on distant battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, but here in America. From the 1983 truck bombing of the Beirut Barracks to the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City to the recent Times Square Military Recruiting Office bombing in New York City, we have seen the devastating effects such attacks wield. These bombs, which have become known in the lexicon of the Pentagon as ``Improvised Explosive Devices'' or IEDs, are the number one cause of death and injury to our troops overseas. Whether it is in lives lost, economic damage, or the simple loss of feeling safe in our communities, IEDs pose a threat to American security. We must therefore ensure that our state and local bomb squads, SWAT Teams, K-9 units, and public safety dive teams are sufficiently prepared to meet this challenge, as they most certainly will be the first on the scene to respond to the next IED scare. These courageous public servants put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe. The least we can do is to make certain that they have the resources they need and a seat at the table in critical IED policy making discussions. That is why I have introduced this legislation and have worked hard to address these very real needs. Beginning in April 2006, I worked with Senator Robert Byrd to attach a provision to a Homeland Security Appropriations bill requiring DHS to produce a national strategy for IED preparedness. After numerous delays, and a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff from Senator Byrd and me, the National Security Council finally approved the document in late 2007. Unfortunately, the strategy did not include adequate detail on how state and local input would contribute to the federal government's IED prevention and preparedness. It also failed to create an IED-specific grant program to ensure that State and local governments can carry out their responsibilities under the strategy. My bill will address the threat of IEDs by: First, statutorily establishing the Office for Bombing Prevention OBP within FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate. Second, tbe bill establishes a Senior Advisory Committee, SAC, for IED Prevention and Response as a subcommittee under the Homeland Security Advisory Council. Third, the bill requires State, Local, and Practicing Professional input in Advisory Committee Selection, giving voice to our First Responders who understand first-hand the needs of our communities. Fourth, the legislation establishes a risk-based IED Prevention and Response Grant Program within the Homeland Security Department's Grant Program Directorate to specifically provide funds for equipment, training, and personnel in areas where DHS has identified shortfalls. Last, my bill requires the Coast Guard to assess the preparedness of our Nation's Public Safety Dive Teams, PSDT, in the completion of Area Maritime Transportation Security and Facility Plans. Mr. President, we can no longer afford to sit on our hands while many of our IED First Responders have to scrape by with antiquated equipment and training. We have an opportunity to be proactive, to prepare for the unthinkable events that befell the people of London and Madrid, just a few short years ago. Our Nation needs demonstrated capability in this vital area, and we in Congress need to lead. I urge my colleagues to join me in this endeavor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Improvised Explosive Device, IED, Preparedness and Prevention Act of 2008. This bill will ensure that the brave men and women who are called on to respond to bomb threats around the country have the necessary tools, training, and personnel to keep our communities safe. Furthermore, this bill gives our State and local responders unprecedented access to the federal policy making committees directing the national agencies that keep our homeland secure. Regrettably, over the years, our people have suffered attacks from home-made bombs, not only on distant battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, but here in America. From the 1983 truck bombing of the Beirut Barracks to the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City to the recent Times Square Military Recruiting Office bombing in New York City, we have seen the devastating effects such attacks wield. These bombs, which have become known in the lexicon of the Pentagon as ``Improvised Explosive Devices'' or IEDs, are the number one cause of death and injury to our troops overseas. Whether it is in lives lost, economic damage, or the simple loss of feeling safe in our communities, IEDs pose a threat to American security. We must therefore ensure that our state and local bomb squads, SWAT Teams, K-9 units, and public safety dive teams are sufficiently prepared to meet this challenge, as they most certainly will be the first on the scene to respond to the next IED scare. These courageous public servants put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe. The least we can do is to make certain that they have the resources they need and a seat at the table in critical IED policy making discussions. That is why I have introduced this legislation and have worked hard to address these very real needs. Beginning in April 2006, I worked with Senator Robert Byrd to attach a provision to a Homeland Security Appropriations bill requiring DHS to produce a national strategy for IED preparedness. After numerous delays, and a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff from Senator Byrd and me, the National Security Council finally approved the document in late 2007. Unfortunately, the strategy did not include adequate detail on how state and local input would contribute to the federal government's IED prevention and preparedness. It also failed to create an IED-specific grant program to ensure that State and local governments can carry out their responsibilities under the strategy. My bill will address the threat of IEDs by: First, statutorily establishing the Office for Bombing Prevention OBP within FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate. Second, tbe bill establishes a Senior Advisory Committee, SAC, for IED Prevention and Response as a subcommittee under the Homeland Security Advisory Council. Third, the bill requires State, Local, and Practicing Professional input in Advisory Committee Selection, giving voice to our First Responders who understand first-hand the needs of our communities. Fourth, the legislation establishes a risk-based IED Prevention and Response Grant Program within the Homeland Security Department's Grant Program Directorate to specifically provide funds for equipment, training, and personnel in areas where DHS has identified shortfalls. Last, my bill requires the Coast Guard to assess the preparedness of our Nation's Public Safety Dive Teams, PSDT, in the completion of Area Maritime Transportation Security and Facility Plans. Mr. President, we can no longer afford to sit on our hands while many of our IED First Responders have to scrape by with antiquated equipment and training. We have an opportunity to be proactive, to prepare for the unthinkable events that befell the people of London and Madrid, just a few short years ago. Our Nation needs demonstrated capability in this vital area, and we in Congress need to lead. I urge my colleagues to join me in this endeavor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Cochran and others to celebrate the achievements of the members and alumni of AmeriCorps and to recognize the week of May 11, 2008, as ``AmeriCorps Week.'' These young men and women have dedicated their time and efforts toward improving the lives of all Americans by protecting the environment, strengthening education, responding to disasters, and supporting public health and safety. Since 1994, AmeriCorps has encouraged citizens to volunteer, serve, and address the unmet needs of our Nation. About 542,000 people have become AmeriCorps members and have pledged ``to get things done for America.'' These citizens have provided more than 705,000,000 hours of service, hard work, and dedication to improve our communities. In addition, since its inception, more than $5 billion of AmeriCorps funds have been invested back into our communities and have helped leverage hundreds of millions of dollars of additional funds and in-kind donations from external sources. Last year, 75,000 AmeriCorps members were able to give back to this Nation, and those members recruited more than 1,700,000 community volunteers to join them in their mission. Their volunteers served in over 4,000 nonprofit organizations, schools, and faith-based and community organizations across the country. In return for service, AmeriCorps members have earned more than $1.4 billion to go toward furthering their education, and after completing their service, many alumni remain engaged in their communities as volunteers, teachers, and nonprofit professionals. In my home State of Connecticut, since AmeriCorps was created, more than 7,000 AmeriCorps members have served about 9.5 million hours and earned over $20 million toward their education. From my own experience as a Peace Corps member, I know it takes a tremendous amount of perseverance, commitment, and passion to serve, but I also know the emotional reward achieved in dedicating your time to help others. Emerson wrote, ``It is one of the most beautiful compensations of life that no man can sincerely try to help another without helping himself.'' It is my hope that all Americans take the opportunity to develop a deeper sense of community, a renewed sense of national purpose, and a shared experience of sacrifice to serve our country. During this ``AmeriCorps Week,'' we must take the time to recognize, salute, and thank those Americans who have answered the call to serve by joining AmeriCorps; we must acknowledge the tremendous accomplishments and important contributions of the AmeriCorps members, alumni, and community partners; and, we must raise awareness about the importance of national and community service. Our collective imaginations, ideas, energy, and resolve are needed to solve our Nation's problems and rekindle our American community. I encourage citizens of all ages to consider serving in AmeriCorps and contributing their skills and talents to bettering this Nation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to address this issue as well. Before she leaves the floor, I commend the Senator from Maine who has been long involved, going back more than 10 years on this issue. I had the privilege joining with her 10 years ago as a cosponsor of legislation in 1997. This is a colleague who has been deeply involved in this issue for a long time. I recognize her early contribution to this debate. I thank her for her comments. I rise today to express my strong support for the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act--better known as GINA--to urge its speedy passage by this body. When I first joined Senator Snowe in the fight for passage of this legislation, our Nation was at the dawn of a burgeoning genetic age, a time when we could only dream of the technologies that would exist 10 years later. Those genetic technologies are here now and here to stay. Genetic testing and genomic services are being advertised directly to consumers even as we speak. These ads are hard to read, but I am going to try to hold them up for people to see. Maybe others have put up similar ads. Here are some of the advertisements that appear in local newspapers that advertise services. One is for $99. I don't know what the cost is on this one. It is a BRAC analysis dealing with breast cancer. These are a few ads to show what is happening across the country. This is good news, but also dangerous in some ways because people are making decisions about their conditions and their futures sometimes based on very shoddy information. It is troubling to me people are being drawn into this situation without understanding the full implications. Genetic testing and genomic services are being advertised, as I said, to consumers. So the need for this legislation has never been greater. This is a very important moment for us to act. I also wish to take a moment to commend the leadership of Senator Snowe who, as I said earlier, was involved in this issue early on. Also, Senator Pete Domenici. He and I were involved with a bill in 1997 as well, about the time I joined Senator Snowe on her legislation. Senator Domenici was very interested in this subject. And, obviously, I commend the work of Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi. Their leadership and skillful negotiations have allowed for passage of this legislation. I commend Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, as well for his support and commitment to the passage of this legislation. While he is no longer a Member of this body, I commend Senator Tom Daschle, who was very interested in this subject matter and offered legislation as a Senator, also as leader. While we recognized his contributions a day or so ago with the hanging of his portrait as a former leader of this body, he was deeply involved in this issue, and I would be remiss if I did not recognize his contribution as well, as a former Member of this body whose work enabled the Senate to achieve passage of this legislation in previous Congresses. Many of us on both sides of the aisle saw the need years ago for legally enforceable rules to maximize the potential benefits of genetic information and to minimize its potential dangers. But despite passage of the legislation in the Senate twice and the House once, it is still not the law of the land. Up until today, passage of this legislation has been blocked by one Senator. While I am heartened that efforts to obstruct passage of a bill so widely supported in the House and the Senate have been overcome, I am disappointed that the valuable protections provided by this legislation were denied to the American people until now. In the decade that has passed while this legislation has been pending, the sequencing of the human genome was completed, yielding a dizzying number of discoveries about genes associated with diseases and accelerating genetic research. Scientists are finding that nearly all diseases, including common diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease, have a genetic component. Determining the underlying genetic components of disease is fueling the development of new treatments and cures. As an aside, years ago, at Yale Medical School, I attended a briefing by the professionals there. They were doing studies on young girls, determining in twins the ability to detect very early on a genetic predisposition to breast cancer. A remarkable breakthrough was occurring with the wonderful news that we could possibly moderate lifestyles and improve them accordingly to avoid the onslaught of that dreaded disease. Obviously, there were concerns as well about such information becoming available without adequate protections with respect to insurance and employment opportunities as well as the conclusions people might make as a result of that information. But, nonetheless, I was very impressed with the work being done years ago in this whole area of identifying the genetic components of diseases. Additionally, genetic tests for hundreds of disorders are already available, with many more in the pipeline. Some of these tests predict the likelihood of developing a disease or condition, providing unique opportunities for interventions that may delay the onset or wholly prevent that disease from occurring. In the not-so-distant future, routine use of genetic information is going to give doctors an unprecedented ability to tailor treatments to the individual patient. However, the potential benefits of such advances in medicine will not be realized if people refuse genetic testing or do not participate in genetic research because they fear discrimination by an employer or by an insurance company. Indeed, surveys have repeatedly shown that Americans do fear the possibility of genetic discrimination. They are afraid of losing their jobs or health insurance coverage because their employer or insurance company learns of a genetic risk for a disease, a disease they do not currently have or may never get at all. The fact you have a predisposition does not in any way guarantee it is going to happen. It is merely a predisposition. Yet that information, obviously, could affect the cost of insurance available to you if insurance is available at all or whether you were going to get that job you would like to have. Many people are also afraid of affecting their children's ability to get jobs or obtain insurance. So without adequate protections against discrimination, people may forgo genetic testing, even in cases where the results have the potential to save their lives or the lives of their family. Our genetic code is the most personal of all information. We do not yet fully understand what it can reveal about us as individuals and about whom we may or may not become. All Americans have the right to use this information to make better health care decisions and not fear for its misuse. The potential for misuse, of course, is very real. State laws provide only a mixed bag of safeguards, leaving inadequate or no protection at all against discrimination for many of our fellow citizens. Existing Federal protections against genetic discrimination under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or the Americans with Disability Act are inadequate to comprehensively protect against misuse of genetic information. That is why this bill is so important, and why, again, the authors of it, the early sponsors of it, deserve great commendation by all. It would provide significant protections against the misuse of genetic information by health care providers and employers, ensuring that all Americans will not lose or be denied health insurance, jobs or promotions based on their genetic makeup. Specifically, it prohibits enrollment restriction and premium adjustment on the basis of genetic information or genetic services. It prevents health plans and insurers from requesting or requiring an individual take a genetic test. With respect to employment discrimination, the legislation prohibits discrimination in hiring, compensation and other personnel processes and prohibits the collection of genetic information. The legislation protects each and every one of us because we all potentially have a genetic makeup that makes us more susceptible to some kind of an ailment, and that possibility should not be an obstruction to an insurance policy or a job. While this legislation represents an enormous step forward and is a vast improvement over current law, many remain concerned about the measure's privacy protections, and we intend to continue monitoring them over time. Specifically, the legislation imposes important limitations on the collection of personal genetic information by insurance companies, but it would still allow them to collect such information without consent once an individual is enrolled in a health plan. While insurance companies are expressly prohibited from using this information for the purposes of underwriting, frankly, I remain concerned, once this information is collected, it may be difficult to control how it is used and who has access to it. As we have seen with numerous high-profile data breaches at the Veterans' Administration and the National Institutes of Health, the greater the number of people who have access to information, the greater the challenge of protecting that information. As this bill becomes law--and I genuinely hope it will and am confident it will--all of us will be following the implementation and the extent to which it ensures privacy is protected. We will not hesitate to revisit the issue in the future, as I suspect we may have to. I am the author of the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act, along with my colleague Senator Hatch of Utah, which the Senate passed unanimously last December and is expected to be signed into law by the President in the coming days. In fact, I am told that might occur today. This legislation would expand and improve the number and quality of screening tests for genetic and metabolic conditions offered to newborns, which I feel so strongly about, throughout our country. These tests are critical because if a newborn tests positive for one of these rare conditions, treatment must begin immediately to prevent a lifetime of disability or even death. Because many of these conditions are genetic, the protections guaranteed under this bill are critical to preventing discrimination against these infants and their families by insurers or employers. The newborn screening legislation authored by Senator Hatch and myself, possibly signed into law today, will be enhanced tremendously by the adoption of this legislation because several of those tests, as I said, are genetic. So it is my strong hope GINA will be sent to the President for his signature. Again, my compliments to Senators Kennedy and Enzi and their staff for the work they have done on this, and, of course, to Senator Snowe for being a pioneer years ago in this area. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. COBURN, Mr, President, I am pleased that we have finally reached an agreement on the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act, GINA, and that it will soon become law. April 2003 marked a scientific discovery significant enough to transform both science and society. April 2003 brought the announcement that a vast team of scientists had determined the exact sequence of the human genetic code and placed that information in public databases. This is an achievement the last generation could only dream about. Scientific understanding of the links between genes and disease will soon give rise to a flood of new answers and cures for those that suffer from disease. We are on the cusp of a new, unprecedented era of personalized medicine. As a practicing physician, I look forward to the better care and cures that I'll be able to give my patients with new technology developed from the use of genetic information. While there have been very few documented cases of genetic discrimination, GINA will eliminate the fear of genetic information. All Americans need to know that their predictive genetic information-- that they have no ability to change or control--will not be used against them in health care and employment decisions. These protections will finally be enacted with the passage of GINA today in the Senate, House passage to follow, and then finally a bill that can be signed by President Bush. Appropriately drafted legislation is an important key to unlocking the tremendous potential to save and improve lives through the exciting field of medical genomics. GINA has long been a bipartisan vision. I want to be crystal clear that I have supported the vision of GINA in the past, and I will support it again today. While I did place a hold on GINA for a while, that hold meant we weren't finished crafting the legislative language on GINA. I reserved my right to debate and perfect it--after taking the time to read and understand the language of GINA and the House action on GINA. It is like working on an appropriations bill--I support funding the government but that doesn't mean I support throwing $3.1 trillion into it. There is some work that has to be done before we send a bill to the President. As lawmakers, we have the responsibility to make sure we write laws that do exactly what we're telling the American people they do. I feel confident that today's version of GINA does that. I would note that when we finally started negotiating the substance of my concerns with GINA, we were able to get them resolved in 2 weeks. That was a much faster and more effective way of getting GINA done than what we've seen over the last year--slandering my reputation in the media and trying to slip the unfinished version of GINA into last minute appropriations bills. I am pleased that Senators Kennedy and Enzi recognized this and exercised leadership in bringing everyone to the table to get a solution that everyone could support. That's the kind of transparency and debate that the American people deserve. Today's Senate passage of GINA marks a significant step forward so that the American people may fully benefit from the promise of genomics and personalized medicine. GINA removes the barriers to the full potential of personalized medicine.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to speak about an issue of economic fairness that affects the very dignity and the security of millions of Americans: the right to equal pay for equal work. Before I begin, let me thank the chairman of the HELP Committee for his leadership on this important issue. The Fair Pay Restoration Act goes a long way toward ensuring that right. In a perfect world, of course, we could take that right for granted; we could take it for granted that the value of work lies in a job well done, not in the race or gender of the person who is doing it. But we don't live in that world. We know that, even now, employers can cheat their employees out of equal pay, and equal work. That is what happened to Lilly Ledbetter. For almost two decades, from 1979 to 1998, she was a hardworking supervisor at a Goodyear tire plant in Gadsden, AL. And it is telling that she suffered from two types of discrimination at the same time. On the one hand, there was sexual harassment, from the manager who said to her face that women shouldn't work in a tire factory, to the supervisor who tried to use performance evaluations to extort sex. And on the other hand, there was pay discrimination: by the end of her career, as the salaries of her male coworkers were raised higher and faster than hers, she was making some $6,700 less per year than the lowest paid man in the same position. Now, the two kinds of discrimination faced by Ms. Ledbetter have a good deal in common. Morally, they both amount to a kind of theft: the theft of dignity in work and the theft of the wages she fairly earned. Both send a clear message: that women don't belong in the workplace. But there is a clear difference between sexual harassment and pay discrimination. The former is blatant. The latter far too often stays insidiously hidden. In fact, Lilly Ledbetter didn't even know she was being paid unfairly until long after the discrimination began, when an anonymous coworker gave her proof. Otherwise, she might be in the dark to this very day. And that is hardly surprising. How many of you know exactly how much your coworkers make? What would happen if you asked? At some companies, you could be fired. Armed with proof of pay discrimination, Ms. Ledbetter asked the courts for her fair share. And they agreed with her: she had been discriminated against; she had been cheated; and she was entitled to her back pay. Regrettably, the Supreme Court ruled against her, and took it all away. Yes, she had been discriminated against--but she had missed a very important technicality. She only had 180 days--6 months--to file her lawsuit. And the clock started running on the day Goodyear chose to discriminate against her. Never mind that she had no idea she was even the victim of pay discrimination until years later--figure it out in 180 days, or you are out of luck for a lifetime. One can clearly see how this ruling harms so many Americans beyond Ms. Ledbetter. In setting an extremely difficult, arbitrary, and unfair hurdle, it stands in the way of many Americans fighting against discrimination. It flatly contradicts standard practice of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and flies in the face of years of legal precedent and clear congressional intent. As Justice Ginsburg put it in her strong dissent, the Court's Ledbetter ruling ignores the facts of discrimination in the real world: ``Pay disparities often occur in small increments; cause to suspect that discrimination is at work develops only over time. Comparative pay information, moreover, is often hidden from the employee's view . . . Small initial discrepancies may not be seen as meet for a federal case, particularly when the employee, trying to succeed in a nontraditional environment, is averse to making waves.'' ``The ball,'' Ginsburg concluded, ``is in Congress's court . . . The legislature may act to correct this Court's parsimonious reading.'' That is precisely what we are here to do today. If the Fair Pay Restoration Act passes, employees will have a fair time limit to sue for pay discrimination. They will still have 180 days, but the clock will start with each discriminatory paycheck, not with the original decision to discriminate. After all, each unfair paycheck is in itself a decision to discriminate--it is ongoing discrimination. And if this legislation passes, employees like Ms. Ledbetter will no longer be blocked from seeking redress, through no fault of their own, except a failure to be more suspicious. Mr. President, millions of Americans depend on the right to equal pay for equal work: to earn a livelihood, to feed their families, and to secure the dignity of their labor. We ought to make it easier for Americans to exercise that right, not harder. We ought to get unfair roadblocks, hurdles, and technicalities out of their way. We ought to pass this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Kennedy, Senator Brown, Senator Murray, Senator Sanders, and Senator Clinton to introduce the PLUS Loan Borrower Protection Act of 2008. This bill is designed to ensure that students and parents can get access to PLUS Loans even if they have been caught up in the subprime mortgage crisis. In recent months there have been indications that students may face a challenge getting access to some Federal Stafford loans and private education loans because of the growing credit crisis in the financial markets. While I am unaware of an instance to date when a student has been unable to secure a loan, the withdrawal of certain lenders, the ongoing turmoil in U.S. credit markets and the absence of liquidity in the student loan market have fueled concerns that a potential student loan credit crunch may be looming. One which could leave millions of students in a last-minute dash to secure the financial assistance they need to attend college this academic year. Last week I held a hearing in the Senate Banking Committee to examine this issue and consider how to address this situation. Based on what I heard in that hearing I have contacted Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Bernanke to urge each of them to utilize all existing tools, including options allowing federally-backed and AAA-rated private student loans to be used as collateral at the Fed's temporary secured lending facility, TSLF, and using the Federal Financing Bank under Treasury to help prime the pump of liquidity, in order to help avert a funding crisis in the student loan market. I have also cosponsored the Strengthening Student Aid for All Act to bring stability and certainty to several Federal financial aid programs. Sen. Kennedy took the lead in introducing that legislation and I am proud to support him. But during the hearing another element of this issue came to my attention--Federal PLUS loans. PLUS loans are supposed to be available to individuals who do not meet the financial needs tests of other Federal financial aid programs. But current law and regulation prevent individuals who have been more than 90 days delinquent on a mortgage payment or who have gone through a foreclosure within the previous 5 years from getting a PLUS loan. Normally that is a good standard to have--it helps ensure that individuals do not get themselves so much into debt that they cannot get out. But with our recent history in the subprime mortgage market and the ensuing credit crisis, this requirement can have a much broader and more damaging result--denying college education to the next generation. Individuals who may need PLUS loans more than ever this fall because other sources of aid and lending may be unavailable, might be denied this aid because of the mismanagement of our housing market. This is unacceptable. Ensuring that students have available and affordable access to a college education should be among our highest priorities. Our world is growing more complex by the day. Never has higher education been more crucial to the success of our people and our country. Today, 60 percent of the new jobs being created by our economy require at least some post-secondary education. Compare that to a half-century ago, when only 15 per cent of new jobs required some amount of college. If our children are to achieve their highest aspirations, and if our Nation's economic backbone is to continue to remain strong, then we must ensure that the doors of higher education remain open for all who have the desire and ability to walk through them. That is why we are introducing the PLUS Loan Borrower Protection Act of 2008 today. It would eliminate delinquency and foreclosures during this tumultuous time from being a disqualifying factor in awarding PLUS loans. Lenders would still be able to make judgments about the credit of a PLUS loan borrower on the basis of other parts of their credit history. But if the only mark against a borrower is being caught up in the current mortgage crisis, the lender could not disqualify them. Given the current upheaval in our economy, this is a simple and necessary step to make sure our children can still get a needed education. As the Congress moves to address access to student loans and the current credit crisis, I will work to include this bill in our response. I want to thank Senators Kennedy, Brown, Murray, Sanders, and Clinton for joining with me on this bill and I urge my other colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and join me in this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Kennedy, Senator Brown, Senator Murray, Senator Sanders, and Senator Clinton to introduce the PLUS Loan Borrower Protection Act of 2008. This bill is designed to ensure that students and parents can get access to PLUS Loans even if they have been caught up in the subprime mortgage crisis. In recent months there have been indications that students may face a challenge getting access to some Federal Stafford loans and private education loans because of the growing credit crisis in the financial markets. While I am unaware of an instance to date when a student has been unable to secure a loan, the withdrawal of certain lenders, the ongoing turmoil in U.S. credit markets and the absence of liquidity in the student loan market have fueled concerns that a potential student loan credit crunch may be looming. One which could leave millions of students in a last-minute dash to secure the financial assistance they need to attend college this academic year. Last week I held a hearing in the Senate Banking Committee to examine this issue and consider how to address this situation. Based on what I heard in that hearing I have contacted Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Bernanke to urge each of them to utilize all existing tools, including options allowing federally-backed and AAA-rated private student loans to be used as collateral at the Fed's temporary secured lending facility, TSLF, and using the Federal Financing Bank under Treasury to help prime the pump of liquidity, in order to help avert a funding crisis in the student loan market. I have also cosponsored the Strengthening Student Aid for All Act to bring stability and certainty to several Federal financial aid programs. Sen. Kennedy took the lead in introducing that legislation and I am proud to support him. But during the hearing another element of this issue came to my attention--Federal PLUS loans. PLUS loans are supposed to be available to individuals who do not meet the financial needs tests of other Federal financial aid programs. But current law and regulation prevent individuals who have been more than 90 days delinquent on a mortgage payment or who have gone through a foreclosure within the previous 5 years from getting a PLUS loan. Normally that is a good standard to have--it helps ensure that individuals do not get themselves so much into debt that they cannot get out. But with our recent history in the subprime mortgage market and the ensuing credit crisis, this requirement can have a much broader and more damaging result--denying college education to the next generation. Individuals who may need PLUS loans more than ever this fall because other sources of aid and lending may be unavailable, might be denied this aid because of the mismanagement of our housing market. This is unacceptable. Ensuring that students have available and affordable access to a college education should be among our highest priorities. Our world is growing more complex by the day. Never has higher education been more crucial to the success of our people and our country. Today, 60 percent of the new jobs being created by our economy require at least some post-secondary education. Compare that to a half-century ago, when only 15 per cent of new jobs required some amount of college. If our children are to achieve their highest aspirations, and if our Nation's economic backbone is to continue to remain strong, then we must ensure that the doors of higher education remain open for all who have the desire and ability to walk through them. That is why we are introducing the PLUS Loan Borrower Protection Act of 2008 today. It would eliminate delinquency and foreclosures during this tumultuous time from being a disqualifying factor in awarding PLUS loans. Lenders would still be able to make judgments about the credit of a PLUS loan borrower on the basis of other parts of their credit history. But if the only mark against a borrower is being caught up in the current mortgage crisis, the lender could not disqualify them. Given the current upheaval in our economy, this is a simple and necessary step to make sure our children can still get a needed education. As the Congress moves to address access to student loans and the current credit crisis, I will work to include this bill in our response. I want to thank Senators Kennedy, Brown, Murray, Sanders, and Clinton for joining with me on this bill and I urge my other colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and join me in this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Senate is now debating the SAFETEA-LU technical corrections bill. It is regrettable that we had to file cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill in order to make progress on this legislation. This is a technical corrections bill. It fixes mistakes made in the heat of passage of SAFETEA-LU, a bill that was 835 pages long. These types of technical corrections bills are not at all uncommon, and almost always pass with little, if any debate, much less disagreement. All of the relevant committees the Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over the transit title of the bill, the EPW Committee, with highway jurisdiction, and the Commerce Committee, which oversees highway safety--have worked together in a bipartisan fashion to produce a corrections bill with broad support. I thank my colleague and ranking member on the Banking Committee, Senator Shelby, for his work in producing this title, which passed the Banking Committee unanimously in May of last year. I also want to commend EPW Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe, as well as Commerce Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member Stevens, for their hard work on developing this highly technical bill. Unfortunately, despite these efforts, we have been blocked from moving forward by a small handful of our colleagues. I want to thank the majority leader for making time in the Senate's schedule to debate this bill. Although this is only a corrections bill, it will have a real impact for our local communities, which are struggling to keep up with the demands of crumbling infrastructure. There are funds that were authorized in SAFETEA-LU to help meet these demands, but for technical reasons, they have not been distributed. This bill will unlock those funds so that they can be used for the purpose for which they were intended, which is to shore up our transit systems, our roads and bridges--all of the vital components of the transportation network that we rely on every day for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. The funds that would be unlocked by passage of this bill will allow for critical maintenance and capital improvement projects to go forward on our roadways; they will allow for dangerous overpasses to be replaced; they will allow for transit systems to more efficiently meet the needs of their riders; and they will allow for a greater degree of safety on our roads and rails. And it is important to understand, this bill does not cost a single penny. It allows funds that have already been authorized to be distributed as intended. The Banking Committee reported the transit title of this bill last May. We worked closely with our colleagues here in the Senate as well as in the House to develop a bipartisan, consensus package. I want to again thank my ranking member, Senator Shelby, for his efforts on this bill; he has worked hard to try to get this done since the last Congress. The Banking Committee's title of this bill addresses the drafting errors contained in the transit title of SAFETEA-LU and makes necessary changes to various project authorizations so that funds can be released. In addition, I just want to note that this bill recognizes the hard work and leadership of our former colleague, and past chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Paul Sarbanes, by naming the Transit in Parks program, which he authored, after him. It is more important than ever that we invest in our Nation's transit systems. Safe, reliable, and efficient public transportation is essential if we are to tackle the growing problems of traffic congestion, rising gas prices, and global climate change. Transit systems provide significant benefits both to transit riders and to others in the community, including employers, property owners, and automobile drivers. For example, when people ride transit, the amount of time that transit riders and automobile drivers alike spend in traffic goes down; in fact, the Texas Transportation Institute has estimated that transit saves Americans over $18 billion a year by reducing the time they would otherwise waste sitting on clogged roadways. And, in this era of high gasoline prices, public transportation provides an additional benefit: according to economists Robert Shapiro and Kevin Hassett, public transportation saves more than 855 million gallons of gasoline a year, helping to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and providing us with a cleaner, healthier environment. Transit ridership is at the highest level in 40 years, and strong support for transit is essential in light of this increasing demand. In fact, I strongly believe that if we are to keep up with the demands of our growing economy, we must renew our commitment to our Nation's infrastructure, not just in transportation, but in water systems, housing, and other areas. Senator Hagel and I have put forward a proposal to create a National Infrastructure Bank, which would leverage private investment through tax-credit bonds to fund large-scale, regionally or nationally significant infrastructure projects. I held a hearing on this proposal last month and I intend to hold another in the coming weeks. We have an enormous challenge before us in meeting the infrastructure needs of our nation. The National Infrastructure Bank is not intended to be the only tool in our toolbox; neither is the technical corrections bill we are discussing today. But passage of the bill now before the Senate would be an essential step forward in meeting that challenge. It would put an end to the technicalities that are holding up vital funding for road and transit improvements. There is no excuse for any further delay in getting these funds to the communities which need them. Let me take just a moment to address the Administration's Statement of Administration Policy opposing one of the provisions in the transit title of this bill, related to the transit New Starts program. This program, which supports the development and construction of new transit systems, is widely recognized for its focus on performance measures and accountability. Each applicant for New Starts funds enters a rigorous review process based on statutory rating criteria, including factors such as mobility improvements, environmental benefits, and cost effectiveness. In order to more fully capture the impact that a major transit project has on communities, Congress in SAFETEA-LU added economic development and land use effects to the statutory list. However, the Federal Transit Administration is not applying the statutory rating criteria as Congress intended. Instead, the FTA has assigned inordinate weight to a few statutory factors, while giving others, such as economic development and environmental benefits, only minimal weight. The language in the technical corrections bill reiterates Congress's intent in SAFETEA-LU that each of the factors must be given comparable weight when evaluating New Starts grant applications. This language passed the House of Representatives last summer as part of their technical corrections package. I say to my colleagues, I could not disagree more with the position the administration is taking on this point. The language in the transit title has broad bipartisan support, both from the Banking Committee and from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. If the Administration does not agree with the criteria included in SAFETEA-LU for the evaluation of New Starts projects, I would be happy to consider their views in the context of the next reauthorization. I intend to begin that process later this year and I expect to proceed in an open and bipartisan way. In the meantime, the administration's responsibility is to implement the law, and unfortunately they have failed to do so in this case. In conclusion, although it is technical, this is an important bill. It has broad bipartisan support on both sides of the Capitol and would allow urgently needed funds to be distributed to the States and local communities trying to address their transportation needs. I commend it to my colleagues and ask for their support.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the ``Week of the Young Child.'' With 20 million children under the age of 5 in this country, these children are our country's future, and we must support and invest in our future. Providing children with access to quality early education programs will help to ensure that all children are not only ready for school, but ready to succeed and reach their full potential. In Connecticut, early care and education centers were established to provide quality early education to children of low- and moderate-income families. These centers, which are in communities all over the State, would not exist without a combination of State and Federal funds. Connecticut's centers are accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children and seek to support and promote the cognitive, physical, social, and emotional development of children. The Children's Center of New Milford, CT, is one of these funded early care and education centers. The center offers quality care on a sliding-fee scale to approximately 80 families. In addition to providing educational and social opportunities, the center also provides 80 percent of a child's daily nutritional needs including breakfast, a hot lunch, and an afternoon snack. Many of the parents helped by the center provide the workforce for small and large companies. They are employed by fast food stores, department stores, grocery stores, local restaurants, and nursing homes. Without the funded centers, these parents would not be able to afford childcare, and their children would not be able to benefit from the various educational, social, and emotional supports the centers provide. One Connecticut parent wrote to me about how a quality pre-K program has changed her child's life saying: ``My three year old loves books. My three year old interacts well with others. My three year old knows how to express himself without anger. My three year old will grow up to be a good citizen. My three year old is a product of good parenting and a quality pre-K program. As a single working parent, I rely on a pre-K program to fill the gaps when I am unavailable to nurture and teach my child.'' I also heard from an elementary school Spanish teacher who discussed the benefits he has seen when children who come from non-English speaking families attend quality pre-K programs saying: ``The ability to learn with peers and children who do speak English at home helps these children so that they are not further behind their peers when they start kindergarten.'' Funding quality early education programs such as these is essential to support the children, parents, communities, and future of our Nation. I thank Senators Salazar and Cochran for their leadership with regard to the resolution designating the ``Week of the Young Child'' and proudly support them in their valuable efforts.