Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 558, the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007. After many months of negotiations, I am pleased to call myself a strong supporter of this legislation. I thank the Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and pensions Committee and the senior Senator from New Mexico for working with me and congratulate them on passage of S. 558. They and their staff have worked long hours to craft this compromise bill. Supporters of mental health parity, old and new, should commend the leadership of Senators Kennedy and Domenici for their years of commitment and struggle to pass expanded Federal mental health parity legislation. Millions of Americans are affected by mental illness. Each year, more than 50 million American adults will suffer from a mental disorder. All of us know a friend, a relative, a neighbor, a colleague whose life has been touched by mental illness, either their own or the illness of a loved one. Yet despite the compelling need, under many health plans, mental health benefits are much more limited than benefits for medical or surgical care. Even though a range of effective treatments exist for almost all mental disorders, those suffering from mental illness often face increased barriers to care and the stigma that underlies discriminatory practices in how we treat mental illness. These are the individuals that have insurance. It can only be worse for those without insurance. Mental health must not take a backseat to other health conditions. My own State of Connecticut recognized the disparity between insurance coverage for physical and mental illness and made significant steps to address it by enacting strong mental health parity and consumer protection laws. These laws far exceed what exists currently at the Federal level and I believe the bill being passed by the Senate today will allow my State to maintain those strong laws in the future. I was an original cosponsor of the original mental health parity bill in 1996 along with Senator Domenici and the late Senator Wellstone and have been a strong supporter of efforts to strengthen that bill since it was signed into law. But the legislation the HELP Committee marked up last February was different from what our late colleague Paul championed for so many years. The legislation our committee marked up contained preemption language which was broader in scope than what was in Federal mental health parity bills in the past. For that reason, I offered amendments during that markup to address preemption in a way I believed would have taken a major step toward protecting State insurance laws and ensuring that we do no harm to State-based consumer protections through passage of Federal mental health parity. At that markup, I voiced concerns about the impact the bill would have on States like Connecticut who have strong mental health parity laws, strong consumer protection laws, and strong benefit mandate laws. As a result of my continued concerns about the impact this bill would have on the residents of my State, I withheld cosponsorship of the legislation until the issues surrounding preemption could be resolved. Due to the hard work and dedication of members on both sides of the aisle, my concerns have been addressed and I can now support the legislation. Specifically, the bill being passed today removed the broad preemption language entirely. The bill now relies on the existing preemption of State law standard currently in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Public Health Service Act, preserving States' laws relating to health insurance issuers. In many States, such issuers contract out the key insurance function of reviewing medical claims by their insureds to utilization review or medical management companies, which are licensed and regulated by the states. In fact, the legislation written by Chairman Kennedy, called the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA, was an innovative approach to Federal health care reform that has worked well in setting a minimum standard of protections while allowing stronger State-based consumer protections. It is my understanding that the bill passed today will operate in a very similar manner. I thank Senators Kennedy and Domenici for entering into a colloquy with me to further clarify the intent of this legislation. They have been open and willing to working with me since the HELP Committee markup occurred to address the concerns I had with this legislation. I would also like to acknowledge and thank the tremendous work and expertise of Mila Kofman, Associate Research Professor, Health Policy Institute, Georgetown University. She worked tirelessly to assist the members and staff through the complex issues of ERISA and preemption. From my own State of Connecticut, I would like to thank Kevin Lembo, Victoria Veltri, and Richard Kehoe who worked closely with my staff to ensure that Connecticut's strong mental health parity laws would be protected under this legislation. The bill we are passing today will not only mean new Federal protections for people in self-insured ERISA plans, but it will also protect workers and families in States with insurance laws that are stronger than the Federal ones by allowing those State laws to remain in effect. It reflects months and years of hard work and compromise. It is a victory for patients who need coverage for mental health services and I am pleased to stand in support of this legislation.

Mr. DODD. I thank the chairman of the HELP Committee and the distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico and congratulate them on passage of S. 558, the Mental Health Parity Act. They and their staff have worked long hours to craft this compromise bill, and I congratulate them on this victory for individuals with mental illness throughout the country. Supporters of mental health parity, old and new, should commend the leadership of Senators Domenici and Kennedy for their years of commitment and struggle to pass Federal mental health parity legislation. I was an original cosponsor of the original mental health parity bill in 1996, along with Senator Domenici and the late Senator Wellstone, and have been a strong supporter of efforts to strengthen that bill since it was signed into law. But, as my colleagues may know, the legislation the HELP Committee marked up last February which is now before the Senate is different from what our late colleague Paul championed for so many years. The legislation our committee marked up contained preemption language which was broader in scope than what was in Federal mental health parity bills in the past. For that reason, I filed amendments during that markup to address preemption in a way I believed would have taken a major step toward protecting State insurance laws and ensuring that we do no harm to State-based consumer protections through Federal mental health parity. At that markup, I voiced concerns about the impact the bill would have on States like Connecticut who have strong mental health parity laws, strong consumer protection laws, and strong benefit mandate laws. As a result of my continued concerns about the impact this bill would have on the residents of my State, I withheld cosponsorship of the legislation until the issues surrounding preemption could be resolved. I am pleased to say that because of the hard work and dedication of Members on both sides of the aisle, my concerns have been addressed and I can now support the legislation.

Mr. DODD. The bill passing the Senate today relies on the existing preemption of State law standard currently in ERISA and the Public Health Service Act, preserving States laws relating to health insurance issuers. In many States, such issuers contract out the key insurance function of reviewing medical claims by their insurers to utilization review or medical management companies, which are licensed and regulated by the States. In fact, the legislation written by the Senator from Massachusetts, called HIPAA, was an innovative approach to Federal health care reform that has worked so well in setting a minimum standard of protections while allowing stronger State-based consumer protections. Is it the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts' belief that S. 558 preserves the States' ability to regulate such companies?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I send to the desk a private relief bill to provide permanent resident status to Juan and Alejandro Gomez, and ask that it be appropriately referred. Juan, 18, and Alejandro, 20, are natives of Colombia who came to the U.S. with their parents in August 1990 on B-2 visitors visas. They currently reside in Miami, FL with their parents. They are now the subjects of an October 14, 2007, voluntary departure date under an order of deportation. The date of their departure has been extended from September 14, 2007. Juan and Alejandro have lived continuously in the U.S. for the last 17 years. They have both graduated from Miami Killian High School and are currently enrolled in Miami Dade Community College. They have the strong support of their community. It would be an extreme hardship to uproot Juan and Alejandro from their community, which has wholeheartedly embraced them, to send them back to Colombia where there lives could be in serious danger. We all know that the circumstances of Juan and Alejandro aren't unique. Just like many other children here illegally, they had no control over their parents' decision to overstay their visas a number of years ago. Most of these young people work hard to complete school and contribute to their communities. Cases like Juan's and Alejandro's are the reason why the so called DREAM Act was attached to the comprehensive immigration reform legislation that the Senate attempted to pass earlier this year, only to face a filibuster from opponents of any comprehensive immigration reform proposal. The DREAM Act has broad partisan support and is not the reason that the immigration bill has stalled in the Senate. I would hope that consideration could be given to de-linking the DREAM Act from the larger bill so that we can put in place a legal framework for dealing with young people who are caught in this unfortunate immigration status. But that is not likely to happen soon enough to address the problems confronting Juan and Alejandro. That is why I have decided to introduce a private bill on their behalf. I will also be writing to Senator Edward Kennedy, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration to request, pursuant to the Subcommittee's Rules of Procedure, that the Subcommittee formally request an expedited departmental report from the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services regarding the Gomez brothers so that the Subcommittee can then move forward to give consideration to this bill as soon as possible. I had an opportunity to meet Juan and Alejandro recently. They believe that America is their home. They love our country and want to have an opportunity to fulfill their dreams of becoming full participants in this country. Passage of the private bill would give them that opportunity. I look forward to working with the Subcommittee to facilitate its passage.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, first, I want to commend Senator Levin and Senator Warner for their leadership on this legislation. It is not news that they do a good job. They do it consistently year in and year out. This may be one of the last Defense authorization bills in which Senator Warner is involved, having made his announcement about his decision to retire from the Senate. He has another year, next year, on the Defense authorization bill. I already sense the notion of missing him here. While he is not in the Chamber this evening, I commend Senator Warner and Senator Levin for the fine work they do year in and year out on this very important issue. I rise today to urge my colleagues to join in supporting the Specter- Leahy-Dodd amendment to restore the writ of habeas corpus for individuals held in U.S. custody. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this amendment and a cosponsor of the underlying bill from which it draws its strength, S. 185, the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act, also introduced by Senators Specter and Leahy. For over 700 years, the legal system has recognized the importance of habeas corpus, the right of an individual to question the legality of his or her detention. The Military Commissions Act is perhaps the most disappointing and dangerous piece of legislation passed in the more than quarter-century I have been a Member of this body. Among its many troublesome provisions, the act eliminated habeas corpus for those individuals held by our Government as enemy combatants. By stripping these individuals of the right to petition the Government, we have undermined our Nation's longstanding commitment to the rule of law and human rights. Advocates of this provision argued that stripping away this fundamental right was necessary to protect our Nation's security. That is totally false, in my view. We can both effectively prosecute terrorists and remain true to our values. In fact, if we do otherwise, I strongly suggest that we jeopardize our security. I stand on the floor of the Senate seeking to undo what Congress did last year when it summarily stripped habeas corpus rights with the enactment of the Military Commissions Act. Were our Founding Fathers alive today, I believe they would be seriously dismayed to realize how far our country has strayed from the values enshrined in our Constitution with the adoption of this measure. Stripping of habeas corpus rights is just one of a number of egregious provisions included in the Military Commissions Act. That is why earlier this year I introduced S. 576, the Restoring the Constitution Act, to address these errors. In addition to restoring habeas corpus rights, S. 576 would also require the United States to live up to its Geneva Convention obligations, provide detainees access to attorneys for trials, make inadmissible trial evidence gained through torture or coercion, empower military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable, and provide for the expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionality of all of its provisions. The Restoring the Constitution Act would undo the most damaging and unconstitutional aspects of the Military Commissions Act while providing the U.S. military a greater ability to bring our enemies to justice through military commissions. I take a back seat to no one when it comes to defending our Nation's security. Let me be clear, I believe military commissions in very limited circumstances may be very effective in bringing combatants to justice. However, I see no reason why procedures based on the well- established, Uniform Military Code of Justice should be abandoned. But there is a right way and a wrong way to win the fight we are in. Procedures that adhere to immediate bedrock legal principles, such as habeas corpus, abide by the Geneva Conventions, and exclude hearsay evidence or evidence obtained through torture, to name but a few, do not make us weaker. Quite the contrary. They demonstrate that no terrorist can destroy our way of life and our fundamental values that have guided our Nation for over two centuries. During the debate on the Military Commissions Act last year, Senator Specter, Senator Leahy, and I offered an amendment that would have retained the writ of habeas corpus. Unfortunately, our amendment was rejected by this body. On September 28, 2006, I voted against the Military Commissions Act. Sadly, I was in the minority in doing so. I was and remain deeply disappointed that the Senate passed this misguided legislation. That day was a dark day in the history of this body. On that day, we abandoned our commitment not only to human rights, but also to the rule of law, commitments that separate us from our enemies, commitments that have been fundamental to American leadership since the end of World War II. This issue has special resonance with me because of my father, Thomas Dodd, who sat in this very body at this very desk, as a member of the Senate from Connecticut. Years before, in 1945 and 1946, before becoming a Member of Congress, my father was a prosecutor working alongside Justice Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg war crimes trials in Germany. There the United States demonstrated to the world its profound commitment to the rule of law, due process, and human rights. Many of our allies did not see the need for trials for Nazis held by allied forces. Indeed, many of them called for summary executions. The Soviet Union wanted a show trial and then to shoot the defendants at Nuremberg. Winston Churchill, the former British Prime Minister, also advocated summary execution for the defendants at Nuremberg. The United States, Judge Robert Jackson, Henry Stimson, the Republican Secretary of War under Franklin Roosevelt, Ben Rosen, Robert Jackson and my father argued, that, no, we were different. The United States was going to demonstrate to the world that civility and the rule of law was what was at stake in the war with Germany and Japan and that we would not succumb to the same kind of treatment they gave to their victims. The opening statement made by Robert Jackson at Nuremberg, a statement which I put to memory a long time ago, indicates the difference we brought to this issue. Robert Jackson, speaking of the Soviet Union, the British, the French, and the United States, said on that occasion: That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the rule of law is one of the most significant tributes that power has ever paid to reason. Instead, we gave the Nazis--members of the world's most barbaric regime--the protections and the rights of the rule of law. The Nuremberg trials not only brought many of the Nazi war criminals to justice--most were executed--but helped to demonstrate to the world the importance of providing even the most heinous of criminals the protections of the rule of law. Doing so makes our Nation incalculably stronger, not weaker at all. But I fear Congress has allowed the President to diminish our Nation's commitment to human rights and the rule of law. We have failed to stand up for our most cherished values. We let fear--the fear of being seen as weak--override our duty to protect the Constitution and the values of our Nation. It is not too late to right the wrong of last year. We will have that opportunity in the next day or so. While I am hopeful the Federal courts will strike down many of the provisions of the Military Commissions Act, I believe a decision earlier this year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia demonstrates the need for the amendment before us today by Senators Leahy, Specter, myself, and others. On February 20, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the provisions of the Military Commissions Act eliminating the writ of habeas corpus for enemy combatants. Despite two recent Supreme Court decisions suggesting that habeas rights cannot legislatively be stripped away, the split decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia underlines the need for this body to proactively act now to unambiguously restore habeas rights. For more than 60 years, the United States has helped to lead the world through its commitment to human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Last year, our Nation lost the moral high ground. This year, Congress must reassert to the Nation, the President, and the courts that we recognize the vital role of habeas corpus in our legal system. I believe the Specter-Leahy-Dodd amendment is the first step in undoing the terrible damage the Military Commissions Act has done to our legal system and our international reputation. I implore my colleagues to begin today to undo the harm done to our Nation's reputation by voting to restore habeas rights, which have always been a core element of our jurisprudence, and once again restore the moral authority we captured more than 60 years ago at a place called Nuremberg. This generation bears no less a responsibility to protect those basic rights that are the foundation of our great Nation. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. You bet.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I send to the desk a private relief bill to provide permanent resident status to Juan and Alejandro Gomez, and ask that it be appropriately referred. Juan, 18, and Alejandro, 20, are natives of Colombia who came to the U.S. with their parents in August 1990 on B-2 visitors visas. They currently reside in Miami, FL with their parents. They are now the subjects of an October 14, 2007, voluntary departure date under an order of deportation. The date of their departure has been extended from September 14, 2007. Juan and Alejandro have lived continuously in the U.S. for the last 17 years. They have both graduated from Miami Killian High School and are currently enrolled in Miami Dade Community College. They have the strong support of their community. It would be an extreme hardship to uproot Juan and Alejandro from their community, which has wholeheartedly embraced them, to send them back to Colombia where there lives could be in serious danger. We all know that the circumstances of Juan and Alejandro aren't unique. Just like many other children here illegally, they had no control over their parents' decision to overstay their visas a number of years ago. Most of these young people work hard to complete school and contribute to their communities. Cases like Juan's and Alejandro's are the reason why the so called DREAM Act was attached to the comprehensive immigration reform legislation that the Senate attempted to pass earlier this year, only to face a filibuster from opponents of any comprehensive immigration reform proposal. The DREAM Act has broad partisan support and is not the reason that the immigration bill has stalled in the Senate. I would hope that consideration could be given to de-linking the DREAM Act from the larger bill so that we can put in place a legal framework for dealing with young people who are caught in this unfortunate immigration status. But that is not likely to happen soon enough to address the problems confronting Juan and Alejandro. That is why I have decided to introduce a private bill on their behalf. I will also be writing to Senator Edward Kennedy, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration to request, pursuant to the Subcommittee's Rules of Procedure, that the Subcommittee formally request an expedited departmental report from the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services regarding the Gomez brothers so that the Subcommittee can then move forward to give consideration to this bill as soon as possible. I had an opportunity to meet Juan and Alejandro recently. They believe that America is their home. They love our country and want to have an opportunity to fulfill their dreams of becoming full participants in this country. Passage of the private bill would give them that opportunity. I look forward to working with the Subcommittee to facilitate its passage.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the fiscal year 2008 Transportation-HUD appropriations bill, which was passed by the Senate earlier today. I would like to begin by thanking Chairwoman Murray and Ranking Member Bond. Crafting legislation that seeks to meet the transportation and housing needs of our Nation is no easy feat, and I commend the hard work of the chairwoman, the ranking member, my colleagues on the subcommittee, and their staffs. The legislation passed by the Senate provides nearly $105 billion for the upcoming fiscal year. Almost $66 billion is allocated to the Department of Transportation and nearly $39 billion is allocated to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I would like to speak on some of the transit and housing provisions in this legislation that fall under the Banking Committee's jurisdiction. I note that although this bill provides an increase in transit funding over fiscal year 2007, it does not fund transit at the level authorized in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, SAFETEA-LU, the surface transportation authorization bill which Congress passed just 2 years ago. Safe and efficient transit systems provide significant benefits both to transit riders and to others in the community, including employers, property owners, and automobile drivers. In fact, the Texas Transportation Institute has estimated that transit saves Americans over $18 billion a year by reducing the amount of time we spend in traffic. Moreover, 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. Transit ridership is at its highest level in 40 years, and strong support for transit is essential in light of this increasing demand. I hope that this shortfall will be addressed by the conference committee. I would like to thank Senators Murray and Bond, as well as my ranking member on the Banking Committee, Senator Shelby, for working with me to include an amendment related to the Federal Transit Administration's proposed rule implementing the New Starts program. Through the New Starts program, the Federal Government helps to fund major transit investments in communities around the country. The proposed rule fails to follow SAFETEA-LU in several material respects, and at the same time, introduces new concepts that were not authorized in SAFETEA-LU. This amendment makes clear that the FTA's failure to follow the law is unacceptable. I am pleased that this bill provides additional funding, above the President's request, for many critical housing and community development programs. Unfortunately, the administration continues to request insufficient funds for these programs, and, in fact, each year has asked Congress to cut programs that assist our Nation's most vulnerable--children, seniors, and those with disabilities. Each year, we attempt to restore these cuts, and this year is no exception. Chairwoman Murray, and Ranking Member Bond, strong supporters of these programs, have, once again, successfully restored most of the cuts, helping to ensure that low-income families will have safe, decent and affordable housing in strong communities. The housing programs funded in this bill assist millions of families around our country. Without housing assistance, many families would lack the stability to find and retain employment, and many children would be unable to adequately perform in school because of multiple moves or health problems resulting from inadequate housing, including asthma, poor nutrition and lead poisoning. The wages of working families have not kept pace with housing costs. On average, a family in our country must earn $16.31 per hour at a full-time job in order to afford a modest 2-bedroom apartment without foregoing other basic needs. This amount is three times the minimum wage. In my home State of Connecticut, the wage needed to afford a modest 2-bedroom apartment is almost 4 times the minimum wage. This significant gap between the wages of low-income earners and housing costs makes evident that housing assistance is necessary for many working Americans. This bill restores funding to the public housing program, which houses over 1.2 million of our Nation's lowest-income families. The public housing program has been targeted by this administration for deep cuts each year, and has lost hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 7 years. This year, the administration sought cuts to public housing funding of almost $500 million. The bill before us restores these cuts, increasing funding for the Public Housing Capital Fund by $61 million, the Operating Fund by $336 million, and restoring funding for the successful Hope VI program. Even these levels of funding are lower than what is realistically needed by public housing agencies to operate all of their units, but we are pleased to see these increases. The bill we passed also increases funding for the Section 8 housing voucher program to ensure that all families currently in the program can retain housing. In addition, the bill provides funding for vouchers for veterans to make sure that American veterans have access to stable and affordable housing. It is a national disgrace that veterans, who have defended our country, are unable to access housing assistance in their times of need, and I strongly support the efforts of Senators Murray and Bond to address this critical failure. The Section 8 housing voucher program assists over 2 million families in affording rents in the private housing market. While the appropriators have done an exceptional job at protecting this program from budget cuts, a combination of legislative language and administrative changes have altered the funding formula in the Section 8 program numerous times over the last several years, leaving housing agencies without assurance that all of their units will be funded. I applaud Senators Murray and Bond for including language in this bill retaining the Section 8 formula that was put in place last year--a formula that allocates funding in a reasonable way, and provides funding stability for housing agencies and the families they serve. I urge the chairwoman and ranking member to retain this formula throughout the whole appropriations process. This bill also ensures that programs to house seniors, people with disabilities and people living with HIV/AIDS are fully funded. The President, astonishingly, requested a cut of $160 million to the senior housing program, and a cut of $112 million to the housing program for people with disabilities. I want to thank Chairwoman Murray and Ranking Member Bond for restoring these significant and shortsighted cuts. The bill we passed also seeks to increase funding for CDBG and the HOME program, two flexible sources of funds that communities use to house families across the income spectrum, provide rental assistance, rehabilitate housing and public facilities, provide and sustain homeownership opportunities, and restore and strengthen communities. In this bill, CDBG funding has been increased by $288 million over last year's funding level, and HOME has been increased by over $200 million, including an additional $100 million for housing counseling, specifically for counseling to prevent foreclosures, an increase I sought and strongly support. This $100 million is critical to helping build the counseling infrastructure that can help tens of thousands of American families threatened with default and foreclosure save their homes, preserve their home equity, and maintain their dignity. As many of my colleagues know, the subprime mortgage market has been rife with abusive and predatory lending practices that have led to millions of Americans being trapped in adjustable rate mortgages, ARMs, with mortgage payments that will soon explode to unaffordable levels. During hearings that I chaired in the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, senior executives from some of the largest subprime lenders acknowledged that they knew, when their companies funded these loans, that many of these borrowers could not afford these payments after the interest rates reset and payments increased. Yet, they made the loans and collected the fees. In most cases, the lenders sold these loans off to the secondary market. Today, these homeowners, and their communities, are paying a steep price in lost equity and falling home prices. In fact, the Center for Responsible Lending, CRL, released a report late last year predicting that 2.2 million families would lose their homes at a cost of $164 billion in hard-earned home equity. When this report was released, we heard howls of protest from many analysts and industry officials; yet, as the weeks and months go by, and each new round of foreclosure statistics are released, the CRL number looks more and more accurate. The additional $100 million in counseling funds will help organizations with the experience and expertise to work with lenders and servicers to reach out to borrowers early--prior to loan resets, if possible--to try to modify loans to make them affordable for the long- term. This effort is crucial--one industry study indicates that over 6 million subprime borrowers, with over $1.5 trillion in home loans, will face mortgage loan resets in 2007 and beyond. Given the fact that we are already experiencing historically high foreclosure rates, we need to take decisive action to keep hard-working Americans in their homes. While this bill helps to ensure that low- and moderate-income families can afford decent and safe housing, I am concerned with the level of funding provided for Section 8 project-based assistance. This bill provides the level of funding requested by the administration; however, HUD recently alerted us that this is well below what is needed to pay for all project-based assistance contracts. Without adequate funding, property owners in the program will not be able to continue providing affordable housing to low-income families. I have called on the administration to immediately provide Congress with an estimate of the amount of funds needed to fully fund these contracts for housing assistance, and yet we have not received this vital information. If there is a shortfall in this program, we will have to address this problem. In closing, I would like mention a few additional initiatives funded under this bill. I am pleased that Amtrak has received almost $1.4 billion in this legislation--funding that will ensure the continuation of passenger rail service in this country. I am also pleased that Senators Murray and Bond agreed to an amendment I cosponsored with Senator Clinton regarding the redesigning of airspace over greater New York. Over the past several months, I have voiced concern over the way the Federal Aviation Administration has proposed redesigning airspace in the Northeast. While I am supportive of the idea to reduce the air traffic congestion that currently plagues our country, I believe the FAA has an obligation to submit redesign proposals that are transparent and allow for full and informed public comment. The amendment adopted in this legislation takes a step forward in that direction. Finally, I am pleased that this bill contains vital resources for many important transportation and economic revitalization initiatives in my home state. It is my hope this funding is retained as the Senate proceeds to a conference with the other Chamber.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to herald the passage of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. This bill not only helps students and families better afford higher education, it will ultimately ensure that our country stays competitive in a global economy. I thank my colleagues Senators Kennedy and Enzi for their efforts on this important legislation and congratulate them on bringing additional dollars into the student financial aid system. I also look forward to completing the rest of the Higher Education Reauthorization package later this year. The College Cost Reduction and Access Act makes significant steps to assist students in several important ways: by increasing student aid, especially the Pell grant; by addressing college debt; by increasing college access and expanding college preparation programs; by providing incentives for teachers to go to the neediest schools; by reforming the student loan system to benefit students; and by strengthening minority serving institutions. We have accomplished all of this without increasing the Federal deficit and actually providing $750 million in deficit reduction. We recapture $20 billion by reforming the student lending system in order to invest additional resources into preparing our students for the global economy. The annual cost of college is staggering at roughly $13,000 a year to attend a public university and $30,000 on average for a private university. In Connecticut, 33 percent of family median income is needed to pay for a public college. Thirty three percent even after financial aid is received! At a time when costs for other household necessities are rising and incomes are not keeping up, families and students are getting priced out of their opportunity to attend college. This year alone, it is estimated that 400,000 high school graduates who are prepared and ready to go to a 4-year college will be unable to go because their families cannot afford it. If America is to remain the land of opportunity, then we must ensure that college is available to all of our citizenry. Not only is paying for an education a daunting task, but the debt incurred to complete a higher education is astounding. In Connecticut, 58 percent of graduating seniors are leaving school with debt, at an average of $19, 440 per graduate. For low-income and moderate income students the thought of being saddled with a burden of debt prevents them from pursuing higher education at all. Aside from the Federal loan program, practices in the private lending system have been demonstrated to dig our students deeper and deeper into debt. In this bill, we have also strengthened our commitment to recruit Americans to public oriented sectors--public service employees, childcare workers, and many others will be offered loan forgiveness on their direct Federal loans after 10 years of payments. By capping the repayments of Federal loans at 15 percent of one's discretionary income, this bill will also ensure that students can choose jobs that best suit them, rather than jobs that only pay the bills. Borrowers are also assisted by the interest rates on subsidized student loans being cut in half. Over four years, this rate will be reduced from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. Students will be enabled to pay off debt sooner with less interest due to this provision in the conference report. Students in most need of assistance are the critical focus of this bill. I am pleased that minority serving institutions receive an additional $510 million to ensure that their students graduate. The Upward Bound program also receives an additional $285 million to prepare low-income students for a higher education. In order to ensure that all students are ready to go onto college, the new TEACH program provides incentives for students who agree to teach in high-poverty schools or teach high-need subjects. This bill will also allow additional low-income families to automatically claim zero expected family contributions when filling out financial aid forms. This change will allow students of these from lower-income families to be eligible for increased Pell grants. Financial forms themselves will become more user-friendly to provide additional assistance for low-income families in accessing student aid. I am very pleased with the increase in the Pell grant provided in this bill. The maximum Pell grant will be raised to $5,100, in 2008 and up to $5,400 by the year 2012. I wish it were much higher, considering the small portion of the cost of public education that a Pell grant provides today. The grant used to cover 80 percent of the average tuition, fees, room and board at a public university. Today the Pell grant covers an average of 29 percent. While I continue to advocate for even greater increases in the Pell grant, I commend my colleagues for taking steps to get us back to the 80-percent tuition coverage we achieved in 1975. I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to talk about the private student lending market. Until we reach the goal of 80 percent of students' tuition being covered by Pell grants and other forms of Federal financial aid, many students have been, and will continue to be forced to turn to private and direct consumer and student loans, which are not guaranteed by the Federal Government and are not subject to loan limits. Private student loans are now the fastest growing segment of the $85 billion student loan industry due to rising college cost, Federal financial aid remaining stagnant and increased demand for a college education. This concerns me for several reasons. The underwriting for private loans is similar to that used for other forms of consumer credit. This means that student borrowers, who usually have little or no credit history, poor credit scores, or no parental cosigner, or whose parents have poor credit histories, will typically pay higher rates than those with good credit histories and those with parental cosigners with good credit. This model runs counter to the longstanding Federal purpose of student aid, which is targeting low-cost financial assistance to students with the greatest needs, one of the great success stories of our country dating back to the G.I. bill in 1944. Earlier this year, at a hearing I convened within the Senate Banking Committee, committee members listened to testimony that detailed aggressive and questionable marketing practices and other unseemly industry practices, ranging from conflicts of interest to kickback schemes to consumer fraud, that have been unveiled by congressional and State investigations into the private student loan industry. The issues uncovered at that hearing led to legislation, ``The Private Student Loan Transparency and Improvement Act of 2007,'' which was marked up and approved overwhelmingly by the Senate Banking Committee prior to Congress adjourning for the August recess. The ability to pursue a higher education is a fundamental element of the American dream. We must ensure that Americans have options to be able to pay for college, and I believe that private lending should be one of them. But students should have full and timely access to all of the information they need regarding the terms and conditions of private student loans in order to make a well-informed decision regarding the financing of their educational needs. Conflict-driven industry practices like revenue sharing and cobranding must be prohibited and student loan underwriting should occur in a manner that does not have a disparate or discriminatory impact on minority borrowers. The legislation we passed within the Banking Committee would accomplish many of these important objectives. It requires lenders to provide more accurate and timely information to their customers about the interest rates, terms, and conditions of their products, thereby helping students better understand their financial options and obligations. It prohibits documented practices that have harmed students and families in obtaining the most competitive and affordable student loans and requires a government review into the extent to which private student loan underwriting practices may disparately impact student borrowers and colleges on the basis of factors including race and income levels. I believe it is imperative that as we consider inclusion of the private lending legislation as a complimentary component to the Higher Education Act. We should ensure that this fast-growing market is well regulated and remains accessible and affordable as an alternative source of higher education funding for students who need them. I look forward to working with the managers of this bill towards that important goal. The legislation before us will make college more affordable for students and their families. Reinvigorating our commitment to higher education as we do in this conference report keeps our country moving in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to further invest in our future by completing the Higher Education Act reauthorization before the end of September. Again, I congratulate Senators Kennedy and Enzi and all of my colleagues, including Representative Miller, for providing the most significant assistance to our students since the G.I. bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 257, S. 1257, a bill to provide the District of Columbia a voting seat and the State of Utah an additional seat in the House of Representatives.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives from the House H.R. 3159, the Dwell Time Act, the bill be considered as having been read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table without intervening action or debate.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 321, S. 742, that the committee-reported amendment be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table and any statements be printed in the Record as if read.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 320, S. 1785, that the committee-reported amendment be considered and agreed to, the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Last, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 93, S. 558, that the amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the committee-reported substitute as amended be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record with no intervening action or debate.

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 327 and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Senator from Rhode Island has been so persuasive in his argument, I ask that he add me as a cosponsor to the bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, both our colleagues from Minnesota have left the floor, but I join with my colleague from Rhode Island and others here in expressing our regrets and our condolences to the people of Minnesota for the tragedy that State has gone through with the collapse of the highway over the Mississippi River. Certainly all of us extend our sympathies to those who lost loved ones and those who were injured. We in Congress will do whatever we can to help out in that situation, as all of us have at one time or another stood in this Chamber and asked for help for our States because of a tragedy that has occurred. It is very much in keeping with the tradition of this body to respond to tragedies such as the one Minnesota has experienced. I want to take a moment, however, and urge my colleagues during the next few weeks to consider an important bill to try to address the growing problem of deteriorating infrastructure across our nation. For nearly 2 years, the Senator from Nebraska and I, Senator Hagel, have been working on this bill, along with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Felix Rohatyn, who has been very involved in the issues of New York City, and our former Senate colleagues Warren Rudman and Bob Kerrey. The numbers are staggering. There are some 160,000 bridges of the 900,000 in our country that are deficient, to put it mildly. We saw what happened in Minnesota. There are 614 transit systems in deep need of repair. One-third of all our highways are in need of significant repair and improvement. The water systems and wastewater systems in the United States are, on average, almost 100 years old. Clearly, the ability of our appropriations process to maintain the needed infrastructure for our country is inadequate. We all know that. So we have spent time over the last 2, 2\1/2\ years working with people on Wall Street and others to come up with ideas on how we might attract capital to the area of infrastructure development. Ironically, we had talked about delaying this announcement until September, but at the suggestion of Senator Hagel, we decided Wednesday morning to make the announcement before we left for the August break. I think we had four members of the press in the gallery to cover the initial announcement of this year-and-a-half long effort. And of course by 5 or 6 o'clock that afternoon, we had heard the news of what happened in Minneapolis, which heightened the country's awareness of a problem that was well-known to those of us looking into this over the years. This should never have happened in the United States. We have been successful over the years because we have understood the relationship of strong infrastructure systems, wastewater treatment systems, highways, bridges, and transit systems, to our ability to grow economically. Of course, some of the major efforts that have increased the prosperity of our country have been big ideas in infrastructure. Certainly the interstate highway system, under Dwight Eisenhower, is a classic example of a project that dramatically improved the economy of our Nation more than 50 years ago. At any rate, there are a number of examples, and I hope my colleagues will look at this critically important legislation we have presented for their consideration. We look forward to further examining how better to deal with the large problems facing us when we reconvene this fall. As many of my colleagues may know, a $1 billion investment, whether public or private money, would generate as many as 40,000 jobs. So, in addition to addressing major deficiencies in our infrastructure, it will also spur economic development and provide needed work for those in the construction fields and trades. Again, this is an important issue, and one that is unfortunately receiving more attention than it would otherwise, except for the tragedy in Minnesota. In my home State of Connecticut, we went through a similar tragedy, as my colleague from Rhode Island may recall, on Route 95 along the Mianus River, the corridor running through his State and mine, down to Florida. A whole section of that road in western Connecticut collapsed. Four people lost their lives on that day when the Mianus River bridge fell. So we relate to and understand what has happened in Minnesota. Again, our invitation is to take a look at this. It is an idea, a big idea, a large idea, creatively financed to be able to do something serious about this growing problem. It is a problem we are going to be hearing more and more about if we fail to take the necessary steps to improve this infrastructure. We must work to construct what needs to be constructed and put our feet back on the ground. I thank my colleagues. I am going to make some unanimous consent requests here.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if the Senate receives the message from the House on H.R. 1538, the Wounded Warrior bill, with a request for a conference, the Senate agree to the request and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am in strong support of H.R. 976, the Small Business Tax Relief Act. There are few more important issues facing the Senate than the health and well-being of our nation's children. The vote to pass this legislation is a vote for children. It is a vote to do what's right for our nation's youth. As the father of two young daughters, I know the importance of having the peace of mind to know that if one of them gets sick they have the health insurance coverage that will provide for them if they break a bone or get a cold. For millions of parents, every slight sniffle or aching tooth could mean the difference between paying the rent or paying for medical care. It is our national shame that nine million children wake up every day lacking any form of health insurance. For their parents, the lack of access to health insurance means a regular check up is sidelined, a dental exam goes unscheduled, or an early diagnosis of a chronic condition such as asthma or diabetes is postponed. For families, such delays in access to proper health care set the stage for children to grow up underperforming in school, developing preventable or treatable conditions, or worse, permanent disability or even premature death. The lack of health insurance goes beyond poor health outcomes. Health insurance is inextricably linked with alleviating child poverty. Low- income families without insurance often get stuck in an endless cycle of medical debt. Personal debt due to medical expenses is a primary cause of bankruptcy filings in this country. Parents already struggling to make ends meet should not have to choose between buying medication for their children and putting food on the table. I commend the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for working so hard to put together a bill that will benefit the lives of millions of children and their families. Through their leadership and that of Senators Hatch, Rockefeller, Kennedy and many others, since the Children's Health Insurance Program was first enacted, the number of uninsured children has decreased by one-third. The bill passed by the Senate is an important vote for children. Although I supported efforts to broaden the bill to cover an additional one million uninsured children, the bill passed by the Senate is a tremendous investment in the health and future of our children. Specifically, this bill continues providing coverage for 6.6 million children currently enrolled in CHIP and provides coverage for 3.2 million children who are currently uninsured today. It will reduce the number of uninsured children by one third over the next 5 years. In my own State of Connecticut, our CHIP program, commonly known as HUSKY B, has brought affordable health insurance to more than 130,000 children in working families since its inception in 1998. H.R. 976 is essential to states like Connecticut so that they may continue to operate programs like HUSKY B and build on their proven success to insure even more children. I am additionally very pleased that my Support for Injured Servicemembers Act amendment was included in the final SCHIP bill. This amendment provides up to 6 months of Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, leave for family members of military personnel who suffer from a combat-related injury or illness. FMLA currently allows three months of unpaid leave. Fourteen years ago, FMLA declared the principle that workers should never be forced to choose between the jobs they need and the families they love. In the years since its passage, more than 50 million Americans have taken advantage of its provisions to care for a sick love one, or recover from illness themselves, or welcome a new baby into the family. Mr. President, if ordinary Americans deserve those rights, how much more do they apply to those who risk their lives in the service of our country? Soldiers who have been wounded in our service deserve everything America can give to speed their recoveries--but most of all, they deserve the care of their closest loved ones. Given the severity of their injuries, and our debt of gratitude, our servicemembers need more. That is exactly what is offered in the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act. Senator Bob Dole and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala have been instrumental in this effort as well, through their thoughtfulness and work on the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors. It's not surprising that the Commission found that family members play a critical role in the recovery of our wounded servicemembers. The commitment shown by the families and friends of our troops is truly inspiring. According to the Commission's report, 33 percent of active duty servicemembers report that a family member or close friend relocated for extended periods of time to help their recoveries. It also points out that 21 percent of active duty servicemembers say that their friends or family members gave up jobs to find the time. I am pleased that Senator Clinton is the lead co-sponsor of my amendment. FMLA was the very first bill that President Clinton signed into law, and I am grateful that his wife, Senator Clinton, continues to support the principles that I have been fighting for over 20 years. I am pleased that Senators Dole, Graham, Kennedy, Chambliss, Reed, Mikulski, Murray, Salazar, Lieberman, Menendez, Brown, Nelson of Nebraska, and Cardin are co-sponsoring this amendment. I thank Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley for accepting this important amendment and appreciate the support of all of my colleagues in this effort. Mr. President, I am troubled by the comments from the Bush administration about this bill. It is a bill to help children and an overwhelming majority of members on both sides of the aisle have voted to support that goal. The CHIP Program is a model of success and this bill provides sustainable and predictable health care coverage for low income children regardless of their health status. One day soon, the President will make a decision on whether to sign CHIP reauthorization into law. At that moment, all Americans will know whether the President stands for children or would rather stand in the way of children's access to critically needed health care.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, on behalf of myself and Senator Clinton, Senator Dole, Senator Graham, Senator Mikulski, Senator Chambliss, Senator Brown, Senator Cardin, Senator Menendez, Senator Salazar, Senator Kennedy, Senator Reed and Senator Boxer, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, on behalf of myself and Senator Clinton and the others I have mentioned here, I seek to, as soon as possible, meet the suggestions that have been recommended by the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors. I want to express my gratitude to my colleague from New York as well as to others who have joined with us on this effort. This report was submitted to the President by our former colleague, Senator Dole, former Secretary of Health Donna Shalala, and this report is rather extensive on their recommendations on how we might better serve our returning soldiers from the theaters of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President's Commission on Care for the Returning Wounded recommended: That Congress should amend the Family and Medical Leave Act to allow up to 6 months of leave for a family member of a servicemember who has a combat-related injury and meets the other eligibility requirements in the law. I am very proud of many things I have done over the last 25 years in the Senate. None exceeds my sense of pride more than passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Along with Senator Bond, Senator Dan Coats, Senator Specter, Senator Kennedy, and many others, after 7 years, three American Presidents, and two vetoes, we were able to adopt the Family and Medical Leave Act which, since its passage, has assisted more than 60 million Americans in being away from their jobs to be with family members during critical times in their lives without losing that job. These important life situations include the joyous occasion of a birth or adoption and the difficult circumstance of an illness of a child or another family member for up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave. It has been a remarkable asset to many people. I suspect there is not a single American family who would not relate to the importance of being able to be with a family member during a time of significant crisis. Obviously, as our wounded warriors coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq are recovering from their injuries, having their families and others with them could be of immeasurable help. Senator Dole and Donna Shalala and other members of the Commission rightly made the recommendation that we should amend the Family and Medical Leave Act to provide for up to 6 months' leave for a family member to be with these individuals without losing their job. That is what we have done with the amendment we are offering to this bill. Clearly, this bill has nothing to do with family medical leave. My colleagues from Montana and Iowa, have a tremendous responsibility in adopting the legislation before us, of which I am a strong supporter. But, knowing that we only have a short time before we adjourn for more than a month, there is a sense of urgency about providing for these families. I would hope all of us would support this amendment. This is a bipartisan suggestion that will make a difference in the lives of families who are assisting in the recovery of a wounded warrior. I commend former Senator Dole, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, and the distinguished members of the Commission for their thoughtfulness and thorough work on this matter. As the author of the underlying law, I have worked to maintain its protections and extend its protections to assist more employees. I agree with the Commission that FMLA is the best method for providing critical support for our returning heroes who are recovering from their war wounds. I am pleased to be joined, as a principal cosponsor, by Senator Clinton of New York. After more than 7 years of work, as I mentioned earlier, this proposal I made more than 20 years ago became law. It became law within days after January 20, 1993, when President William Jefferson Clinton, as his very first act, signed into law the Family and Medical Leave Act. I remember with great clarity that bright day overlooking the rose garden at the White House, President Clinton signing that bill into law. Pat Schroeder of the other body was the principal author in the House of Representatives and too often gets neglected in talking about the history of the Family and Medical Leave Act. I will be eternally grateful to Pat Schroeder for the tremendous job she did in the other body in seeing to it that this proposal became the law of the land. The Commission's findings indicate the critical role that family members play in the recovery of our wounded servicemembers: In their survey, 33 percent of active duty, 22 percent of reserve component, and 37 percent of retired/separated servicemembers report that a family member or close friend relocated for extended periods of time to be with them while they are in the hospital. Twenty-one percent of active duty, 15 percent of reserve component and 24 percent of retired/separated servicemembers say friends or family gave up a job to be with them or act as their caregiver. More than 3,000 servicemembers have been seriously injured during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In virtually every case, a wife, husband, parent, brother, or sister has received the heart stopping telephone call telling them that their loved one is sick, or injured, halfway around the world. Family or close friends stayed to assist recovery of almost 66 percent of active duty and 54 percent of reserve component servicemembers. The Support for Injured Servicemembers Act provides up to 6 months of family and medical leave for spouses, children, parents and next of kin of servicemembers who suffer from a combat-related injury or illness. FMLA currently provides for 3 months of unpaid leave to a spouse, parent or child providing care for a person with a serious illness. Our servicemembers need more. These are extraordinary circumstances. The point of the Commission and the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act that the Senate recently passed is to take care of our wounded soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with combat-related injuries. We should support their families in caring for these heroes. It is essential we do everything possible to support our troops, to allow their loved ones to be with them as they recover from combat- related injuries or illnesses. That is why we should expand and improve benefits for those caring for our servicemembers. Let me emphasize the major points: You have to have been injured in the theater of combat, Afghanistan or Iraq or in preparation for deployment. Our amendment allows for a parent, spouse, child or next of kin to provide that care-giving role. It would allow them to be with them for up to 6 months without losing their jobs. The leave is without pay. What is the universe we are talking about? It is not the entire Nation, obviously, or anyone who is wearing a uniform who happens to have been injured. You have to have been injured or acquired the illness as a result of being in the combat theater or when preparing to be deployed. The amendment is specific as to who could be the caregiver. It is very specific about the amount of time an employee acting as a caregiver would be covered. We have tried to narrow this down in a way. I am grateful to Bob Dole. He called me last Thursday early on and remembered that I had spent such as inordinate amount of time, with the help of Senator Kennedy and others, to adopt the Family and Medical Leave Act so many years ago. Most would agree today it has made a difference in the lives of people. I can't think of any better constituency to serve with expanded family medical leave than our service men and women. I see my colleague from Georgia. I thank him as well for being a cosponsor of this proposal. Those preparing for deployment obviously would be covered, if they end up being affected as a result of their injuries or illness suffered while in the theater of combat. Again, as someone who has been a floor manager of many bills over the years, I understand that is not easy to get a particularly difficult bill like this done. I applaud the commitment my colleague from Montana has brought to this legislation. It is my hope that we can achieve the kind of unanimity around this idea of supporting military families, given the fact that the President's Commission is calling for this, our former colleagues calling for it. We have a strong bipartisan group of Senators who believe this is worthwhile to do for this limited group of our fellow citizens who have suffered immeasurably as a result of their contribution. I would hope before we leave here in these next 24 or 48 hours that the very least we could do would be to provide this kind of benefit for them and their families. I truly appreciate the work of our cosponsors. In particular, their willingness to adopt a provision that would expand the pool of typical caregivers under current law for this specific purpose. Those caregivers are limited to spouses, children, and parents. Our amendment extends the caregiver role to next of kin, a brother, sister or other relative, perhaps. I gather my colleague from New York, who was very helpful in pulling this together, is on her way to the floor. She might want to be heard on this as well. I was drawing this out while we wait for her arrival.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in the wake of the terrible tragedy that began unfolding yesterday in the Twin Cities region of Minnesota. As we all know by now, the bridge carrying Interstate 35W over the Mississippi River near downtown Minneapolis abruptly collapsed during yesterday evening's rush hour. At least 50 vehicles plunged 60 feet into the river. This morning, several people are confirmed dead, dozens of people are injured, and almost two dozen people remain missing. Sadly, first responders expect the death toll to rise as search and rescue missions continue today in earnest. I would like to extend my thoughts and prayers to Senator Coleman, Senator Klobuchar, and all those directly affected by this tragedy. The people of Connecticut can sympathize with the people of Minnesota at a time like this. Just over 24 years ago, a bridge carrying Interstate 95 over the Mianus River in Greenwich, CT, collapsed in the early afternoon. Four vehicles plunged into the river, three people died, and three others sustained serious injuries. It remains the worst transportation disaster in my State's history. Today, the National Transportation Safety Board will begin investigating the bridge collapse in Minnesota. While it is too early to conclude what exactly caused the collapse, we do know that a catastrophic structural failure of some sort occurred. We also know that this truss bridge was constructed in 1967 and--according to an interview on National Public Radio this morning--likely nearing the end of a 50-year operational lifetime. The tragedy in Minnesota is the most recent example of our national infrastructure crumbling before our very eyes. Indeed, this is not a problem only affecting Minneapolis or Greenwich or--in the case of the recent steam pipe eruption--New York City. It is a problem affecting every State, county, city, and community between San Diego, CA, and Bangor, ME. For too long we have taken our infrastructure systems--our roads, bridges, mass transit systems, drinking water systems, wastewater systems, and public housing properties--for granted. For too long we have failed to invest adequately in their long-term sustainability. And today, we find ourselves in a precarious position concerning their future viability--a precarious position that is costing lives, endangering lives, and jeopardizing the high quality of life we have come to enjoy and expect as Americans. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers in their seminal 2005 Infrastructure Report Card, the current condition of our Nation's major infrastructure systems earns a grade point average of D and jeopardizes the prosperity and quality of life of all Americans. According to the Federal Highway Administration, 27.1 percent of all bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The average age of bridges in our country is 40 years. Thirty-three percent of all urban and rural roads are in poor, mediocre or fair condition. Data from the Federal Transit Administration shows our mass transit systems are becoming increasingly unable to handle the growing demands of passengers in a safe and efficient manner. A significant percentage of our Nation's drinking water and wastewater systems are obsolete; the average age of these systems ranges in age from 50 years in smaller cities to 100 years in larger cities. Clearly, these statistics are alarming and they are not getting any better. In their Infrastructure report Card, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that $1.6 trillion is needed over a 5-year period to bring our Nation's infrastructure systems to a good condition. Regrettably, our current infrastructure financing mechanisms, such as formula grants and earmarks, are not equipped by themselves to absorb this cost or meet fully these growing needs. They largely do not address capacity-building infrastructure projects of regional or national significance; they largely do not encourage an appropriate pooling of Federal, State, local and private resources; and they largely do not provide transparency to ensure the optimal return on public resources. Early yesterday afternoon, on, I joined with my colleague, Senator Hagel, in introducing bipartisan legislation to establish a new method through which the Federal Government can finance more effectively large ``capacity-building'' infrastructure projects of substantial regional or national significance by using public and private capital. I will say to my colleagues that our legislation focuses on the long-term capacity and sustainability of infrastructure facilities just like the bridge that carried Interstate 35W over the Mississippi River. Fixing our Nation's crumbling infrastructure is an issue that cannot be neglected or deferred any further. This demands our immediate attention and commitment in the Senate. The quality of life in our country hangs in the balance. Again, I extend my thoughts and prayers to those in Minnesota.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, 14 years ago, the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, declared the principle that workers should never be forced to choose between the jobs they need and the families they love. In the years since its passage, more than 50 million Americans have taken advantage of its provisions to care for a sick love one, or recover from illness themselves, or welcome a new baby into the family. If ordinary Americans deserve those rights, how much more do they apply to those who risk their lives in the service of our country? Soldiers who have been wounded in our service deserve everything America can give to speed their recoveries, but most of all, they deserve the care of their closest loved ones. That is exactly what is offered in the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act, a bill I am proud to have authored along with Senator Clinton. The FMLA was the very first bill that President Clinton signed into law, and I am grateful that his wife, Senator Clinton, continues to support the principles that I have been fighting for over 20 years. Now, I am also pleased that Senators Dole, Graham, Kennedy, Chambliss, Reed, Mikulski, Murray, Salazar, Lieberman, Menendez, Brown, Nelson of Nebraska, and Cardin are cosponsoring this new legislation today. Senator Bob Dole and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala have been instrumental in this effort as well, through their thoughtfulness and work on the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors. It is unsurprising that the commission found that family members play a critical role in the recovery of our wounded servicemembers. The commitment shown by the families and friends of our troops is truly inspiring: according to the commission's report, 33 percent of active duty servicemembers report that a family member or close friend relocated for extended periods of time to help in their recoveries. It also points out that 21 percent of active duty servicemembers say that their friends or family members gave up jobs to find the time. To quote from the commission's moving report: In virtually every case [of a wounded servicemember], a wife, husband, parent, brother, or sister has received the heart-stopping telephone call telling them that their loved one is sick or injured, halfway around the world. These loved ones bear a burden almost as sharp as the wound itself. The very least we can give them is the assurance that their jobs will be there when they return. It is for these reasons that the commission recommend that the FMLA be expanded to provide family members of combat-injured servicemembers up to 6 months of leave to care for their loved ones. The Support for Injured Servicemembers Act does just that. FMLA currently allows 3 months of unpaid leave. Given the severity of their injuries, and our debt of gratitude, our servicemembers need more. For the first time, this bill offers FMLA leave not just to parents, spouses, and children, but to next-of-kin, including siblings. Families, not the government, should decide for themselves who takes on the work of caring for their injured loved ones. This bill recognizes that fact, and it is a major accomplishment. Our troops are laying their bodies on the line for us in Iraq and Afghanistan, every day. Our full debt to them is unpayable. But perhaps the best thing we can do for them is to get out of the way, to make it possible for the love of family to heal their wounds. With their jobs protected, more family members will be able to do just that. What this bill does, then, is break down a barrier, between our troops and the care they need the most. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.