Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2010

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the well-being of our children, both now, today, and also into the future. That is why today I am reintroducing my bill, Prepare All Kids, along with Senator Kaufman of Delaware and Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

I believe--and I know this is a belief shared by many people in our country--every child in America is born with a light inside and it is our responsibility to keep that light burning ever brightly. This bill will help States to provide at least 1 year of voluntary prekindergarten education to children between the ages of 3 and 5. The Prepare All Kids Act will also provide funding for important programs that serve the needs of children from birth to age 3, a most critical time in the development of children.

The research is irrefutable. Investing in children in their earliest years greatly improves their life outcomes, and conservative estimates put the savings to our economy at about $7 for every $1 we invest. So this is about two things: It is certainly about our obligation, our abiding obligation to our children, but it is also about our economy, the obligation to our economy that we have to develop skilled workers to compete in a world economy.

There is no question that for some of the most disadvantaged children there is an achievement gap between them and their more privileged peers that sometimes never closes. One study shows that before entering kindergarten, the average cognitive scores of preschool-age children in the highest socioeconomic group were 60 percent above the average scores of children in the lowest socioeconomic group. I believe investing in children is the right thing to do, and it is the smart thing to do. Sometimes the oldest sayings are the truest because years of scientific research on early childhood programs has proven without a doubt that an ounce of prevention is indeed worth a pound of cure-- certainly when it comes to investing in our children.

Earlier this year, I was proud to advocate for investments in our children in this year's recovery bill and prouder still when those investments remained intact with passage. Programs such as Early Head Start, Head Start, and childcare programs are receiving desperately needed increases right now, as working parents all across the country struggle to maintain jobs, keep their homes, and ensure their children are well cared for while they take care of their responsibilities. It is critical that working families can depend upon these investments in the years to come.

The Presidency, the administration of Barack Obama, has an important budget blueprint for further recognizing the wisdom of investing in our children. In addition to the recovery bill investments, the President's Zero to Five initiative highlights the importance of investments during the critical period of time between birth and age 5: investments in early learning, nurse home visitation, and creating neighborhoods in which low-income and disadvantaged children can receive the help and assistance they need to succeed in life.

I want to emphasize very clearly today as it relates to the bigger picture of giving children what they need in the early years, my bill, the Prepare All Kids Act, focuses on prekindergarten, but it also focuses on programs that serve infants and toddlers. It is also about investing in and preparing all kids--not just some but all--who are about to enter kindergarten. It is absolutely imperative that we don't see children in pieces, that we not create silos as we begin to focus on the kinds of investments our children need. We cannot allow that to be ``siloed'' that way, not childcare versus Head Start versus prekindergarten. These programs should not have to compete with one another, and in my bill I make sure they don't.

We also have to remember that investing in children cannot suddenly begin when they are 3 or 4 years old. It must begin from the earliest days of a child's life, literally beginning before they are born. The Obama administration, in outlining its vision of early childhood, shows a wise commitment to streamlining and coordinating a system of early childhood programs and investments. I could not agree more with the need for such streamlining.

We are also fortunate indeed to have Secretary Duncan and, hopefully very soon, the confirmation of Governor Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services--both of whom really get it, as the President said to a joint session in speaking of another part of our priorities in terms of getting it, understanding what we have to do. When it comes to the continuum of early childhood development and education, both of these officials, as well as the President and Vice President and their team, all get this, and they understand it. That is why they have made Zero to Five such a high priority.

Let me turn to an economic summary of the Prepare All Kids Act. First of all, in this bill we assist States in providing at least 1 year of high-quality prekindergarten education to children. Under my bill, prekindergarten programs must adhere to high-quality standards. That includes a research-based curriculum that supports children's cognitive, social, emotional, and

physical development and individual learning styles. Experts tell us that at the preschool stage, social and emotional learning can be as important and perhaps even more important than cognitive learning. That is where early socialization takes place--learning to share, pay attention, work independently, and express feelings. All these are critical to successful childhood development.

Classrooms in our bill will have a maximum of 20 children and children-to-teacher ratios of no more than 10 to 1. Children need individualized and quality attention to thrive, and these requirements provide that. The bill helps States that want to expand pre-K programs to full-day programs as well as extend their programs year round. This supports both children and working parents who need high-quality programs for their children during the workday and in the summer.

Prekindergarten teachers will be required to have a bachelor's degree at the time they are employed, but we give them sufficient time, 6 years, in order to get it. We also allow States to use funds for professional development for teachers. But we want highly qualified and committed teachers in our pre-K programs.

States must create a monitoring plan that will appropriately measure individual program effectiveness. And, one more point: infant and toddler programs will receive a significant portion of the funding--15 percent. These programs typically receive the lowest dollars of all early childhood programs, making it difficult for parents, many of them single moms, to find quality childcare for the youngest of our children.

We have to recognize in this bill and other places as well the critical role of parents in the education of their young children by strongly encouraging parental involvement in programs and assisting families in getting the supportive services they may need.

Children come in families. To truly help children, we have to involve and support their parents. We have to involve the whole family. More important, children cannot succeed without the active involvement of their parents. I believe we have an obligation to our children and to our future workforce.

Compared to children who attend high-quality preschool, those who do not attend such programs are five times more likely to be chronic lawbreakers as adults and more likely to abuse illegal drugs. Children who attend high-quality preschool are more successful in school, more likely to graduate from high school, and thus more likely to become productive adults who contribute to the U.S. economy.

But for anyone who needs additional reasons, decades of research on life outcomes of children who have attended early childhood programs proves the wisdom of this investment. Conservative estimates are that we save $7 for every $1 invested--in crime, welfare, and education costs. Some studies have shown as much as $17 in savings.

We must ensure that the light in every child--really, their potential--burns brightly. It is my deep conviction that as elected public servants we have a sacred responsibility to ensure we invest in our children by providing early learning and development, nutrition and health care--these three: nutrition, health care, and early learning. That is why I am committed to serving the children of this Nation and why I am reintroducing the Prepare All Kids Act.

I look forward to working with President Obama and Democrats and Republicans in the Congress who share these priorities. I look forward to giving our children the good start they deserve, to keep their light shining brightly.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise because yesterday marks 10 years since the shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO, and on this 10th anniversary, we need to speak about the problems with our Nation's gun laws.

Whether it is Columbine, Virginia Tech, Mexican gun trafficking or the recent killings in Pittsburgh, Binghamton, and Oakland we are reminded over and over again that our gun laws are not strong enough, and it is time we said--not another day.

Not another day should we allow the gun show loophole to stand.

Not another day should we allow gun dealers to sell firearms without conducting a background check.

Not another day should we allow terrorists, criminals, gun traffickers and the mentally ill to buy firearms.

It is as easy as ever for criminals to buy guns--easier, in fact, than it is to get a library card.

What happened at Columbine High School 10 years ago was a tragedy none of us can forget.

Two shooters went on a rampage and killed 12 students and 1 teacher.

But here is what a lot of people do not realize: all of the firearms used by the shooters were bought at gun shows.

That means, because of the gun show loophole, they were bought without a background check, and they were bought ``cash and carry,'' no questions asked.

Those 13 people never should have died because those teenagers never should have had those guns.

Just think: the young woman who bought the guns for the shooters said she wouldn't have done it had a background check been required.

In 1999, I introduced legislation to close the gun show loophole and keep guns from falling into the wrong hands.

In the aftermath of Columbine, the Senate passed my legislation, with Vice President Al Gore casting the tie-breaking vote.

It was a great victory, but it was short lived. The gun lobby stripped my legislation in conference.

Ten years later, this gap in our law still remains.

We were reminded of that last Thursday when we marked the second anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings.

In that tragedy, a mentally deranged man killed 32 students and faculty in the worst mass shooting in American history.

The Virginia Tech shooter was able to obtain his guns from licensed gun dealers because the records of his mental illness were not in the background check database as they were supposed to be. But if a background check stopped him from buying his guns from a gun dealer, he could have walked to a gun show and purchased the guns with no background check.

Yesterday we marked the 14th anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing--the Nation's worst domestic terrorist attack.

The men responsible for that despicable act frequently bought and sold firearms at gun shows.

Gun trafficking to Mexico is another reminder of the dangers of the gun show loophole.

We know that as many as 30 percent of the firearms traveling across our border into Mexico originate from gun shows.

We have an opportunity to save lives--and that is why I am reintroducing legislation today to close the gun show loophole once and for all.

Closing the gun show loophole will not adversely affect licensed gun sellers and it will not place a burden on law-abiding gun owners.

It simply ends a dangerous, unnecessary exemption so that the Brady Law is applied equally.

But that difference--the difference between buying a gun with a background check and not--is everything.

It is the difference between saving lives and putting more at risk, between keeping guns out of the wrong hands and letting terrorists and others have easy access to guns, and the difference between upholding the rule of law or allowing loopholes to undermine it.

Specifically, my legislation would take several steps to make gun show transactions safer for all Americans: gun shows are defined to include any event at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale. This definition includes not only those events where firearms are the main commodity sold, but also other events where a significant number of guns are sold, such as flea markets or swap meets.

Gun show promoters would be required to register with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, ATF, maintain a list of vendors at all gun shows, and ensure that all vendors acknowledge receipt of information about their legal obligations.

The bill requires that all firearms sales at gun shows go through a Federal Firearms Licensee, FFL. If a nonlicensed person is selling a weapon, they would use an FFL at the gun show to complete the transaction. The FFL would be responsible for conducting a Brady check on the purchaser and maintaining records of the transaction.

FFLs would be required to submit information including the manufacturer/importer, model, and serial number of firearms transferred at gun shows to the ATF's National Tracing Center, NTC. However, no personal information about either the seller or the purchaser would be given to the ATF. Instead, as under current law, FFLs would maintain this information in their files. The NTC would request this personal information from an FFL only in the event that a firearm subsequently becomes the subject of a law enforcement trace request.

I am proud to be joined in introducing this legislation by Senators Reed, Whitehouse, Schumer, Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, Levin, Cardin, Gillibrand, Feinstein, and Menendez.

Ten years ago we lost 12 students and a teacher to gun violence in Littleton, CO.

One of the best ways to honor those we lost and those who have suffered is

to make sure a tragedy like Columbine never happens again.

We owe that--and nothing less--to the young people who died 10 years ago and the young people who count on us today.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding time, and of course the ranking member as well. I rise to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 841, the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act.

Today, environmentally friendly vehicles are quickly becoming a staple in the lives of Americans who are attempting to go green. I applaud the use of technology that decreases air pollution and fossil fuel consumption; however, we must address an unforeseen consequence of such innovation.

Over the years, we have heard tragic stories involving pedestrians and hybrid or electric vehicles. Not too long ago, news accounts were the story of a young child hit by a hybrid car. This accident was not caused by a driver's negligence or a car's manufacturing defect. It occurred because the child never heard the approaching car. The hybrids: engines were simply too quiet. Environmentally friendly vehicles such as hybrids often fail to produce audible sounds when driven.

The silent nature of these vehicles, coupled with the growing popularity, presents a dilemma: How do we protect individuals dependent on sounds for their safety, such as unsuspecting pedestrians and the blind? The solution lies in the Pedestrian Safety Act.

This act requires the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study of the minimum level of sound required for environmentally friendly vehicles. Once this safety standard is determined, it will be applied to all new automobiles manufactured or sold in the United States beginning 2 years after the standard is issued. This is an effective way, not only to prevent avoidable injuries to pedestrians, but to do so without impeding innovation with stringent regulations.

It is clear that environmentally friendly vehicles are growing in popularity. While it is important to embrace technology that benefits our environment, we must do so with the safety of all citizens in mind.

This bill successfully passed the Senate last week and has been a long time coming here in the House. Our Chamber's companion bill, H.R. 734, has 238 bipartisan cosponsors. The bill coming to us from the Senate is even stronger. It is completely deficit neutral and supported by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the National Federation of the Blind, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, and the American Council of the Blind.

Before I conclude, Madam Speaker, let me take a moment to thank my colleague and friend, Representative Cliff Stearns, who has worked over the years with me on this bill. I want to thank staff members James Thomas and Nicole Alexander for their tremendous assistance in helping us move this important legislation forward. I would also like to thank Emily Khoury and Dana Grayson and all other staff that have made this moment a reality. This bill has been a model of bipartisanship and will benefit pedestrians across the country for years to come.

I urge all of my colleagues here in the House of Representatives to join me in supporting this very important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 841) to direct the Secretary of Transportation to study and establish a motor vehicle safety standard that provides for a means of alerting blind and other pedestrians of motor vehicle operation.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, as hybrid and electric vehicles take hold in the market, they bring lots of benefits to consumers trying to shield themselves from rising gas prices and help reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil, but the near-silent operation of their combustion-free engines has presented unintended challenges for blind and sighted pedestrians.

NHTSA research, including a study published in April this year, confirms that the absence of sounds indicating vehicle movement can create serious safety risks for blind and sighted pedestrians, unable to detect vehicles as they back up, turn, or approach an intersection.

Earlier, NHTSA research found that hybrid and electric vehicles are two times more likely to be involved in a pedestrian collision at a low speed than conventional vehicles. Blind pedestrians are among the most vulnerable; but cyclists, seniors, and children are also among those greatly affected as the number of hybrid and electric vehicles on the road increases.

The bill before us offers a straightforward solution directing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to create a standard for hybrid and electric vehicles to emit appropriate conforming sounds when traveling at low speeds. In addition, the bill gives the agency 3 years to develop the standard, gives manufacturers a 3-year phase-in period, calls on NHTSA to consider the overall community noise impact, and protects against the unauthorized disabling, modification, or replacement of the sounds.

I am pleased that the bill has received strong support from the National Federation of the Blind and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. I commend manufacturers of hybrid and electric vehicles that have already stepped forward to work with NHTSA to address this serious safety issue.

I also want to thank my chairman, Chairman Rush, and my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), for their leadership on this issue, which has a strong record of bipartisan awareness and support. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, December 14, I requested and received a leave of absence for December 16 and December 17, 2010.

For the information of our colleagues and my constituents, below is how I would have voted on the following votes I missed during this time period.

On rollcall 640, On Motion to Suspend the rules and pass S. 841, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 641, On Motion to Suspend the rules and pass S. 3860, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 642, On Motion to Suspend the rules and pass S. 3447, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 643, Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4853) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, H. Res. 1766, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 644, On Agreeing to the Resolution, H. Res. 1766, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 645, On Motion to Suspend the rules and pass S. 987, To protect girls in developing countries through the prevention of child marriage, and for other purposes, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 646, On Agreeing to the Levin Agreement, H.R. 4863, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 647, On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amdt to the House to the Senate Amendment H.R. 4853, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 648, Honoring the accomplishments of Norman Yoshino Mineta, H. Res. 1377, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 649, An act to enact certain laws relating to public contracts as title 41, United States Code, ``Public Contracts'', H.R. 1107, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 650, Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, H.R. 6523, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 651, An act to establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges, H.R. 628, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 652, Providing for the sine die adjournment of the second session of the One Hundred Eleventh Congress, H. Con. Res. 336, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 653, Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 105) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011, H. Res. 1776, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 654, GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, H.R. 2142, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 655, Aiding Those Facing Foreclosure Act of 2010, H.R. 5510, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 656, Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act, S. 3874, I would have voted ``yes.''