Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from Maryland for his generous comments about the effort and to also commend him and Senator Ensign and others who are working on these ideas to provide some relief and some opportunity for people. I think he said it well. It becomes almost axiomatic, maybe it is becoming overused, but it certainly captures what all of us feel. That is, there is no greater wealth creator, there is nothing more to stabilize a family or a community, there is nothing that does more for families than having a stable, reliable home. It sounds maybe silly to some people. I am old enough to remember when this issue was never a partisan issue. In fact, some of the strongest advocates of affordable shelter came from some of the most conservative Members of this body historically. Going back, I recall as a young man growing up listening to the distinguished Senators from Alabama and others, they were ``Mr. Housing'' in those days. They made a huge difference. This was an issue where we all worked together to see to it that families and individuals had the opportunity to have affordable shelter. So our colleague from Maryland is absolutely correct. In fact, you could make the case even more so today. And to watch what has happened over the last relatively short period of time, values decreasing, prices falling, which has been good news to some degree, except that obviously as supply increases demand and neighborhoods deteriorate--we were talking about the city of Baltimore. I do not know if my colleague heard me talking about Bridgeport, CT, the other day. I have a new mayor that got elected, Bill Finch, former State Senator in Connecticut. He got elected to be mayor in my biggest city in Connecticut. He walks in to be mayor, he has got between 5,000 and 6,000 foreclosures in a city in Fairfield County, one of the most affluent counties in America, hearing as many as 6,000 families could be losing their homes in the coming days. So his point here about how to make sure we rehabilitate, provide opportunity, create those ideas and thoughts that will make it possible for people to move into a home, to acquire a home, is critically important. I commend him for that, thank him for his generous comments about the effort here tonight.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 7:40 tonight, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following two amendments, with no amendments in order to the amendments prior to the vote; that if a point of order is raised against any of the amendments covered in this agreement for tonight and Friday and a motion to waive the appropriate point of order is made, then there be 2 minutes of debate with respect to the waiver prior to a vote on the motion to waive, equally divided and controlled in the usual form; and that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed for today and Friday: Murray-Schumer amendment No. 4397, and the Kyl amendment No. 4407; that when the Senate resumes consideration of the bill on Friday, the Senate then proceed to vote in relation to the following two amendments: Voinovich- Stabenow amendment No. 4406 and the Landrieu, et al., amendment No. 4389, with no amendment in order to the amendments prior to a vote; that in the sequence of votes for today and Friday, after the first vote, the remaining vote be 10 minutes in duration.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I said 7:40. Let me modify the request and say 7:30. I was trying to provide a little leeway.

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice of support for the first-ever World Autism Awareness Day, a day that is sorely needed. In 2006 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, estimated that 1 in 166 children were diagnosed with autism. Today the CDC estimates that number to be 1 in 150. In fact, 67 children are diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder per day; a new case is diagnosed almost every 20 minutes. Like many of my colleagues, I have had the opportunity to spend time with children with autism and their families, from Connecticut and around the Nation. Autism is a complex neurological disorder, which manifests itself differently in each individual but occurs in all racial, ethnic and socioeconomic groups. It is a lifelong condition that affects not only the individual with the disability, but impacts the entire family, often requiring intensive levels of support and intervention. There are so many unanswered questions about autism. The first step in answering them is for us to come together as a society and recognize the many challenges autism presents in the U.S. and throughout the world. It is my hope that today everyone will take a moment to consider autism and the millions of individuals and families struggling with this developmental disability. We should also make note of the great work and sacrifice of families affected by autism and the tireless advocates for autism research and treatment who have worked to make this day a reality. Among them I want to particularly note my friends Bob and Suzanne Wright who have worked with me for years to address the needs of those dealing with autism. But there is still more to be done. At a time when the number of children and families living with autism has grown exponentially, it is important that we recognize the need to expand our federal commitment to combating this disease. Autism is the fastest growing developmental disability in the United States, yet we are not committing enough of our federal resources to developing the type of scientific breakthroughs in autism that are needed. It is time to redouble our efforts and help the thousands of families who are raising children with autism. Among the first major steps in the Federal response to autism was in 2006 when Congress unanimously passed the Combating Autism Act, which my former colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Rick Santorum and I authored along with the strong support of many of our colleagues including Senators Kennedy and Enzi. This initiative represents the largest federal expansion of funding and programs for children and families with autism spectrum disorder. We took another major step recently on the Senate floor with the unanimous passage of an amendment Senator Susan Collins and I offered to the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution that would double funding for programs dealing with autism at the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, and other health agencies. It is my hope that my colleagues will keep this momentum going by making sure this funding finds its way into the final budget resolution conference report and then through the appropriations process. The research these funds would support will help us understand more about the causes of and appropriate treatments and services for autism. We should close no doors on promising avenues of research into the causes of autism. The Combating Autism Act and my recent amendment to the budget resolution allow all biomedical research opportunities on autism to be pursued. In fact, just today a new study of toddlers finds that there may be a link between babies born very prematurely and autism. As the author of the PREEMIE Act, along with my colleague Senator Lamar Alexander, I find this news particularly interesting. I look forward to the upcoming Surgeon General's Conference in June which was called for under the PREEMIE Act as an opportunity to further pursue this possible link between extreme prematurity and autism. As we look to the future, we also need to find new and innovative ways to help parents and loved ones care for family members suffering from autism. That is why I have introduced S. 2741, The Disability Savings Act of 2008. This bill will encourage individuals with disabilities and their families to save money for their unique needs in tax-advantaged disability savings accounts. This money could then be drawn out as needed, to pay for services and care that are needed. Today, on World Autism Awareness Day, I hope we in the Senate can make finding a cure for autism a top priority of the Congress and the Nation. Together, we can make life a little better for those with autism and their loved ones.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, others have made this recommendation as well. It has some value. Senator Durbin's banking provision is a controversial provision. Simply let me state what it is. Under an agreement reached in the 1970s, in order to get lending institutions to provide more credit to risky borrowers, there was an agreement struck that would not allow a workout to occur in bankruptcy when the primary residence is involved. You can have a workout where your secondary residence or farm is involved. Senator Durbin, I believe, rightly says: Why should that be the case? In bankruptcy, shouldn't the courts be able to work out something that allows people to stay in their homes or to afford a new mortgage? There is a lot of resistance to this issue, and there is an argument on the other side. I am not going to suggest there is not. My hope is we can work something out in this area. This cramdown, as it is called, this one provision has provoked a lot of objection to this bill, but I am committed to do everything I can to work it out, to allow a vote to occur and allow us to do something in this area. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island has a provision in the legislation that will improve disclosures to borrowers and make those disclosures available sooner in the mortgage shopping process. This provision will help borrowers avoid the kinds of abusive loans that are leading to so many foreclosures. I commend Senator Reed for this proposal. Again, I think it is a pretty noncontroversial provision. I understand there are other ideas as well. This is not comprehensive. Again, Senator Martinez mentioned one idea that Johnny Isakson has argued for, and I think it has value, to incentivize people to move into foreclosed properties by giving some kind of tax credit to lure people in. This is where the property has been foreclosed, the owner who occupied it is out, and we need to get the property owned and occupied. I think that idea has some value, and we should be able to debate and include that in a package as well. I wish to mention a few other steps we might consider as well, in addition to the Isakson proposal. We need to finish the job and enact legislation to modernize FHA. Senator Shelby and I are working on this issue. Barney Frank, a Congressman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has been doing a great job, along with his committee members. I hope we can resolve the few remaining issues on modernization of FHA. We have 19 States that are high-cost States. We want to make sure FHA can do business in those States as well. I hope we can work out something to the satisfaction of all. That bill passed this body 93 to 1 late last year, and we have been working with the House to resolve our differences in that area. I believe we need to enact comprehensive reform of the GSEs. Senator Martinez mentioned this point, and I agree with it. A strong regulator is necessary, and we are going to get that job done to make sure Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Federal Home Loan Banks will be well regulated and can expand. In addition, I believe we need to establish a new way to deal with the unprecedented wave of foreclosures. This is the legislation I have offered called the Hope for Homeowners Act of 2008. The legislation closely mirrors the approach recommended by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, and it has been approached by people across the ideological spectrum, including the American Enterprise Institute and the Center for American Progress. This legislation is not a bailout at all. It would provide no windfall to anyone. It says the lender takes a haircut, but you are going to keep people in their homes. The Presiding Officer liked the ``haircut'' analysis, I see. The borrower would end up paying a price by paying insurance on the property. They have to stay in the home to qualify for this provision. It is not going to be easy on them, but nonetheless we believe it allows for a bottom to be achieved, a floor. We think this will help some people facing foreclosures, but, as importantly, it provides a floor. And until we get to a floor of the foreclosure crisis, we are not going to find capital beginning to flow again. This idea of a voluntary program, only going to owner-occupied residences--not speculators and, frankly, not people who never should have gotten into a mortgage in the first place--it is targeted, designed to keep people in their homes and provide that floor we are looking for. I hope something such as that can be included in this bill as well because we need to deal with the problem of credit. If we do not address the credit issue, we are not addressing the core of this problem. To only address the effects of the problem is not to address the underlying issue, and that is on seizing, if you will, the capital that needs to flow again. This idea, we believe, could do just that. So my hope is, in the coming days, we can enact something very much like that. It is an idea about which Congressman Frank and I have talked. I raised this idea several months ago, and I am delighted so many people across the spectrum have said this is a good idea. It was tried, actually, 40, 50 years ago in a different form than we are suggesting but, nonetheless, could make a difference. There are a number of other ideas we could consider, but more importantly, as Senator Martinez said, we need to get together on this issue. We cannot wait another day. There are almost 8,000 foreclosures a day--8,000 yesterday, 8,000 tomorrow, and every single day may be worse if we do not act. That is what this chart points to. It requires our attention and our serious energy to make a difference. I hope in the coming hours we can reach an agreement to go forward to allow us to debate these issues and offer some sound ideas that will offer the American people and others involved in this issue the word ``confidence,'' that their Congress, their Senate, their Government is not sitting idly by and hoping the problem miraculously will go away. We are working on their problem. We understand what they are going through. We care about it, and we want to make a difference for them. That is the challenge for us. I believe we can do this. This is not that heavy a job to get done--a simple amount of will in deciding it is deserving of our time and attention. If we do that, I am confident we can resolve these issues and set a very high standard for the action of this body in helping to step forward and make a difference in people's lives. I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague from California.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I say amen to my colleague from Florida. I didn't hear everything he said; I missed the opening few sentences, but I think I heard about 99 percent of his comments. We have had good conversations privately over the last number of days. What the Senator from Florida probably didn't tell you is that in a previous life he was the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the person responsible for a lot of the housing issues in the country. Prior to that, he was involved in the State of Florida in housing issues. He has had a wonderful record of caring deeply about homeownership for those who would not have had the opportunity to acquire homes. So there is a history in his private life, as well as public life, as well as understanding and caring about these issues. The last point the Senator made is the one I will address as well. This is not a time for partisan politics. We need to get the job done and start working on this immediately. We should have been at this weeks ago, in my view. There is nothing I can do about that, but there is something we can do about this today. I hope that in the coming hours we will do just that. No other issue is as important as this one. The Senator from Florida outlined in a broad way some of the very issues that need to be addressed. I agree with him and I thank him for his commitment to this and his willingness to see if we can pull together a package, and it may not solve every problem. I was talking earlier to some folks, saying that the word missing is ``confidence''--the confidence of that family in Florida, the confidence of the investment banker, the confidence of the person involved in the equity markets globally--the word ``confidence.'' How do we restore that and give people a sense of confidence about where we are going. While I want to be careful about drawing too tight comparisons there is a key period that history has written volumes about, from March of 1933 to June of 1933--the first 100 days of the Roosevelt administration--and there was nothing orderly about it. It was rather chaotic. During the Roosevelt administration, in the midst of a major economic crisis, on the very day of his inaugural, banks were closing their doors all across the country. We think of that line: ``There is nothing to fear but fear itself.'' That administration was trying everything they could to restore confidence. While a lot of their ideas didn't work, or were ill-conceived in some cases, there was a sense in the country that their Government was working on their problems, that the people in charge were trying to make a difference in their lives. We are not in a great depression, we are in a recession. We could end up in a very similar set of circumstances if we don't begin to act. The American people want to know we are acting, that we understand what they are going through, and that their Government, the legislative and executive branch, is worried about them and doing their best to make a difference in their lives. That is what this is all about. This morning I want to lay out, if I can, as chairman of the Banking Committee, what we are doing and trying to get done. I hope in this pivotal week we can make a difference in stepping forward. I thank Senator Kit Bond of Missouri. He and I have worked together on so many issues over the last number of years. We worked together on The Family and Medical Leave Act many years ago, and recently we coauthored the $180 million of counseling dollars to assist families who got themselves into a bad deal--whether it was their fault or the fault of a broker. We are trying to work that out so they can stay in their homes. That has made a huge difference. I thank Senator Bond for his understanding of this very early on, and for the importance of that significant step. He has pointed out--and I agree--this issue is no longer just a housing issue, a foreclosure issue. You only need to pick up this morning's business section to read this headline: ``Worst Quarter for Stocks Since '02.'' The first paragraph says: U.S. stocks ended the first quarter with the steepest loss in nearly six years as turmoil in the financial markets showed increasing signs of spilling over into the wider economy and debate turned from whether a recession was coming to how deep it would be. That is a very accurate statement. This is spilling over. The contagion is no longer limited to housing and foreclosures. It is spilling over into every aspect of our economy, spilling over the shores of our country and having global implications. The time is now to come together and make a difference on this issue. About a month ago, Majority Leader Reid brought a bill to the floor, the Foreclosure Prevention Act. Unfortunately, progress on the bill was blocked and we were unable to even debate the bill, let alone vote on it. Since then, the challenges facing American homeowners have only grown worse. In the month of February alone, 223,651 more Americans entered foreclosure, according to RealtyTrac, a company that collects real estate-related data in the country. That amounts to 7,712 foreclosures on a daily basis--over 7,700 today, yesterday, and tomorrow. That is roughly 8,000 people who will be in the process of losing their homes in America--8,000 people every single day--unless we act to do something about it. We gathered to listen to people, who managed to get together over the weekend, on the Bear Stearns-JPMorgan deal, where $29 billion of taxpayer money will go to that deal with that issue. I would like to know there is as much concern about these ordinary people as there is about the shareholders in Bear Stearns. I feel badly that they lost a lot of money, but they are not losing their homes. These people--almost 8,000 every day--are. So I am going to come to the floor every single day and recite the number on a daily basis of people losing their homes, until we do what I think we ought to do to step up to the plate and make a difference for them. If that foreclosure rate continues--and all indications are that it is actually increasing--almost 240,000 more Americans will have been foreclosed on during the month of March. UBS reports that foreclosures of this magnitude are on par with the severity of foreclosures during the Great Depression. These foreclosure rates are not simply high in relative terms; they are at record levels, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. The Mortgage Bankers data shows that more than 1 in every 50 homes with a mortgage in this country is in foreclosure. Foreclosure rates have been growing at record levels for some time, unfortunately. Foreclosures are increasing because people are continuing to struggle to make their payments. The data tells us that 1 in every 13 homes with a mortgage has fallen behind on their mortgage. Every day that goes by without action means more families are losing their homes. Compounding the problem, nationally, home prices continue to fall. Home prices are down over 10 percent nationwide over the past 12 months, and they continue to fall. This is the first time we have experienced such a deep and widespread decline--a national decline--in home prices since the Great Depression. Merrill Lynch is predicting that home prices will fall by 15 percent this year and another 10 percent next year. It is quite possible that over the past month, since the Senate last debated this issue, an American who owns a $200,000 home has seen the value of that home fall by $5,000 in 1 month. I will repeat that. If you have a home worth $200,000, in the last month that home has lost $5,000 in value and may do that every month for the coming months. That is $5,000 of wealth that American families have lost while we in this body have been waiting to even discuss potential legislation to address these problems. While we have waited, our country lost more jobs as well. We learned in the month of February that the American economy lost over 100,000 private sector jobs. We have lost private sector jobs in each of the last 3 months. With job losses mounting at the same time mortgage payments are rising, families are falling further and further behind in their ability to pay the mortgage, to make car payments, and to buy groceries and educate their children. At the same time, the cost of these essentials is rising. Inflation has risen by 4 percent over the past year, far outstripping growth and wages. American families have to do a lot more with a lot less. They have to find a way to pay the bills that keep rising, while the value of their home keeps falling. Their job prospects continue to decline. It is no wonder that consumer confidence continues to fall, reaching record lows that have not been seen, by some measures, since the early 1970s. We are clearly in the midst of a recession. It hasn't been called that yet by the professionals, but that is what it is. The only question we have is how deep it is and how long it will run. The answer to that question lies, in part, in what we do in this body to confront the challenges we face. The legislation before us, which our colleagues and the majority leader brought to the floor, will help address the problems we are facing in the housing and mortgage markets in a number of ways. Senator Martinez outlined the parameters briefly. I will go over them once again. These are not revolutionary or new ideas. Many of them already enjoy very broad bipartisan support, at least based on articles written by the American Enterprise Institute, comments by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, comments by the Secretary of the Treasury, and comments by colleagues here and in the other body as well. So we are not talking about some radical new proposals here, untested, without much thought going into them. The question is whether we can sit down over the next few hours and package something together and speak with one voice to the American people, saying we hear you. For those 8,000 people, you deserve at least as much of our attention as Bear Stearns and JPMorgan get. If we cannot do that, then every day, those numbers go up--8,000 a day, every day, people losing homes and falling into foreclosure. That is what I hope we will be able to do. These ideas involve counseling services and I thank Senator Bond for his efforts. We joined together to provide resources that are working. Last week, I spent the week back home in my State. This issue was the dominant issue. We have in one city alone in my State, Bridgeport, Connecticut, where according to the mayor, there are between 5,000 and 6,000 foreclosures--in one of the largest cities in my State. I had to read the most bizarre headlines on the same day in my State, saying that Connecticut ranks No. 1 in per capita earnings in the country, and No. 2 with 6,000 foreclosures in the city of Bridgeport. There is great affluence, on one hand, because some have done very well, and on the other hand, some people are struggling to keep their noses above water. I listened to people at an event in Bridgeport, with the mayor, talking about how counseling services have been helpful, where they can work out a financial arrangement with the lender so they can stay in their homes, pay a mortgage they can afford, and the lender is getting its money--not as much as they would have liked, but more than getting a foreclosed property. So counseling works. It can make a difference for people. That is one of the provisions we are talking about here. I thank Senator Martinez for highlighting that important issue. I thank Senator Bond for his earlier efforts. We need to do more. That is part of the leader's package. We are also dealing with bankruptcy reform, improving disclosures, increasing the availability of mortgage revenue bonds, and appropriating emergency funds for local communities struggling with foreclosed and abandoned properties. I commend the majority leader for his leadership in putting this kind of a package together. But I know there are other ideas out there. In fact, some of these ideas need to be moderated or fixed in some way. But that only happens when we work together, when we sit down and try to iron out these differences and then step up with our proposals and allow others who want to offer some ideas to this to be heard as well. It takes time, it is laborious, but that is the job of this body, not to sit there and walk away and do nothing. That is not an option, and failure ought not be an option either. So we need to roll up our sleeves and go to work. These provisions can make a real difference for homeowners and the communities in which they live and our national economy as well. They are meaningful proposals, but they are also, I might add, modest, particularly in relation to some of the administration's actions. The administration just took the historic action to support the takeover of Bear Stearns by JPMorgan Chase. This action was a major commitment of taxpayers' money--almost $30 billion. The Senate Banking Committee will conduct a hearing later this week on this particular arrangement and other recent actions by the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and other Federal agencies to address the recent turmoil in the financial markets. Without prejudging the outcome of our oversight and investigation of this unprecedented commitment of taxpayers' money, one thing is clear: It is now time to turn our attention to Main Street. As bold as the action was to help Wall Street, we must be bold to help millions of Americans who live on Main Street. Inaction, as I said a moment ago, is not an option, and failure is not either. Every day that passes creates new risks for the financial future of our Nation. We cannot hope this problem is going to go away and solve itself. Our competitors in the global economy are the only ones who will benefit if we do nothing to stem the rising tide of foreclosures that is hurting communities, families, the credit markets, and the overall economy. The question is not whether we should act, but how. The majority leader has laid out what I believe is a series of responsible policies that will help American families to keep their homes and help communities throughout our Nation deal with the foreclosure crisis. Let me briefly describe several of these critical elements of the package. The legislation increases funding for foreclosure prevention counseling. I have already addressed this issue. Again, we appropriated $180 million before. There is $200 million in the proposal before us that can make a huge difference to these nonprofit organizations out there working with lenders and borrowers, bringing them together for these workouts. In addition to effectively fighting foreclosures, we must limit the damaging impact that foreclosures inflict on our communities. That is why we need to help our local communities cope with the serious economic and social problems that vacant properties create. Every one of my colleagues understands this point. I don't need to go through a long description of what happens when we have vacant properties in our towns, communities, and neighborhoods. It is axiomatic what happens. Everyone understands. First, we understand the value of the neighbors' houses goes down immediately. As I mentioned earlier, we are watching a $5,000 decline on a house worth $200,000 in a month alone, merely because of what is happening to declining prices. Throw a foreclosed property into that mix, and obviously you get a further deterioration. Property values for each home located within one-eighth of a square mile of one foreclosed house fall significantly. An average city block, in most of our cities, is one-eighth of a square mile. That is a rough calculation. If you have one foreclosure in that one city block, even though every other home on the block is current on their mortgage obligations, the value of every home on that block declines immediately by 1 percent and crime rates go up in that neighborhood by 2 percent. That happens immediately. Property values decline on an average of $5,000 with one foreclosure in that neighborhood. We have 44.5 million homes adjacent to subprime foreclosed properties--44 to 50 million adjacent properties next to foreclosed properties. Let me repeat the statistic again. Every day, almost 8,000 people in this country are going into foreclosure--more than 220,000 in the month of February and at least, if not more, that number in the month of March. When that happens, other property owners suffer. So it is not just the family in the foreclosed property who is affected, it is that hard-working family who lives down the block who is also paying a price for this situation because we are not acting to try to come up with a way to get people to work out something that allows them to stay in their homes. Localities are losing close to $4.5 billion in property taxes. Again, this is axiomatic. You end up with foreclosed properties, and you end up losing your tax base. Fire protection, police, social services, and schools all pay a price as well. There is a domino effect in this situation, and that is what Senator Bond was talking about earlier. This is no longer just a foreclosure problem. It is far deeper, far wider, and growing by the day. This is exactly what happens when we end up with foreclosures in a neighborhood, what can happen to other properties in that area. That is why the issue of providing some additional assistance makes sense. I recommended $4 billion to go out to the community development block grants targeted specifically for restoring abandoned properties, making them more marketable, providing assistance to the communities. That is a lot of money, $4 billion. It is not $30 billion. That is what we are on the line for in the Bear Stearns-JPMorgan Chase deal. That deal was cut over the weekend. We never voted on it in this body; that is just a deal they cut. The Federal Reserve has the authority, apparently, to do that. I am not asking for $29 billion or $30 billion; I am asking for $4 billion to go back to our cities and communities to help mayors and towns in urban areas and rural areas where this is happening to provide help for them so they can put these properties in better shape so they can be sold. The leader's bill also includes a Finance Committee provision that would allow State housing finance agencies to use proceeds from mortgage revenue bonds to help extend mortgage credit to people now trapped in predatory loans, as well as to new homeowners. It would also help expand affordable rental housing, helping people who need a place to go if they cannot hang on to their homes. This provision, by the way, is one I heard over and over again, and you hear it in every State you go. They reached the max and they need relief, if that housing finance authority is going to be able to provide the kind of relief they need. This is an idea which has broad bipartisan support. I am told the Finance Committee--Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley care about it. They believe it is the right step to take. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts has talked about this issue. Mr. President, I ask for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader and the Republican leader, as well, for their efforts. I thank Senator Shelby, who is not here. We will do our very best over the next number of hours to pull together a package that reflects----

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the leaders. That will be our goal and job, to begin that process immediately. We will keep the leadership informed as it progresses. We all thank the two leaders immensely. I thank Senator Reid for his efforts going back months ago. This is a problem that is growing by the hour. It demands our attention. This is the contagion effect we read about now spreading far beyond the housing issue, per se. It is now leaching into all aspects of our economy. It has even gone beyond our shores, obviously, to other nations that are deeply affected by what happens here economically. This is a moment when we have to come together as a body and come up with some responsible answers. I will say in advance that none of us can say with any certainty that which we offer will solve the problem, but I think we bear an obligation to try, to do one thing that is more important than any specific idea we proposed, and that is help restore the confidence of the American people and those directly involved in the financial well- being of our Nation and that is to restore confidence, which is missing; we need to get that confidence back. The very fact our leaders have called upon us to pull together is going to be a confidence- building measure. It will be complemented by what we do, but it begins with the offer made by the distinguished majority leader, accepted by the Republican leader, that we sit down and try to work this situation out. I can tell you in advance that the American people will react favorably to this effort, and hopefully we will offer a product that will complement that effort but beginning with the idea we will work on this problem together. That I commend the majority leader for. I thank the Republican leader as well. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to enhance opportunities for low-income children entering school. Today, I am introducing the Sandy Feldman Kindergarten Plus Act of 2008. The Kindergarten Plus Act will provide children below 185 percent of the poverty line with additional time in school during the summer before, and the summer after, their traditional kindergarten school year to ensure that they enter school ready to succeed. Too many low-income children enter school unprepared because they have not had access to educational resources such as books and other tools for learning. Arriving at school already behind, many of these children find it difficult, if not impossible, to catch up academically to their more affluent peers. When we consider the achievement gap between low-income children and their wealthier peers, it immediately becomes clear that we must do a better job of preparing these children for school. To prepare them for success, we need to expose them to classroom practices earlier, introduce them to critical educational concepts, and familiarize them with school activities such as story or circle time. Ultimately, we need to provide these students with a solid foundation that allows them to enter school with the skills necessary to become strong students. Only 39 percent of low-income children, compared to about 85 percent of high-income children, can recognize letters of the alphabet upon arrival in kindergarten. Moreover, low-income children often have a more limited vocabulary. By the time they are in first grade, children in low-income families have, on average, 5,000 words in their vocabulary. In contrast, children from more affluent families enter school with vocabularies of about 20,000 words. These startling discrepancies should tell us that more needs to be done to help all children enter school with an equal opportunity for success. Kindergarten Plus strives to provide these opportunities and to lessen the achievement gap by providing low-income children more support and additional exposure to high-quality schooling. This legislation was named after Sandy Feldman. As many of you know, Sandy was a tireless advocate for children and public education. Her commitment to social justice and her focus on early childhood education led her to develop the concept for this legislation, and it was Sandy who spent countless hours developing the details to ensure this would be a high-quality initiative. I was honored to have worked with Sandy in developing the initial legislation and am proud that this bill bears her name. I am joined today in introducing this legislation by my colleagues Senators Lieberman and Durbin. This bill is supported by the American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association, Council of Great City Schools, the Children's Defense Fund, Service Employees International Union, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, and Easter Seals. I urge my colleagues to join my effort and cosponsor this legislation. I encourage them to help launch low-income children on the path to school success. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to add judicial discretion to the Higher Education Act Aid Elimination Penalty. Since 1998 the law prevents any student convicted of possession of a controlled substance from receiving Federal financial aid. Since the penalty was enacted, approximately 200,000 low to middle income students seeking a college education have been disqualified from receiving Federal financial assistance. In many cases, these are committed young people who simply want to make better lives for themselves. In order to be eligible for financial aid in the first place, these students have proven they can perform academically. Unfortunately, they have made the mistake many young people have made experimenting with drugs. Just like every Senator in this chamber, I want to help keep America's young people from making this mistake and jeopardizing their health and their futures. We should all work to enact policies that effectively deter dangerous drug use. But this is a sophisticated and complicated issue and it cannot be solved by blunt measures such as the Aid Elimination Penalty. Any drug abuse expert will tell you that helping someone get off of drugs or stay away from trying them requires a variety of approaches. In some cases the fear of consequences, such as the Aid Elimination Penalty, may be enough. But in many other cases, counseling, rehabilitation, and positive reinforcement may offer more effective ways to achieve this goal. Our laws should reflect the need for varied approaches. Unfortunately, the Aid Elimination Penalty does not. It is a blunt tool that sweeps all cases into the same one size fits all solution. There is little distinction under this law as to whether the drug possession is a major or minor violation and to what degree the infraction affects the community at large; Teenagers bowing to peer-pressure for the first time are treated the same as serious drug users disrupting their communities. This means that while in some cases we are penalizing chronic drug abusers, we are also penalizing good students who will mature and have a better chance of rectifying their mistakes by continuing their education. What is most disturbing is how the consequences of the penalty can negatively impact the course of a student's life. Many students affected by the Aid Elimination Penalty are forced to leave school since it is no longer affordable without financial assistance. Data from the National Center of Education Statistics demonstrates that many of these students will not continue their education: 36 percent of students who leave 4-year institutions do not return within 5 years and 50 percent of students who leave 2-year institutions do not return within 5 years. For these students, denial of Federal college assistance will only force them from school, and may set them on an even more self destructive course of increased drug use and abuse. In these cases, the Aid Elimination Penalty actually backfires and serves to undermine our efforts to prevent the use and abuse of drugs. That is why I am introducing this legislation to insert judicial discretion into the current law. My bill would make the penalty dependent on the ruling of a judge, allowing them to weigh the value of implementing the penalty as part of other sanctions and punishments on a case by case basis. This will enable the judge to deny student financial aid if the situation merits it, and if he or she believes it is the most effective or even the only way to help a student get control of his or her life. This legislation would also grant judges the ability, based on the circumstances, to determine that continuation of a college education, in conjunction with rehabilitation and possibly other sanctions, offers both the student and the community the best possible outcome. This is the way the rest of the criminal justice system works and it is the way the Aid Elimination Penalty should be implemented. With this change we can fine tune our approach to this problem and minimize the negative unintended consequences of current law. I urge my colleagues to see the wisdom of this approach and help me to refine the law to be more effective in protecting our communities and ensuring deserving students the opportunity to advance their education. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to enhance opportunities for low-income children entering school. Today, I am introducing the Sandy Feldman Kindergarten Plus Act of 2008. The Kindergarten Plus Act will provide children below 185 percent of the poverty line with additional time in school during the summer before, and the summer after, their traditional kindergarten school year to ensure that they enter school ready to succeed. Too many low-income children enter school unprepared because they have not had access to educational resources such as books and other tools for learning. Arriving at school already behind, many of these children find it difficult, if not impossible, to catch up academically to their more affluent peers. When we consider the achievement gap between low-income children and their wealthier peers, it immediately becomes clear that we must do a better job of preparing these children for school. To prepare them for success, we need to expose them to classroom practices earlier, introduce them to critical educational concepts, and familiarize them with school activities such as story or circle time. Ultimately, we need to provide these students with a solid foundation that allows them to enter school with the skills necessary to become strong students. Only 39 percent of low-income children, compared to about 85 percent of high-income children, can recognize letters of the alphabet upon arrival in kindergarten. Moreover, low-income children often have a more limited vocabulary. By the time they are in first grade, children in low-income families have, on average, 5,000 words in their vocabulary. In contrast, children from more affluent families enter school with vocabularies of about 20,000 words. These startling discrepancies should tell us that more needs to be done to help all children enter school with an equal opportunity for success. Kindergarten Plus strives to provide these opportunities and to lessen the achievement gap by providing low-income children more support and additional exposure to high-quality schooling. This legislation was named after Sandy Feldman. As many of you know, Sandy was a tireless advocate for children and public education. Her commitment to social justice and her focus on early childhood education led her to develop the concept for this legislation, and it was Sandy who spent countless hours developing the details to ensure this would be a high-quality initiative. I was honored to have worked with Sandy in developing the initial legislation and am proud that this bill bears her name. I am joined today in introducing this legislation by my colleagues Senators Lieberman and Durbin. This bill is supported by the American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association, Council of Great City Schools, the Children's Defense Fund, Service Employees International Union, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, and Easter Seals. I urge my colleagues to join my effort and cosponsor this legislation. I encourage them to help launch low-income children on the path to school success. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4254

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I call up the amendment.

Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4232

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Collins of Maine, and Senator Kennedy, and I ask unanimous consent that Senators Klobuchar, Obama, Menendez, Lieberman, Durbin, and Clinton be added as cosponsors.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we are aware of the growing problem of autism. It used to be, not that long ago, that 1 child in 166 was afflicted with autism. Those numbers have now dropped to 1 in 150. It is the fastest growing neurological disability in the United States and becoming more and more serious. It is highly complex. Senator Santorum and I offered the combating autism legislation a year or so ago, which passed overwhelmingly. This legislation increases the funding by $197 million. It is completely offset by dealing with the function 920. Therefore, it is paid for completely and revenue neutral. We urge its adoption.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is the fastest growing developmental disability in the United States.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to add judicial discretion to the Higher Education Act Aid Elimination Penalty. Since 1998 the law prevents any student convicted of possession of a controlled substance from receiving Federal financial aid. Since the penalty was enacted, approximately 200,000 low to middle income students seeking a college education have been disqualified from receiving Federal financial assistance. In many cases, these are committed young people who simply want to make better lives for themselves. In order to be eligible for financial aid in the first place, these students have proven they can perform academically. Unfortunately, they have made the mistake many young people have made experimenting with drugs. Just like every Senator in this chamber, I want to help keep America's young people from making this mistake and jeopardizing their health and their futures. We should all work to enact policies that effectively deter dangerous drug use. But this is a sophisticated and complicated issue and it cannot be solved by blunt measures such as the Aid Elimination Penalty. Any drug abuse expert will tell you that helping someone get off of drugs or stay away from trying them requires a variety of approaches. In some cases the fear of consequences, such as the Aid Elimination Penalty, may be enough. But in many other cases, counseling, rehabilitation, and positive reinforcement may offer more effective ways to achieve this goal. Our laws should reflect the need for varied approaches. Unfortunately, the Aid Elimination Penalty does not. It is a blunt tool that sweeps all cases into the same one size fits all solution. There is little distinction under this law as to whether the drug possession is a major or minor violation and to what degree the infraction affects the community at large; Teenagers bowing to peer-pressure for the first time are treated the same as serious drug users disrupting their communities. This means that while in some cases we are penalizing chronic drug abusers, we are also penalizing good students who will mature and have a better chance of rectifying their mistakes by continuing their education. What is most disturbing is how the consequences of the penalty can negatively impact the course of a student's life. Many students affected by the Aid Elimination Penalty are forced to leave school since it is no longer affordable without financial assistance. Data from the National Center of Education Statistics demonstrates that many of these students will not continue their education: 36 percent of students who leave 4-year institutions do not return within 5 years and 50 percent of students who leave 2-year institutions do not return within 5 years. For these students, denial of Federal college assistance will only force them from school, and may set them on an even more self destructive course of increased drug use and abuse. In these cases, the Aid Elimination Penalty actually backfires and serves to undermine our efforts to prevent the use and abuse of drugs. That is why I am introducing this legislation to insert judicial discretion into the current law. My bill would make the penalty dependent on the ruling of a judge, allowing them to weigh the value of implementing the penalty as part of other sanctions and punishments on a case by case basis. This will enable the judge to deny student financial aid if the situation merits it, and if he or she believes it is the most effective or even the only way to help a student get control of his or her life. This legislation would also grant judges the ability, based on the circumstances, to determine that continuation of a college education, in conjunction with rehabilitation and possibly other sanctions, offers both the student and the community the best possible outcome. This is the way the rest of the criminal justice system works and it is the way the Aid Elimination Penalty should be implemented. With this change we can fine tune our approach to this problem and minimize the negative unintended consequences of current law. I urge my colleagues to see the wisdom of this approach and help me to refine the law to be more effective in protecting our communities and ensuring deserving students the opportunity to advance their education. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to talk about a couple amendments I will be offering, but let me inquire, if I may, of the chairman of the Budget Committee, if it would be appropriate for us to submit our amendments this evening. I understand the sequence will be left to the committee, but I am not sure whether I should be submitting an amendment or whether we can do that tomorrow.

Mr. DODD. I understand that. That is the point. Well, Mr. President, what I will do, then, is I would like to file two amendments, and I send them to the desk and ask they be filed.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me discuss these two amendments, and I will reserve about 5 or 6 minutes at the end to talk about the present housing issue that is critical to all of us. I wish to take a few minutes, which is far more than I will probably get tomorrow with the 1 minute allocated to talk about these amendments that are important in a number of aspects. I wish to thank Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, Senator Schumer, the Presiding Officer, and Senator Durbin for joining me in the first amendment I will be offering to increase funding for the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant. This amendment that I will be calling up is supported by a large coalition of organizations, and I ask unanimous consent that the list of organizations and letter from the organizations be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, among the associations and organizations that are supporting this amendment is the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the March of Dimes, and many others. In a minute, I will speak to the second amendment I am offering relating to autism funding. Under the President's budget, the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant will be funded at $666 million for the second consecutive year. This amount represents a cut of $65 million from 5 years ago, when funding peaked at $731 million. These persistent cuts and flat funding have a real impact on the services States are able to offer to nearly 35 million women, children, and youth affected by maternal and child health programs. The Maternal and Child Health programs include direct health care for children with special needs, preventive and primary care for children and youth, integration of health care with other child and family services, newborn screening for genetic disorders, lead poisoning prevention, injury prevention, and public education. We must ensure that the States are able to continue to offer these services to those in need. That is why I am offering this amendment, which will increase the funding of this block grant by $184 million to the authorized level of $850 million. Again, I wish to thank Senators Hatch, Schumer, and Durbin for supporting this effort in a bipartisan way. The Maternal and Child Health Block Grant services act as a critical source of care for many of our Nation's uninsured children. Of the more than 23 million children receiving services in 2006, 6.8 percent, or nearly 1.8 million children, had no known source of health insurance at all. More than a third of MCH funds are used to provide primary and preventive health care services to children--including immunization clinics, outreach to enroll eligible children in Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, and funding and technical assistance to school based health centers, that serve adolescents. In other words, MCH funds are used to ensure that mothers and children in traditionally underserved populations receive absolutely necessary care. Yet, despite this important mission, we continue to ask State MCH programs to do more with less. According to the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, the purchasing power of the MCH block grant has decreased close to 24 percent since 2003. Consider this: at present, low birth weight and preterm births are increasing, the U.S. ranks 32nd out of 33rd of the world's industrialized nations in the rate of infant deaths with African American infants in the United States more than twice as likely as white infants to die before their first birthday, and childhood obesity rates for some age groups representing a three-fold increase in rates over the past two decades. We can do much better. This program has proven it works. Thus you have the support of Senator Hatch and others who know that this program has made a difference in the lives of millions. Nearly one-half of all preterm births have no known cause but what we do know is that by reducing certain risk factors in the mother such as cigarette smoking and obesity, we can help reduce rates of prematurity. I chair the Children and Families Subcommittee of the HELP Committee and authored the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act with Senator Hatch-- passed the Senate unanimously last December--and the Preventing Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers who deliver Infants Early Act, better known as the PREEMIE Act with Senator Alexander, enacted into law. These initiatives have made important steps toward giving children a healthy start at life. But now it's time for us to ensure that the money will be there to continue the success of these vital programs. The MCH block grant is a proven success for helping ensure a healthy future for our Nation's children. States are required to match $3 for every $4 of Federal funds provided by the block grant. The MCH block grant has performance measures and evaluations that document the effective impact of this modest investment. To quote the Bush administration: The program is well designed. The [MCH Block Grant] serves as a safety net to help improve the health of mothers and children and has a positive impact on their health. The MCH program is critical to the health and well-being of millions of families across this country, including some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Years of funding cuts and level funding have stretched maternal and child health programs to their limits. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to increase MCH block grant funding to $850 million in this year's budget resolution. On behalf of Senators Hatch, Schumer, Durbin and others, we hope that members will be in favor of something that has enjoyed broad support. Mr. President, I would now like to speak on an amendment I will be offering with Senators Collins and Kennedy. I thank Senator Collins and Senator Kennedy, the distinguished Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee for their support for this amendment. I would also like to thank Autism Speaks for their support for this amendment. The amendment increases funding for autism in the fiscal year 2009 budget by $197 million in a budget-neutral manner, bringing autism funding up to its authorized level and then doubling our commitment to funding research into the causes of and treatments for autism. In 2006, the Congress unanimously passed the Combating Autism Act, which my colleague from Pennsylvania former Senator Rick Santorum and I authored along with the strong support of Senators Kennedy and Enzi. This initiative was the largest Federal expansion of funding and programs for children and families with autism spectrum disorder. It authorizes $800 million to find the causes and decide how to treat the myriad of problems faced by families of children with autism. At the time the bill passed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, estimated that 1 in 166 children were diagnosed with autism. Today the CDC estimates that number to be 1 in 150. In fact, 67 children are diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder per day. A new case is diagnosed almost every 20 minutes. It continues to be a challenge to determine how much Federal funding is actually going to study the causes of and treatments for autism. In fact, some estimates are that actual NIH funding for research specific to autism is less than half of what is being reported. That is why this amendment is so critical. It will redouble our Federal commitment to funding autism, the fastest-growing developmental disability in the U.S. At a time when the number of children and families living with autism has grown exponentially, the President's budget proposes to freeze Federal spending on autism at levels that are insufficient to make the kind of discoveries in autism that are needed. Many of my colleagues no doubt have been visited by children and their families with autism. Autism is a complex neurological disorder, which manifests itself differently in each individual but occurs in all racial, ethnic and socioeconomic groups. It is a lifelong condition that affects not only the individual with the disability, but impacts the entire family, often requiring intensive levels of support and intervention. There are so many unanswered questions about autism. And it will require a major scale-up in funding to bring us closer to answering them. We should close no doors on promising avenues of research into the causes of autism and my amendment allows all biomedical research opportunities on autism to be pursued. The amendment I am offering would enable us to redouble our efforts on autism research and treatment services by increasing funding for research, treatments, education and interventions by $197 million in fiscal year 2009 and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Again, I emphasize it is the fastest growing developmental disability in our country. The number of children who will be born with autism is increasing every day in this country. Again, on behalf of Senator Collins and myself, Senator Kennedy and others, we urge you to be supportive of this amendment when it comes up. It is deficit neutral, which ought to make it easier for Members to support this amendment. Lastly, I want to take a couple of minutes, to commend the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad and Senator Judd Gregg, the ranking member as well, and the other members of the Budget Committee. I served on that committee for many years and have nothing but admiration and respect for those going through this process. This budget is a positive step to address the serious challenges our economy is facing today. Having just spoken on the specific issues regarding the resolution, on autism and maternal and child health, I want to take a moment to again address some of the problems that are plaguing our economy. I have been coming to the floor with some regularity in recent weeks to speak on economic issues. I do not wish to test the patience of our colleagues. But I believe that these issues are of such paramount importance at this point in our national life that they merit the consideration of our colleagues. Just yesterday the Federal Reserve announced a significant new action that attempts to address the liquidity lock-down that has spread through our credit markets and crippled the ability of lenders to lend and borrowers to borrow. The announcement by the Fed is a significant measure that is intended to address this very serious situation. The markets' strong positive reaction to the Fed's action demonstrates that policymakers can undertake actions which have the potential to improve our situation. However, I do not believe that the Fed's action alone will be enough to right our Nation's economic ship. Additional steps should also be considered to address the root cause of the present market turmoil--namely, the housing market and specifically the foreclosure crisis. New data was released last week regarding the condition of America's homeowners. It is stark, even alarming in certain respects. Foreclosures have hit a new all-time record, according to the Mortgage Banker's Association, MBA. This data shows that more than 1 in every 50 homes with a mortgage in the country is in foreclosure, as of the end of last year. Foreclosure rates have been growing at record levels for some time. Foreclosures are increasing because people are continuing to struggle to make their payments, and because those payments are increasing for millions of Americans. The report tells us that 1 in every 13 homeowners with a mortgage has fallen behind on their mortgage. The Federal Reserve also released new data, which shows that Americans' equity in their homes is at a record low. Home equity has fallen for three straight quarters and now, for the first time in recorded history, which dates back to the end of the Second World War, Americans own less than 50 percent of the value of their home. By virtually all estimates, the housing problem is getting worse, not better. Congress can and in my opinion, must, address the situation. There are several pieces of legislation that I, along with others, am working to do just that. I am working with my ranking member, Senator Shelby and our colleagues in the House on legislation to reform the Federal Housing Administration. I remain committed to creating a world-class regulator for the GSEs. I also believe that we need to expand the community development block grant program to enable cities and localities with the tools and funding they will need to address the foreclosure crisis which is upon us. I have worked with Senators Schumer, the Presiding Officer Bond and others to make sure that high- quality counseling is available to homeowners who are facing the brunt of the storm, and I remain committed to this important program. Congress should consider creating a home ownership preservation entity that can help restore stability and liquidity to the mortgage market and credit markets generally. Fed Chairman Bernanke called for such an entity in an important address last week. In addition to addressing the problems in the housing market, which are at the epicenter of our current economic crisis, we also need to make sure that our economy is fundamentally strong for the future. One of the most effective ways to do that is to invest in our Nation's infrastructure. Just yesterday, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Banking Committee on the condition of our Nation's infrastructure and on ideas as to how to improve it. The hearing generated some good ideas that I believe we need to act on. One such idea is contained in legislation written by Senator Hagel and myself to establish a national infrastructure bank. I commend Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and Senator John Thune for their efforts as well, on a similar idea which we intend to incorporate with our idea that can help us in this effort as well. The budget resolution before allows for such action. It establishes a reserve fund for the specific purpose of meeting our infrastructure needs. The fund could encompass the legislation Senator Hagel and I have introduced. I appreciate the willingness of the Budget Committee to work with us on this issue. I commend Chairman Conrad and Senator Gregg for establishing this fund. It is evidence of a growing consensus in Congress and the country that complacency can no longer substitute for action. From the days of the Roman aqueducts to the present, a nation's ability to grow and prosper rests upon its success at effectively moving people, goods, and information. Ask any American today how we are doing in achieving this objective, and chances are the response would be the same: we can do better. When the average American spends 51.5 hours a year in traffic congestion, we can do better. When 33 percent of all urban and rural roads are in poor, mediocre, or fair condition, we can do better. When the United States invests less than 2 percent of its gross domestic product on infrastructure while countries like China and India invest between 7 and 12 percent, we can do better. Economist Stephen Roach, in a recent op-ed in the New York Times, suggests that investing in infrastructure would be an effective strategy for dealing with the current economic slowdown. Specifically, he recommends that: Fiscal initiatives should be directed at laying the groundwork for future growth, especially by upgrading the nation's antiquated highways, bridges, and ports. I have been working closely with Senator Shelby on these issues and remain hopeful that when the Senate returns after the Easter recess, we can get back to working on cost-effective approaches to allow people to keep their homes and bring liquidity to the housing market. Lastly, the budget resolution was a good step to address the problems before us by allocating funds to existing programs, such as the Community Development Block Grant Program, as well as, of course, I mentioned the reserve account here to deal with infrastructure needs. I commend the authors of this resolution. I urge my colleagues to consider the two amendments I will be offering dealing with maternal and general health offered by myself, Senators Hatch, Schumer, Durbin, and others. Dealing with autism, Senator Collins and I will be offering two critical issues. We are accounting for them here in the budget resolution, so they are budget neutral but also making a difference in the lives of people in the kinds of proper investments we may have. I thank the chair for the time. I thank my colleague from Nevada. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Disability Savings Act of 2008. This important legislation is designed to help individuals with disabilities live full and productive lives for all their years. As we all know, disability is a part of human experience. The U.S. Census Bureau reports nearly 20 percent of Americans have some level of disability while 12.5 percent reported a severe disability. We should do what we can to make it possible for these Americans to live independently, exert control and choice over their lives, and fully participate in their communities. One of the key ways we can accomplish this goal is to help individuals with disabilities and their families save money for disability related expenses, especially those expected over the course of full life. Over the years, Congress has provided incentives to American families to save for various long term goals: college education, home ownership, and retirement. These incentives have given families the tools to help their children, well after they have left the home. But for families who have a child with a disability, particularly a cognitive disability, these goals may not match their needs. Many of these children will depend on Medicaid, Social Security Disability Insurance, and Supplemental Security Income. They cannot risk losing these benefits. And they may never get to the point where they can consider college or home ownership. These individuals will frequently incur significant additional costs related to services and supports necessary to maintain health and independence. Parents also have to worry about what will happen to their children after they are gone. The World Institute on Disability reports that over 1/3 of adults with disabilities live in households with income of $15,000 or less. According to the 2005 American Community Survey, median earnings for individuals with disabilities were a little more than half of the median income of those without disabilities. It is common for families to provide for individuals with significant disabilities who cannot support themselves. These families often do this at great cost to themselves both financially and emotionally. They do it out of love, and they do not ask to be relieved of their burdens. But they are hoping that we can provide the tools to help them ensure their loved ones can lead full lives for many years. That is why I am introducing the Disability Savings Act of 2008. This bill will encourage individuals with disabilities and their families to save money for their unique disability-related needs in Disability Savings Accounts. These accounts will provide a tax-advantaged mechanism for individuals with disabilities to save money. The interest on these accounts, with a balance of up to $250,000, will be tax free. Expenditures from the accounts for specific qualified services such as education, medical services, employment training and support, and transportation, will not be subject to income tax. The accounts will be easier to manage, and use than other existing savings mechanisms for individuals with disabilities. To be sure these accounts are available to low and moderate income earners, there will be a refundable matching tax credit of up to $1000 for contributions. Account holders can even roll funds from college savings plans and special needs trusts for the same beneficiary into the Disability Savings Account without penalty. These accounts will supplement, not supplant, benefits provided by other, sources such as Medicaid, private insurance, and Supplemental Security Income, SSI, and the assets held within them will not be counted against eligibility for those programs. In order to be eligible to have a Disability Savings Account, beneficiaries must be determined to be blind or disabled by the Social Security Administration or the Disability Determination Service of a state, and be under the age of 65. The accounts can be held and managed through a financial institution by the beneficiary, their spouse or family member, or a legal guardian. I hope that my colleagues will see the benefit of this approach and join me in this effort. I urge them to cosponsor this legislation and work with me to give individuals with disabilities and their families the tools they need to live healthy independent lives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.