Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, is all time yielded back?

Mr. DODD. Again, Chris Cox, Chairman of the SEC, pointed out he doesn't want the law changed. He wants to be able to work with the Commission and the staff to deal with these issues. The Chairman of the SEC has wide latitude within which to operate here. The statute gives broad discretion. Senator Shelby and I believe this matter ought to be left at this juncture. The Commission is relegated to do their job. Let them complete their work and make their recommendations. If we are dissatisfied, we can respond.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Dodd- Shelby-Reed amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, at an appropriate moment, along with my colleague from Alabama, I will offer a motion to table the DeMint amendment. I do so respectfully of my colleague. We are just about 2 or 3 weeks away from the SEC issuing regulations regarding Sarbanes-Oxley on this 404 issue. It would be inappropriate for us to jump in and draw a conclusion as to what the SEC ought to be doing. Chris Cox is doing a very good job at the SEC. Staff and Commissioners are doing the job we asked them to do. To conclude the point here, this is a matter that is being well addressed by the SEC under Chris Cox. They have asked to have the appropriate time, the remaining 2 or 3 weeks, to finish their recommendations. They may very well come to the recommendation that has been offered by our colleague from South Carolina, but we ought to allow them to do their job. That is what they have been asked to do. We are not a regulatory body. We don't have to agree with them, but we should allow them to complete their work. That is why we are offering this amendment. It is premature for us to jump in before they have completed their task. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Alabama.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 30 seconds for my colleague from Alabama.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to table the DeMint amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 917

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, yesterday marked the 20th anniversary of a dark day in my State's history: the day the L'Ambiance Plaza towers collapsed in Bridgeport and took with them the lives of 28 Connecticut construction workers. For millions of people in Connecticut, that day's images are still fresh; time can blunt their pain, but it can never erase them. We remember the shock: 16 stories of new apartments reduced with a roar, within seconds, to ruined concrete and steel. We remember the hundreds of volunteers who combed the wrecked piles for their friends. This is how one newspaper reported their remarkable endurance: ``Physically and emotionally drained by a nightmarish task of seeking and sometimes finding the bodies of friends and loved ones, some of the volunteers have pushed themselves to exhaustion, working around the clock and then begging to go on working.'' We remember their frantic search for survivors, and the slow-dawning truth that there were none. But above all, we remember 28 men who died too soon. They were union men from Bridgeport and Waterbury who poured concrete, laid pipe, and fixed steel. Not a single one of them went to work that morning expecting to die; but each knew the high risks of his trade, and willingly took them on to make a good living for his family. We can clear rubble and rebuild towers, but not a single life can be replaced. If this tragedy can give us anything to be thankful for, it is the end of the dangerous lift-slab construction method that led to the collapse. We can and must demand the safest conditions for all workers, and do everything it takes to protect them. But try as we might, we will never be able to outlaw collapse, or regulate accidents, or legislate against tragedy. We can only send our thanks to the men and women who risk themselves so we can lie down and wake up in safety and comfort. For those who died 20 years ago, we can pledge to keep their memories fresh. And today, we can repeat their names: Michael Addona Augustus Alman Glenn Canning Mario Colello William Daddona Francesco D'Addona Donald Emanuel Vincent Figliomeni Herbert Goeldner Terrance Gruber John Hughes Joesph Lowe John Magnoli Rocco Mancini Richard McGill Mario Musso Nicholas Nardella John Page Guiseppe Paternostro Antonio Perrugini John Puskar Jr. Anthony Rinaldi Albert Ritz Michael Russillo Reginald Siewert William Varga Frank Visconti Scott Ward

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I wish to talk about the ongoing genocide in Darfur, and this administration's inexcusable failure to do all it can to stop the violence there. We all understand the monumental challenge we face in ending the violence in Darfur, but this administration's behavior and recent statements on this issue suggest that it simply does not know when to stop talking and when to start acting. And all the while innocent people continue to needlessly die under our watch. Last fall, the President's Special Envoy for Darfur, Andrew Natsios, announced that if the Sudanese Government did not accept a U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force by January 1, the administration would implement punitive measures as part of its Plan B. Well here we are today. Over 100 days have passed since January 1. And what do we have to show for it? No U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force on the ground in Sudan. And no Plan B. Meanwhile the death toll has risen. Over the course of the conflict, 200,000 people have been killed; 2.5 million displaced. Families and villages have been decimated; women and girls have been raped. Fighting has infected Sudan's neighbors, leaving scores dead along the Sudan-Chad border. One U.N. official recently described the scene of dead bodies in the area as ``shocking and apocalyptic.'' So much death and destruction, 2\1/2\ years after this administration stated that genocide was indeed occurring in Darfur. More than 100 days after Mr. Natsios's deadline, the killings continue. Earlier this month, Mr. Natsios testified before the Foreign Relations Committee on Darfur and Plan B. His testimony only deepened my concerns about the administration's Darfur paralysis. When asked repeatedly by Senator Menendez to answer yes or no as to whether genocide was occurring in Darfur, he did not answer yes. Instead his response was that the violence has abated in Darfur and that the rebel groups were also engaging in killings. His answer was incredibly disturbing to me and to other members of the committee. Now I understand Mr. Natsios's desire to convey the complexity of the situation and the complicity of various parties on the ground, but the fact is that the primary party responsible for the killings is the Sudanese Government and its Janjaweed proxies. For Mr. Natsios to be unable to state that genocide is occurring in clear terms seems to me a classic example of missing the forest for the trees. It also raises a question of credibility. After all, how can this administration stop a genocide when its special envoy won't even fully acknowledge it? Mr. Natsios also stated that although the President is supposedly angry about the situation in Darfur and has recently proposed certain sanctions, he has acceded to a request by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to delay any implementation of Plan B for another two to four weeks to give the Secretary-General time to convince the Sudanese Government to accept a peacekeeping force. Now 2 to 4 weeks may seem like nothing in the context of protracted and complex diplomatic negotiations, but this is no treaty that is being negotiated. There are lives at stake every day here and we just cannot afford to take a ``wait and see'' approach. Recent reports suggest that the Sudanese Government has agreed to a hybrid force but based on its previous track record, I will believe it when I see some additional boots on the ground. In the meantime, a pause on the administration's part is simply unacceptable. And so I believe that even as the modalities of a peacekeeping force, that may or may not materialize, are worked out, the administration must begin implementing certain elements of Plan B immediately. Not 4 weeks from now. Not 2 weeks from now. Immediately. Select punitive measures as described by Mr. Natsios at the hearing include imposing personal sanctions on certain members of the rebel groups and the Sudanese Government; curbing the Sudanese Government's access to oil revenues; and increasing penalties on companies operating in Sudan. There is nothing revolutionary about these measures. They were leaked to the public and have been under discussion for some weeks. The question in my mind is not so much about whether we should implement them but why haven't we already implemented them. As chairman of the Banking Committee and a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I am absolutely willing to work with the administration to put these measures into force and look forward to some clear answers from the administration on this. Now let me be clear about what I mean in saying we should go ahead and implement elements of Plan B. I fully appreciate the sensitivities of our diplomatic efforts related to Darfur. I fully agree with the importance of working this issue through the U.N. in a multilateral manner. But if there are certain steps that the United States can take on its own account and indeed was supposed to take over 100 days ago to pressure the Sudanese Government, then what are we waiting for? The time has come to delink certain elements of Plan B from our broader multilateral strategy to pressure Khartoum. The time has come to act where and when we can. This administration has shown no compulsion in acting unilaterally in the past. It did so by invading Iraq with disastrous consequence. Why does it continue to keep one foot on the side lines 4 years into this genocide when it not only has the ability but also the moral responsibility to act? Moreover, we must not stop at implementing long overdue sanctions whose credibility has been called into question because they have yet to be implemented. We must also consider a more robust role for NATO forces, including their deployment to Sudan if the Sudanese Government continues to obstruct a hybrid peacekeeping force. Even if the Sudanese Government consents to the U.N.-AU force, the United Nations may fail to muster the requisite troops within an acceptable period of time. In such a scenario, we should consider the deployment of an interim NATO force with U.S. participation. At a minimum, NATO forces, which already provide logistical support to the African Union mission, should enforce a no-fly zone in Darfur pursuant to U.N. Resolution 1591 to prevent military flights over Darfur. Naturally, special attention will have to be paid in any operation to the security of refugee camps and aid workers but to those who say that military action will make things worse, I have only one thing to say: we are already at rock bottom. The authorization of force is one of the most critical decisions a member of Congress has to make, especially if it entails sending our brave men and women into harm's way on the ground. U.S. participation however in any such action, even in a limited capacity, is critical to showing the world that America is not just about fighting the war against terrorism but also is willing to fight against injustice and mass murder. That we are prepared to fight for the principles of respect for human dignity and life, and not just talk about them. In advocating certain measures outside the framework of the United Nations, I do not intend to dismiss the critical role that the U.N. and other countries can play. The fact is that the U.S. has limited leverage over Sudan and we need all the help we can get. We must work within the U.N. system, and also press other key countries that deal with Sudan such as India and China to do their part. China in particular has a crucial role to play in changing Khartoum's behavior. But even as we assess the role and responsibilities of others, we must never forget our own. We must lead by example. Over the past few years, I have voted for legislation sanctioning the Government of Sudan. I have delivered floor statements and attended hearings on Darfur, where witness after witness has testified to the ongoing atrocities. I have sent letters to the Chinese, the Russians, the Arabs and others urging them to use their clout with Sudan. Yet after all such actions and deliberations by members of this body and after all the punitive authorities granted to this administration, to see it temporizing and regressing to a point where we are debating whether genocide is even occurring is utterly unacceptable. The time for action is now, not in a few weeks. We are at rock bottom and the administration needs to deliver on its threats and translate its rhetoric into action. We must do everything in our power to end the genocide in Darfur immediately.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce with Senator Salazar a very important piece of legislation, ``The No Child Left Behind Reform Act.'' This legislation makes three basic changes to the No Child Left Behind Act which was signed into law in January of 2002. Five years ago I supported the No Child Left Behind Act because I care about improving the quality of education in America for all of our children. I believed that this law would help to achieve that goal by establishing rigorous measures of student achievement, by helping teachers do a better job of instructing students, and by providing the resources desperately needed by our schools for even the most basic necessities to help put the reforms we passed into place. Regrettably, the high hopes that I and many others had for this law have not been realized. Throughout the years, this law has been implemented by the administration in a manner that is inflexible, unreasonable and unhelpful. As a result, it has failed the teachers, the schools, and, most importantly, the students it was meant to help. Worse still, this administration's promise of sufficient resources to implement the law is a promise that has yet to be kept. This year's budget proposal underfunds No Child Left Behind by almost $15 billion. Since passage five years ago, the administration has underfunded the law by more than $70 billion below the level promised when the President signed the Act into law. As a result of the failures of the current administration to fulfill its commitment to our Nation's school children under this law, children and their teachers are shouldering noteworthy hardships. Additional requirements without additional funding, and little, if any, technical assistance from the Department, have left students, teachers, administrators and parents struggling to implement mandates that are often confusing, inflexible, unrealistic and costly. With the degree of underfunding that we have seen at the Federal level, many taxpayers are simultaneously paying for their mortgage, basic health care, the rising cost of their children's tuition and the Federal share of the No Child Left Behind Act. As I have said on numerous occasions in the past, resources without reforms are a waste of money. By the same token, reforms without resources are a false promise a false promise that has left students and their teachers grappling with new burdens and little help to bear them. The legislation I am introducing today proposes to make three changes to the No Child Left Behind Act. These changes will ease current burdens on our students, our teachers and our administrators without dismantling the fundamental underpinnings of the law. First, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act will allow schools to be given credit for performing well on measures other than test scores when calculating student achievement. Test scores are an important measure of student knowledge. However, they are not the only measure. There are others. These include dropout rates, the number of students who participate in advanced placement courses, and individual student improvement over time. Unfortunately, current law does not allow schools to use these additional ways to gauge school success in a constructive manner. Additional measures can only be used to further indicate how a school is failing, not how a school is succeeding. This legislation will allow schools to earn credit for succeeding. Second, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act will allow schools to target school choice and supplemental services to the students that actually demonstrate a need for them. As the current law is being implemented by the Administration, if a school is in need of improvement, it is expected to offer school choice and supplemental services to all students--even if not all students have demonstrated a need for them. That strikes me as a wasteful and imprecise way to help a school improve student performance. For that reason, this legislation will allow schools to target resources to the students that actually demonstrate that they need them. Clearly, this is the most efficient way to maximize their effect. Finally, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act introduces a greater degree of reasonableness to the teacher certification process. As it is being implemented, the law requires teachers to be ``highly qualified'' to teach every subject that they teach. Certainly none of us disagree with this policy as a matter of principle. But as a matter of practice, it is causing confusion and hardship for teachers, particularly secondary teachers and teachers in small school districts. For example, as the law is being implemented by the Administration, a high school science teacher could be required to hold degrees in biology, physics and chemistry to be considered highly qualified. In small schools where there may be only one 7th or 8th grade teacher teaching all subjects, these teachers could similarly be required to hold degrees in every subject area. Such requirements are unreasonable at a time when excellent teachers are increasingly hard to find. The legislation I introduce today will allow States to create a single assessment to cover multiple subjects for middle grade level teachers and allow states to issue a broad certification for science and social studies. In my view, the changes I propose will provide significant assistance to schools struggling to comply with the No Child Left Behind law all across America. As time marches on and more deadlines set by this law come and go including additional testing, a highly qualified teacher in every classroom and 100 percent proficiency for all students--we have a responsibility to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act in a manner that will require it to be implemented in a fair and reasonable manner. I would caution that in doing so, however, we must also preserve the basic tenets of the law--providing a high quality education for all American students and closing the achievement gap across demographic and socioeconomic lines. Again, no child should left behind--no special education student, no English language learning student, no minority student and no low-income student. I stand by this commitment. Obviously, funding this law is beyond the scope of this bill. I would note, however, that I will continue my efforts to direct increased funds to the law. Clearly, our children deserve the resources needed to make their dreams for a better education a reality. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important reform legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce with Senator Salazar a very important piece of legislation, ``The No Child Left Behind Reform Act.'' This legislation makes three basic changes to the No Child Left Behind Act which was signed into law in January of 2002. Five years ago I supported the No Child Left Behind Act because I care about improving the quality of education in America for all of our children. I believed that this law would help to achieve that goal by establishing rigorous measures of student achievement, by helping teachers do a better job of instructing students, and by providing the resources desperately needed by our schools for even the most basic necessities to help put the reforms we passed into place. Regrettably, the high hopes that I and many others had for this law have not been realized. Throughout the years, this law has been implemented by the administration in a manner that is inflexible, unreasonable and unhelpful. As a result, it has failed the teachers, the schools, and, most importantly, the students it was meant to help. Worse still, this administration's promise of sufficient resources to implement the law is a promise that has yet to be kept. This year's budget proposal underfunds No Child Left Behind by almost $15 billion. Since passage five years ago, the administration has underfunded the law by more than $70 billion below the level promised when the President signed the Act into law. As a result of the failures of the current administration to fulfill its commitment to our Nation's school children under this law, children and their teachers are shouldering noteworthy hardships. Additional requirements without additional funding, and little, if any, technical assistance from the Department, have left students, teachers, administrators and parents struggling to implement mandates that are often confusing, inflexible, unrealistic and costly. With the degree of underfunding that we have seen at the Federal level, many taxpayers are simultaneously paying for their mortgage, basic health care, the rising cost of their children's tuition and the Federal share of the No Child Left Behind Act. As I have said on numerous occasions in the past, resources without reforms are a waste of money. By the same token, reforms without resources are a false promise a false promise that has left students and their teachers grappling with new burdens and little help to bear them. The legislation I am introducing today proposes to make three changes to the No Child Left Behind Act. These changes will ease current burdens on our students, our teachers and our administrators without dismantling the fundamental underpinnings of the law. First, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act will allow schools to be given credit for performing well on measures other than test scores when calculating student achievement. Test scores are an important measure of student knowledge. However, they are not the only measure. There are others. These include dropout rates, the number of students who participate in advanced placement courses, and individual student improvement over time. Unfortunately, current law does not allow schools to use these additional ways to gauge school success in a constructive manner. Additional measures can only be used to further indicate how a school is failing, not how a school is succeeding. This legislation will allow schools to earn credit for succeeding. Second, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act will allow schools to target school choice and supplemental services to the students that actually demonstrate a need for them. As the current law is being implemented by the Administration, if a school is in need of improvement, it is expected to offer school choice and supplemental services to all students--even if not all students have demonstrated a need for them. That strikes me as a wasteful and imprecise way to help a school improve student performance. For that reason, this legislation will allow schools to target resources to the students that actually demonstrate that they need them. Clearly, this is the most efficient way to maximize their effect. Finally, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act introduces a greater degree of reasonableness to the teacher certification process. As it is being implemented, the law requires teachers to be ``highly qualified'' to teach every subject that they teach. Certainly none of us disagree with this policy as a matter of principle. But as a matter of practice, it is causing confusion and hardship for teachers, particularly secondary teachers and teachers in small school districts. For example, as the law is being implemented by the Administration, a high school science teacher could be required to hold degrees in biology, physics and chemistry to be considered highly qualified. In small schools where there may be only one 7th or 8th grade teacher teaching all subjects, these teachers could similarly be required to hold degrees in every subject area. Such requirements are unreasonable at a time when excellent teachers are increasingly hard to find. The legislation I introduce today will allow States to create a single assessment to cover multiple subjects for middle grade level teachers and allow states to issue a broad certification for science and social studies. In my view, the changes I propose will provide significant assistance to schools struggling to comply with the No Child Left Behind law all across America. As time marches on and more deadlines set by this law come and go including additional testing, a highly qualified teacher in every classroom and 100 percent proficiency for all students--we have a responsibility to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act in a manner that will require it to be implemented in a fair and reasonable manner. I would caution that in doing so, however, we must also preserve the basic tenets of the law--providing a high quality education for all American students and closing the achievement gap across demographic and socioeconomic lines. Again, no child should left behind--no special education student, no English language learning student, no minority student and no low-income student. I stand by this commitment. Obviously, funding this law is beyond the scope of this bill. I would note, however, that I will continue my efforts to direct increased funds to the law. Clearly, our children deserve the resources needed to make their dreams for a better education a reality. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important reform legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues, Senators Lieberman, Kerry, and Kennedy, to introduce the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Amendments Act of 2007. Representatives Courtney and Neal have introduced a companion bill in the House. The Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor, or QSHC, was established in 1994 as the fifth National Heritage Corridor. National Heritage Areas are designated by Congress to preserve distinctive landscapes of historic, cultural, natural, and recreational resources. The QSHC is commonly known as ``The Last Green Valley,'' a rare rural landscape in the populous Northeast. In fact, the Valley stands out in night images from space for its absence of lights. It contains aboriginal and colonial archaeological sites, mills and mill villages that preserve the history of the early industrial revolution, and traditional farming communities. The QSHC non-profit management entity has restored architecturally and historically important buildings, developed interpretive projects, and developed conservation and open space plans. It has consistently leveraged an average of $19 for every $1 of appropriated Federal money. The QSHC has developed a plan to become a self-sustaining entity by 2015, as laid out in ``The Trail to 2015: A Sustainability Plan for the Last Green Valley.'' The plan calls for replacing Federal funds with fees for services, private and corporate support, and income from a permanent fund. In the interim, Federal funds are necessary for capacity-building, awareness programs, and ongoing education of land- use decision-makers. The Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor has created a collaboration of 35 municipalities dedicated to preserving a unique slice of our American heritage. With an extension of its authorization, this preserve can exist in perpetuity. I urge my colleagues to support reauthorization of the QSHC.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues, Senators Lieberman, Kerry, and Kennedy, to introduce the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Amendments Act of 2007. Representatives Courtney and Neal have introduced a companion bill in the House. The Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor, or QSHC, was established in 1994 as the fifth National Heritage Corridor. National Heritage Areas are designated by Congress to preserve distinctive landscapes of historic, cultural, natural, and recreational resources. The QSHC is commonly known as ``The Last Green Valley,'' a rare rural landscape in the populous Northeast. In fact, the Valley stands out in night images from space for its absence of lights. It contains aboriginal and colonial archaeological sites, mills and mill villages that preserve the history of the early industrial revolution, and traditional farming communities. The QSHC non-profit management entity has restored architecturally and historically important buildings, developed interpretive projects, and developed conservation and open space plans. It has consistently leveraged an average of $19 for every $1 of appropriated Federal money. The QSHC has developed a plan to become a self-sustaining entity by 2015, as laid out in ``The Trail to 2015: A Sustainability Plan for the Last Green Valley.'' The plan calls for replacing Federal funds with fees for services, private and corporate support, and income from a permanent fund. In the interim, Federal funds are necessary for capacity-building, awareness programs, and ongoing education of land- use decision-makers. The Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor has created a collaboration of 35 municipalities dedicated to preserving a unique slice of our American heritage. With an extension of its authorization, this preserve can exist in perpetuity. I urge my colleagues to support reauthorization of the QSHC.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, along with Senators Alexander, Bayh, Bennett, Boxer, Cantwell, Clinton, Coleman, Domenici, Durbin, Hatch, Levin, Lieberman, Salazar, and Schumer, I am in support of our resolution to proclaim the third week of April of 2007 as ``National Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week.'' The Senate has passed similar resolutions each year since 2001, and we strongly support continued awareness of one of the most devastating forms of child abuse in this country, abuse that results in the severe injury, lifelong disability, or death of hundreds of children each year. In recognition of the need to eliminate child abuse and to raise awareness about the issue, the month of April has again been designated ``National Child Abuse Prevention Month,'' an annual tradition that was initiated in 1979 by former President Jimmy Carter. As we focus on child abuse prevention this month, awareness and prevention of Shaken Baby Syndrome is an important component of these efforts. I would like to recognize the many groups, including those formed by parents and relatives who have been killed or injured by shaking, who support this effort to increase awareness of one of the most devastating forms of child abuse. These supporters include the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, the American Psychological Association, The Arc of the United States, the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, the Association of University Centers on Disabilities, the Brain Injury Association of America, the Center for Child Protection and Family Support, the Child Welfare League of America, Children's Healthcare is a Legal Duty, the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, the Cynthia Gibbs Foundation, Don't Shake Jake, Easter Seals, Epilepsy Foundation of America, Family Voices, the Hannah Rose Foundation, the Kierra Harrison Foundation, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies, the National Center for Learning Disabilities, the National Child Abuse Coalition, the National Crime Prevention Council, the National Exchange Club Foundation, the National Family Partnership, the National Respite Coalition, the National Shaken Baby Coalition, Parents Anonymous, Prevent Child Abuse, the Shaken Baby Alliance, the Shaken Baby Association, Shaken Baby Prevention Inc., Shaken Baby Syndrome Prevention Plus, the SKIPPER Initiative, United Cerebral Palsy, A Voice for Gabbi, and many other groups. I urge the Senate to adopt this resolution designating the third week of April 2007 as ``National Shaken Baby Syndrome Awareness Week,'' and to take part in the many local and national activities and events recognizing the month of April as National Child Abuse Prevention Month.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Amendments of 2007, which is a bill to reauthorize the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act--BPCA. If Congress doesn't act, this successful program will expire on October I, 2007. I thank my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Bingaman, Murray, Clinton and Brown who are joining me as original cosponsors of this important legislation. I am pleased that Senators Kennedy and Enzi, the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Health Education Labor, and Pensions--HELP--Committee, have included this bill in the chairman's mark for S. 1082, which is expected to be voted on today in the HELP Committee. I would also like to recognize the contributions and leadership of former Senator Mike De Wine, a friend and colleague, who always fought to ensure children would not be treated as second-class citizens when it came to drug and device development. He was a champion of BPCA along with me even when it wasn't popular to hold that view. The story of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act is one of huge success for children and their families. Children with a wide range of diseases such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, allergies, asthma, neurological and psychiatric disorders, and obesity can now lead healthier, more productive lives as a result of new information about the safety and efficacy of drugs they use to treat and manage their diseases where previously there was none. Children are not simply little adults and results of the drug studies conducted under the BPCA have shown us that they should not be treated as such. Pediatric drug studies conducted. under the BPCA showed that children may have been exposed to ineffective drugs, ineffective dosing, overdosing, or side effects that were previously unknown. Since the BPCA's passage in 1997 and its reauthorization in 2002, FDA has requested nearly 800 studies involving more than 45,000 children in clinical trials. Useful new pediatric information is now part of product labeling for 119 drugs. By comparison, in the 7 years prior to the BPCA's passage, only 11 studies of marketed drugs were completed. In the past 10 years, there has been a twentyfold increase in the number of drugs studied in infants, children, and adolescents since BPCA was enacted. Labeling changes resulting from clinical studies under the BPCA have informed physicians of the proper dosing in the examples of Viracept, a protease inhibitor used in a combination therapy for the treatment of HIV, and Neurontin, a pain relief medication used to treat children with chronic pain. For children with epilepsy, the BPCA studies informed physicians that the drugs Keppra and Trileptal could be used safely and effectively at an even earlier age than previously known. Studies of Imitrex as a result of the BPCA showed no better results than placebo for the treatment of migraine headaches in adolescents. These same studies also showed serious adverse events due to Imitrex in pediatric populations and therefore the drug is not recommended to treat migraines in anyone less than 18 years of age. Recent studies of the BPCA by the Government Accountability Office-- GAO--and by several authors from Duke University in an article which appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association--JAMA--have demonstrated that the program is a success and have identified opportunities to strengthen the program. Authors of the recent JAMA article found that outside of the BPCA, the FDA is limited in the number and scope of studies for which it can require pediatric data for existing products on the market. Data from this article showed that only a minority of drugs studied under the BPC, about 20 percent, had more than $1 billion in annual sales. In fact, the median drug granted exclusivity was a small-market drug with annual sales of $180 million and 30 percent of drugs studied had sales less than $200 million. This article went on to say that a universal reduction in the length of pediatric exclusivity from 6 to 3 months would mean that products with small profit margins may not be submitted for pediatric testing. The BPCA has always tried to strike the right balance between cost to consumers and benefits to children. I believe there is an ongoing need to evaluate the cost of the incentive as it relates to reaching the goal of having medications properly studied and labeled for children. In fact, that is why I strongly support a 5-year sunset of the BPCA. After 10 years, experience and data has shown us that for a small number of drugs, pediatric exclusivity has far exceeded the ``carrot'' it was intended to provide for manufacturers. As the authors of the recent JAMA article noted, ``our study shows that the Pediatric Exclusivity Program overcompensates blockbuster products for performing clinical trials in children, while other products have more modest returns on investment under this program.'' The bill I am introducing today contains a reasonable, workable proposal to address cost concerns without jeopardizing the extraordinary success of BPCA. I have worked closely with the chairman and ranking member of the HELP Committee to craft this proposal into the form it appears in this legislation and in the bipartisan chairman's mark which is expected to be voted on in the HELP Committee today. On March 27, the HELP Committee held a hearing, which I chaired, entitled ``Ensuring Safe Medicines and Medical Devices for Children.'' We learned from pediatricians and a parent of five children, four of whom are HIV-positive, Mrs. Susan Belfiore, about the tremendous impact BPCA has had on the quality of life for countless numbers of children and their families. We received testimony with many suggestions for improvements to BPCA which I believe are reflected in this bill. I would also add that in the month since I circulated this bill as a draft, I received comments from several pharmaceutical companies. Some have been strongly supportive of this effort and many of their ideas and suggestions are incorporated in this bill. The success of the BPCA has transformed the drug development process for children. It is my hope that we will achieve similar success with another piece of legislation I recently introduced called the Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act. It is also contained within the chairman's mark to S. 1082 and I thank Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Member Enzi for working with me to ensure that medical devices used in children are safe and are designed specifically for their use. The BPCA has had a long history of bipartisan support and it has been my longstanding hope that this initiative will continue to be bipartisan as the chairman's mark to S. 1082 moves to the Senate floor. The safety of our Nation's children is not a partisan issue. As the parent of two young children, I know that it is essential that products used in children's growing bodies, whether they be drugs or devices, are appropriately tested and designed specifically for their use. We must continue the tremendous success of BPCA and its complementary program, the Pediatric Research Improvement Act, of which I am an original cosponsor, by strengthening both programs through the reauthorization process this year. It is essential that we use the past experience of both programs to ensure they will continue to thrive in the future. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Amendments of 2007, which is a bill to reauthorize the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act--BPCA. If Congress doesn't act, this successful program will expire on October I, 2007. I thank my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Bingaman, Murray, Clinton and Brown who are joining me as original cosponsors of this important legislation. I am pleased that Senators Kennedy and Enzi, the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Health Education Labor, and Pensions--HELP--Committee, have included this bill in the chairman's mark for S. 1082, which is expected to be voted on today in the HELP Committee. I would also like to recognize the contributions and leadership of former Senator Mike De Wine, a friend and colleague, who always fought to ensure children would not be treated as second-class citizens when it came to drug and device development. He was a champion of BPCA along with me even when it wasn't popular to hold that view. The story of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act is one of huge success for children and their families. Children with a wide range of diseases such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, allergies, asthma, neurological and psychiatric disorders, and obesity can now lead healthier, more productive lives as a result of new information about the safety and efficacy of drugs they use to treat and manage their diseases where previously there was none. Children are not simply little adults and results of the drug studies conducted under the BPCA have shown us that they should not be treated as such. Pediatric drug studies conducted. under the BPCA showed that children may have been exposed to ineffective drugs, ineffective dosing, overdosing, or side effects that were previously unknown. Since the BPCA's passage in 1997 and its reauthorization in 2002, FDA has requested nearly 800 studies involving more than 45,000 children in clinical trials. Useful new pediatric information is now part of product labeling for 119 drugs. By comparison, in the 7 years prior to the BPCA's passage, only 11 studies of marketed drugs were completed. In the past 10 years, there has been a twentyfold increase in the number of drugs studied in infants, children, and adolescents since BPCA was enacted. Labeling changes resulting from clinical studies under the BPCA have informed physicians of the proper dosing in the examples of Viracept, a protease inhibitor used in a combination therapy for the treatment of HIV, and Neurontin, a pain relief medication used to treat children with chronic pain. For children with epilepsy, the BPCA studies informed physicians that the drugs Keppra and Trileptal could be used safely and effectively at an even earlier age than previously known. Studies of Imitrex as a result of the BPCA showed no better results than placebo for the treatment of migraine headaches in adolescents. These same studies also showed serious adverse events due to Imitrex in pediatric populations and therefore the drug is not recommended to treat migraines in anyone less than 18 years of age. Recent studies of the BPCA by the Government Accountability Office-- GAO--and by several authors from Duke University in an article which appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association--JAMA--have demonstrated that the program is a success and have identified opportunities to strengthen the program. Authors of the recent JAMA article found that outside of the BPCA, the FDA is limited in the number and scope of studies for which it can require pediatric data for existing products on the market. Data from this article showed that only a minority of drugs studied under the BPC, about 20 percent, had more than $1 billion in annual sales. In fact, the median drug granted exclusivity was a small-market drug with annual sales of $180 million and 30 percent of drugs studied had sales less than $200 million. This article went on to say that a universal reduction in the length of pediatric exclusivity from 6 to 3 months would mean that products with small profit margins may not be submitted for pediatric testing. The BPCA has always tried to strike the right balance between cost to consumers and benefits to children. I believe there is an ongoing need to evaluate the cost of the incentive as it relates to reaching the goal of having medications properly studied and labeled for children. In fact, that is why I strongly support a 5-year sunset of the BPCA. After 10 years, experience and data has shown us that for a small number of drugs, pediatric exclusivity has far exceeded the ``carrot'' it was intended to provide for manufacturers. As the authors of the recent JAMA article noted, ``our study shows that the Pediatric Exclusivity Program overcompensates blockbuster products for performing clinical trials in children, while other products have more modest returns on investment under this program.'' The bill I am introducing today contains a reasonable, workable proposal to address cost concerns without jeopardizing the extraordinary success of BPCA. I have worked closely with the chairman and ranking member of the HELP Committee to craft this proposal into the form it appears in this legislation and in the bipartisan chairman's mark which is expected to be voted on in the HELP Committee today. On March 27, the HELP Committee held a hearing, which I chaired, entitled ``Ensuring Safe Medicines and Medical Devices for Children.'' We learned from pediatricians and a parent of five children, four of whom are HIV-positive, Mrs. Susan Belfiore, about the tremendous impact BPCA has had on the quality of life for countless numbers of children and their families. We received testimony with many suggestions for improvements to BPCA which I believe are reflected in this bill. I would also add that in the month since I circulated this bill as a draft, I received comments from several pharmaceutical companies. Some have been strongly supportive of this effort and many of their ideas and suggestions are incorporated in this bill. The success of the BPCA has transformed the drug development process for children. It is my hope that we will achieve similar success with another piece of legislation I recently introduced called the Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act. It is also contained within the chairman's mark to S. 1082 and I thank Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Member Enzi for working with me to ensure that medical devices used in children are safe and are designed specifically for their use. The BPCA has had a long history of bipartisan support and it has been my longstanding hope that this initiative will continue to be bipartisan as the chairman's mark to S. 1082 moves to the Senate floor. The safety of our Nation's children is not a partisan issue. As the parent of two young children, I know that it is essential that products used in children's growing bodies, whether they be drugs or devices, are appropriately tested and designed specifically for their use. We must continue the tremendous success of BPCA and its complementary program, the Pediatric Research Improvement Act, of which I am an original cosponsor, by strengthening both programs through the reauthorization process this year. It is essential that we use the past experience of both programs to ensure they will continue to thrive in the future. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senators Cochran, Kennedy, Stevens, Bingaman, Kerry and Rockefeller the Summer of Service Act of 2007. This bill offers middle school students the chance to spend a summer in service to their communities as they transition into high school. The Summer of Service Act would create a competitive grant program that would enable States and localities to offer middle school students an opportunity to participate in a structured community service program over the summer months. It would employ service-learning to teach civic participation skills, help young people see themselves as resources to their communities, expand educational opportunities and discourage ``summer academic slide.'' Providing tangible benefits to their communities, Summer of Service projects would direct grantees to work on unmet human, educational, environmental and public safety needs and encourage all youth, regardless of age, income, or disability, to engage in community service. The program would also grant participants with an educational award of up to $500 which can later be used to pay for college. Volunteerism not only brings support and services to communities in need, it also provides significant benefits to the students who participate. When young people participate in service activities they feel better able to control their lives in a positive way, avoiding risk behaviors, strengthening their community connections and become more engaged in their studies. When service is tied to what students are learning in school, they often make gains on achievement tests, complete their homework more often, and increase their grade point average. Students who engage in service learning also improve their communication skills, gain increased awareness of career possibilities, and develop more positive workplace attitudes, setting the foundation for their place as America's future leaders. Studies also show that students who participate in community service are more likely to graduate high school and demonstrate interest in going to college. We often hear today of the tremendous pressures our young people face at home, in school and in the afterschool hours. Summer of Service provides young people with the chance to be a positive change in their communities. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Summer of Service Act of 2007. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senators Cochran, Kennedy, Stevens, Bingaman, Kerry and Rockefeller the Summer of Service Act of 2007. This bill offers middle school students the chance to spend a summer in service to their communities as they transition into high school. The Summer of Service Act would create a competitive grant program that would enable States and localities to offer middle school students an opportunity to participate in a structured community service program over the summer months. It would employ service-learning to teach civic participation skills, help young people see themselves as resources to their communities, expand educational opportunities and discourage ``summer academic slide.'' Providing tangible benefits to their communities, Summer of Service projects would direct grantees to work on unmet human, educational, environmental and public safety needs and encourage all youth, regardless of age, income, or disability, to engage in community service. The program would also grant participants with an educational award of up to $500 which can later be used to pay for college. Volunteerism not only brings support and services to communities in need, it also provides significant benefits to the students who participate. When young people participate in service activities they feel better able to control their lives in a positive way, avoiding risk behaviors, strengthening their community connections and become more engaged in their studies. When service is tied to what students are learning in school, they often make gains on achievement tests, complete their homework more often, and increase their grade point average. Students who engage in service learning also improve their communication skills, gain increased awareness of career possibilities, and develop more positive workplace attitudes, setting the foundation for their place as America's future leaders. Studies also show that students who participate in community service are more likely to graduate high school and demonstrate interest in going to college. We often hear today of the tremendous pressures our young people face at home, in school and in the afterschool hours. Summer of Service provides young people with the chance to be a positive change in their communities. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Summer of Service Act of 2007. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, Senator Bond and I are introducing the Vision Care for Kids Act of 2007. This legislation will provide follow-up vision care services for those children who have visual problems and are not covered under an insurance policy or under any Federal, or State health benefits program. Why is this legislation needed? Let's look at the facts. According to the 2004 Vision Problems Action Plan, published by Prevent Blindness America, vision problems affect one in 20 preschoolers and 80 percent of children under age six are not screened for vision problems before entering public school. Perhaps even more startling than the statistics I have just mentioned, is that 20 States do not require children to receive any vision care prior to entry or during their early school years. Thus, millions of children are at risk of having possible vision problems later in life. I am pleased that my home State of Connecticut provides annual screenings to children in kindergarten through grade six. In addition, during the ninth grade, each student also receives a vision screening. Following the eye tests that are administered in Connecticut's schools, the local superintendent sends a note to the parent or guardian of each student who is found to have a problem. Although Connecticut provides screenings in the early years, it is important to note that out of the 467,488 children in Connecticut, there are almost 70,000 who have untreated vision disorders, according to the most recent Census data. Nationwide, almost 6 million out of close to 40 million children have untreated vision disorders. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that ``impaired vision can affect a child's cognitive, emotional, neurological, and physical development.'' With the introduction of the Vision Care for Kids Act, Senator Bond and I are seeking to improve the data I have outlined. When this legislation is enacted, the States will have the resources to pay for follow-up vision treatment for children who now do not have the financial means to undergo this much needed care. Our initiative will enable Federal funding to complement existing State efforts in regard to: providing comprehensive eye examinations for children under age nine; furnishing the necessary treatment or services needed if an eye exam determines additional care is needed; and developing educational materials for parents, teachers, and health care practitioners that will increase recognition of the signs of visual impairment in children. The Vision Care for Kids Act will serve as an incentive to States to provide eye care to those youngsters who are in need of treatment and are currently unable to access care. This year, we are working on the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). SCHIP was created to provide health care to millions of children who were previously uninsured. Over the last ten years, we have seen the positive impact of this essential program. Passage of the Vision Care for Kids Act will be a key component of ensuring that we have a comprehensive children's health care delivery system in this country. I look forward to working with Senator Bond and my colleagues to see that this legislation is not only is not only passed by this body soon, but that it is signed into law.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, Senator Bond and I are introducing the Vision Care for Kids Act of 2007. This legislation will provide follow-up vision care services for those children who have visual problems and are not covered under an insurance policy or under any Federal, or State health benefits program. Why is this legislation needed? Let's look at the facts. According to the 2004 Vision Problems Action Plan, published by Prevent Blindness America, vision problems affect one in 20 preschoolers and 80 percent of children under age six are not screened for vision problems before entering public school. Perhaps even more startling than the statistics I have just mentioned, is that 20 States do not require children to receive any vision care prior to entry or during their early school years. Thus, millions of children are at risk of having possible vision problems later in life. I am pleased that my home State of Connecticut provides annual screenings to children in kindergarten through grade six. In addition, during the ninth grade, each student also receives a vision screening. Following the eye tests that are administered in Connecticut's schools, the local superintendent sends a note to the parent or guardian of each student who is found to have a problem. Although Connecticut provides screenings in the early years, it is important to note that out of the 467,488 children in Connecticut, there are almost 70,000 who have untreated vision disorders, according to the most recent Census data. Nationwide, almost 6 million out of close to 40 million children have untreated vision disorders. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that ``impaired vision can affect a child's cognitive, emotional, neurological, and physical development.'' With the introduction of the Vision Care for Kids Act, Senator Bond and I are seeking to improve the data I have outlined. When this legislation is enacted, the States will have the resources to pay for follow-up vision treatment for children who now do not have the financial means to undergo this much needed care. Our initiative will enable Federal funding to complement existing State efforts in regard to: providing comprehensive eye examinations for children under age nine; furnishing the necessary treatment or services needed if an eye exam determines additional care is needed; and developing educational materials for parents, teachers, and health care practitioners that will increase recognition of the signs of visual impairment in children. The Vision Care for Kids Act will serve as an incentive to States to provide eye care to those youngsters who are in need of treatment and are currently unable to access care. This year, we are working on the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). SCHIP was created to provide health care to millions of children who were previously uninsured. Over the last ten years, we have seen the positive impact of this essential program. Passage of the Vision Care for Kids Act will be a key component of ensuring that we have a comprehensive children's health care delivery system in this country. I look forward to working with Senator Bond and my colleagues to see that this legislation is not only is not only passed by this body soon, but that it is signed into law.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. In the coming hours, the Senate will vote to pass this bill like it did last year and unlock the door for researchers across the country to use embryonic stem cells to better understand diseases like Parkinson's and juvenile diabetes so that we may one day find a cure. With each day that has passed since the President vetoed this legislation, nearly 4,100 Americans were diagnosed with diabetes, 3,800 were diagnosed with cancer, and 160 were diagnosed with Parkinson's. What we are talking about here is research that may one day provide relief to the more than 100 million Americans suffering from Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal cord injury, ALS, cancer, and many other devastating conditions for which there is still no cure. The legislation we are about to vote on would expand 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 that would otherwise be discarded. Strict ethical requirements apply to the use of these stem cell lines. In fact, I believe these ethical requirements are one of the most essential provisions of the bill. Since the HELP Committee first began consideration of the President's policy toward embryonic stem cell research in 2001, I have maintained that the pursuit of scientific research that may benefit millions of Americans and their families was as important as ensuring that science did not outpace ethics. Under this legislation, the only embryonic stem cells that can be used for federally funded research are those that were derived through embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics that were created for fertility treatment purposes and were 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. These embryos will never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise have been discarded. The ethical requirements contained in this bill are stronger than current law. In fact, it is possible that some of the 21 stem cell lines approved for Federal funding, the so- called ``NIH-approved lines,'' may not meet the strict ethical criteria contained in this bill. I have heard some of my colleagues who oppose this legislation argue that this legislation allows, even encourages, taxpayer-funded destruction of human embryos. That is totally false. There is a provision called the Dickey amendment which is attached to every annual Labor-HHS appropriations bill prohibiting any Federal funds from being used to destroy human embryos. This provision is not affected by the embryonic stem cell legislation before the Senate today. Federal funds can be used to study stem cell lines that were derived from human embryos that meet the ethical requirements I just laid out, but the derivation process itself cannot be paid for with Federal money. I have also heard some of my colleagues who oppose this legislation argue that embryonic stem cell research is unnecessary given the advances in adult stem cell research. There is no question that adult stem cells such as those found in bone marrow and cord blood have led to great advances in patients suffering from leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, sickle cell anemia, among others. I was a coauthor, along with Senator Hatch and others, of a bill that is now law to advance bone marrow and cord blood stem cell collection for use in adult stem cell transplantation, and I believe it is essential that we arm researchers and physicians with every possible therapeutic weapon in their medical arsenal. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting full funding for this important law, which passed unanimously in the Senate, in the upcoming Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. The fact remains that there will always be limits to the use of adult stem cells when compared with embryonic stem cells, and that is why the legislation before us is so important. Our Nation's best scientists, including many Nobel laureates, believe that embryonic stem cell research has a unique potential to ease human suffering and that is because embryonic stem cells, unlike adult stem cells, can become any cell in the body. Embryonic stem cells can become heart cells, lung cells, brain tissue, and that property--called pluripotency--is unique to their embryonic state. The expansion of embryonic stem cell research may one day unlock the mysteries behind so many deadly and debilitating diseases that afflict millions of Americans and their families. I urge the President to reconsider his position on this legislation and not stand in the way of our Nation's scientists who simply want to find the key that will ease the burden of suffering.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay my respects to Private First Class Orlando E. Gonzalez, who last month lost his life in the service of our country. On the morning of Sunday, March 25, Private First Class Gonzalez was handing out candy to Iraqi children in the province of Diyala when a suicide bomber killed him and three other soldiers. Private First Class Gonzalez was only 21 years old. Born in Bridgeport, CT, Orlando is being remembered today for his dedication to the U.S. Army, and for his warm and giving nature. ``He always had a smile on his face,'' said his high school principal, Brian Cashman. ``He was kind of a handful, but you couldn't help but like him.'' Private First Class Gonzalez rose above what his principal described as a ``rough'' background to find purpose and discipline: first at a faith-based camp for students, and then as an American soldier. ``We just loved him around here,'' said Patrick LeBlanc, director of Summit Grove Camp. The first thing that came to LeBlanc's mind on hearing of Orlando's death was his infectious playfulness. LeBlanc recalled seeing a wild rabbit on the camp grounds, and telling Orlando he was fast enough to catch it. Orlando only nodded--and a few hours later, knocked on LeBlanc's door, petting the rabbit and beaming. But it was in the Army that Private First Class Gonzalez found, as so many have found before him, meaning and a second home. ``I think the Army is what he needed,'' said Principal Cashman. Patrick LeBlanc agreed: ``It was the second happiest place I'd seen him, other than camp here. . . . He was doing what he wanted to do.'' As a scout javelin gunner for the 82nd Airborne Division, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 5th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, Private First Class Gonzalez immediately distinguished himself. ``On a daily basis, Private First Class Gonzalez displayed courage, honor, and selfless service in the struggle to keep America safe and improve the nation of Iraq,'' said Captain John Carson of the 73rd Cavalry. Private First Class Gonzalez was already highly decorated at the time of his death, and we can only wonder what an outstanding career might have been waiting for him. Instead, Private First Class Gonzalez leaves behind two grieving parents, Orlando G. Gonzalez of Bridgeport, and Carmen Diaz of New Freedom, PA. But he leaves behind, as well, an example of dedication that won't soon be dimmed. ``This hero will be sorely missed and will forever live in our memories,'' said Captain Carson. Orlando, though, might have used other words. ``Call him a hero and he would get mad,'' Orlando's friend and pastor, the Reverend Paul Juchniewich, said in a funeral sermon. ``He would just say he was doing his duty to rescue those who are in peril. He did not die in a conventional battle, but rather a battle for the hearts and minds of the future generation.'' The struggle's outcome is still uncertain. But we will keep fresh the memory of one man who advanced it with all his strength, Private First Class Orlando E. Gonzalez, whose last act on this Earth was to give.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to humbly honor a Bridgeport, CT, soldier who lost his life in the service of our country: Private First Class Stephen K. Richardson. On Tuesday, March 20, the 22-year-old Private First Class Richardson and another soldier were killed when a roadside bomb exploded near their vehicle in Baghdad. Now Stephen is being remembered for his spirit of service, for his devotion to his country, and for his love of his family. Stephen served with the 1st Battalion, 28th Infantry, 4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, which has been charged with securing Baghdad. Private First Class Richardson took on that mission willingly: ``He wanted to be part of America's protection,'' said his grandmother, Ina Jackson. ``He wanted to help resolve the problems in Iraq.'' Like nearly every other soldier who has enlisted since the start of the Iraq war, Private First Class Richardson knew exactly where he was going and exactly what risks he'd be facing which makes his sacrifice all the more admirable. Those who were close to Stephen know just what a fine young life has been cut off. Edward Geist, a professor at the University of Bridgeport, remembers teaching him. ``He was older than my other students he took the work more seriously,'' said Professor Geist. He still remembers an essay Private First Class Richardson wrote about his future plans returning to his family's home in Jamaica and starting a business to help improve living conditions. ``It was much more reflective and serious than what we normally get,'' Stephen's professor said. I think that seriousness of purpose was exactly what drove Private First Class Richardson to serve his country and a glimpse of the bright future he might have had in store. Instead, his death leaves a father and mother to bury their son; a fatherless daughter, Iyanna; and a widowed and pregnant wife, Katana. Their memories of Stephen are bright and indelible: Stephen planting tomatoes, spinach, and string beans in the backyard garden with his grandmother; Stephen giving a pony ride to his 7-year-old cousin; Stephen watching ``Bugs Bunny'' with infant Iyanna. Today, I imagine that each of those memories comes back with a stab of grief to those who loved Stephen; but I pray that time will turn them into a wellspring of comfort. This war leaves behind more anguish than we can easily bear. At 4 a.m. on Tuesday morning, Stephen's mother, Jacqueline Hamilton-Carby, started out of bed in Jamaica and sat down to write him a letter: ``It has been 43 days, that is 1,032 hours or 61,920 minutes, better yet 3,715,200 seconds, since I heard your voice. That is a long, l-o-n-g time but whereas I was worried before, I have placed you in the hand of God.'' On the same day, her son was killed. But she has no doubt that he is in that hand still. ``I'm not angry with anyone,'' said Ms. Hamilton-Carby. ``I just view it as the work of God.'' May she find comfort, and all who loved Stephen, and all who are bereaved. I add my voice to their prayers, and I pledge my highest respect to an American soldier who died in our service, Private First Class Stephen K. Richardson.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the emergency supplemental appropriations legislation which passed the Senate today, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007, provides $625 million in security funding to better protect the millions of Americans who ride public transportation. I thank Senator Shelby, who as both the ranking member on the Banking Committee and a member of the Appropriations Committee has been a tireless advocate on behalf of mass transit and specifically on the issue of transit security. I commend Senators Byrd and Cochran who serve, respectively, as both chairman and ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee and the Homeland Security Subcommittee. They were instrumental in deciding to increase our investment in securing our public transportation systems. The issue of transit security requires coordination between both homeland security agencies and committees and those transportation agencies and committees. Thus, I also commend Senators Murray and Bond who serve as chair and ranking member on the Appropriations Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. Our Nation's public transit systems are inadequately prepared to minimize the threat and impact of potential terrorist attacks. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Federal Government has invested nearly $24 billion in aviation security--protecting the 1.8 million people who fly on an average day. At the same time, our National Government has invested only $386 million, before the 110th Congress began, in transit security to protect the 14 million people who ride transit on an average workday. Put another way, since 2001, our Nation has spent over $7.50 per passenger on aviation security, but less than one penny per transit rider on transit security. I am not suggesting that we ought to be investing equally, but clearly this is not the appropriate balance. As chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, I have made improving our national security a top priority. The very first hearing that I held as chairman focused on increasing the security of our Nation's 14 million daily transit passengers. The very first legislation that the committee considered during my Chairmanship was the Public Transit Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, which was passed by the Banking Committee unanimously on February 8. The legislation authorizes the distribution of $3.5 billion in security funds, over the next 3 fiscal years, on the basis of risk directly to transit agencies. The Public Transit Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 was included as title XV of the 9/11 bill, which the Senate passed on March 13. Senator Shelby and I worked with Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran to include language in the legislation to allow for such sums as necessary to be appropriated in this fiscal year to address the critical needs of our Nation's transit systems. The $625 million included in this appropriations act is a significant investment towards our goal of better securing our Nation's rail and transit systems. This investment builds on the $175 million that was included in the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution. Combined, these investments are greater than all of the investments that were made between the terrorist attacks of September 11 and the beginning of this new Congress. We must make sure that we use these funds wisely. It is my desire that the Congress quickly reconcile both the transit security legislation and the supplemental funding that has passed each Chamber so that this supplemental funding will be distributed in accordance with the new authorization. I once again thank all of the members of the Banking and Appropriations Committees who have worked so hard to advance us to where we are today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Liberty Memorial Act along with my colleagues, Senators Charles E. Grassley and Sen. Barack Obama. Representatives Donald M. Payne, William Lacy Clay, Steve Cohen, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Nita M. Lowey, Albio Sires, and Betty Sutton have introduced companion language in the House. The depth and breadth of patriotic contributions by African Americans in the Revolutionary War have gone practically unacknowledged. Historians are now beginning to uncover their forgotten heroism, and estimate that 5,000 slaves and free blacks fought in the army, navy, and militia during that harrowing time. They served and struggled in major battles from Lexington and Concord to Yorktown and made significant contributions to the revolutionary effort. More than 400 hailed from my State of Connecticut. More than twenty years ago, Congress authorized a memorial to black Revolutionary War soldiers and sailors, those who provided civilian assistance, and the many slaves who fled slavery or filed petitions to courts or legislatures for their freedom. A site was selected in Constitution Gardens, fittingly near the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence Memorial and the great war memorials. Unfortunately, the group originally authorized to raise funds for and build the memorial was unable to conclude its task, and the site sits empty today. A group of committed citizens has formed the National Mall Liberty Fund DC, ``Liberty Fund D.C.'', to carry out the vision of Congress. Last year, the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission concluded that there are no legal impediments that would preclude the Liberty Fund DC from assuming the prior group's site approvals on the Mall. The legislation that we offer today would amend the 1986 enactment to authorize the Liberty Fund to raise money for and build this valuable memorial. The time has come to recognize the sacrifice and the impact of the African Americans who fought for the birth of our country. I urge my colleagues to support the National Liberty Memorial Act.