Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise briefly to speak for a few moments about the horrible tragedy we witnessed Tuesday morning in Charleston, SC: the death of nine firefighters: Captain Wiliam ``Billy'' Hutchinson, Captain Mike Benke, Captain Louis Mulkey, Engineer Mark Kelsey, Engineer Bradford ``Billy'' Baity, Assistant Engineer Michael French, Firefighter James ``Earl'' Drayton, Firefighter Brendon Thompson, and Firefighter Melvin Champaign. Clearly, this loss is one of profound sadness for the Charleston community and, indeed, for the entire Nation. My thoughts and prayers go out to these firefighters' loved ones, families, friends, and colleagues. These nine brave men died while fighting a horrific multialarm fire in which two people were ultimately saved. In other words, they selflessly gave their lives while ensuring the safety and well-being of others. This is the ultimate sacrifice of a firefighter--a sacrifice that has been made by 3,148 men and women since 1981. We must never forget the dangers firefighters across our Nation dauntlessly face each and every day--dangers that have their roots in nature or mankind. Whether responding to fires, natural disasters, or acts of terrorism, our firefighters risk and give their lives extinguishing fires, delivering lifesaving emergency medical services, conducting search and rescue missions, and responding to and handling hazardous biological and radiological agents. Our Nation's firefighters certainly do not perform these duties for any self-glorification. They perform these duties because each and every one of them answers a noble call to serve this country and protect its people from harm. Woodrow Wilson once wrote that ``. . . loyalty means nothing unless it has at its heart the absolute principle of self-sacrifice.'' Clearly, the loyalty of these nine firefighters--loyalty to duty, country, and each other--were tragically demonstrated overnight Monday. May we mourn them and draw inspiration from their actions. May we never forget them.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am proud to add my voice in support of H. Con. Res. 86, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of a world day of remembrance for road crash victims. Each crash might seem to us, in its immediacy, like an isolated tragedy, but when we step back, we see that each has its part in a global crisis that is deepening year by year. The day of remembrance-- set by the United Nations General Assembly for the third Sunday of November--is not just for the 40,000 people who die in road crashes each year in America. It is for the 1.2 million who die in crashes in every part of the world and for the staggering 20 to 50 million who are injured. In fact, the World Health Organization predicts that, by the year 2020, the death rate from crashes each year will surpass the death rate from AIDS. True, many of these crashes are unique disasters, but that leaves many more whose causes are systemic and preventable. Unsafe roads, poor medical facilities, and inadequate driver education all contribute their share to the death toll. Unsurprisingly, the toll is highest, and rising, in middle- and low-income countries. Road safety, then, is an issue of economic justice. On the world day of remembrance, we will recall all of the victims of road crashes; we keep their families in our thoughts, and we pray for the full recovery of those still living. But our compassion for individuals must not obscure the bigger picture. ``We have to change the way we think about crashes,'' said Diza Gonzaga, the mother of a car-crash victim in Brazil. ``The majority of people think that crashes are due to fate. We have to think of a crash as a preventable event.''

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007 on behalf of myself, Senator Shelby, Senator Bayh, Senator Carper, Senator Brown, and Senator Casey. Nearly two decades ago, the Senate Banking Committee enacted legislation which required the Treasury Department to identify countries that manipulate their currency for purposes of gaining an unfair competitive trade advantage and to take prompt action to eliminate the unfair trade advantage when manipulation is found. One of the very first actions that I undertook as chairman-elect of the Senate Banking Committee in December 2006 was to write a letter with then-Chairman Shelby to the Treasury Secretary about the report required under this legislation, the International Economic and Exchange Rate Policy Report and the inaugural U.S.-China strategic economic dialogue, SED. In that letter, we expressed our concern that the Treasury Department had not cited China, and potentially other nations, as currency manipulators. At one of the very first hearings I held as chairman, in January 2007, Treasury Secretary Paulson provided his first congressional testimony since his confirmation, on the SED and the exchange rate report. At that hearing, Secretary Paulson testified that China did not meet the technical requirement for designation as a currency manipulator and that the SED is the ``best chance to get some progress [on the currency issue].'' Senator Shelby and I wrote to Secretary Paulson in advance of the most recent exchange rate report and the May SED urging him to consider steps beyond dialogue to eliminate the unfair trade advantage resulting from China's ongoing currency manipulation and discriminatory market access practices. But instead of taking action, the Treasury Department once again chose not to cite China as a currency manipulator in its latest report to the Senate Banking Committee, despite acknowledging ``heavy foreign exchange market intervention by China's central bank to manage the currency tightly.'' Secretary Paulson's efforts to engage the Chinese through dialogue are commendable, but after two meetings of the strategic economic dialogue, numerous congressional hearings, and the shortcomings of the most recent exchange rate reports, it is clear that dialogue alone is not enough to make progress and legislative action is needed. Therefore, Senator Shelby and I are today introducing the Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007 which will provide the Treasury Department and Congress new, tough authority to recognize and remedy currency manipulation without ambiguity or delay. Under current law, Treasury claims that no countries meet the technical finding of intent to manipulate their currencies. Treasury reiterated this point in its most recent exchange rate report, stating: The Department of the Treasury concluded that, although the Chinese currency is undervalued, China did not meet the technical requirements for designation under the terms of Section 3004 of the Act during the period under consideration. Treasury was unable to determine that China's exchange rate policy was carried out for the purpose of preventing effective balance of payments adjustment or gaining unfair competitive advantage in international trade. The Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007 requires a Treasury designation of currency manipulation based on objective data, and without regard to subjective factors such as purpose or intent, removing a technicality that the Treasury Department has been using to defend its inaction. Once currency manipulation is found, the bill requires the Treasury Department to submit a detailed plan of action to the Congress within 30 days of such finding. The plan of action sets specific timeframes and benchmarks, with the goal of remedying the manipulation. The bill also requires the Treasury to initiate both bilateral and multilateral negotiations, including immediate IMF consultations and to use the Treasury's voice and vote at the IMF to address the manipulation. Our bill also provides new authority for the Treasury to file a WTO article XV case to remedy currency manipulation if the goals and benchmarks for progress are not met within 9 months of designation. If the Treasury continues to avoid designating countries as currency manipulators, our bill creates a new process by which Congress, led by either the Senate Banking or House Financial Services Committee, can originate a joint resolution of disapproval of the Treasury's inaction and provides for an expedited process for such a motion through the floors of both Chambers. Finally, the Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007 promotes market access for U.S. financial services firms to level the playing field for American businesses and to help develop the financial sector reform needed to support a freely floating currency in China. It also requires the Treasury Department to report on the progress of the SED, as well as on opening foreign markets to American financial services firms. It is time for American firms to be afforded the same open and fair treatment abroad that our country provides to foreign firms in the United States. I am confident that in a free and fair environment American business and entrepreneurship will flourish. Our bill will require Treasury to assume its responsibility as a referee and will fight to level this playing field by identifying and addressing unfair practices and market access barriers. During the SED events in Beijing, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke talked about the market distortions that result from ``an effective subsidy that an undervalued currency provides for Chinese firms that focus on exporting.'' I agree with Chairman Bernanke that undervalued currency is an export subsidy causing market disruptions and fully dealing with such subsidies can involve some trade remedies that are not within the Banking Committee's jurisdiction and hence not within the scope of this bill. But, remedying countervailable export subsidies is a policy that could be fully appropriate and supported by myself and my colleagues through other legislative proposals. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a one page summary of the bill, and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007 on behalf of myself, Senator Shelby, Senator Bayh, Senator Carper, Senator Brown, and Senator Casey. Nearly two decades ago, the Senate Banking Committee enacted legislation which required the Treasury Department to identify countries that manipulate their currency for purposes of gaining an unfair competitive trade advantage and to take prompt action to eliminate the unfair trade advantage when manipulation is found. One of the very first actions that I undertook as chairman-elect of the Senate Banking Committee in December 2006 was to write a letter with then-Chairman Shelby to the Treasury Secretary about the report required under this legislation, the International Economic and Exchange Rate Policy Report and the inaugural U.S.-China strategic economic dialogue, SED. In that letter, we expressed our concern that the Treasury Department had not cited China, and potentially other nations, as currency manipulators. At one of the very first hearings I held as chairman, in January 2007, Treasury Secretary Paulson provided his first congressional testimony since his confirmation, on the SED and the exchange rate report. At that hearing, Secretary Paulson testified that China did not meet the technical requirement for designation as a currency manipulator and that the SED is the ``best chance to get some progress [on the currency issue].'' Senator Shelby and I wrote to Secretary Paulson in advance of the most recent exchange rate report and the May SED urging him to consider steps beyond dialogue to eliminate the unfair trade advantage resulting from China's ongoing currency manipulation and discriminatory market access practices. But instead of taking action, the Treasury Department once again chose not to cite China as a currency manipulator in its latest report to the Senate Banking Committee, despite acknowledging ``heavy foreign exchange market intervention by China's central bank to manage the currency tightly.'' Secretary Paulson's efforts to engage the Chinese through dialogue are commendable, but after two meetings of the strategic economic dialogue, numerous congressional hearings, and the shortcomings of the most recent exchange rate reports, it is clear that dialogue alone is not enough to make progress and legislative action is needed. Therefore, Senator Shelby and I are today introducing the Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007 which will provide the Treasury Department and Congress new, tough authority to recognize and remedy currency manipulation without ambiguity or delay. Under current law, Treasury claims that no countries meet the technical finding of intent to manipulate their currencies. Treasury reiterated this point in its most recent exchange rate report, stating: The Department of the Treasury concluded that, although the Chinese currency is undervalued, China did not meet the technical requirements for designation under the terms of Section 3004 of the Act during the period under consideration. Treasury was unable to determine that China's exchange rate policy was carried out for the purpose of preventing effective balance of payments adjustment or gaining unfair competitive advantage in international trade. The Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007 requires a Treasury designation of currency manipulation based on objective data, and without regard to subjective factors such as purpose or intent, removing a technicality that the Treasury Department has been using to defend its inaction. Once currency manipulation is found, the bill requires the Treasury Department to submit a detailed plan of action to the Congress within 30 days of such finding. The plan of action sets specific timeframes and benchmarks, with the goal of remedying the manipulation. The bill also requires the Treasury to initiate both bilateral and multilateral negotiations, including immediate IMF consultations and to use the Treasury's voice and vote at the IMF to address the manipulation. Our bill also provides new authority for the Treasury to file a WTO article XV case to remedy currency manipulation if the goals and benchmarks for progress are not met within 9 months of designation. If the Treasury continues to avoid designating countries as currency manipulators, our bill creates a new process by which Congress, led by either the Senate Banking or House Financial Services Committee, can originate a joint resolution of disapproval of the Treasury's inaction and provides for an expedited process for such a motion through the floors of both Chambers. Finally, the Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007 promotes market access for U.S. financial services firms to level the playing field for American businesses and to help develop the financial sector reform needed to support a freely floating currency in China. It also requires the Treasury Department to report on the progress of the SED, as well as on opening foreign markets to American financial services firms. It is time for American firms to be afforded the same open and fair treatment abroad that our country provides to foreign firms in the United States. I am confident that in a free and fair environment American business and entrepreneurship will flourish. Our bill will require Treasury to assume its responsibility as a referee and will fight to level this playing field by identifying and addressing unfair practices and market access barriers. During the SED events in Beijing, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke talked about the market distortions that result from ``an effective subsidy that an undervalued currency provides for Chinese firms that focus on exporting.'' I agree with Chairman Bernanke that undervalued currency is an export subsidy causing market disruptions and fully dealing with such subsidies can involve some trade remedies that are not within the Banking Committee's jurisdiction and hence not within the scope of this bill. But, remedying countervailable export subsidies is a policy that could be fully appropriate and supported by myself and my colleagues through other legislative proposals. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a one page summary of the bill, and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Family Leave Insurance Act of 2007 and especially pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Stevens. This bill, which would provide 8 weeks of paid benefits to workers who take time off for reasons allowed under the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, is an important step in continuing to help our Nation's workers to be both productive employees and responsible family members. Before the FMLA, workers had no guarantee that their jobs would still be there if they took time off to care for loved ones or recover from illness themselves. Millions of Americans were forced into a challenging dilemma: care for their families, or provide for them. That is why I worked to create the FMLA in 1985, and that is why I fought for its passage through 7 years of obstruction and two presidential vetoes, pointing out that its denial of guaranteed leave put America virtually alone among nations, industrialized or otherwise. Finally, on February 5, 1993, the Family and Medical Leave Act was signed into law. Under its protection, eligible workers receive 12 weeks of leave every year, so that they can watch over a newborn or adopted baby, or help a parent through an illness, or get better themselves, knowing that their job will be there when they return. To date, more than 50 million Americans have taken that opportunity. The FMLA isn't just good for American workers, it is good for American business. Ninety percent of employers have reported that the FMLA had a neutral or positive effect on profits. Today, the idea of guaranteed leave seems obvious; but now, it is time to take another step in making that hard-won leave a possibility for even more Americans. In the 21st century, working families should not have to give up the leave they earned because they cannot afford it, they deserve paid leave. Why do we offer nothing, when the European standard is 14 paid weeks? Why are we one of only four countries in the world to deny paid maternity leave, leaving us in the company of Swaziland, Liberia, and Papua New Guinea? For every worker who can weather a day without pay, three more can't afford the loss. To these workers, unpaid leave is a hollow promise, an impossible choice between the family they love and the job they need. I believe it is a choice that no American should ever again be forced to make. When Congress passed and President Clinton signed the FMLA, we affirmed that health and family should never have to suffer because of the demands of work. I fail to see why that right should only be afforded to Americans in a certain income bracket. With the introduction of the Family Leave Insurance Act, we take a huge step toward making family leave a possibility for all Americans. Its 8 weeks of paid leave per year will apply to employees who need time off for any of the reasons included in the FMLA: birth of a child; placement of an adopted or foster child; the care for a child, parent, or spouse with a serious medical condition; or recovery from a serious personal medical condition. Benefits will be tiered on the basis of wages, with the tiers themselves indexed to inflation. This structure will provide the greatest benefit to those with the lowest salaries. And workers who are covered by the FMLA will retain their health insurance and will be guaranteed a return to their job, or a comparable position, on their return. The act creates a new Family Leave Insurance Fund into which premiums are paid, to finance benefit payments, allowing stakeholders to pool risk and lower costs, and funded through small, shared premiums. Those costs will be shared by employees and employers; the Federal Government will pay for administrative costs. Participation will be mandatory for all businesses with 50 employees or more; those with fewer employees can choose to participate and receive a discount on premium payments. To reduce administrative burdens for employers and employees, employers will pay leave benefits to employees through their regular payroll, with prompt reimbursement from the Family Leave Insurance Fund. We know that many employers, both large and small, offer very generous leave policies, exemplifying best business practices. Through this legislation, we seek to support companies who offer paid leave so they continue to do so, and to create an incentive for smaller companies to offer paid leave. A provision in the bill allows employers to maintain their own paid leave plan, if it is certified to be equivalent or better to the plan in this legislation. Our bill will also allow States flexibility in maintaining their existing programs. Several States already have systems to provide paid family and medical leave, and several more have legislation pending to create such systems. In recent years, more than 25 States have introduced legislation to create paid leave programs. The landscape in the States is changing quickly on policies for working families and there are complex issues around the interaction between this legislation, State programs and employers within States. We look forward to collaborating with States so they can maintain maximum flexibility, and provide the best leave policy, as the bill moves forward. As the FMLA has demonstrated so strongly, family leave benefits both workers and businesses, and that is certainly the case for paid family leave. Paid leave cuts down on employee turnover and the high costs of training replacements; it has been shown to raise morale and productivity; and it levels the playing field by allowing small businesses to adopt a benefit that many of their larger competitors have been offering for years. Our changing workforce demonstrates the strong need for paid family and medical leave. Almost 80 percent of the workforce is made up of dual earner couples, who struggle to find time to care for their sick children or their own illnesses. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the workforce will be caring for older parents by 2010. For these and many other reasons, this bill is the right policy. The FMLA established the principle, and now the Family Leave Insurance Act puts it into practice and into reach for more Americans. Its passage will bring America closer to the world's standards, help our businesses, and protect our workforce. In the lives of millions of Americans, it will help reduce the dilemma of balancing work and family. Let us continue to work together: Government, business and employees need to continue this conversation and improve our policies for working families and individual employees who need paid leave. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Family Leave Insurance Act of 2007 and especially pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Stevens. This bill, which would provide 8 weeks of paid benefits to workers who take time off for reasons allowed under the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, is an important step in continuing to help our Nation's workers to be both productive employees and responsible family members. Before the FMLA, workers had no guarantee that their jobs would still be there if they took time off to care for loved ones or recover from illness themselves. Millions of Americans were forced into a challenging dilemma: care for their families, or provide for them. That is why I worked to create the FMLA in 1985, and that is why I fought for its passage through 7 years of obstruction and two presidential vetoes, pointing out that its denial of guaranteed leave put America virtually alone among nations, industrialized or otherwise. Finally, on February 5, 1993, the Family and Medical Leave Act was signed into law. Under its protection, eligible workers receive 12 weeks of leave every year, so that they can watch over a newborn or adopted baby, or help a parent through an illness, or get better themselves, knowing that their job will be there when they return. To date, more than 50 million Americans have taken that opportunity. The FMLA isn't just good for American workers, it is good for American business. Ninety percent of employers have reported that the FMLA had a neutral or positive effect on profits. Today, the idea of guaranteed leave seems obvious; but now, it is time to take another step in making that hard-won leave a possibility for even more Americans. In the 21st century, working families should not have to give up the leave they earned because they cannot afford it, they deserve paid leave. Why do we offer nothing, when the European standard is 14 paid weeks? Why are we one of only four countries in the world to deny paid maternity leave, leaving us in the company of Swaziland, Liberia, and Papua New Guinea? For every worker who can weather a day without pay, three more can't afford the loss. To these workers, unpaid leave is a hollow promise, an impossible choice between the family they love and the job they need. I believe it is a choice that no American should ever again be forced to make. When Congress passed and President Clinton signed the FMLA, we affirmed that health and family should never have to suffer because of the demands of work. I fail to see why that right should only be afforded to Americans in a certain income bracket. With the introduction of the Family Leave Insurance Act, we take a huge step toward making family leave a possibility for all Americans. Its 8 weeks of paid leave per year will apply to employees who need time off for any of the reasons included in the FMLA: birth of a child; placement of an adopted or foster child; the care for a child, parent, or spouse with a serious medical condition; or recovery from a serious personal medical condition. Benefits will be tiered on the basis of wages, with the tiers themselves indexed to inflation. This structure will provide the greatest benefit to those with the lowest salaries. And workers who are covered by the FMLA will retain their health insurance and will be guaranteed a return to their job, or a comparable position, on their return. The act creates a new Family Leave Insurance Fund into which premiums are paid, to finance benefit payments, allowing stakeholders to pool risk and lower costs, and funded through small, shared premiums. Those costs will be shared by employees and employers; the Federal Government will pay for administrative costs. Participation will be mandatory for all businesses with 50 employees or more; those with fewer employees can choose to participate and receive a discount on premium payments. To reduce administrative burdens for employers and employees, employers will pay leave benefits to employees through their regular payroll, with prompt reimbursement from the Family Leave Insurance Fund. We know that many employers, both large and small, offer very generous leave policies, exemplifying best business practices. Through this legislation, we seek to support companies who offer paid leave so they continue to do so, and to create an incentive for smaller companies to offer paid leave. A provision in the bill allows employers to maintain their own paid leave plan, if it is certified to be equivalent or better to the plan in this legislation. Our bill will also allow States flexibility in maintaining their existing programs. Several States already have systems to provide paid family and medical leave, and several more have legislation pending to create such systems. In recent years, more than 25 States have introduced legislation to create paid leave programs. The landscape in the States is changing quickly on policies for working families and there are complex issues around the interaction between this legislation, State programs and employers within States. We look forward to collaborating with States so they can maintain maximum flexibility, and provide the best leave policy, as the bill moves forward. As the FMLA has demonstrated so strongly, family leave benefits both workers and businesses, and that is certainly the case for paid family leave. Paid leave cuts down on employee turnover and the high costs of training replacements; it has been shown to raise morale and productivity; and it levels the playing field by allowing small businesses to adopt a benefit that many of their larger competitors have been offering for years. Our changing workforce demonstrates the strong need for paid family and medical leave. Almost 80 percent of the workforce is made up of dual earner couples, who struggle to find time to care for their sick children or their own illnesses. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the workforce will be caring for older parents by 2010. For these and many other reasons, this bill is the right policy. The FMLA established the principle, and now the Family Leave Insurance Act puts it into practice and into reach for more Americans. Its passage will bring America closer to the world's standards, help our businesses, and protect our workforce. In the lives of millions of Americans, it will help reduce the dilemma of balancing work and family. Let us continue to work together: Government, business and employees need to continue this conversation and improve our policies for working families and individual employees who need paid leave. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in 6\1/2\ years in office, President Bush has picked up his veto pen only two times. Today he adds a third; and once more, he is standing against hope for thousands of Americans afflicted with deadly diseases. His veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is a grave moral error. Embryonic stem cell research may one day provide relief to more than 100 million Americans suffering from Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal cord injury, Lou Gehrig's disease, cancer, and many other devastating conditions for which there is still no cure. Today, Federal funds are only allowed for work on 21 stem cell lines that existed as of August 9, 2001, all of which are contaminated. Scientists understand that access to more stem cell lines would significantly expand the scope and possibility of their research. That is why the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act expanded the number of embryonic stem cell lines available for federally funded research by allowing the use of stem cells derived through embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics. Stem cell research turns embryos that would otherwise be discarded into the seeds of life-giving science. Of course, the decision to dedicate embryos to research is a heavy one. We have never argued otherwise. That is why the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act contained strict ethical requirements. Under this legislation, the only embryonic stem cells that can be used for federally funded research are those that were derived through embryos created for fertility treatment purposes and donated for research with the written, informed consent of the individuals seeking that treatment. Any financial or other inducements to make this donation are prohibited under this legislation. These ethical standards are stronger than current law--possibly stronger, in fact, than the standards attending the creation of the 21 approved lines. Stem cells from embryos have a unique potential to reduce human suffering--and for precisely that reason, embryonic stem cell research is supported by a strong majority of Americans. Today, President Bush set himself against that potential, and against that majority; he set himself in the way of our scientists, and our suffering patients. I hope that, when he has left office at last, he will come to regret his choice. If not, history will regret it for him.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to call attention to a very serious, painful neurological disorder, dystonia, that affects many muscle groups simultaneously. We recently commemorated Dystonia Awareness Week and I would like to call further attention to this serious disorder. Dystonia is a painful disorder characterized by powerful involuntary muscle spasms. The spasms cause twisting, repetitive muscle movements, sustained postural deformities, and debilitating physical ailments. Although most forms of dystonia cause no mental damage, people living with dystonia are often prisoners in their own bodies. Currently, no cure is known and available medical therapies can only superficially address the symptoms. Approximately 50 percent of people with dystonia have a genetically inherited form whereas birth injury, physical trauma, exposure to certain medications, surgery, or stroke is the cause for the other 50 percent. Dystonia is not selective, occurring in all racial, ethnic, and age groups. It is significantly more common than Huntington's disease, muscular dystrophy, and Lou Gehrig's disease. Given the prevalence and dystonia's impact on so many Americans as well as the limited treatment options available, I am pleased to support the goals of Dystonia Awareness Week. The Dystonia Advocacy Coalition through the commemoration of Dystonia Awareness Week and several other outreach activities seeks to raise awareness of dystonia's impact on the quality of life of 300,000 people in North America. I call on my colleagues to support increased funding for the National Institutes of Health to support needed advances in dystonia research. Research is needed to develop reliable tests to diagnose dystonia as well as access to new treatment options to improve the lives of people living with this terrible chronic disease. Until we can find a cure for dystonia, I respectfully ask my colleagues to make a prolonged commitment to the dystonia community that goes well beyond Dystonia Awareness Week.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, Senator Landrieu and I come to the floor to introduce the Gulf Coast Housing Recovery Act of 2007. This bill will help jump-start economic development in the communities devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It will also help bring people home so they can resume their lives. At the outset, let me recognize Senator Landrieu for all of her efforts to secure assistance for the people of Louisiana, who suffered the lion's share of damage from the 2005 hurricanes. She has worked tirelessly, every day since the storms, to ensure that Louisianans and others in the gulf coast can return to vibrant towns and cities. I also want to recognize the work of Congresswoman Waters and Financial Services Chairman Frank, who laid the groundwork for this legislation in the House. They did an outstanding job of ushering a housing recovery bill through the House. The bill we are introducing today does the following: it authorizes additional funding to help rebuild the gulf coast; it requires the Federal, state and local governments to take additional actions to bring people home; and it requires accountability on the part of FEMA, HUD, and the states and cities receiving Federal funds. Almost 2 years after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, hundreds of thousands of people remain in limbo, wondering if they will be able to return home. The population in New Orleans remains at about half of pre-Katrina levels, though local groups and residents have made clear that many more want to return. Unfortunately, many of these families have no home to return to, and there is great uncertainty about whether adequate services will be available if they do return. As of April of this year, less than half of New Orleans' public schools, a third of its child care centers, and half of its hospitals were open. Over 82,000 families from across the devastated region are still living in FEMA trailers, which were recently found to contain toxic chemicals. Over 32,000 families are receiving temporary rental assistance through HUD, and over 11,000 others are receiving temporary rental assistance through HUD. Tens of thousands of other families are being assisted by cities, counties and individuals throughout the gulf region and our country. Much has already been done to help restore the gulf coast. Billions of dollars have been spent to house evacuees and clean up areas of Texas, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi. In addition, emergency CDBG funds have been appropriated to help families start to rebuild their homes and their lives. While these funds are finally getting to people in need, the reach of these funds is limited, to a great extent, to those who owned homes prior to the storms. Both Louisiana and Mississippi have understandably focused their efforts on getting homes rebuilt, and I support their efforts to help people whose largest asset was washed away. However, we must not forget the large number of residents who were renters at the time of the storms, many of whom held jobs that were critical to the economy and the culture of the gulf coast, including jobs necessary for the tourism and fishing industries. In New Orleans, over half of the rental housing was flooded. We have an obligation, as a fair society, to ensure that all of our citizens in the gulf coast, including renters, are given the opportunity to return home, and the bill that Senator Landrieu and I are introducing today will do that. This bill helps to do six key things that are necessary to help those displaced as a result of the hurricanes return to thriving cities and towns: it helps to bring people home; it replaces lost housing; it creates homeownership opportunities; it spurs economic and community development; it provides continued assistance to evacuees; and it requires accountability so that funds are properly used. There are numerous provisions in our bill that will help families of all income levels return to a stronger gulf coast. I want to highlight a few of these provisions. While most of the funds already provided to individuals for rebuilding efforts have gone to homeowners, even those funds have proven to be insufficient. The Louisiana Road Home program has pledged all of its funds, leaving many eligible homeowners without any assistance. This bill authorizes funding necessary to make this program whole so long as the State of Louisiana puts up $1 billion of its own funds towards this shortfall. I will be working with Senator Landrieu over the coming weeks to get a better sense of the exact amount needed in this program, why a shortfall of this amount exists, and to determine the legitimate uses of these funds. Prior to the storm, there were over 5,200 families living in public housing in New Orleans, and thousands of others throughout the Gulf States. Many of these families include people with disabilities, seniors, and children. We cannot turn our backs on them. HUD is currently running the Housing Authority of New Orleans, HANO, and it plans to demolish much of the public housing without replacing many of the affordable units. I believe this is shortsighted. I understand that in rebuilding New Orleans, there are many who advocate deconcentrating poverty, and I believe we can achieve this goal without sacrificing needed affordable housing. Under the bill we are introducing today, every unit of public housing that was occupied prior to the storm must be replaced, but not necessarily with a traditional public housing unit, nor in a traditional public housing setting. In order to facilitate the replacement of public housing in New Orleans, this bill takes HANO out of HUD's hands, and puts it into judicial receivership. HANO has been a troubled agency for many years, and HUD control has not led to enough improvement. We need significant change at this agency. This bill helps to spur much-needed development. It requires $55 million from funds previously given to the State of Louisiana to be used to help finance community development pilot programs in the State so that land can be acquired, bundled sold for redevelopment. In addition, the bill establishes an innovative program, the FHA-New Orleans Homeownership Opportunities Initiative, under which HUD will transfer to the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority properties which are under HUD control to be used for homeownership opportunities for low-income families. While providing large amounts of Federal funds to the disaster area, it is important to ensure that funds are used correctly and are not subject to waste, fraud and abuse. This bill has stringent monitoring and reporting requirements that apply to FEMA, HUD, and the States receiving emergency funds so that the Congress can keep tabs on the disaster spending and ensure funds are being used efficiently and effectively to help rebuild and strengthen the gulf coast. The Gulf Coast Housing Recovery Act of 2007 is a critical step towards rebuilding the gulf coast. It is supported by a broad coalition of national organizations, including the AARP, ACORN, Enterprise Community Partners, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the NAACP, the National Association of Homebuilders, the National Association of Realtors, the National Fair Housing Alliance, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, US Jesuit Conference, Volunteers of America, as well as Gulf Coast organizations such as Alabama Arise, Catholic Charities of New Orleans, Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center, the Louisiana Association of Nonprofit Organizations, and Providence Community Housing. Again, I would like to thank my colleague Senator Landrieu for her work to restore the lives of so many of her constituents and others in the gulf coast region. I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that needed housing and community development activities can be undertaken in the gulf coast. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, Senator Landrieu and I come to the floor to introduce the Gulf Coast Housing Recovery Act of 2007. This bill will help jump-start economic development in the communities devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It will also help bring people home so they can resume their lives. At the outset, let me recognize Senator Landrieu for all of her efforts to secure assistance for the people of Louisiana, who suffered the lion's share of damage from the 2005 hurricanes. She has worked tirelessly, every day since the storms, to ensure that Louisianans and others in the gulf coast can return to vibrant towns and cities. I also want to recognize the work of Congresswoman Waters and Financial Services Chairman Frank, who laid the groundwork for this legislation in the House. They did an outstanding job of ushering a housing recovery bill through the House. The bill we are introducing today does the following: it authorizes additional funding to help rebuild the gulf coast; it requires the Federal, state and local governments to take additional actions to bring people home; and it requires accountability on the part of FEMA, HUD, and the states and cities receiving Federal funds. Almost 2 years after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, hundreds of thousands of people remain in limbo, wondering if they will be able to return home. The population in New Orleans remains at about half of pre-Katrina levels, though local groups and residents have made clear that many more want to return. Unfortunately, many of these families have no home to return to, and there is great uncertainty about whether adequate services will be available if they do return. As of April of this year, less than half of New Orleans' public schools, a third of its child care centers, and half of its hospitals were open. Over 82,000 families from across the devastated region are still living in FEMA trailers, which were recently found to contain toxic chemicals. Over 32,000 families are receiving temporary rental assistance through HUD, and over 11,000 others are receiving temporary rental assistance through HUD. Tens of thousands of other families are being assisted by cities, counties and individuals throughout the gulf region and our country. Much has already been done to help restore the gulf coast. Billions of dollars have been spent to house evacuees and clean up areas of Texas, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi. In addition, emergency CDBG funds have been appropriated to help families start to rebuild their homes and their lives. While these funds are finally getting to people in need, the reach of these funds is limited, to a great extent, to those who owned homes prior to the storms. Both Louisiana and Mississippi have understandably focused their efforts on getting homes rebuilt, and I support their efforts to help people whose largest asset was washed away. However, we must not forget the large number of residents who were renters at the time of the storms, many of whom held jobs that were critical to the economy and the culture of the gulf coast, including jobs necessary for the tourism and fishing industries. In New Orleans, over half of the rental housing was flooded. We have an obligation, as a fair society, to ensure that all of our citizens in the gulf coast, including renters, are given the opportunity to return home, and the bill that Senator Landrieu and I are introducing today will do that. This bill helps to do six key things that are necessary to help those displaced as a result of the hurricanes return to thriving cities and towns: it helps to bring people home; it replaces lost housing; it creates homeownership opportunities; it spurs economic and community development; it provides continued assistance to evacuees; and it requires accountability so that funds are properly used. There are numerous provisions in our bill that will help families of all income levels return to a stronger gulf coast. I want to highlight a few of these provisions. While most of the funds already provided to individuals for rebuilding efforts have gone to homeowners, even those funds have proven to be insufficient. The Louisiana Road Home program has pledged all of its funds, leaving many eligible homeowners without any assistance. This bill authorizes funding necessary to make this program whole so long as the State of Louisiana puts up $1 billion of its own funds towards this shortfall. I will be working with Senator Landrieu over the coming weeks to get a better sense of the exact amount needed in this program, why a shortfall of this amount exists, and to determine the legitimate uses of these funds. Prior to the storm, there were over 5,200 families living in public housing in New Orleans, and thousands of others throughout the Gulf States. Many of these families include people with disabilities, seniors, and children. We cannot turn our backs on them. HUD is currently running the Housing Authority of New Orleans, HANO, and it plans to demolish much of the public housing without replacing many of the affordable units. I believe this is shortsighted. I understand that in rebuilding New Orleans, there are many who advocate deconcentrating poverty, and I believe we can achieve this goal without sacrificing needed affordable housing. Under the bill we are introducing today, every unit of public housing that was occupied prior to the storm must be replaced, but not necessarily with a traditional public housing unit, nor in a traditional public housing setting. In order to facilitate the replacement of public housing in New Orleans, this bill takes HANO out of HUD's hands, and puts it into judicial receivership. HANO has been a troubled agency for many years, and HUD control has not led to enough improvement. We need significant change at this agency. This bill helps to spur much-needed development. It requires $55 million from funds previously given to the State of Louisiana to be used to help finance community development pilot programs in the State so that land can be acquired, bundled sold for redevelopment. In addition, the bill establishes an innovative program, the FHA-New Orleans Homeownership Opportunities Initiative, under which HUD will transfer to the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority properties which are under HUD control to be used for homeownership opportunities for low-income families. While providing large amounts of Federal funds to the disaster area, it is important to ensure that funds are used correctly and are not subject to waste, fraud and abuse. This bill has stringent monitoring and reporting requirements that apply to FEMA, HUD, and the States receiving emergency funds so that the Congress can keep tabs on the disaster spending and ensure funds are being used efficiently and effectively to help rebuild and strengthen the gulf coast. The Gulf Coast Housing Recovery Act of 2007 is a critical step towards rebuilding the gulf coast. It is supported by a broad coalition of national organizations, including the AARP, ACORN, Enterprise Community Partners, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the NAACP, the National Association of Homebuilders, the National Association of Realtors, the National Fair Housing Alliance, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, US Jesuit Conference, Volunteers of America, as well as Gulf Coast organizations such as Alabama Arise, Catholic Charities of New Orleans, Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center, the Louisiana Association of Nonprofit Organizations, and Providence Community Housing. Again, I would like to thank my colleague Senator Landrieu for her work to restore the lives of so many of her constituents and others in the gulf coast region. I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that needed housing and community development activities can be undertaken in the gulf coast. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleagues in supporting the Head Start for School Readiness Act, which reauthorizes this critically important program to help prepare our most disadvantaged young children to attend school. We have worked hard to bring this bipartisan bill to the floor, and I particularly thank Senators Kennedy, Enzi, and Alexander for their leadership on this issue. For more than 40 years, Head Start provided comprehensive early childhood development services to low-income children, creating an important bridge to kindergarten and beyond. Head Start addresses the comprehensive needs of children and their families by offering not only academic opportunities, but also supports for health, nutrition, social skills, and more. More than 900,000 children across the Nation, including nearly 9,000 children in Connecticut, depend on Head Start to support their social, emotional, physical, and cognitive development. Head Start is the foundation for a lifetime of learning for many of our most vulnerable children, and this reauthorization provides for continued success, while also strengthening the program. Among the many improvements in this legislation, of great importance is the expanded access to Head Start for more disadvantaged children. In Connecticut and other States where the cost of living is particularly high, many poor families aren't able to enroll their children in Head Start because they earn incomes just above the poverty level. This reauthorization allows programs to serve families with incomes up to 130 percent of the Federal poverty level, and expands opportunities for children of migrant families, Indian children, homeless children, foster children, as well as additional infants and toddler in Early Head Start programs. Currently, only half of all eligible children are served in Head Start, and fewer than 5 percent are served in Early Head Start. Head Start programs are also facing tremendous increases in operating costs, including transportation, health care premiums, facilities maintenance, and training for staff; yet Head Start has essentially been flatfunded for years. This legislation authorizes an increase from $6.9 billion in the current fiscal year, to $7.3 billion in fiscal year 2008, $7.5 billion in fiscal year 2009, and $7.9 billion in fiscal year 2010, which will begin to meet the needs of Head Start children and allow for more enrollment opportunities. However, we must also acknowledge that we still have far to go before we provide adequate resources to this invaluable program. We know that children struggle when their families are not involved in their education; and that parents play the most important role in ensuring the success of their children. This legislation encourages a high level of family involvement, maintains the integral participation of parents in the day-to-day operations of the programs, and offers family members key roles as decisionmakers. I am pleased that this bill also improves program accountability by further clarifying governance responsibilities and enhancing teacher quality expectations. While we establish goals for improving educational standards for staff, we acknowledge that current resources may not adequately support staff to pursue additional training, nor provide enough for increased wages; therefore, we do not make these standards mandatory. Head Start must continue to maintain a core and integral role in our broader early childhood care and education systems as we expand our efforts to improve early education across this country. The legislation encourages greater collaboration and coordination with other early childhood development programs. Passing the Head Start for School Readiness Act today is an important step forward to improve opportunities for low-income children. Nothing reduces poverty like learning, and Head Start gives children what they need to learn early. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that this important legislation becomes law.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I share Senator Murray's concerns and appreciate the commitment to working with us on this issue. S. 556 also includes specific responsibilities of the State advisory council regarding early childhood activities, professional development and opportunities for coordination and collaboration. My State of Connecticut has been a leader in promoting the coordination and improvement of early learning opportunities for young children and has successfully carried out activities that complement the responsibilities under this act. Connecticut's Early Childhood Education Cabinet, which includes many of the members required by the Head Start Act, already advises the State on policy and on initiatives to meet early childhood goals, conducts statewide evaluations of the school readiness programs, and promotes collaboration and consistency of quality services. Is it the intention that States would be required to abandon the progress made with their existing efforts and begin new initiatives to fulfill their responsibilities under S. 556?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce bipartisan legislation with my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr, that seeks to protect nursing home residents, staff, and visitors from the dangers associated with fire. In February, 2003, a multi-alarm fire at a nursing home in Hartford, CT, took the lives of 16 residents. It was the worst nursing home fire in Connecticut's history. The tragic loss of life was made worse by the fact that the nursing home lacked an automatic sprinkler system, a defect disturbingly common in many nursing homes across the country. I believe many Americans, especially those with a loved one in a nursing home facility, would be shocked to learn that, according to the Government Accountability Office between 20 and 30 percent of the country's 17,000 nursing homes lack an automatic sprinkler system. In its 2004 report, the GAO found that ``the substantial loss of life in the [Hartford fire] could have been reduced or eliminated by the presence of properly functioning automatic sprinkler systems.'' Furthermore, the report concluded that ``the Federal oversight of nursing home compliance with fire safety standards is inadequate.'' Responding to the fire in Hartford and a similar tragedy in Nashville, TN, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, required that nursing homes without automatic sprinkler systems install battery-operated smoke detectors. While this new requirement was viewed as a positive step, it was largely criticized by fire and patient- safety advocates because smoke detectors are often not wired to a central alarm system or a fire department. I believe it is safe to assume that nursing home directors do not choose freely to operate their facilities without automatic sprinkler systems. According to the GAO and the American Health Care Association, most nursing homes simply cannot afford the costs incurred by installing an automatic sprinkler system. Today, many nursing homes, including many in Connecticut, are financially strained by inadequate reimbursement rates from Medicare and Medicaid, rising insurance premiums, rising energy costs, and the general cost of care for some of our country's most vulnerable patients. That is why Senator Burr and I are reintroducing this legislation. The Nursing Home Fire Safety Act of 2007 provides low-interest loans and grants to nursing homes in proven need of financial assistance. The larger loan initiative assists nursing homes that cannot afford the upfront costs of installing automatic sprinkler systems but can afford to pay back a low-interest Government-issued loan. The smaller grant initiative would assist qualified nursing homes that lack any ability to pay for the installation of an automatic sprinkler system. Together, these initiatives would provide critical resources to prevent tragedies like those seen in Hartford and Nashville from occurring again. I thank my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr, for reintroducing this bipartisan measure with me. I also thank Congressmen John Larson from Connecticut and Peter King from New York for spearheading companion legislation in the House. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to protect nursing home residents, staff, and visitors from the dangers associated with fire. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce bipartisan legislation with my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr, that seeks to protect nursing home residents, staff, and visitors from the dangers associated with fire. In February, 2003, a multi-alarm fire at a nursing home in Hartford, CT, took the lives of 16 residents. It was the worst nursing home fire in Connecticut's history. The tragic loss of life was made worse by the fact that the nursing home lacked an automatic sprinkler system, a defect disturbingly common in many nursing homes across the country. I believe many Americans, especially those with a loved one in a nursing home facility, would be shocked to learn that, according to the Government Accountability Office between 20 and 30 percent of the country's 17,000 nursing homes lack an automatic sprinkler system. In its 2004 report, the GAO found that ``the substantial loss of life in the [Hartford fire] could have been reduced or eliminated by the presence of properly functioning automatic sprinkler systems.'' Furthermore, the report concluded that ``the Federal oversight of nursing home compliance with fire safety standards is inadequate.'' Responding to the fire in Hartford and a similar tragedy in Nashville, TN, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, required that nursing homes without automatic sprinkler systems install battery-operated smoke detectors. While this new requirement was viewed as a positive step, it was largely criticized by fire and patient- safety advocates because smoke detectors are often not wired to a central alarm system or a fire department. I believe it is safe to assume that nursing home directors do not choose freely to operate their facilities without automatic sprinkler systems. According to the GAO and the American Health Care Association, most nursing homes simply cannot afford the costs incurred by installing an automatic sprinkler system. Today, many nursing homes, including many in Connecticut, are financially strained by inadequate reimbursement rates from Medicare and Medicaid, rising insurance premiums, rising energy costs, and the general cost of care for some of our country's most vulnerable patients. That is why Senator Burr and I are reintroducing this legislation. The Nursing Home Fire Safety Act of 2007 provides low-interest loans and grants to nursing homes in proven need of financial assistance. The larger loan initiative assists nursing homes that cannot afford the upfront costs of installing automatic sprinkler systems but can afford to pay back a low-interest Government-issued loan. The smaller grant initiative would assist qualified nursing homes that lack any ability to pay for the installation of an automatic sprinkler system. Together, these initiatives would provide critical resources to prevent tragedies like those seen in Hartford and Nashville from occurring again. I thank my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr, for reintroducing this bipartisan measure with me. I also thank Congressmen John Larson from Connecticut and Peter King from New York for spearheading companion legislation in the House. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to protect nursing home residents, staff, and visitors from the dangers associated with fire. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, my amendment prevents this bill from dividing millions of families by making it easier for U.S. citizens and their parents to unite. I offer it with the cosponsorship of my good friends, Majority Leader Senator Reid and Senator Menendez. The amendment has also been endorsed by over 25 organizations including the American Jewish Committee, the National Council of La Raza, the Episcopal Church, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Under current law, parents are defined as immediate relatives and exempt from green card caps. Yet this bill arbitrarily and irresponsibly excludes parents from the nuclear family and subjects them to excessively low green card caps and a restrictive visitor visa program as well. This amendment does three things. First it increases this newly established cap from 40,000 to 90,000. 90,000 is the average number of green cards issued to parents each year. Last year, however, 120,000 parents entered the U.S. on green cards. If this bill is really serious about eliminating backlogs, then it ought to set practical caps. It is not the place of the Congress to tell American citizens to wait a year or two or three or more to see their parents. Second, it extends the newly created temporary parent visitor visa from 30 to 180 days. To think that a parent can only be with his child or grandchild for 1 month out of 12 is simply unacceptable. Yet under this provision, a tourist can be in America six times longer than the parent of a citizen. That is not the America I know; nor is it an America that cherishes family values. Parents must be allowed to stay with their families for longer. Third, this amendment prevents collective punishment for parent visitor visa overstays. Under this bill, if the overstay rate exceeds 7 percent for 2 years, either all nationals of countries with high overstay rates can be barred or the entire program can terminated. This type of collective punishment is wrong and unjust. We should not punish law abiding people because of the misdeeds of others. My amendment does not strike at this bill's core; nor is it a partisan issue. It is one of basic fairness to our fellow citizens. I especially reject the notion that imposing such excessive restrictions are necessary to reduce ``chain migration.'' The fact is that once parents of citizens obtain visas, they usually complete the family unit and are not likely to sponsor others. What is at stake here is whether Congress should dictate to U.S. citizens if and when they can unite with their parents; if and when their parents can come and be with their grandchildren; if and when U.S. citizens can care for their sick parents here on American soil. It is our duty to remove as many obstacles as we can for our fellow citizens to be with their parents. None of us would stand for anyone dictating the terms of that union to us. Why should we then apply a double standard for other citizens of this country? We must craft a law that is tough yet just. I know that the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, may raise a question with respect to how the Dodd-Menendez amendment is currently drafted, arguing that by upping the subceiling on parent immigrant visas from 40,000 to 90,000 annually, my amendment introduces discretion to the Department of Homeland Security in deciding what to do on issuing family immigrant visas among the subceilings as we get close to the annual cap of 567,000 contained in the bill. I would have preferred to raise the overall 567,000 annual cap currently in the bill by the additional 50,000--the increase my amendment provides for the parent immigrant visa subceiling. But had I done so, I would likely have faced a 60-vote threshold due to a budget point of order as my colleague Senator Menendez did last night on his family unification amendment. There is nothing scientific about the 567,000 annual immigrant visa cap currently contained in the bill. Am I to believe that this grand compromise bill will be destroyed if an additional 50,000 parents of American citizens are granted green cards annually so they can be closer to their American children and American grandchildren? The so called discretionary authority granted to the Department of Homeland Security that Senator Specter may argue is created by this amendment can easily be fixed in conference by raising the current cap by 50,000. I refuse to let the technicalities of the subceilings and overall ceilings contained in this complex legislation cloud the real issue Senators will be deciding as they cast their votes on this amendment; namely, do my colleagues believe that parents and grandparents are important members of the American nuclear family or do they believe that they are merely distant relatives--irrelevant to the daily lives of our families? I believe the former. I would suspect most of my colleagues do as well. And so, I urge my colleagues not to think of this amendment in terms of numbers and caps, but in terms of its human impact. I urge them to vote for it in order to remove the obstacles created by this bill which will prevent American citizens--we are talking about American citizens--from having their loving parents be with them to share the joys and challenges of the American family. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the list of organizations supporting this amendment at the end of my remarks.

Mr. DODD. I will cite a couple of them for my colleagues. The 25 or 30 organizations include the American Jewish Committee, the National Council of La Raza, the Episcopal Church, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, among many other organizations; Asian American organizations, Asian American Justice Center. There is a long list here. As I say, I will include that as requested in the Record. But, again, Mr. President, this ought not to be a complicated proposal for my colleagues. It is one that I think all of us should endorse and support. I don't see this violating the core agreement. It is not the deal breaker that we hear about, but it is merely doing what I think most Americans and most of our colleagues would agree on: letting U.S. citizens have the opportunity, at least to a larger extent than this bill would allow, to have their parents be a part of the family unit, that nuclear family. Exhibit 1 Dear Senators: We, the undersigned organizations, write to share with you our support of the Dodd amendment to the proposed immigration bill. Under current law, parents of U.S. citizens are defined as immediate relatives, along with spouses and minor children, and are exempt from visa limitations. The proposed legislation removes them from this category, subjects them to an annual cap of 40,000 green cards, and creates a new parent visitor visa category that would allow them to stay in the United States for only 30 days. Typically, 90,000 visas are issued each year to parents--the proposal reduces the number of visas available by more than half. The agreement also penalizes all parents from a particular country by barring them from entering into the United States should the rate of overstay of parents from that country be above 7 percent in two consecutive years. The debate around this provision goes to the heart of the value we place on family. Parents are not distant relatives but absolutely vital members to most families. Often, parents enable their adult children to work by providing free and trusted care for their grandchildren. Immigrant parents also contribute their labor and talents to small, family owned businesses. The American economy also benefits from having dollars earned here, be spent here instead of having to be sent overseas to family members left behind. Contrary to some arguments, immigrant parents coming through the family system will not burden taxpayers or the economy. In fact, as non-citizens, they are generally ineligible for a majority of federal public benefits unless they earn them through sufficient work. Moreover, their adult children must sign affidavits of support and prove that they have sufficient resources to support their parents. The Dodd amendment recognizes these close family ties and the economic and societal benefits that accrue when they are honored by: Increasing the green card cap to 90,000. The number 90,000 represents the average annual number of green cards issued to parents. The proposed bill slashes this number by more than half to 40,000. This amendment would ensure that sufficient numbers of green cards are available for parents to come to the United States. Extending the parent visa to 180 days, and making it renewable and valid for three years. These are already accepted timeframes for other temporary visas, 180 days is the length of a tourist visa; H-1Bs are valid for three years. The proposed bill, however, limits parents to an annual stay of 30 days, and does not specify long-term validity. This is too short an allotment--particularly for parents who come to help their children. Making penalties for parent visa overstays applicable only to guilty parties. The proposed bill states that if the overstay rate among visa holders exceeds 7 percent for two years, all nationals of countries with high overstay rates can be barred from this visa program or the program can be terminated. Sponsors of overstays are also barred from sponsoring other aliens on this visa. This amendment strikes language that unfairly collectively punishes those who have not violated the law, allowing law-abiding parents to continue to unite with their children. The Dodd amendment unites parents with their families in the U.S. by increasing the annual cap on green cards for parents; extending the duration of the parent visa; and ensuring that penalties imposed on overstays are not unfairly applied to others. We are asking that you vote for this amendment. Respectfully, American Friends Service Committee American Immigration Lawyers Association American Jewish Committee Asian American Justice Center Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Congressional Hispanic Caucus Dominican American National Roundtable Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society Hmong National Development League of United Latin American Citizens Legal Momentum Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund National Asian Pacific Center on Aging National Council of La Raza National Federation of Filipino American Associations NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby Organization for Justice & Equality Service Employees International Union Southeast Asia Resource Action Center The Episcopal Church The Jewish Council for Public Affairs Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society U.S. Citizens for United Families U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops World Relief

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, this April, more than 1,200 students from across the country visited Washington, DC, to take part in the national finals of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution, an educational program developed to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress. I am proud to announce that a class from Trumbull High School of Trumbull, CT, received an Honorable Mention Award at this prestigious national event. Seven Honorable Mention Awards were presented to schools placing 4th through 10th on the final day of competition. These outstanding students, through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, won their statewide competition and earned the chance to come to our Nation's Capitol and compete at the national level. While in Washington, the students participated in a 3-day academic competition that simulates a congressional hearing in which they ``testify'' before a panel of judges. Students demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles as they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. I am also pleased to note that the We the People curriculum is aligned with the National Standards for Civics and Government and correlates with the social studies standards of many states. The names of these outstanding students from Trumbull High School are: Alexa Alexander, Akanksha Bajaj, Rebecca Chadwick, Chelsea Clyde, Ashley Cohen, Shane Connolly, Victoria Costello, Mulan Cui, Megan Denstedt, Jackson Dolan, Adam Drenkard, Mike Finik, George Fitzpatrick, Casey Gardiner, Blake Ludwig, Alex Mosello, Elisa Odoardi, Alison Ornitz, Matt Pankracij, Mary Santella, Jaclyn Siegel, Matt Socha, Edward Tillistrand, and Stephen Wagner. I also wish to commend the teacher of the class, Mike Margonis, who is responsible for preparing these young constitutional experts for the national finals. Also worthy of special recognition are Jim Schmidt and Julie Jaquish, the State coordinators, and Lorna Gallagher, the district coordinator, who are among those responsible for implementing the We the People program in my state. I congratulate these students on their exceptional achievement at the We the People national finals.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today, to introduce The Early Childhood Investment Act of 2007 to create and enhance public-private partnerships to strengthen investment in early childhood development programs, considering the needs of all children from birth to their entry in kindergarten. Investing in our youngest children is essential to promote their healthy development and school readiness. I pleased that two of my colleagues from Connecticut in the House of Representatives--Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro and Congressman Joe Courtney--will introduce companion legislation today. We have a body of knowledge on early childhood development that must be put into practice through policies that aid the crucial emotional, social and intellectual development that occurs in the first 3 years of life. Research indicates that investments in the early years of a child's life pay dividends later through improved health, readiness for school, and economic well-being. The return on investment also includes more successful transition to kindergarten; reduced special education and remedial education placements; better employment opportunities and higher earnings; and lower incidence of crime and dependence on public welfare. Our Nation's economy benefits from early childhood investments through a better prepared workforce, stronger growth, and a rising standard of living. Additionally, society will benefit from less crime, enhanced schools, and children who are better prepared to participate as citizens in a democratic society, as a result of increased investments in early childhood development. Many States have an Early Learning Council or an advisory council that coordinates and aligns various programs serving children from birth to kindergarten entry. These entities facilitate collaboration among early childhood development activities in each State, but do not necessarily provide additional funding. Resources from Federal and State governments alone are not adequate to provide access to quality early childhood development programs for all children. Currently the Federal Government provides funding for a variety of early childhood development programs including the Child Care and Development Block Grant, and Head Start, which have been essentially flat funded in recent years. States supplement this funding and also provide funding for State and local prekindergarten programs and parent development and support programs, such as home visiting. However, the Federal and State resources alone are not enough to reach all of our Nation's young children. In order to get closer to the goal of providing access to quality programs for all children before they enter kindergarten, the private sector also plays an important role. In addition, the Federal Government should provide resources to reward innovation at the state and community level and to leverage additional resources for continued innovation. In States such as Washington, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Arizona, Nebraska, Illinois, Vermont, and Virginia, public-private partnerships leverage resources to provide for the varied health and learning needs of children from birth to kindergarten entry and their families. Public-private partnerships have the ability to leverage the assets of public and private entities in terms of financial resources, expertise, and infrastructure in order to maximize and align investments in early childhood development. Federal funding authorized by this legislation will create incentives for more States to develop such partnerships and leverage further investment in young children and enhance existing partnerships in states. The purpose of the Early Childhood Investment Act of 2007 is to establish or enhance existing public-private partnerships that will strengthen investment in early childhood development by awarding grants to local community initiatives and programs that serve young children and their families. The bill is fairly straightforward. It requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a competitive grant program to award grants to a public-private partnership, in each State that applies, which will leverage resources to supplement existing State and Federal funds. The partnership will then award subgrants to State and local community initiatives to improve access to and quality of early childhood development for children from birth through age five and their families. The partnerships will leverage funding from nonprofit or for-profit organizations, private entities and State government to invest in high quality early childhood development programs. The Early Childhood Investment Act of 2007 authorizes $8 billion for fiscal year 2008, $10 billion for fiscal year 2009 and such sums as necessary in the following years. The Federal share represents 50 percent of total expenditures by a partnership in the first year, 40 percent in the second year and 30 percent in the outyears. I know I will hear that this cost is too large for the government to bear, but I would argue that the cost of not investing would be even greater. Children represent only a quarter of our population, but they are 100 percent of our future and each of our children deserves an opportunity to reach his or her potential. The bill has been endorsed by America's Promise Alliance, First Focus, National Association for the Education of Young Children, National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, and the National Women's Law Center. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today, to introduce The Early Childhood Investment Act of 2007 to create and enhance public-private partnerships to strengthen investment in early childhood development programs, considering the needs of all children from birth to their entry in kindergarten. Investing in our youngest children is essential to promote their healthy development and school readiness. I pleased that two of my colleagues from Connecticut in the House of Representatives--Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro and Congressman Joe Courtney--will introduce companion legislation today. We have a body of knowledge on early childhood development that must be put into practice through policies that aid the crucial emotional, social and intellectual development that occurs in the first 3 years of life. Research indicates that investments in the early years of a child's life pay dividends later through improved health, readiness for school, and economic well-being. The return on investment also includes more successful transition to kindergarten; reduced special education and remedial education placements; better employment opportunities and higher earnings; and lower incidence of crime and dependence on public welfare. Our Nation's economy benefits from early childhood investments through a better prepared workforce, stronger growth, and a rising standard of living. Additionally, society will benefit from less crime, enhanced schools, and children who are better prepared to participate as citizens in a democratic society, as a result of increased investments in early childhood development. Many States have an Early Learning Council or an advisory council that coordinates and aligns various programs serving children from birth to kindergarten entry. These entities facilitate collaboration among early childhood development activities in each State, but do not necessarily provide additional funding. Resources from Federal and State governments alone are not adequate to provide access to quality early childhood development programs for all children. Currently the Federal Government provides funding for a variety of early childhood development programs including the Child Care and Development Block Grant, and Head Start, which have been essentially flat funded in recent years. States supplement this funding and also provide funding for State and local prekindergarten programs and parent development and support programs, such as home visiting. However, the Federal and State resources alone are not enough to reach all of our Nation's young children. In order to get closer to the goal of providing access to quality programs for all children before they enter kindergarten, the private sector also plays an important role. In addition, the Federal Government should provide resources to reward innovation at the state and community level and to leverage additional resources for continued innovation. In States such as Washington, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Arizona, Nebraska, Illinois, Vermont, and Virginia, public-private partnerships leverage resources to provide for the varied health and learning needs of children from birth to kindergarten entry and their families. Public-private partnerships have the ability to leverage the assets of public and private entities in terms of financial resources, expertise, and infrastructure in order to maximize and align investments in early childhood development. Federal funding authorized by this legislation will create incentives for more States to develop such partnerships and leverage further investment in young children and enhance existing partnerships in states. The purpose of the Early Childhood Investment Act of 2007 is to establish or enhance existing public-private partnerships that will strengthen investment in early childhood development by awarding grants to local community initiatives and programs that serve young children and their families. The bill is fairly straightforward. It requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a competitive grant program to award grants to a public-private partnership, in each State that applies, which will leverage resources to supplement existing State and Federal funds. The partnership will then award subgrants to State and local community initiatives to improve access to and quality of early childhood development for children from birth through age five and their families. The partnerships will leverage funding from nonprofit or for-profit organizations, private entities and State government to invest in high quality early childhood development programs. The Early Childhood Investment Act of 2007 authorizes $8 billion for fiscal year 2008, $10 billion for fiscal year 2009 and such sums as necessary in the following years. The Federal share represents 50 percent of total expenditures by a partnership in the first year, 40 percent in the second year and 30 percent in the outyears. I know I will hear that this cost is too large for the government to bear, but I would argue that the cost of not investing would be even greater. Children represent only a quarter of our population, but they are 100 percent of our future and each of our children deserves an opportunity to reach his or her potential. The bill has been endorsed by America's Promise Alliance, First Focus, National Association for the Education of Young Children, National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, and the National Women's Law Center. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 7, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the nomination of Lieutenant General Douglas E. Lute, USA, to be assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 7, 2007, at 2 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The hearing will serve as an investigation of NASA Inspector General, Robert W. Cobb.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 10 a.m. in Room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``An Examination of the Views of Religious Organizations Regarding Global Warming.''

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, June 7, 2007, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226. Agenda I. Bills: S. 185, Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 (Specter, Leahy, Feinstein, Feingold, Whitehouse, Durbin, Biden); S. 720, Army Specialist Joseph P. Micks Federal Flag Code Amendment Act of 2007 (Levin); H.R. 692, Army Specialist Joseph P. Micks Federal Flag Code Amendment Act of 2007; S. 535, Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act (Dodd, Leahy, Schumer, Kennedy); S.456, Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007 (Feinstein, Hatch, Schumer, Specter, Biden, Kyl, Cornyn, Kohl). II. Nominations: Leslie Southwick to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit; Robert James Jonker to be a United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan. III. Resolutions: S. Res. 171, Memorializing fallen firefighters by lowering the U.S. flag (Collins, Biden, Kennedy); S. Res. 82, Designating August 16, 2007 as National Airborne Day (Hagel, Graham, Sessions, Feinstein, Feingold); S. Res. 173, Designating August 11,2007 as National Marina Day (Stabenow).

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing entitled ``Prevention of Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation in Federal Elections: S. 453'' on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 2 p.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness list Panel I: The Honorable Charles Schumer, United States Senator [D-NY]; The Honorable Barack Obama, United States Senator [D-IL]. Panel II: The Honorable Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General, State of Maryland, Baltimore, MD; The Honorable Jack B. Johnson, County Executive, Prince George's County, MD, Upper Marlboro, MD. Panel III: Hilary O. Shelton, Director, Washington Bureau, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People [NAACP], Washington, DC; John Trasvina, President and General Counsel, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund [MALDEF], Los Angeles, CA; Richard Briffault, Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of Legislation, Columbia Law School, New York, NY.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 7, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.