Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleague Senator Grassley, to introduce legislation on behalf of the millions of talented, high-achieving American students who every day, despite our best efforts, are being left behind.

When we talk about reducing the achievement gap, we usually think of helping economically disadvantaged kids who are having a tough time in school keep up with their peers.

Unfortunately, there is also a growing gap between high-achieving kids from high-earning families and students with just as much potential and talent who come from difficult economic circumstances.

Potential is being squandered every day. Tragically, some estimates indicate that one in five of our highest-achieving students drops out of school. That is 20 percent of our best and brightest students, the hope of our nation and the key to our economic competitiveness in the 21st century, left behind.

Every child should have the opportunity to reach their full potential. So, today I introduce the Equity in Excellence Act of 2010, designed to eliminate this gap among high-achieving students by helping talented but economically disadvantaged kids find the challenging and enriching materials and programs they need to stay in school and on track.

Here is how it works.

First, our bill will help to evaluate how school districts are challenging their most talented students--and to diagnose the problem when they are not.

Second, it will put in place evidence-based programs--ranging from enrichment programs to academic acceleration strategies to high quality support material--designed to maximize learning among high-potential students.

Third, it provides funding to hire and train personnel--principals, counselors, psychologists--skilled in meeting the needs of high- achieving students.

Fourth, it provides funding to educate and inform parents of these students, so that they can partner with schools in supporting their kids.

This legislation has been endorsed by the National Association for Gifted

Children, an organization of more than 8,000 parents, teachers, education professionals, and community leaders united in support of high-achieving kids and their unique needs.

Of course we all want to ensure that every child--no matter what their strengths and weaknesses, no matter what their grades or test scores, no matter what their economic background--can get a good education that prepares them for the 21st century economy.

Every child who falls through the cracks represents a tragedy. When those who have displayed such tremendous potential are left behind, we all suffer. This legislation offers a step towards keeping those kids challenged, engaged--and in school.

I want to thank Senator Grassley for joining me in this effort, and encourage our colleagues to join as well.

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

Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to lay out where we are on this effort to do reform of the financial structures of our economy. It has been a long undertaking and I will not take a lot of time and I will not go into great detail. But I thought it might be helpful for my colleagues and others to get some sense or a feel of how things are progressing. So I wish to share some thoughts on some major issues we are grappling with.

I wish to begin by thanking the 22 other members of the Banking Committee. About one-quarter of the Senate is seated at that table in our Banking Committee hearing room. I wish to thank every member for their work. We have been deeply involved now for well over a year--more than a year; a year and a half--on the issue of how we should shape the regulatory structure of reform. This year we have had somewhere around 80 hearings, listening to a broad range of experts and others who have brought their thoughts and ideas, not to mention the informal meetings that occur outside of the normal hearing process.

It has been a very long undertaking, and worthwhile. We have been trying to examine the causes of this problem that has been so devastating to our country and to others outside of our country--the economic near collapse--and then, from that experience, trying to shape and set up policies that will fill in those gaps that led us to this problem.

Secondly, we are trying to take steps so that we are prepared to deal, as we will at some point in the future have to, with another economic crisis as it comes along, and to have what I call an architecture or a structure that will allow our system to be able to respond far more prudently than it was able to during the last couple of years.

I should add as well a third goal, and that is to create a structure to not only grapple with the crisis, but also be a source of innovation and creativity for wealth creation and job creation that our financial services sector had a reputation of accomplishing, or at least helping to accomplish over the years. Those are not inconsistent goals. It is a challenge to balance them. It is never perfectly right. But our responsibility--both as legislators in this Chamber and the other body, as well as the role of regulators and, obviously, those in the private sector and public sector--is to try and strike that balance between protecting the public and consumers who use financial services, as well as to be able to provide a level of confidence to those who use them, that the system is going to be safe.

It doesn't mean you are going to get a guaranteed return when you buy a stock, but you ought to feel confident when you deposit your paycheck that the institution is going to be there, or you are going to be protected from losing those resources.

So I wish to take a few minutes and share some thoughts on where we are. I will quickly add, as well, I wish to pay particular thanks to the members of the committee. As many people are aware, Senator Shelby and I, my ranking member, have worked closely together over the last 3 years that I have been chairman of this committee on a wide range of issues, and I am grateful to him for his efforts. He is, obviously, significantly involved in this debate. I wish to thank Bob Corker, the Senator from Tennessee. He is a new Member of this Chamber, but has performed, I think, a tremendous task of trying to sit down and work out the differences, and they are complex and they are difficult. Nonetheless, he has rolled up his sleeves and demonstrated a level of maturity and interest far beyond the years of his service. All of us-- and I, certainly--wish to thank him publicly as well for his efforts, and that of his staff, trying to help us get there.

Other members of the committee, including Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Chuck Schumer, Mark Warner, have taken on particular heavy lifts, and I will talk about them in a minute as I discuss what is going on, along with Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Mike Crapo of Idaho. So there have been a lot of people involved in this as we go forward. I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge their hard work and that of their staffs over these many months.

We are still not there yet. I am not here to announce an agreement or to tell my colleagues we have reached a consensus. We are trying to get there, but we are not there yet. We are making an effort to see if we can't develop a set of proposals that will enjoy broad support in this institution as we go forward.

So we have all seen, of course, the devastating consequences. I hardly need to spend much time enumerating them here. People are living them every day, and they don't necessarily need to hear them outlined. However, I will just share again what all of us are painfully aware of.

Mr. President, 8.4 million jobs have been lost since December of 2007. The unemployment rate is currently at 9.7 percent. It has been obviously far too high. I think all of us know, as the Presiding Officer does, that there are pockets in our country where that 9.7 is maybe half the unemployment rate in certain areas of rural America and urban America. An astonishing 6.1 million Americans have been without a job for half a year or more in our Nation. Millions of our fellow citizens who did nothing wrong have nonetheless lost homes, their retirement security, their jobs, their health care. Small businesses have been unable to access credit and have been forced to lay off workers, reduce production, or even have

had to shut their doors. Working class families in our country have seen their wealth decline significantly, and, worst of all, today we remain entirely vulnerable to yet another crisis.

We haven't finished this work, and if something were to happen again tomorrow, as much as we have been working on this issue, we haven't passed the necessary legislation to minimize a crisis bringing us close to the brink of financial collapse as the one we are presently in did.

So, obviously, the status quo--I am getting kind of tired of using those words; business as usual, whatever words you want to use to describe it--cannot persist. Congress, in my view, must pass comprehensive, meaningful reform of our financial system. My hope and intention is to do everything I can in the waning days of my service after 30 years here to achieve that goal.

We have to correct the failures that allowed us to get into this mess, but we must also develop a regulatory system that is prepared for the next one, and one that is going to invite, as well, the kind of creativity and innovation that allow for job creation and wealth creation that our system has in the past provided.

Over a year ago, the Banking Committee, as I pointed out earlier, set out to investigate the causes of financial crises and the vulnerabilities that lie in our financial regulatory structure. Over the last year or more, we have held literally dozens and dozens of gatherings, hearings, informal and formal meetings. We have listened to hundreds of experts in a wide variety of fields who have been either affected by, or who have offered some ideas as to how we can create this architecture about which I have spoken. We have examined and reexamined all sets of proposals sent to us by the White House, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and others.

In November of last year, I offered my colleagues a discussion draft of where I was. I didn't suggest it had cosponsors or backers, but I thought people ought to know where the chairman of the committee was, so I laid out a broad proposal in these areas. It certainly produced a discussion, I can tell my colleagues. Not always a welcome one from certain corners, but I thought people ought to know at least where I stood on these issues. If I were going to write this alone and I didn't want anyone else to offer their ideas and suggestions, I had some pretty strong and sound ideas as to where we ought to be. I then asked my fellow committee members, Democrats and Republicans, to work on major parts of the bill. It is so complex and so big and broad, the subject matter, that I didn't think any one member, even a chairman and a ranking member, could necessarily put their arms around all of it. So I asked various members who expressed an interest in various subject matters if they would take on the responsibility, a Democrat and a Republican working together, to see if they could come up with some ideas that would be sound, intelligent reforms of the financial system.

It has been an enormous task. As I said a moment ago, these are incredibly complex issues, but with the good work done by so many on the committee, I believe we are well on our way to producing a very strong bill. The problems with our economy run system-wide, and while there is the temptation by some to address only one or two issues and claim victory and call it a day, we are working in our committee on a bill that will attack these problems and vulnerabilities in a rather comprehensive way, one that we believe will make a difference.

The bill as we fashion it is designed to achieve four major accomplishments: No. 1--and the first priority, I would argue, if I had to prioritize whether the others fall into this category--is ending too-big-to-fail bailouts. That, to me, is the most important thing we can achieve here.

Never, ever again should the American taxpayer of this country be forced to write a check, which they did, because there is an implicit guarantee that the Federal Government of the United States will bail out a company lest it threaten the stability of the economy as a whole. It will make it so undesirable for a company to get too big or too complex with new capital, new leverage requirements, supervisory requirements, and set up a mechanism so large, complex companies can be shut down through bankruptcy or resolution in a way that does not threaten the economy or expose the American taxpayers, as they have been. It is a resolution, it is a bankruptcy, it is a receivership, and it is painful to creditors, to shareholders, and to the management who bear the burden but not taxpayers.

We are very close to achieving that. Again, I thank Mark Warner of Virginia and Bob Corker of Tennessee who dealt with this issue, this and systemic risk, which I will mention in a minute. They worked I don't know how many hours sitting down trying to fashion this resolution mechanism. But the idea that we would watch the American taxpayer write out a check for $700 billion, knowing the reaction of the American public--by the way, in the absence of what we are trying to do here, I think we did the right thing. Had we not done it, the financial problem would have been a lot worse. We never again ought to be put in that position, where that is the only alternative we have. This bill will address that issue.

Secondly, we create an early warning system in the economy so somebody is looking out for the next big problem. The bill would create what we call a systemic risk council--that is our goal--that will have the job of looking across the economy to identify unsafe products, activities, institutions that could threaten the economy as a whole in the future. We cannot afford to be caught off guard again by obvious weaknesses in our system because no one is responsible for taking a broad view.

Again, it is not going to stop everything, but we did not have this ability in the past. Again, Mark Warner and Bob Corker have worked very hard on a resolution mechanism and systemic risk and all of us owe them a debt of gratitude for their efforts.

Third, we bring transparency and accountability to the exotic instruments, such as derivatives and credit default swaps, things that are rather arcane to most Americans, to put it mildly, but have been lurking too long in the dark and were able to cause untold damage to our economy because they lacked transparency and regulation. We change that in this bill. That is our hope anyway, if we get to the conclusion of it.

We have to regulate these activities that left investors and our economy open to the tremendous risks they did not even know existed. Literally, billions of dollars being traded--frankly, gambled--behind closed doors drove our economy to the verge of collapse. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, and their staffs have been working on this issue over many weeks to try and come up with an intelligent, thoughtful, well-drafted set of proposals on these exotic instruments, particularly derivatives. I thank them for the job they have done, and I am confident when our colleagues have had a chance to be briefed about their efforts, there will be broad-based support for what is included in our bill.

We have to rein in these crazy compensation packages that have outraged the public and hurt companies by rewarding short-term profits and wild risk-taking. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho, and their staffs have been working on governance issues. More work needs to be done on this issue. I thank both our colleagues, again a Democrat and Republican, for trying to come up with ideas on governance issues that will avoid some of the problems with which we are all too familiar.

We create--and one that has attracted the most attention because of the issues involved--a strong and independent consumer protection watchdog, one that has never existed but has come to financial services. It is somewhat ironic we have a Consumer Product Safety Commission, so if we buy a toy for our children or a product or an appliance and it does not work or it causes us great harm or danger, there is a place called the Consumer Product Safety Commission which will protect us from these hazardous appliances.

Yet when it comes to financial services, we have had no place to go to get a similar kind of protection. That analogy has been drawn by others in the past, and I think it is an appropriate one.

We have undertaken this effort. It is controversial because I think there are a lot of fears people have about what we are trying to achieve with all this. Yet if you look back and you watch what has unfolded over the last couple years, and particularly where you see some of these barons of the financial services sector reaping millions of dollars in bonuses after their companies have been shored up through taxpayer efforts, and yet the very people who had their homes, their jobs, their retirement, their health care, their life savings put at risk, what do they get, having come up with the tax dollars to protect these industries? We want to see to it that we never have again the consumer of financial products be unprotected when we start examining these issues.

We are working on this issue to put together what I set out as principles that should be included in a consumer protection watchdog. The failure to protect consumers, as I think most people know, led to some of the dangerous practices we saw and put our economy at so much risk. People were given mortgages they did not understand and could not afford. To ensure strong consumer protection, the real question is: Will this office have the independence and the authority it needs to get the job done to take care of consumers?

I focused on four principles from the very beginning of this debate involving this consumer protection idea we hope to produce. One, that it have an independent head appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by this body, the Senate; second, that it have an independent budget so the office will have the resources it needs to do the job; third, that it have the autonomy to craft rules to protect consumers; and fourth, an ability to enforce those rules as well.

With these features, the office, I think, can act to protect consumers from the kinds of abuses we have seen, such as skyrocketing credit card interest rates, an explosion in checking account fees or predatory lending by the mortgage industry. Where rent space is less important--not unimportant, less important--what power and authority it has is the critical question.

Obviously, we want to do this in a way that does not jeopardize the safety and soundness of institutions. I do not believe there necessarily is any conflict, although some suggest there may be.

We are trying to provide, as well, a mechanism to resolve when, in fact, we have some conflict between safety and soundness and consumer protection. I understand that concern. We are trying to accommodate that while simultaneously maintaining the independence and autonomy of this agency.

Our goal is to end the status quo, as I said earlier--words I am getting tired of using, but doing nothing is unacceptable--and to create a system where honest businesses, large and small, can thrive on a level playing field, where middle-class families can find work, invest with confidence, and achieve the dreams they have for themselves and their children.

Today, I am pleased to report that good work has been done by Democrats and Republicans both on the Banking Committee to put financial reform in a strong position. While we do not have a bipartisan agreement yet at all, we are trying to. I don't know if it will happen. I am optimistic it can happen. I have been around here long enough to know these things can fall apart easily. It is fragile. Complex issues you think you resolved can produce unintended consequences. Most importantly, getting it right--while I would like to get it done soon, I want to make sure we do it correctly and properly.

This is one of the hardest tasks I have been asked to undertake in my years here, to try and fashion these proposals in a way that can bring broad support in this institution. We do not have an agreement yet, but because I have colleagues, such as the ones I mentioned on the Democratic side, such as Jack Reed, Mark Warner, Chuck Schumer, Tim Johnson--I can go down the list of those who worked on the issues--and I also have colleagues such as Bob Corker, Dick Shelby, Judd Gregg, and others to make an effort on that side to see if we can make agreements.

I know everything we are hearing about Congress these days, that nothing seems to be working here, but we are making an effort to come up with a proposal that will achieve those goals, a good, strong bill and one that will enjoy good, strong support in this institution.

I hope I have not talked too long, but I wished to give at least a flavor of where things are today. As I said, we are not done yet. We are in a pretty strong position to achieve a good, strong bill and one we can be proud of in this institution.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise in commemoration of the life of John Patrick Murtha.

John Murtha gave nearly six decades to the country he loved. At the age of 20, he left college to join the Marines. As soon as he arrived, the Marines knew they had a gem of a young man on their hands. Routed to Officer Candidate School, he became a leader of

his peers, earning the American Spirit Honor Medal during training.

Although his duty to the Marines ended in 1955, his desire to serve did not. He remained in the Reserves for the next decade, and then volunteered for service in Vietnam.

There, he cemented his reputation as an American hero, earning the Bronze Star, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, and two Purple Hearts.

John's service in the Reserves lasted long into his political career. He didn't retire until 1990, at which time he was awarded the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. But when he returned from Vietnam, he decided that serving the people of the State of Pennsylvania was another way to give back to his country.

He came to Congress roughly a year before I did, the first Democrat to hold that seat since World War II. As long as I have been here, it seems like John has been as much of a fixture in the House Chamber as the desks themselves.

John being a marine, it is probably not surprising that he never stopped fighting to give our troops in the field the resources they needed to do their jobs. He became the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and was a reliable advocate for our military--and for the people of his district.

His deep passion for our military and his commitment to making sure they had the resources they need reached as far as Connecticut, where we make the finest submarines and aircraft in the world. He knew that the products we make there are critical to the success of our military, and he was always there alongside me, standing up for our defense workforce and the fine products they make.

Many of us will remember with great admiration the courage John showed when he came to the floor in November 2005 to call for an end to a war he had supported. Colleagues on both sides knew that John Murtha would never make a statement like that lightly, and his bold stance played a large role in bringing towards an end that misguided war.

Of course, most Americans never got to know John Murtha's soft side. But his beloved wife Joyce--they were married for 55 years--and his three wonderful children knew him as his colleagues did: as a funny, warm man who loved his job, loved his constituents, and loved his country.

A colleague of his, Congressman Bob Brady, said, ``There will never be another Jack Murtha.'' And he is right. But we can all carry on his work, impressed by his long record of service and inspired by his deep patriotism and commitment.

I was proud to know John Murtha, and we were all lucky to have him.

Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleague Senator Ensign, to introduce legislation that will provide children with safe, healthy, and academically focused afterschool programs.

The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2010 is endorsed by the Afterschool Alliance, an organization representing more than 25,000 public, private, and non-profit afterschool providers dedicated to expanding access to high quality afterschool programs, as well as a broad coalition of other local and national organizations.

They, and I, have committed to providing quality afterschool care because the record is clear: students who regularly attend afterschool programs have better grades and behavior in school, better peer relations and emotional adjustment, and lower incidences of drug use, violence, and pregnancy. When kids have something productive to do in the hours between when they are let out of school and when their parents get home from work, they are more likely to avoid the traps of risky behavior, more likely to be physically healthy and academically successful, and more likely to fulfill their potential.

As co-chairs of the Afterschool Caucus, Senator Ensign and I have worked to expand awareness of these benefits by organizing annual briefings, sharing research, and advocating fiercely for a focus on afterschool care when we talk about how to give our kids the best opportunities possible.

While we know that afterschool care works, the truth is that too many

American kids don't have access to good programs. More than 15 million children--from kindergarten through 12th grade--spend time unsupervised in the hours after school. That includes an incredible 40,000 kindergartners and nearly 4 million middle school students in grades six to eight.

When the bell rings and the school day ends, these kids face some 3 hours of unscheduled, often unsupervised time before their parents get home from work. Those are rarely productive hours, and, worse, those are the hours during which these children are most likely to experiment with risky behaviors.

We can do better for our kids.

The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2010 has three goals. First, to enhance the quality and sustainability of afterschool programs. Second, to emphasize physical fitness and wellness programs as part of our nationwide effort to reduce childhood obesity, and third, to encourage service learning.

Our legislation provides States with tools designed to keep quality programs going. It would allow program grantees the ability to renew their grants if they can show that the programs are working. It gives states the option to expand technical assistance functions to improve the quality of afterschool programs.

Our legislation will increase opportunities for young Americans to be more physically active. The administration has put a focus on reducing obesity--one of the easiest medical conditions to recognize, but one of the most difficult to treat--among our children. Obesity costs our society as much as $147 billion each year--and the best way to stop it is to encourage our kids to be more active. Afterschool programs offer a tremendous opportunity to do just that, and our legislation includes such wellness efforts in the list of programs that can receive support.

Our legislation encourages kids to get involved in service learning and youth development activities. Service learning integrates student- designed service projects with academic studies. This type of program has been shown to strengthen student engagement, enhance student achievement, lower drop-out and suspension rates, develop workforce and leadership skills, and provide opportunities for teamwork.

Of course, as we offer this legislation, I must also remind my colleagues that afterschool programs only work with sufficient funding. In a difficult economy, it is even more important to focus on empowering these programs. Studies have shown that afterschool care can reduce worker absenteeism by as much as 30 percent and reduce worker turnover by up to 60 percent. Decreased worker productivity related to parental concerns about afterschool care costs our economy up to $300 billion each year. Approximately 1 in 10 children is currently enrolled in afterschool care. However, 2/3 of parents with children who do not participate in a program would enroll their children in afterschool if they had that option. We should work to give them that option.

The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act is a positive step towards offering all of our children the chance to spend their afternoons safely and productively. It is a step towards making good on the most important promise: the one we make to our kids. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleague Senator Ensign, to introduce legislation that will provide children with safe, healthy, and academically focused afterschool programs.

The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2010 is endorsed by the Afterschool Alliance, an organization representing more than 25,000 public, private, and non-profit afterschool providers dedicated to expanding access to high quality afterschool programs, as well as a broad coalition of other local and national organizations.

They, and I, have committed to providing quality afterschool care because the record is clear: students who regularly attend afterschool programs have better grades and behavior in school, better peer relations and emotional adjustment, and lower incidences of drug use, violence, and pregnancy. When kids have something productive to do in the hours between when they are let out of school and when their parents get home from work, they are more likely to avoid the traps of risky behavior, more likely to be physically healthy and academically successful, and more likely to fulfill their potential.

As co-chairs of the Afterschool Caucus, Senator Ensign and I have worked to expand awareness of these benefits by organizing annual briefings, sharing research, and advocating fiercely for a focus on afterschool care when we talk about how to give our kids the best opportunities possible.

While we know that afterschool care works, the truth is that too many

American kids don't have access to good programs. More than 15 million children--from kindergarten through 12th grade--spend time unsupervised in the hours after school. That includes an incredible 40,000 kindergartners and nearly 4 million middle school students in grades six to eight.

When the bell rings and the school day ends, these kids face some 3 hours of unscheduled, often unsupervised time before their parents get home from work. Those are rarely productive hours, and, worse, those are the hours during which these children are most likely to experiment with risky behaviors.

We can do better for our kids.

The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2010 has three goals. First, to enhance the quality and sustainability of afterschool programs. Second, to emphasize physical fitness and wellness programs as part of our nationwide effort to reduce childhood obesity, and third, to encourage service learning.

Our legislation provides States with tools designed to keep quality programs going. It would allow program grantees the ability to renew their grants if they can show that the programs are working. It gives states the option to expand technical assistance functions to improve the quality of afterschool programs.

Our legislation will increase opportunities for young Americans to be more physically active. The administration has put a focus on reducing obesity--one of the easiest medical conditions to recognize, but one of the most difficult to treat--among our children. Obesity costs our society as much as $147 billion each year--and the best way to stop it is to encourage our kids to be more active. Afterschool programs offer a tremendous opportunity to do just that, and our legislation includes such wellness efforts in the list of programs that can receive support.

Our legislation encourages kids to get involved in service learning and youth development activities. Service learning integrates student- designed service projects with academic studies. This type of program has been shown to strengthen student engagement, enhance student achievement, lower drop-out and suspension rates, develop workforce and leadership skills, and provide opportunities for teamwork.

Of course, as we offer this legislation, I must also remind my colleagues that afterschool programs only work with sufficient funding. In a difficult economy, it is even more important to focus on empowering these programs. Studies have shown that afterschool care can reduce worker absenteeism by as much as 30 percent and reduce worker turnover by up to 60 percent. Decreased worker productivity related to parental concerns about afterschool care costs our economy up to $300 billion each year. Approximately 1 in 10 children is currently enrolled in afterschool care. However, 2/3 of parents with children who do not participate in a program would enroll their children in afterschool if they had that option. We should work to give them that option.

The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act is a positive step towards offering all of our children the chance to spend their afternoons safely and productively. It is a step towards making good on the most important promise: the one we make to our kids. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending nomination.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 2, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Restoring Credit to Main Street: Proposals To Fix Small Business Borrowing and Lending Problems.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 2, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 2, 2010, at 11:15 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 2, 2010. The Committee will meet in room 345 of the Cannon House Office Building beginning at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 2, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 2, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Global Internet Freedom and the Rule of Law, Part II.''

Mr. President, I rise to discuss a constitutional amendment I am introducing today, along with my colleague Senator Tom Udall, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. This proposed amendment would simply authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money for Federal political campaigns--including independent expenditures--and allow States to regulate such spending at their level. It would also provide for implementation and enforcement of the amendment through appropriate legislation. I invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us by cosponsoring the amendment.

Let me begin by noting that I am a firm believer in the sanctity of the First Amendment. I believe we must continue to do all we can to protect the free speech rights of all Americans. I do not suggest changing the language of the First Amendment, which I revere. But I do not believe that money is speech, nor do I believe that corporations should be treated exactly the same as individual Americans when it comes to protected, fundamental speech rights. That is what the Supreme Court has effectively now held.

I recognize that amending the Constitution is a long-term undertaking, and that this effort will not likely bear fruit during my remaining time in this body. Reinhold Niebuhr said that nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime; I would add much less during a Senate term.' I hope that in the wake of this court decision we can begin that comprehensive reform effort; I know that it would be worth doing. The Constitution itself establishes a long and complex process for its own amendment, including approval by Congress and the States, and I am proposing to use that process to save our democratic system of government, and ultimately our republic, from the continued corrosion of special interest influence.

I am introducing the amendment because I believe that constitutional

questions deserve constitutional answers. While I intend to support interim legislative steps to address urgently those issues that can be addressed in the wake of this decision, including increased disclosure requirements, further limitations to prevent foreign corporations' influence on our elections, and other measures, I think the scope of such efforts is limited by the court's sweeping, even radical conclusions in this case.

Make no mistake, as much of the commentary surrounding it suggests, the Citizens United case is one of the most radical decisions in the court's long history of campaign finance reform jurisprudence. It overturns 100 years of precedents to come to the unjustified conclusion that corporations deserve the same free speech protections as individual Americans. It opens the door to corporations spending vast amounts of money directly from their treasuries to influence Federal elections, and thereby influence Federal officeholders and policy decisions, in ways much more direct and concentrated than is the case now through corporate and union political action committees. If you are concerned now about the undue special interest influence of big banks, energy companies, health insurance firms, pharmaceutical firms and other special interests on our political process, just wait until these entities can spend millions of dollars directly to elect or defeat officeholders. If you are concerned about the special interest- generated paralysis of our legislative process, wait until you see the results of this decision. As one distinguished Republican election lawyer who opposes the decision recently said, it will be the ``wild, wild west.''

Perhaps most radical is the court's conclusion that corporations are legal ``persons'' seemingly deserving of the exact same free speech protections as all Americans. This decision notwithstanding, corporations are not people. A first-year law student will note that corporations are basically a legal fiction, entities created with certain limited legal rights designed to enable them to operate in the business world: to enter into and enforce contracts, to conduct transactions, and the like. They can't vote or think or speak or run for office. They only make political and policy decisions through their officers and shareholders, informed by their lobbyists and others. They should not enjoy the same fundamental free speech protections that individual Americans enjoy in our political discourse, or the ability to spend unlimited funds directly from large corporate treasuries for that purpose. As others have observed, the framers could not have imagined, and would not have wanted, a system in which corporations could pour literally billions of dollars into elections and thereby exercise grossly outsized influence over the fate of our elected representatives. Such a system does not promote free speech; it mocks it.

I have worked for decades to reform our campaign finance laws, with colleagues and former colleagues like Senators Boren, Mitchell, Byrd, Daschle, Feingold, Kerry, McCain, Dole, Cochran, and others. Time and again we have developed comprehensive bipartisan efforts, only to have them frustrated by a small minority of Senators, or in one case by a veto exercised by the first President Bush. I have served my party as head of the Democratic National Committee, and so I have seen the problems of our current campaign finance system from a variety of perspectives.

In previous debates I have rehearsed the problems with our current system. They include the exponentially increasing costs of campaigns. The endless time we must spend to travel and make calls to raise money, which is then spent mostly on expensive and increasingly negative TV ads in our states. The ways in which special interests buy access and influence, and how such influence erodes the trust and confidence of Americans in our democracy. These problems are systemic, pervasive and fundamental. They require comprehensive, fundamental reforms. A constitutional amendment would create the conditions for the possibility of real statutory reform that could then be adjusted as we go along, to address new abuses and problems as they arise.

I attended the Supreme Court's oral arguments in this case, and I heard in the pointed questions of the Justices who composed this 5-4 majority the portents of this radical decision. But even then I did not anticipate fully how breathtakingly far the court would reach.

That extended reach was not only unwise and unjustified, it was also unnecessary. This court majority, whose members have so forcefully decried judicial activism, might have taken a less radical approach, and resolved the legal issue before them without drawing such sweeping conclusions. Instead, they chose to ride roughshod over decades of the court's own legal precedents and the principle of stare decisis. That is why I believe it is fair to say, as Justice Stevens did in his stinging dissent in this case, that this case was brought by the Justices themselves. I urge my colleagues to read Justice Stevens' detailed, powerful and carefully reasoned dissent. In it, among other things, he observes that the only thing that has really changed since the Supreme Court made its rulings in the Austin, 1990, and McConnell, 2003, decisions, upholding the corporate campaign spending ban, is the composition of the Supreme Court. Instead of deciding the case based on the narrow issues before them, in a raw display of activist judicial power the majority in this sharply divided court took the rare step of asking for the case to be broadened and re-argued, and then issued this sweeping decision.

With this decision, I believe the court has seriously jeopardized its own integrity, already damaged by its hugely controversial decision in Bush v. Gore, and done enormous harm to our democracy--harm which will only become clearer to Americans in the next few years as close Congressional and state races are decided by the spending of corporate interests.

The public reaction to this court decision has been swift and strong, I think because Americans intuitively recognize that it represents an enormous transfer of power away from citizens to wealthy corporations. I saw a poll recently which showed broad opposition to the decision among all Americans--Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike. The poll showed that it was opposed by 66 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Republicans, and 72 percent of Independents. Americans intuitively recognize the dangers of a decision to allow corporations to spend unlimited funds against candidates. They see this decision's potential to worsen the problem of special interest influence, and to further erode trust and confidence in that process. Though this hasn't been commented on too broadly in the media reports following this decision, I also believe Americans recognize that the next logical step the Supreme Court could take in the wake of this decision is to go beyond this decision which overturns the ban on corporate independent expenditures in campaigns to allow direct corporate contributions to candidates.

This constitutional amendment is a version of one passionately championed for years by Senator Hollings, and updated by Senator Schumer in the last Congress. I have decided to reintroduce it at this point in our debate to emphasize that even though I support efforts to do what we can in the interim to reform our campaign finance laws, ultimately we must cut through the underbrush and go directly to the heart of the problem: the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley vs. Valeo and other subsequent decisions which conflate money with speech, and this most recent decision in Citizens United which lifts the long-time ban on direct corporate spending in campaigns.

In these decisions, the Supreme Court has basically made it impossible for Americans to have what they have repeatedly said they want: reasonable regulations of campaign contributions and expenditures which do not either directly or indirectly limit the ideas that may be expressed in the public realm. I submit that such regulations would actually broaden the public debate on a number of issues by freeing it from the narrow confines dictated by special interest money. With its decisions, the Supreme Court has effectively neutered comprehensive efforts to control the ever-spiraling money chase, and has forced legislation intended to control the cancerous effects of money in politics to be more complicated and convoluted than necessary. The complications we are

forced to resort to, in turn, create new opportunities for abuse.

Even without a constitutional amendment, we can try to make some progress. For example, I think we made some decent progress on the McCain-Feingold legislation, even despite the Court's decisions since 2002 narrowing the reach of that law. But we cannot enact truly comprehensive legislation that will get to the heart of the problem under current court rulings. I wish we could. I have long supported a clean elections system of public financing for Congressional campaigns which would integrate spending limits, citizen financing, and other basic reforms. That is the way I think we should go. There are other approaches. But the fact is--and I am sorry for this--that unless the Supreme Court again reverses itself, we cannot get the comprehensive legislation we really need unless we first adopt an amendment to the Constitution.

This amendment is neutral on what kind of regulation of campaigns would be allowed. It simply authorizes such regulation, and leaves it to Congress and state legislatures to determine what might be appropriate. That is where such decisions should be made on these issues: by the people's representatives in Congress and in state legislatures. That is why I think amending the Constitution and enabling Congress to make those decisions is the first step if we are to make real progress on this front.

Others will argue for a narrower constitutional amendment to focus primarily on the issue of corporate expenditures. That is another way to address the issue, though I believe it would still leave many unanswered questions about Congress' ability to regulate broadly in this area. We should have a full and robust debate about all of the options.

Someday we may adopt this idea, if the situation continues to run out of hand. And we may look back to this court decision in 2010 and mark it as an historic watershed, a catalyst for major change. I sincerely hope that will be true, for the sake of this institution and our democratic process, and for the sake of our country. I commend the amendment to my colleagues' attention, and urge them to consider cosponsoring it.

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

Madam President, today I honor a great American from my home State of Connecticut, Harold McGraw, Jr.

After serving as a captain in the Army Air Corps during World War II, Mr. McGraw joined the family business, McGraw-Hill, as a sales representative in 1947. Over the next half century, he worked his way up to the position of president of the McGraw-Hill book company, and then CEO and chairman of the parent corporation, McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Not satisfied with simply succeeding in business, Mr. McGraw quickly became a leader in his community. In the 1980s, he founded the Business Council for Effective Literacy, BCEL, and served as its president for a decade. He spoke at events across the country to champion the cause of adult literacy, giving generously of his own wealth and raising funds from corporate and public entities alike.

A BCEL grant led to the formation of the National Coalition for Literacy and established Mr. McGraw as a key public policy expert on this important issue. His work laid the foundation for the National Literacy Act and the National Institute for Literacy, and those of us in Congress and in the executive branch quickly became familiar with his tireless advocacy. He spoke up in person and in letters. He mobilized the business community. And he was always accessible to adult learners, teachers, and local adult literacy programs.

Always cognizant of the role education played in his own success, Mr. McGraw has worked hard to make education a focus of his civic engagement, including efforts with the New York Public Library, the Council for Air to Education, the International Center for the Disabled, and the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy.

A proud Princeton graduate, Mr. McGraw gave back to his alma mater with a generous gift to establish The McGraw Center for Teaching and Learning at Princeton University. Princeton President Harold Shapiro said that the McGraw Center would help ``redefine teaching and learning for future generations.'' Mr. McGraw has also lent his publishing expertise to the Princeton University Press.

The Harold W. McGraw, Jr. Prize in Education, established in 1988 by The McGraw-Hill Companies to mark the Company's 100th anniversary, honors those who have dedicated themselves to improving American education.

But Mr. McGraw is no stranger to honors himself. In 1990, President Bush awarded him the Nation's highest literacy award at a special White House ceremony.

And he is the recipient of honorary degrees from the Graduate School of Princeton University, the City University of New York, Ohio University, Pine Manor College, Fairfield University, Hofstra University, and Marymount Manhattan College, as well as the Cleveland E. Dodge Medal for Distinguished Service to Education from Columbia University's Teachers College.

Mr. McGraw has given so much to our country at large, but he hasn't forgotten the State he and I both love. A major supporter of the library in his town of Darien, he has also contributed generously to Norwalk Hospital and St. Joseph's Hospital, along with his local church. He has worked to support elderly care at the Waveny Care Center in New Canaan, CT, Pegasus Therapeutic Riding in Stamford, and a wide range of civic organizations, from the Boy Scouts to the Literary Volunteers of Connecticut.

Harold McGraw represents the best of American business and civic culture. All of us in Connecticut are proud to call him one of our own, and the many whose lives have been touched by his commitment to adult literacy are grateful for his efforts. We look forward to his continued good deeds and remain inspired by his example. It is my pleasure to honor this great American.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, at the request of the administration and on behalf of my fellow original cosponsors Senator Menendez, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Cardin, the Public Transportation Safety Program Act of 2010. This legislation is designed to provide the Federal Transit Administration with the proper funding and rulemaking, examination, and enforcement authority to improve the safety of our nation's transit systems.

The issue of improving transit safety is a bipartisan issue, on which I think all Members can come to agreement. While this proposal from the administration is a good and appropriate first step in the Federal Government's efforts to improve transit safety, I look forward to working with my cosponsors and all of my colleagues on the Senate Banking Committee to make the final bill, which will emerge from the Senate Banking Committee, the strongest legislation possible for ensuring the safety of our nation's transit systems.

Transit is among the safest modes of transportation. Between 1998 and 2007, incidents on public transportation rail systems fell by half.

But in light of a recent series of high-profile accidents, Americans have grown concerned, and rightfully so. As our Nation's transit systems age, it is becoming increasingly clear that it is time for the Federal government to take a more direct role in their oversight.

Currently, the Federal Transit Administration has limited authority to implement and enforce national transit safety standards and we have gone without a proper national transit safety program for far too long.

Having been handed an unfunded mandate, States have been forced to scrape by with State Safety Oversight boards. Many of these boards lack authority, expertise, a dedicated budget or even full-time employees to monitor safety.

This is unacceptable. This ad hoc approach to transit safety oversight must be replaced with better oversight and clear national transit safety standards. Congress should provide the FTA with the authority and the resources to bring consistency and Federal leadership to our transit safety system. It is our duty to ensure that accidents like those that occurred in 2009 are prevented.

I commend the Administration, particularly Secretary LaHood and administrator Rogoff, for taking a leadership role on this very important issue and sending the proposed legislation to Congress. This proposal is a good start, and I look forward to discussing it with my colleagues.

The Obama administration has indicated its commitment to improving transit safety. It is time for us to do the same.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, at the request of the administration and on behalf of my fellow original cosponsors Senator Menendez, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Cardin, the Public Transportation Safety Program Act of 2010. This legislation is designed to provide the Federal Transit Administration with the proper funding and rulemaking, examination, and enforcement authority to improve the safety of our nation's transit systems.

The issue of improving transit safety is a bipartisan issue, on which I think all Members can come to agreement. While this proposal from the administration is a good and appropriate first step in the Federal Government's efforts to improve transit safety, I look forward to working with my cosponsors and all of my colleagues on the Senate Banking Committee to make the final bill, which will emerge from the Senate Banking Committee, the strongest legislation possible for ensuring the safety of our nation's transit systems.

Transit is among the safest modes of transportation. Between 1998 and 2007, incidents on public transportation rail systems fell by half.

But in light of a recent series of high-profile accidents, Americans have grown concerned, and rightfully so. As our Nation's transit systems age, it is becoming increasingly clear that it is time for the Federal government to take a more direct role in their oversight.

Currently, the Federal Transit Administration has limited authority to implement and enforce national transit safety standards and we have gone without a proper national transit safety program for far too long.

Having been handed an unfunded mandate, States have been forced to scrape by with State Safety Oversight boards. Many of these boards lack authority, expertise, a dedicated budget or even full-time employees to monitor safety.

This is unacceptable. This ad hoc approach to transit safety oversight must be replaced with better oversight and clear national transit safety standards. Congress should provide the FTA with the authority and the resources to bring consistency and Federal leadership to our transit safety system. It is our duty to ensure that accidents like those that occurred in 2009 are prevented.

I commend the Administration, particularly Secretary LaHood and administrator Rogoff, for taking a leadership role on this very important issue and sending the proposed legislation to Congress. This proposal is a good start, and I look forward to discussing it with my colleagues.

The Obama administration has indicated its commitment to improving transit safety. It is time for us to do the same.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Shaken Baby Syndrome Prevention Act of 2010, important legislation that promotes awareness and prevention of Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma, a devastating form of child abuse that results in the severe injury, disability or death of hundreds of children each year.

Child abuse and neglect is a well-documented tragedy for some of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, NCANDS, 794,000 children were victims of abuse and neglect in 2007. Babies are particularly vulnerable; in 2007, children aged 12 months or younger accounted for nearly 40 percent of all child abuse and neglect fatalities and children aged 4 years and younger accounted for almost 77 percent. Yet even these disturbing statistics may not paint an accurate picture; most experts agree that child abuse is widely under reported.

Abusive head trauma, including Shaken Baby Syndrome, is the leading cause of death of physically abused children, in particular for infants younger than one. When a frustrated caregiver loses control and violently shakes a baby or impacts the baby's head, the trauma can kill the child or cause severe injuries, including loss of vision, loss of hearing, brain damage, paralysis, and/or seizures, resulting in lifelong disabilities and creating profound grief for many families.

Far too many children have experienced the horrible devastation of Shaken Baby Syndrome. A 2003 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimates that as a result of Shaken Baby Syndrome, an average of 300 U.S. children will die each year, and 600 to 1,200 more will be injured, of whom 2/3 will be infants younger than one. Medical professionals believe that thousands of Shaken Baby Syndrome cases are misdiagnosed or undetected, as many children do not immediately exhibit obvious symptoms after the abuse.

Prevention programs can significantly reduce the number of cases of Shaken Baby Syndrome. For example, the upstate New York SBS Prevention Project at Children's Hospital of Buffalo has used a simple video to educate new parents before they leave the hospital, reducing the number of shaken baby incidents in the area by nearly 50 percent.

In Connecticut, a multifaceted prevention approach involving hospitals, schools, childcare providers, and community-based organizations in awareness and training activities, including home visits and targeted outreach, has raised awareness and encouraged prevention across the state. Hospitals in many states educate new parents about the dangers of shaking a baby, yet it is estimated that less than 60 percent of parents of newborns receive information about the dangers of shaking a baby. Without more outreach, education, and training, the risk of Shaken Baby Syndrome will persist.

With the introduction of the Shaken Baby Syndrome Prevention Act of 2010, I hope to reduce the number of children injured or killed by abusive head trauma, and ultimately to eliminate Shaken Baby Syndrome. Our initiative provides for the creation of a public health campaign, including development of a National Action Plan to identify effective, evidence-based strategies for prevention and awareness of SBS, and establishment of a cross-disciplinary advisory council to help coordinate national efforts.

The campaign will educate the general public, parents, child care providers, health care professionals and others about the dangers of shaking, as well as healthy preventative approaches for frustrated parents and caregivers coping with a crying or fussy infant. The legislation ensures support for families who have been affected by SBS, and for families and caregivers struggling with infant crying, through a 24-hour hotline and an informational website. All of these activities are to be implemented through the coordination of existing programs and/or the establishment of new efforts, to bring together the best in current prevention, awareness and education practices to be expanded into areas in need. Awareness is absolutely critical to prevention. Families, professionals and caregivers responsible for infants and young children and must learn about the dangers of violent shaking and abusive impacts to the head.

Additionally, this bill will include a study to identify the current data collected on Shaken Baby Syndrome and examine the feasibility of collecting uniform, accurate data from all states regarding the incidence rates of Shaken Baby Syndrome, the characteristics of perpetrators, and the characteristics of victims. It is my hope that having this information will enable us to better reach those who may be at risk for Shaken Baby Syndrome and, thus, prevent Shaken Baby Syndrome.

On behalf of the victims of Shaken Baby Syndrome, including Cynthia Gibbs from New York, Hannah Juceum from California, Sarah Donohue from New York, Kierra Harrison from Nevada, Miranda Raymond from Pennsylvania, Taylor Rogers from Illinois, Cassandra Castens from Arizona, Gabriela Poole from Florida, Amber Stone from New York, Bennett Sandwell from Missouri, Jamison Carmichael from Florida, Margaret Dittman from Texas, Dalton Fish from Indiana, Stephen Siegfried from Texas, Kaden Isings from Washington, Joseph Wells from Texas, Dawson Rath from Pennsylvania, Macie McCarty from Minnesota, Jake Belisle from Maine, Benjamin Zentz from Michigan, Chloe Salazar from New Mexico, Madison Musser of Oklahoma, Daniel Carbajal from Texas, Nykkole Becker from Minnesota, Gianna D'Alessio from Rhode Island, Brynn Ackley from Washington, Rachael Kang from Texas, John Sprague from Maryland, Ryan Sanders from Virginia, David Sedlet from California, Reagan Johnson from Virginia, Skipper Lithco from New York, Brittney Sheets from New York, Madilyne Wentz from Missouri, Nicolette Klinker from Colorado, Brianna Moore from West Virginia, Shania Maria from Massachusetts, Dayton Jones from Pennsylvania, Breanna Sherer from California, Evelyn Biondo from New York, Kenneth Hardy from Pennsylvania, Alexis Vazquez from Florida, Joshua True from Washington, Stephen David from California, Michael Blair from Arkansas, Olivia Thomas from Ohio, Kaleb Schwade from Florida, Aiden Jenkins from Pennsylvania, Isabella Clark from Pennsylvania, Aaron Cherry from Texas, Dominic Morelock from Ohio, Emmy Cole from Maine, Chelsea Forant from Massachusetts, Joshua Cross from Ohio, Gavin Calloway from Maryland, Christopher Daughtrey from North Carolina, McKynzee Goin from Oregon, Bryce McCormick from Florida, and many other innocent lives lost or damaged, I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that this legislation becomes law so that we can expand efforts to eradicate Shaken Baby Syndrome.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Shaken Baby Syndrome Prevention Act of 2010, important legislation that promotes awareness and prevention of Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma, a devastating form of child abuse that results in the severe injury, disability or death of hundreds of children each year.

Child abuse and neglect is a well-documented tragedy for some of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, NCANDS, 794,000 children were victims of abuse and neglect in 2007. Babies are particularly vulnerable; in 2007, children aged 12 months or younger accounted for nearly 40 percent of all child abuse and neglect fatalities and children aged 4 years and younger accounted for almost 77 percent. Yet even these disturbing statistics may not paint an accurate picture; most experts agree that child abuse is widely under reported.

Abusive head trauma, including Shaken Baby Syndrome, is the leading cause of death of physically abused children, in particular for infants younger than one. When a frustrated caregiver loses control and violently shakes a baby or impacts the baby's head, the trauma can kill the child or cause severe injuries, including loss of vision, loss of hearing, brain damage, paralysis, and/or seizures, resulting in lifelong disabilities and creating profound grief for many families.

Far too many children have experienced the horrible devastation of Shaken Baby Syndrome. A 2003 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimates that as a result of Shaken Baby Syndrome, an average of 300 U.S. children will die each year, and 600 to 1,200 more will be injured, of whom 2/3 will be infants younger than one. Medical professionals believe that thousands of Shaken Baby Syndrome cases are misdiagnosed or undetected, as many children do not immediately exhibit obvious symptoms after the abuse.

Prevention programs can significantly reduce the number of cases of Shaken Baby Syndrome. For example, the upstate New York SBS Prevention Project at Children's Hospital of Buffalo has used a simple video to educate new parents before they leave the hospital, reducing the number of shaken baby incidents in the area by nearly 50 percent.

In Connecticut, a multifaceted prevention approach involving hospitals, schools, childcare providers, and community-based organizations in awareness and training activities, including home visits and targeted outreach, has raised awareness and encouraged prevention across the state. Hospitals in many states educate new parents about the dangers of shaking a baby, yet it is estimated that less than 60 percent of parents of newborns receive information about the dangers of shaking a baby. Without more outreach, education, and training, the risk of Shaken Baby Syndrome will persist.

With the introduction of the Shaken Baby Syndrome Prevention Act of 2010, I hope to reduce the number of children injured or killed by abusive head trauma, and ultimately to eliminate Shaken Baby Syndrome. Our initiative provides for the creation of a public health campaign, including development of a National Action Plan to identify effective, evidence-based strategies for prevention and awareness of SBS, and establishment of a cross-disciplinary advisory council to help coordinate national efforts.

The campaign will educate the general public, parents, child care providers, health care professionals and others about the dangers of shaking, as well as healthy preventative approaches for frustrated parents and caregivers coping with a crying or fussy infant. The legislation ensures support for families who have been affected by SBS, and for families and caregivers struggling with infant crying, through a 24-hour hotline and an informational website. All of these activities are to be implemented through the coordination of existing programs and/or the establishment of new efforts, to bring together the best in current prevention, awareness and education practices to be expanded into areas in need. Awareness is absolutely critical to prevention. Families, professionals and caregivers responsible for infants and young children and must learn about the dangers of violent shaking and abusive impacts to the head.

Additionally, this bill will include a study to identify the current data collected on Shaken Baby Syndrome and examine the feasibility of collecting uniform, accurate data from all states regarding the incidence rates of Shaken Baby Syndrome, the characteristics of perpetrators, and the characteristics of victims. It is my hope that having this information will enable us to better reach those who may be at risk for Shaken Baby Syndrome and, thus, prevent Shaken Baby Syndrome.

On behalf of the victims of Shaken Baby Syndrome, including Cynthia Gibbs from New York, Hannah Juceum from California, Sarah Donohue from New York, Kierra Harrison from Nevada, Miranda Raymond from Pennsylvania, Taylor Rogers from Illinois, Cassandra Castens from Arizona, Gabriela Poole from Florida, Amber Stone from New York, Bennett Sandwell from Missouri, Jamison Carmichael from Florida, Margaret Dittman from Texas, Dalton Fish from Indiana, Stephen Siegfried from Texas, Kaden Isings from Washington, Joseph Wells from Texas, Dawson Rath from Pennsylvania, Macie McCarty from Minnesota, Jake Belisle from Maine, Benjamin Zentz from Michigan, Chloe Salazar from New Mexico, Madison Musser of Oklahoma, Daniel Carbajal from Texas, Nykkole Becker from Minnesota, Gianna D'Alessio from Rhode Island, Brynn Ackley from Washington, Rachael Kang from Texas, John Sprague from Maryland, Ryan Sanders from Virginia, David Sedlet from California, Reagan Johnson from Virginia, Skipper Lithco from New York, Brittney Sheets from New York, Madilyne Wentz from Missouri, Nicolette Klinker from Colorado, Brianna Moore from West Virginia, Shania Maria from Massachusetts, Dayton Jones from Pennsylvania, Breanna Sherer from California, Evelyn Biondo from New York, Kenneth Hardy from Pennsylvania, Alexis Vazquez from Florida, Joshua True from Washington, Stephen David from California, Michael Blair from Arkansas, Olivia Thomas from Ohio, Kaleb Schwade from Florida, Aiden Jenkins from Pennsylvania, Isabella Clark from Pennsylvania, Aaron Cherry from Texas, Dominic Morelock from Ohio, Emmy Cole from Maine, Chelsea Forant from Massachusetts, Joshua Cross from Ohio, Gavin Calloway from Maryland, Christopher Daughtrey from North Carolina, McKynzee Goin from Oregon, Bryce McCormick from Florida, and many other innocent lives lost or damaged, I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that this legislation becomes law so that we can expand efforts to eradicate Shaken Baby Syndrome.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, first I wanted to say a few words to welcome our new colleague, Scott Brown, who has joined our ranks as a Member of the Senate from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I wasn't able to be here at 5 p.m. when he was sworn into office, but I wish him the very best. I had a good conversation with him a couple weeks ago after his election and look forward to serving with him.

I rise this evening to honor a good friend and a legendary public servant. Although he only served here a short time, Paul Kirk has been a public servant for decades. I wish to tell him and his wife Gail and their family what a remarkable contribution in a few short weeks Paul Kirk has made as a Member of the Senate.

Paul is an American who will never get the kind of attention he deserves for the rich life of public service he has led throughout his career. That won't bother him one bit because that is who Paul Kirk is. For over half a century, he has been motivated not by a desire to seek recognition or to receive it but by a passion for progress and a deep love of his own country.

Paul came to Washington last fall with the impossible task of succeeding our dear friend Ted Kennedy as Senator from Massachusetts. Paul did so not in the hopes of filling Teddy's shoes but in continuing to blaze the path forward that Ted Kennedy forged more than four decades ago when he arrived as a new Member of this body. As a U.S. Senator, Paul Kirk has served the Commonwealth with great dignity and humility. Although he was only among our ranks for a few short months, all of us will miss him in this Chamber. He left such a good and lasting impression of his service.

Paul's time here is just one of many roles he has played in service to our Nation and our democracy. In 1965, many years ago, Paul Kirk entered public service as an assistant district attorney in Massachusetts. But it wasn't long before Paul's story became intertwined with the Kennedy family in Massachusetts.

In 1968, Paul worked on Robert Kennedy's Presidential campaign, and the very next year he joined the Senate staff of Bob's brother Ted. Thus began the kind of a partnership that has moved mountains throughout our history. As a Senate staffer, the political director of Teddy's Presidential campaign, and the chairman of our own Democratic Party, Paul served alongside Ted Kennedy as Teddy and his remarkable staff over those four decades fought battle after battle on behalf of the American people.

Paul has always understood the importance and power of the American story. That is why he has served for a decade as chairman of the National Democratic Institute of International Affairs, working to spread and support democracy around the world so that every nation could know what it is to be truly free. And he has worked to strengthen our own democracy as well, as the longtime cochairman of the Commission on Presidential Debates.

As we all know, Paul Kirk is a very proud Democrat, but he is even prouder as an American. In an age when it seems as if partisanship can overwhelm even our most fundamental Democratic values, Paul Kirk has stood for fair play and open debate for decades.

Many Americans first met Paul Kirk after Teddy passed away, when Paul so elegantly conducted that remarkable memorial service at the Kennedy Library in Boston. They saw in him the passion that led him to join Ted Kennedy in the cause of progress and also the quiet dignity of a man for whom the work would go on, even after the passing of his very dear friend.

As a U.S. Senator, they have seen him take up the torch of issues that mattered to Teddy and to the people of Massachusetts and to the American people, none more important, of course, or dear to Paul's heart than the fight to reform our health care system, a fight that will have to continue in his absence.

Paul has been assisted in this difficult job by a core of public servants, the names of whom are unfamiliar to most and the likes of which we might not see again, the staff he inherited from Ted Kennedy. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican--I say this to new Members-- the older Members of this Chamber, Democrats and Republicans, will tell you that to know the Kennedy staff was to respect how talented and professional that staff was, how fairly they treated every Member of this body and every staff member. It was the core reason for their success legislatively, because they had such respect for individual Members, the staff who works here, and for the ideas people brought to the debate. They too, of course, deserve our appreciation and recognition as well.

I congratulate Senator Scott Brown and welcome him to this Chamber. It is a remarkable opportunity he will have to represent the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I look forward to working with him in the coming days and weeks. Senator Brown comes to fill a seat from which great things have been done for the people of Massachusetts and our country. I think there might be no greater compliment I can pay to the man whom we welcomed last year than to say to Senator Brown: We wish you the very best in filling Ted Kennedy's shoes and Paul Kirk's shoes as well.

To my friend Paul, I thank you for your service, not just the service you performed in this Chamber but a lifetime of service you have given to our country and the many more years of service I know you will be able to provide. To his wife Gail, I thank you for sharing your husband with the country over these past months. I wish you all the best as you look forward as well to the future.

To our colleagues who have come to know Paul's decency and professionalism, I urge we follow his example, not just in dogged pursuit of good legislation that moves our country forward but in the effort to make this Chamber a place where good ideas and good conscience can once again trump pettiness and partisanship. Let us be guided in our work not just by Teddy's passion but by the selfless spirit of service that has made Paul Kirk such a fine U.S. Senator and a very good American.

I thank Paul for his service. I said to him the other day that my only regret is that he hasn't been able to serve here a longer time because I think he would have made a remarkable contribution to our country. He did in a short time, but I have a feeling that had he been here for a number of years, the country would be a better place today. It already is because of his service. It could have been even better. I wish him the very best.

I yield the floor.