Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to jump-start the chance for success in school for this Nation's low- income children. Today I am introducing the Sandy Feldman Kindergarten Plus Act of 2006. The legislation I am introducing today will provide children below 185 percent of the poverty line with additional time in kindergarten during the summer before and the summer after the traditional kindergarten school year, and help to ensure that more children enter school ready to succeed. The kindergarten year is an important time of transition for young children. It represents the first year of schooling for 98 percent of the children in the United States, and it marks the bridge between early childhood education and the primary grades of school. Many may ask why an initiative that will give an extra four months of kindergarten to low-income children? The answer is simple. Because too many low-income children today enter kindergarten unprepared for the year ahead and many children from low-income families are constantly outperformed by their wealthier peers. We can, however, do a better job of preparing less fortunate children for school. We can expose them to classroom practices and routines and the expectations for kindergarten behavior and protocol. We can introduce them to educational concepts and help them understand that classrooms have rules. We can expose them to literature, story time or circle time. We can help them understand that books are made up of printed words and that words are made up of individual letters. We can ask them questions to help develop their critical thinking skills, like what do you think will happen next in the story? We can offer them ``show and tell'' to develop their oral language skills and ability to speak out loud in sequential sentences. Simply put, we need to provide them with a solid foundation that allows them to enter school with the skills necessary to become strong students. How does this translate into school readiness? About 85 percent of high-income children, compared to 39 percent of low-income children, can recognize letters of the alphabet upon arrival in kindergarten. About half the children of college graduates can identify the beginning sounds of words, but only 9 percent of the children whose parents didn't complete high school can recognize the beginning sounds of words. Low-income children often have a more limited vocabulary. By the time they are in first grade, children in low-income families have 5,000 word vocabularies. In contrast, children from more affluent families enter school with vocabularies of 20,000 words. These are significant discrepancies. In the John Hopkins University report, ``Schools, Achievement, and Inequality: A Seasonal Perceptive,'' recommendations are made to improve the socioeconomic differences in the seasonality of children's learning over the school and summer months. The report that states during the summer, upper socioeconomic status (SES) children's skills continue to advance, but lower SES children's gains, on average, are flat. Pre-school and kindergarten can reduce the achievement gap associated with SES when children start first grade, but to help them keep up it requires extra resources and enrichment experiences. Summer education programs can build potential for economically disadvantaged children and their parents in support of academic development. What we know from the research is that children can enter kindergarten better prepared to learn. We may not be able to close the gap between low-income children and their wealthier peers, but we can certainly narrow it considerably. This is what this legislation strives to do. This legislation was named after Sandy Feldman who was a tireless advocate for children and public education who died last year after a long battle with cancer. Her commitment to social justice and her authority on urban education dates to her involvement with the civil rights movement. Sandy rose from her position as second grade elementary school teacher to become president of the 1.3 million-member American Federation of Teachers. She also knew that all too often, we don't give our schools the resources they need to make all students' dreams come to fruition. Her focus on early childhood education led her to develop the concept for this legislation and it was Sandy who spent countless hours developing the details to ensure this would be a high quality initiative. I am joined in introducing this legislation by my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Kerry, Lieberman, Durbin, Schumer, and Clinton. This bill is also supported by the American Federation of Teachers, the Parent Teacher Association, National Education Association, Council of Great City Schools, the Society for Research in Child Development, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Service Employees of International Union, National Head Start Association, the Children's Defense Fund and Easter Seals. I urge my colleagues to join this effort and cosponsor the legislation. I encourage them to help give low-income children a jump-start on school success. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today Senator Domenici and I are submitting a resolution designating the third week of October as ``National Character Counts Week.'' I have worked for many years on the issue of character education and hope that by designating a special week to this cause, students and teachers will come together to participate in character building activities in their schools not only this week but all year long. In 1994, Senator Domenici and I first established the Partnerships in Character Education Pilot Project and have worked regularly since then to commemorate National Character Counts Week. Character education is about celebrating what's right with young people while enabling them to develop the knowledge and life skills necessary in order to embrace ethical and responsible behavior. I am pleased that we are continuing our efforts today to help expand States' and schools' abilities to make character education a central part of every child's education. Our schools may figuratively be built with the bricks of English, math and science, but character education certainly provides the mortar. Trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship are the six pillars of character. The standards of conduct that arise out of those values constitute the foundation of ethics, and therefore of ethical decision-making. Character education looks like young people learning, growing, and becoming. It feels like strength, courage, possibility, and hope. Character education provides students a context within which to learn. If we view education simply as the imparting of knowledge to our children, then we will not only miss an opportunity, but will jeopardize our future. Currently, there are character education programs across all 50 states in rural, urban and suburban areas at every grade level. I'd like to take a moment to tell you about two programs in my home state of Connecticut. At Jared Eliot Middle School in Clinton, CT, creating safe, welcoming schools where character matters is a high priority. Pillars showcasing the principles of high character greet everyone who enters the building and are a vivid reminder of the values embraced by the school community. This schoolwide effort is felt and lived by all who work and learn there. Also, Old Saybrook Middle School, a recognized middle school of the year, is stellar in large part because of the ongoing schoolwide initiative to focus on efforts to create a school climate that celebrates individuals who exhibit high moral character and are engaged and connected to school. Parents are closely involved and support these efforts in uniquely high numbers. This dedicated school and its community work hard to build a positive community through its character education program, and has experienced great success socially and academically because of it. Character education programs work. Schools across the country that have adopted strong character education programs report better student performance, fewer discipline problems, and increased student involvement within the community. Children want direction--they want to be taught right from wrong. Young people yearn for consistent adult involvement, and when they get it, according to surveys, they are less inclined to use illegal drugs, vandalize or commit suicide. The American public wants character education in our schools, too. Studies show that approximately 90 percent of Americans support schools teaching character education. As all education policy should be, support of character education is bipartisan. This year we have cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. Many of our country's leading educational and youth-serving organizations also actively support character education, including YMCA, 4-H, Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Little League, the National Education Association and the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Character education can and is being incorporated into children's lives in and outside of the classroom. It provides a helping hand to our schools and communities to ensure our children's futures are bright and filled with opportunities and success. Character education not only cultivates minds, it nurtures hearts. While our children may be one- quarter of our population, they are 100 percent of our future. I would submit that character transcends religious, cultural, political, and socioeconomic barriers. I believe our country is having a renewed focus on character and this sends a wonderful message to Americans, and will help those of us involved in character education reinvigorate our efforts to get communities and schools involved. So today, Senator Domenici and I introduce a resolution to accomplish just that and hopefully our renewed effort will bring together even more communities to ensure that character education is a part of every child's life. I hope that my colleagues will support this important effort.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, America was attacked on September 11, 2001, by a ruthless enemy of our Nation. It is my strong belief, as I believe it is the belief of all of us in this Chamber, that those who are responsible for orchestrating this plot and anyone else who seeks to do harm to our country and citizens should be brought to the bar of justice and punished severely. On that I presume there is no debate whatsoever. These are extraordinary times, and we must act in a way that fully safeguards America's national security. That is why I support the concept of military commissions: to protect U.S. intelligence and expedite judicial proceedings vital to military action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. As we develop such means, we must also ensure our actions are not counterproductive to our overall effort to protect America at all levels. The administration and the Republican leadership on this issue would have the American people believe--and this is the unfortunate point-- that the war on terror requires us to make a choice, both here in this Chamber and across the country, between protecting America from terrorism and the choice of upholding the basic tenets upon which our Nation was founded--but not both. This canard, in my view, has been showcased far too often. I fully reject that reasoning. Americans throughout the previous 200 years have as well. We can and must balance our responsibilities to bring terrorists to justice while at the same time protecting what it means to be an American. To choose the rule of law over the passion of the moment takes courage, but it is the right thing to do if we are to uphold the values of equal justice and due process that are codified in our Constitution. Our Founding Fathers established the legal framework of our country on the premise that those in government are not infallible. America's leaders knew this 60 years ago when they determined how to deal with Nazi leaders guilty of horrendous crimes. There were strong and persuasive voices at that time crying out for the summary execution of those men who had commanded with ruthless efficiency the slaughter of 6 million innocent Jews and 5 million other innocent men and women. After World War Two, our country was forced to decide whether the accused criminals deserved trial or execution. There was an article written recently by Professor Luban, a professor at Georgetown University, titled ``Forget Nuremberg--How Bush's new torture bill eviscerates the promise of Nuremberg.'' I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. He pointed out something that needs to be made clear. He said: Make one thing crystal clear, it's the burning desire of the United States to create international law using those trials. Great Britain initially opposed the Nuremberg trials and urged simply shooting top Nazis out of fear, they would use the trials for propaganda. Stalin favored conducting trials only to establish punishments, not guilt. Like Great Britain, he thought punishing the top Nazis should be a political, and not a legal, decision. The trials happened as they did only because the United States insisted on them for purposes of establishing future law--a task that summary justice at executive say-so could never have done. At the London conference that wrote the Nuremberg Charter, France and Russia both objected to criminalizing aggressive war for anybody but the Axis countries. But Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the American representative insisted that creating universally binding international law was the prime purpose of the tribunal. And he prevailed in that argument. The history is particularly poignant to me because my father, who served in this body, from whose desk I speak this morning, served as Robert Jackson's No. 2, as the executive trial counsel at Nuremberg. Mr. President, the Nuremberg trials rendered their first judgment 60 years ago. What an irony indeed that 60 years ago this Saturday, one of the great, if not the greatest, trials of the 20th century was taking us to a point where we are now codifying and moving to international law. The enemies of the United States were not given the opportunity to walk away from their crimes. Rather, they were given the right to face their accusers, the right to confront evidence against them, the right to a fair trial. Underlying that decision was the conviction that this Nation must not tailor its most fundamental principles to the conflict of the moment and the recognition that if we did, we would be walking in the very footsteps of the enemies we despised. As we approach this 60th anniversary, I think it is important to reflect on the implications of the past as we face new challenges, new enemies, and new decisions. Much as our actions in the postwar period affected our Nation's standing in the world, so, too, do our actions in the post- 9/11 era. The Armed Services Committee, and I have great respect for my friend, John Warner, decided not to rubberstamp the administration's legislation. Instead they worked in a bipartisan way to craft a more narrowly tailored approach. Unfortunately, the bill we are discussing today is not the one that passed out of that committee. The bill before us today was worked out between several of our Republican colleagues and the White House and does not contain the improvements over the Bush administration's original proposal. I remain concerned about several provisions in the pending legislation. The bill would strip detainees of their habeas corpus rights. The eloquent remarks of Arlen Specter yesterday should be read by everyone. This longstanding tradition of our country that is about to be abandoned here will be one of the great mistakes I think history will record. There are strong beliefs among Senators on both sides that this provision is not only inadvisable but flatly unconstitutional as well. We must do everything in our power to protect our country from threats to our national security, but it is also incumbent upon every one of us to protect the very foundation upon which our Nation was established. This legislation will not achieve those aims. I support the efforts, certainly of those who are trying to improve this bill, but I wish to conclude these remarks by quoting Justice Jackson. Justice Jackson said at the conclusion of the Nuremberg trials: We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today--is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our lips as well. To rubberstamp the administration's bill, in my view, would poison one of the most fundamental principles of American democracy. I urge my colleagues not to move in that direction. Also, if I can, I wish to read from this article which was written by Mr. Luban, talking about the Nuremberg trials, because it is an important moment in our history. He said: The Nuremberg trials presupposed something about the human conscience: that moral choice doesn't take its cues solely from narrow legalisms and technicalities. The new detainee bill takes precisely the opposite stance: technicality now triumphs over conscience, and even over common sense. The bill introduces the possibility for a new cottage industry: the jurisprudence of pain. It systematically distinguished ``severe pain''--the hallmark of torture--from mere ``serious'' pain--the hallmark of cruel and degrading treatment, usually thought to denote mistreatment short of torture. But then it defines serious pain as ``bodily injury that involves . . . extreme physical pain.'' To untutored ears, ``extreme'' sounds very similar to ``severe''; indeed, it sounds even worse than ``severe.'' But in any case, it certainly sounds worse than ``serious.'' Administration lawyers can have a field day in the coming years reading painful interrogation tactics on the Three Adjective Scale, leaving the rest of us to shake our heads at the essential lunacy of the enterprise. It is about conscience. It is the fundamental principle which we enshrined and fought for. It was the United States of America that stood and insisted that our allies try to do something to avoid future conflicts, 60 years ago this Saturday. To watch the Senate, on the anniversary of the Nuremberg trials, step away from that great tradition, those great principles enshrined at that time, I think is one of the saddest days I have ever seen in this Senate in my almost 30 years serving in this body. I hope my colleagues, with a few days to go before the election, put this aside. Let's come back afterward and think more clearly. Too much of politics is written into these decisions. This is the United States of America.

Mr. DODD. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. If I may respond to my colleague from Virginia, for whom I have the greatest respect, it is not only my love and affection for my father; more importantly, it is my love and affection for what he and a group of Americans did at a time when others said abandon the rule of law: They stood up at a time when it was tempting not to do so. World opinion certainly was against them in many ways. These were dreadful human beings. These people murdered millions, incinerated millions of people. Yet people such as my father and Robert Jackson and others stood up and said: No, we are going to be different than they are. The rule of law is so critically important to us that we want to show the civility of this great country of ours and how the last part of the 20th century can be conducted differently. It is not just my affection for my father; it is more the affection for what they did in a moment, against public opinion, to set the gold standard and set us apart. We have been known as the nation of Nuremberg. My fear is now we will be known as the nation of Guantanamo, and I worry about that.

Mr. DODD. If our colleague would yield, I do not disagree, but I don't think there is a choice between upholding the principles of America and fighting terrorism. Every generation of Americans will face their own threats. This is ours. Every previous generation faced serious threats, and they did not abandon the principles upon which this country is founded. I am fearful we are going to do that today.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, food allergies are an increasing food safety and public health concern in this country, especially among young children. I know first-hand just how frightening food allergies can be in a young person's life. My own family has been personally touched by this troubling condition and we continue to struggle with it each and every day. Sadly, there is no cure for food allergies. In the past 5 years, the number of Americans with food allergies has nearly doubled from 6 million to almost 12 million. While food allergies were at one time considered relatively infrequent, today they rank 3rd among common chronic diseases in children under 18 years old. Peanuts are among several allergenic foods that can produce life- threatening allergic reactions in susceptible children. Peanut allergies have doubled among school-age children from 1997 to 2002. Clearly, food allergies are of great concern for school-age children Nation-wide, and yet, there are no Federal guidelines concerning the management of life-threatening food allergies in our Nation's schools. I have heard from parents, teachers and school administrators that students with severe food allergies often face inconsistent food allergy management approaches when they change schools--whether they get promoted or move to a different city. Too often, families are not aware of the food allergy policy at their children's school, or the policy is vastly different from the one they knew at their previous school, and they are left wondering whether their child is safe. Last year, Connecticut became the first State to enact school-based guidelines concerning food allergies and the prevention of life-threatening incidents in schools. I am very proud of these efforts, and I know that the parents of children who suffer from food allergies in Connecticut have confidence that their children are safe throughout the school day. Other States, such as Massachusetts, have enacted similar guidelines. Tennessee school districts are poised to implement their statewide guidelines in July. But too many States across the country have food allergy management guidelines that are inconsistent from one school district to the next. In my view, this lack of consistency underscores the need for enactment of uniform, Federal policies that school districts can choose to adopt and implement. For this reason, my colleague, Senator Frist, and I introduce the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act of 2006 today to address the growing need for uniform and consistent school-based food allergy management policy. I thank Senator Frist for his hard work and commitment to this important legislation. The legislation does two things. First, it directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, to develop and make available voluntary food allergy management guidelines for preventing exposure to food allergens and assuring a prompt response when a student suffers a potentially fatal anaphylactic reaction. Second, the bill provides for incentive grants to school districts to assist them with adoption and implementation of the Federal Government's allergy management guidelines in all K-12 public schools. I wish to acknowledge and offer my sincere appreciation to the members of the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network for their commitment to this legislation and for raising public awareness, providing advocacy, and advancing research on behalf of all individuals who suffer from food allergies. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate and in the House will consider and pass this important legislation before the end of the year so that the Department of Health and Human Services can begin work on developing national guidelines as soon as possible. Schoolchildren across the country deserve nothing less than a safe and healthy learning environment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I add my voice to my colleagues who have spoken and those who will speak in thanking our wonderful friend from Vermont for his remarkable service to our country. I begin as well by thanking his family, Elizabeth and the children, as well as the people of Vermont, as Senator Kennedy has said so eloquently. Let me also include in enumeration his wonderful staff people, over the years, who have been very much a part of Jim's family. In fact, I note from the interns to senior staff people, everyone refers to him not as ``Senator'' or ``Mr. Chairman''--but just ``Jim.'' That is certainly a symbol of the kind of relationship he has had with his constituents and with his family over the years. I have had the privilege of serving my entire time in the Senate--in the Congress--with this remarkable person from Vermont. We arrived in the House of Representatives on the very same day, 32 years ago. As Jim pointed out, he had that neck brace on, and I had a head of black hair. We have aged over those 3 decades. But my respect for Jim Jeffords has only grown. He has taught us America will listen to you even if your voice is soft. His achievements in the Senate and the House are the envy of all who wish to improve a quality of life in this great country of ours. Jim's body of work is truly admirable. But it looks even more admirable when you remind yourself that it was all the doing of a man unpretentious enough to be fond of mismatched socks, frugal enough to spend his earliest days in Washington sleeping in a parked van, and humble enough to be universally known, as I've said, as just ``Jim.'' The people of Vermont returned him to office over and over again on the strength of his plainspoken integrity and his indefatigable Yankeeness. That's what Jim brought to this body of discussion; and that was more than enough. Jim came to Washington knowing what he wanted to accomplish, and his success is clear to us today. No one has worked with more dedication for a clean environment. Jim was an environmentalist practically before we had a word for it. In fact, he got his start in the Vermont State Senate in the 1960s, fighting the efforts of the paper mills to pour sludge right into Lake Champlain. He was a long-time nuclear watchdog and among six Congressmen to found the Congressional Solar Coalition years ago. It is telling that when he had his pick of chairmanships, Senator Jim Jeffords chose the Environment and Public Works Committee. Perhaps most importantly, he helped clean up the air we breathe. He mentioned it briefly. But the work of John Chafee, George Mitchell, and Jim Jeffords truly created the great Clean Air Act of 1990, a huge accomplishment. I want to thank Jim immensely for the tremendous effort he made years ago in improving the quality of air in this country. If he had done nothing else in 32 years, that alone would have been a significant achievement. Of course, his body of work is far more than that. Like Jim's dedication to the environment, his work for children who come from special education needs is decades long. In 1976, he was essential to the passage of legislation guaranteeing local school districts that the Federal Goverment would pay 40 percent of the costs of educating the disabled. And if that guarantee remains unfunded today, never let it be said that it was for lack of Jim's passionate work. I would be remiss if I didn't mention of Tom Harkin, another fellow classmate of 1974, working with Jim and many others who cared about this issue over the years. No one contributed more to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act than Jim Jeffords. Few Senators are as tied to special education, and that is a title to be very proud of. It has been my honor to work along with him in the House and the Senate on the issues that meant the most to him--on afterschool programs, on higher education, and, most especially, to secure funding for IDEA. It Vermont, commitment to education is a longstanding tradition. Right in the middle of the Civil War, we building the dome on the Capitol to show our determination to keep this Union together; but we showed it in another way, too. A Senator from Vermont by the name of Justin Smith Morrill created the land grant colleges--the University of Connecticut is one; there are many all across the country--and his work was one more demonstration of the remarkable people who come from that State of Vermont to help build this country, defend this country, and secure this country for our children. Senator Stafford and Morrill passed on that proud tradition, and Senator Jeffords stands in its forefront today. Jim has taught at every opportunity the difference between education as a privilege and education as a right. It is a right, and its worth is measured in our willingness to educate even--especially--where it is inconvenient. There weren't many Senators shyer than Jim Jeffords, but there wasn't a single one fuller of quiet purpose and courage. Politics was always a means to Jim's purpose--never the other way around. And the way Jim practiced politics, the way he spent his power, was never calculated to bring him money, or fame, or even particularly glamour. It was only the quiet satisfaction of a job very well done. That is what I think of when I recall the more than three decades of our service together. But, to tell the truth, through all those 30 years I had a privileged seat right here with him. Those without that vantage point are probably going to remember, first of all, something very different. We all know how Jim crossed this aisle for good 5 years ago, and how he has served as an an Independent ever since. Jim entered the national spotlight full of honest regret, and fully aware of how difficult his choice was for colleagues, his staff, and his supporters. I saw Jim upclose as he struggled with a decision as few men or women ever have to. But whatever one thinks of it, there is a fact beyond dispute, which all of us appreciate in this body: Jim Jeffords has never followed anyone but his conscience. If we insist, 5 years later, on reasoning out the need in votes or dollars or any other measure of practicality, we only reveal our failure to understand what that man did on the day he made his choice. Sometimes what goes on in this Chamber cannot be reasoned away. Jim taught us that, too. So, I would like to close with a happy thought. Two years before the American Revolution, Edmund Burke gave a speech on the relationship between a representative and those whom he tries to represent. ``It is his duty,'' said Burke, ``to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interests to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence.'' Jim, you have kept your trust over these many years, in both the Senate and public life, in your State and in the Congress. We send you back to Vermont with your work in the Senate accomplished, with your conscience still clean, and with our best wishes to you and your lovely family. God bless you. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Governor Ann Richards, who died last week at the age of 73. Humor is one of the chief democratic virtues. A good joke can wipe out differences of rank, bring down the self-exalted, and join audience and speaker in a common bond. A sense of humor is an especially priceless quality in a political leader because it exposes the pretensions that always seem to accumulate around the state, and it reminds us that we are still a people's government. Governor Richards is being remembered this week as an innovative leader, a pioneer for women, and, I might add, one tough cookie. But we should also take a moment, on the occasion of her sad death, to remember something else we have lost--her wonderful sense of humor. And if we could take a positive thing from her passing, it might be that we have had the opportunity to remind ourselves of all the many times she made us laugh. We all remember Ann's remark that ``Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did--she just did it backwards and in high heels.'' And we all treasured her earthiness--for instance, when she allowed that she regretted her 1994 election defeat ``Oh, for about five seconds.'' Of course, there have always been people who have found a sense of humor threatening, especially when it is in their idea of the wrong hands. As Texas columnist Molly Ivins said of the Governor, ``I mean, with Ann it was a real problem. . . . They just did not know what to make of her. . . . If they realize that a woman can be funny, I think men are afraid that tone can be used against them. And they don't like it.'' The truth is that Ann Richards--the first woman to be elected Governor of Texas in her own right--had to fight against bias her whole political life. At every stage, she was more than a match. In the early 1960s, Ann was forced to help found the North Texas Democratic Women ``basically to allow us to have something substantive to do.'' And asked at the end of her long career why she had entered politics, Ann replied: ``I did not want my tombstone to read, `She kept a really clean house.''' Instead of accepting others' ideas of what was best for her, Governor Richards opened her own path--and everyone who follows her, in Texas and in every other State, owes her thanks. But there is another danger to humor. As she wrote in her 1989 autobiography, ``I was always worried because there is a general feeling that if you're funny you're not serious.'' That pressure is particularly acute for a politician. But Ann taught us all that laughter draws on great honesty and insight--that depth and humor can exist in the same spirit. ``Humor is a powerful tool,'' she continued. ``It clears the air. Once you laugh, your mind is opened and then you are able to hear the other things that are being said to you.'' Governor Richards showed her depth in 4 years of successful policies in Texas. She presided over the dramatic growth of her State's economy, and her audits on the State bureaucracy saved taxpayers $6 billion. She reformed Texas's prison system, pursued a truly egalitarian policy for education funding, and saw a dramatic increase in student achievement scores on her watch. And through all of her success, Governor Richards never forgot the prejudice she had faced--and so she worked tirelessly to include members of marginalized groups in the people's work. Ann Richards appointed more women and minorities than any of her predecessors. She was responsible for the first crime victim on the State Criminal Justice Board, the first disabled member of the human services board, the first teacher to chair the State board of education, the first Black regent at the University of Texas, and the first Black and female officers in the elite Texas Rangers. And while many ex-politicians have a habit of fading into the sunset, Ann remained a dynamo. She worked in international law, taught at Texas and Brandeis, continued to write, and campaigned for members of her party across the country, right to the end--in fact, I am sure many of us in this Chamber owe Ann thanks for her help on the stump. What Ann accomplished after leaving the Governor's mansion could have been a full career for someone less ambitious or full of life. And her 2004 book had an exceedingly apt title--``I'm Not Slowing Down,'' a phrase that embodied the energy and Texas doggedness we loved in her. It took cancer to stop Ann Richards. And though she has gone, we will remember her as one of the great political characters of the 20th century. We will miss her boldness and her silver tongue. But we will remember what she taught us over a five-decade life in politics: Jokes don't just make us laugh. They force us to see more clearly and sympathize more fully; and they bring us a little closer to the state of equality that is the whole reason our Nation is.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak in honor of U.S. Marine Corps Corporal Jordan C. Pierson, of Milford, CT, who was killed in Iraq on August 25, 2006. He was 21 years old. Corporal Pierson, a member of Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment, died from hostile gunfire while on foot patrol in Fallujah, Iraq. Corporal Pierson joined the U.S. Marine Corps in December 2003, just a few months after graduating from Joseph A. Foran High School in Milford. He was adamant about his decision to join the Marines. As a young man who loved the military from an early age, Jordan found his calling in the principles and discipline of the Marine Corps. He postponed his studies at the University of Connecticut, where he was taking courses in business and psychology, to serve in Iraq. During his deployment he was wounded by shrapnel from an insurgent grenade and was awarded the Purple Heart. After treatment at Camp Fallujah, he bravely returned to combat, exhibiting great dedication to his fellow marines and his Nation. Jordan's positive spirit and selflessness were an inspiration to all those around him, whether friends, family, or the men and women he served with in the Marine Corps. He represented the very best features of American patriotism. Among his fellow marines, his enthusiasm was contagious, and he often reminded them of the difference they were making in Iraq. To his childhood friends, he was a refuge in times of trouble and a constant source of entertainment. Never forgetting about the family he left behind, Jordan sent money home every month without ever being asked. People like Corporal Pierson make it possible for us to live each and every day in freedom, peace, and security. They have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect their fellow citizens and our Nation, and we must never forget their heroic service. So today I salute the courage and commitment of U.S. Marine Corporal Pierson, a young man who lived his life to the fullest and died fulfilling the noblest of callings, defending our Nation and the values we hold dear. I offer my deepest sympathies and support to his parents, Eric and Beverley, his brother Ethan, and to everyone who knew and loved him.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today Senator Ensign and I, along with 42 cosponsors, are submitting a concurrent resolution with the House designating October 12, 2006 as Lights On Afterschool Day. Lights on Afterschool is a national celebration of afterschool programs, designed to promote the critical importance of afterschool in the lives of America's children, families, and communities. This year alone, we expect over 1 million Americans to participate in this important celebration. Quality afterschool programs keep kids safe, help working families, and improve academic achievement. It has been demonstrated that children in afterschool programs show greater interest in school, learn new skills, exhibit improved behavior and get better grades than their peers. Afterschool programs also build stronger communities by involving our students, parents, business leaders and adult volunteers in the lives of our young people, thereby promoting positive relationships among children and adults. In America today, more than 28 million children have parents who work outside the home. As many as 15 million of these children have no place to go after school and consequently are missing out on important opportunities to learn and grow. Two-thirds of Americans say that it is difficult to find programs in their communities and that not enough programs are available. In our work on the Senate Afterschool Caucus, Senator Ensign and I have been working for more than a year to impress upon our colleagues the importance of afterschool and are proud to say that 34 of our colleagues have joined the Caucus to date. We hope that they, along with other Members of the Congress, will join us on October 12th to celebrate the importance of afterschool programs in their communities back home.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank our colleague from Arkansas for her eloquent comments both about rural America as well as on our wonderful friend, Ann Richards. I want to add my voice of condolence to her family and friends, not only in Texas but across this great country of ours, because she had friends that reached all across this land of ours--in fact, beyond the shores of the United States in her work after she left public life, working in the private sector as a great representative of a number of interests, including some that were offshore. She was a remarkable person, and Senator Blanche Lincoln has captured her very, very well. There are so many things I remember about her. She was a strong-willed woman. She had definite and clear views, and she was not shy about expressing them to you. But she probably had one of the best senses of humor of anyone I ever met in American politics. She could make you laugh. She could take a situation and bring up an anecdote or a story to make her point that would bring the house down. Regardless of your point of view, Ann Richards had a gift to communicate with the American public like few other people I have ever met in public life. And it was a gift because she did so many good things with her talents. Both as the State Treasurer of Texas and as Governor of that State, I got to know her very well, when I was the general chairman of the Democratic National Committee. She was a tremendous source of help to me in those years of 1995 and 1996 when I was campaigning and supporting Democrats across the country. But her politics transcended partisan politics. She was beloved and admired and cared for by people of all political stripes and colors in this country. She will be sorely missed. But as Senator Lincoln said, the memories of her are going to linger on for an awful long time. Every time you mention her name, a smile comes to your face because she brought many smiles many times on the countless occasions I heard her address audiences across the country. I thank Senator Lincoln and others who have spoken about her. I do not have prepared remarks, but I just wanted to express my feelings about this wonderful person.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to spend a couple minutes talking about Darfur as well. I know my colleague from Kansas addressed this issue. I know my colleague, Senator Durbin, as well, has been working on this issue for a long time. Many of us have been watching this situation. Senator Barack Obama, I know, cares about this issue. And many members of the Foreign Relations Committee have talked about it. We heard Senator Boxer, a moment ago, talk about her deep concern. There is a tremendous amount of interest about what is happening and great concern. It is the moral responsibility of nations around the globe to help end the genocide in Darfur. Even as we speak here this afternoon, in the closing days of this week's work, we are moving backwards in Sudan. Earlier this week, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan sounded the warning that Darfur is about to enter a new phase of needless bloodshed and suffering on a catastrophic scale. I do not think we ought to let this happen. It is not just our responsibility but certainly the United States should and can take a leadership role here in marshaling the forces to stop the events as they unfold to these poor, poor people who are caught in this dreadful situation. The blame lies squarely, of course, first and foremost, with the Sudanese Government's intransigence and murderous Darfur policy. Since February of 2003, when rebel groups attacked government outposts, the Sudanese Government has used the janjaweed militia to systematically decimate tribal groups of African descent in Darfur. The warfare has exacted a tragic toll. Men, women, and children have been slaughtered in front of their families. Women and girls are regularly raped. Entire villages are routinely destroyed and property looted by marauding militias. Estimates suggest that the conflict in Darfur has killed as many as 300,000 people and driven 2.5 million people out of their homes. The United States has rightly labeled the Sudanese Government's actions ``genocide.'' I remember, with great clarity, former Secretary of State Colin Powell appearing before a Senate committee on which I served calling the actions in Darfur genocide, loudly and clearly. And I commend him for it. He was one of the earliest voices to do so. We know what the word ``genocide'' means and its full ramifications. Yet there was a glimmer of hope for the violence to end in May of this year with the conclusion of a peace agreement brokered in large part by the United States. The agreement called for a cessation of hostilities between the Sudanese Government and one of three major rebel groups in Darfur. But it is time to face the facts in Darfur. The peace is over. In fact, it never really had a chance. Hostilities between the government and the other two rebel groups never ended and are heating up again fast in that part of the world. Thousands of Sudanese troops are massing for a fresh offensive against rebel groups. The International Rescue Committee has noted an upswing in sexual violence around refugee camps. Meanwhile, from the very beginning, the Sudanese Government has thrown up obstacle after obstacle after obstacle in the path of the African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur. A New York Times report earlier this week describes these obstacles and the mission's lack of funding and authority in Darfur. A telling example is that every evening, the African Union soldiers have to turn over control of the main military airstrip in Darfur to government troops. These troops steal jet fuel from the mission and use the strip to launch attack helicopters while the African Union troops stand by helplessly. Sudanese officials have also managed to reduce the mission's already limited patrols and humanitarian efforts in Darfur. The mission's courageous yet failing efforts to maintain the peace led the United Nations to issue Security Council Resolution 1706 on August 31 of this year. This resolution calls for the deployment of a more robust, 20,000-strong U.N. peacekeeping force. Yet precisely because such a U.N. force would have teeth, Sudan's President has rejected it on the grounds of sovereignty. This is a flimsy excuse. There are nearly 10,000 U.N. troops stationed in southern Sudan to maintain a separate peace agreement. And now the Sudanese Government has asked African Union troops to leave by September 30--a few short days from today--when the mission's mandate expires, unless they are able to raise additional funds. It is all too clear that the Sudanese Government is not interested in peace in Darfur. And why should it be? Sudan has friends like Russia and China who place a far greater premium in their commercial interests in the Sudan rather than on their responsibility to stop this genocide. In 2005, China purchased more than half of Sudan's oil exports, and is one of its largest suppliers of arms. Both countries, Russia and China, abstained in the most recent vote on deploying U.N. troops. They continued to give political cover to the Sudanese Government. Yet it is also clear that the United States and the international community have a responsibility to protect and prevent genocide in Darfur. The world's heads of state affirmed this precise commitment last September as part of the Outcome Document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. The document calls on the international community to protect people from ``genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity'' on a case- by-case basis should their own governments fail to do so. What could be more clear? What could be more precise? What could be more important for us to respond to? The case for Darfur is painfully clear. And yet a year after making this commitment, we and the rest of the international community are already on the verge of reneging on it. Our ability to act remains hostage to a government that continues to perpetrate terrible crimes on its own people. Yet instead of tightening the screws on this government, our administration, the administration here in the United States, unfortunately, is not doing what it ought to be doing. We are dangling the incentives of talks with President Bush before the Sudanese President in exchange for his accepting a U.N. force. It is almost unbelievable. The administration refuses to talk directly to Iran and North Korea about their nuclear programs. And yet here it is bandying Presidential talks with the head of a regime that our own Government has declared guilty of genocide. This is typical, unfortunately, of the administration's bumbling approach to diplomacy. It simply does not know when to talk and when to brandish the stick. Clearly, the stick is necessary here. Days and hours stand between us and an incredible mass of genocide. The fact is, we need to take a harder approach on Sudan. So what can we do from here on? How do we ratchet up the pressure on the Sudanese Government and get it to stop? First, I think the United States needs to expedite the appointment of a special envoy to Darfur. Let me add, by the way, Senator Brownback mentioned Bob Zoellick. He did a fantastic job, by the way, but he is out of government now. He is in the private sector. Unfortunately, we do not have a Bob Zoellick within the administration right now who understands it and cared about this issue to the extent he did. But I believe there are people who could be asked to perform this appointment of a special envoy from the United States. That might be enough in the short term, to begin to put the brakes on. I recently joined colleagues in sending a letter to President Bush calling for his immediate attention. With the departure of Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick, who played a very important role in negotiating the May peace agreement, a vacuum has emerged that needs to be immediately filled to ensure a coordinated, focused, and effective policy. Our Assistant Secretary of State for African affairs was made to wait 3 days--3 days--before meeting with Sudan's President, only to hear him reject the U.N. force. This special envoy must be someone of greater stature and seniority who can command an audience and forcefully convey a message. Moreover, the envoy and President Bush himself must, in concert with our allies, publicly reject Sudan's demand that African Union troops leave and insist on the deployment of U.N. forces. Secondly, the United States needs to convince states like China and Russia and the Arab League to apply pressure on the Sudanese Government to accept a U.N. peacekeeping force. Unless Sudan feels the heat from its business partners and friends, my fear is they will not budge. Thirdly, the United States needs to ensure that the United Nations moves forward with deploying a peacekeeping force. Should Sudan continue to put up a wall, then I think we must implement a tight sanctions regime against the Sudanese Government, rebel forces, and others responsible for the atrocities that are being committed there. We must also consider deploying troops regardless of Sudanese consent. For many this may raise a red flag, but, again, it is an international commitment and a moral obligation agreed to under U.N. auspices. Should the U.N. fail to rapidly muster the requisite troops, I believe we ought to deploy an interim NATO force with U.S. participation to Darfur. At a minimum, NATO forces, which already provide logistical support to the African Union mission, should enforce a no-fly zone in Darfur pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1591 to prevent military flights over Darfur. U.S. participation, even in a limited capacity, is critical to showing the world that the U.S. is not just about fighting terrorism when it serves our interests but also about fighting injustice, terrorism and mass murder when it affects others far away from us; that the U.S. will fight for the principles of respect for human dignity and life, and not just lecture others about them. Fourth, despite this administration's absurd rejection of International Criminal Court, the ICC can and must play a critical role in bringing to justice those responsible for committing genocide in Sudan. Last March, Darfur became the first-ever case to be referred by the U.N. Security Council to the International Criminal Court for investigation. The U.S. unconscionably abstained on this vote. My country abstained. When it comes to conducting an investigation of the Sudanese Government for what our own Secretary of State has called genocide, we abstained. And we wonder why public opinion of the United States around the world is dipping. One reason is because the administration talks the talk but does not walk the walk when it comes to upholding our Nation's principles. From military tribunals that don't allow due process of law to warrantless surveillance, the administration simply thinks it is above domestic and international law. Its doublespeak continues to squander our country's political and moral authority. The U.S. needs to lend its full support to the ICC's efforts to bring to justice those found guilty of genocide in Sudan. Mr. President, 12 years after Rwanda--and I am glad my colleague from California raised Rwanda, and Senator Brownback has as well, along with others in this body--we remain haunted by the massacre which occurred. Former President Bill Clinton publicly expressed his deepest regret at the U.S. and the international community's collective inaction to stop the killings in Rwanda. Twelve years from now, none of us in this body or the administration want to be forcing the same regrets about Darfur. Yet, if we fail that--and it is not a matter of weeks or months, it is a matter of hours--then the very kinds of genocidal mass murder that occurred in Rwanda will continue to occur in Darfur and grow worse. Sudan has been wracked by four decades of violence and instability. The scars of that war cut deep throughout their country. Currently, it is experiencing what the U.N. has described as the world's greatest humanitarian crisis. We stood by during Rwanda. We cannot stand by this time. We must not let history repeat itself. We must act. The international community has a responsibility to protect and the U.S. must lead by example. Let us not fail this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, at this moment in history our Nation faces enormous challenges from terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Israel and the occupied territories, Sudan's Darfur region, Iran, North Korea, Syria, HIV/AIDS, global health generally, climate change, energy security, and the list seems endless. These are all important issues that call out for important action and leadership from the United States. America's capacity to respond to this global clarion call has been seriously circumscribed, in my view, by the Bush administration's preemptive war of choice in Iraq--circumscribed militarily, politically, and economically. The options have become fewer since March 19, 2003, as the world has become more dangerous, and the reputation and global standing of the United States has become weaker. Our friends know this. More importantly, so do our adversaries, apparently. That is why it is imperative that we make the most of the options still available to respond to these challenges. Diplomacy is one of the few options that remain available with a reasonable political and minority pricetag. As John Kennedy said so eloquently more than 45 years ago, this Nation should never fear to negotiate but never negotiate out of fear. It is going to take effective and pragmatic diplomacy to build the kinds of international partnerships and coalitions to address the challenges that confront us so that America can feel safe and be safer and more secure. While the United Nations isn't the only forum for the conduct of that diplomacy, it is very clear that President Bush has placed much more reliance on the United Nations Security Council in his second term in office than he certainly did in the first. Be it Iran, North Korea, Darfur, or Lebanon, the United States has turned to the Security Council to respond to humanitarian crises and other threats to international peace and stability. That is why, more than at any other time in recent years, since the founding of the United Nations, that it matters who sits in the United States chair on that Council. In my view, Mr. John Bolton does not fit the bill. Based on information developed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last year from unprecedented committee testimony by former Assistant Secretary of State Carl Ford and more than 30 staff interviews of then-current and former colleagues of Mr. Bolton in the Bush administration--in the Bush administration, I might add--the Senate made the decision not to act on that nomination. Carl Ford and 12 of those interviewed were extremely critical of Mr. Bolton, including retired COL Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Secretary Powell; Thomas Fingar, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research; former Deputy Director of the CIA, Stuart Cohen; and Robert Hutchings, former acting head and head of the National Intelligence Council, respectively; and Jamie Miscik, former Deputy Director of Intelligence at the CIA. These are not light people; these are serious people, all of whom served in the Bush administration. Here is what some of them had to say about this nomination. Again, these were Bush appointees, people who served in the Bush administration. Listen to Carl Ford, the Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Mr. Bolton is a ``quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy.'' Mr. Bolton has ``a bigger kick and it gets bigger and stronger the further down the bureaucracy he's kicking.'' Mr. Bolton is a ``serial abuser.'' I have never seen anyone quite like Secretary Bolton-- doesn't even come close. I don't have a second and third or fourth in terms of the way that he abuses his power and authority with little people. I consider myself to be a loyal Republican and conservative to the core. I'm a firm and enthusiastic supporter of President Bush and his policies, and I'm a huge fan of Vice President Cheney, who I worked with when he was Secretary of Defense. With respect to the Bolton's treatment of Westermann, Mr. Ford went on: The attitude, the volume of his tone, and what I understand, the substance of the conversation, he was so far over the line that he meets--he's one of the sort of memorable moments in my 30-plus-year career [in public service for the Federal Government.] Again, this is a Bush appointee about whom we are talking. Listen further. Larry Wilkerson, lieutenant colonel, chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell in a telephone interview, Lieutenant Colonel Wilkerson said: Do I think John Bolton would make a good ambassador to the United Nations? Absolutely not. He is incapable of listening to people and taking into account their views. He would be an abysmal ambassador. Listen further to Mr. Wilkerson: I differ from a lot of people in Washington, both friend and foe of Under Secretary Bolton, as to his ``brilliance.'' I didn't see it. I saw a man who counted beans, who said ``98 today, 99 tomorrow, 100 the next day,'' and had no willingness--and, in many cases, no capacity--to understand the other things that were happening around those beans. And that is just a recipe for problems at the United Nations. Lastly, Mr. McLaughlin, Deputy Director of the CIA, responding to a question as to whether other policymakers had sought to remove CIA analysts: No. This is the only time I had ever heard of such a request . . . I reacted strongly to it. I didn't think it was appropriate. I will return to that particular point in a few minutes, this idea of attempting to fire intelligence analysts. These are just some of the quotes, again, of people who served in the Bush administration commenting on the nomination of John Bolton to be our ambassador to the United Nations. There have been some excellent U.S. representatives to the United Nations over the years: Henry Cabot Lodge, Adlai Stevenson, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, or former colleague Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Richard Holbrooke, just to name a few. Each and every one of these individuals possessed a certain skill and ability to work with others, our adversaries as well as our friends, in order to stretch the U.N. as an institution in ways that supported U.S. interests. None of them were shrinking violets, to put it mildly. It is very clear that Mr. Bolton does not possess that skill set. Over the years, Mr. Bolton evidenced great skepticism and disdain for the United Nations and multilateral diplomacy generally. Nothing he has said or done since assuming his current position in New York suggests that he has altered his views on the United Nations or on multilateral diplomacy generally. Once again, it is those who have worked most closely with him who are his biggest critics. More than 30 ambassadors with whom Mr. Bolton serves at the United Nations--all supportive of U.N. reform--questioned his leadership abilities. In a July 21, 2006, New York Times article, one U.N. colleague characterized Mr. Bolton as ``intransigent and maximalist.'' Another suggested that Mr. Bolton's ``high ambitions are cover-ups for less noble aims, and oriented not at improving the United Nations, but at belittling and weakening it.'' A third has essentially written off working with Mr. Bolton. ``He's lost me as an ally now, and that's what many other ambassadors who consider themselves friends of the United States are saying.'' Mr. Bolton's response to a question posed by Senator Coleman at his July nomination hearing was stunning to me. Our colleague, Norm Coleman, asked the following question: Mr. Coleman. You knew the organization, you were involved in it, then you were on the outside. Now you're there. Is there--has your impression of the U.N. changed? Has there been anything that surprised you in the last year? Mr. Bolton. Not really. That is a response of an individual who is so entrenched in his views that he is incapable of the kind of openness and flexibility that I think most in this Chamber believe is essential if the United Nations Security Council is going to be made to work to serve our interests around the globe. Mr. Bolton clearly has an aversion to being diplomatic. He has even been called a bully by some of his harshest critics. Mr. Bolton's personality is really not the issue as far as I am concerned. There are a lot of bullies in this town, and I suspect in New York as well. My objection isn't that he is a bully, but that he has been an ineffective bully. He can't win the day for the United States when it really counts. He isolates the United States rather than builds consensus around U.S. positions. Mr. Bolton showed his colors, in my view, as soon as he arrived in New York after receiving his recess appointment last August 2005. After the U.S. mission had worked for months to negotiate a 2-year reform effort that was to be endorsed by President Bush and other heads of State 2 weeks later, Mr. Bolton almost destroyed the consensus around the document by tabling 705 separate amendments to the text. It took the involvement of the President of the United States and the Secretary of State to cobble the agreement back together at the last minute at a price of losing some of the provisions that the United States had sought be included with respect to management reforms. The Bush administration has made the ongoing crisis in Darfur a key concern. Yet when in June of this year members of the Security Council visited the Sudan to send a signal to the Government of Khartoum that it was on the wrong track, Mr. Bolton thought it more important to travel to London to deliver a U.N. bashing speech to a private think tank rather than join his colleagues on a visit to Sudan and carrying on a message of how important we think the genocidal behavior is. On another occasion, prior to a vote last July on a U.N. Security Council resolution intended to sanction North Korea for its provocative Fourth of July missile launches, Mr. Bolton publicly assured anyone who would listen that he could get support for a resolution with teeth, with the so-called chapter 7 obligations. It turns out he couldn't. The resolution adopted by the U.N. Security Council fell far short of that. Last September, Mr. Bolton told the House International Relations Committee that the negotiation of an effective Human Rights Council was a key objective of the United States and that it was a ``very high priority, and a personal priority of mine.'' There were 30 negotiating sessions held to hammer out the framework of this new Human Rights Council, and Ambassador Bolton managed to attend just one or two of those sessions. In the end, the United States was one of four countries to vote against the approval of the U.N. Human Rights Council. When the tally is taken on how effective Mr. Bolton has been at the U.N., in my view he gets a failing grade overall. These are key positions that help to strengthen the United States, and yet in case after case, from reform, to Darfur, to North Korea, to the U.N. Human Rights Council--critical issues to strengthen the United States--our ambassador has failed in getting the kind of results that are critically important. But there is more. On the basis of those issues, I urge my colleagues to vote against Mr. Bolton, but I am going to go a step further because I believe other actions taken by Mr. Bolton are so outrageous that Mr. Bolton does not even deserve a vote, in my view. There is Mr. Bolton's well-documented attempts to manipulate intelligence to suit his world view and seek the removal of at least two intelligence analysts who wouldn't play ball. When these analysts refused to support intelligence conclusions not supported by available intelligence, Mr. Bolton mounted a concerted effort to have them fired. The fact they were not removed does not excuse his actions. I don't mind a heated debate. I don't mind people having serious disagreements with conclusions. But when you attempt to fire lower level employees who are responsible for gathering intelligence for the United States because you don't like their results, that is dangerous business indeed. I do not care in which administration you may serve. Any individual, in my view, who attempts to doctor evidence to fire people whose conclusions they disagree with when it comes to intelligence gathering does not deserve to be promoted to the high position of ambassador to the United Nations. His behavior, in my view, endangers our national security because it goes to the very heart of what we depend upon to protect that security--unbiased professional intelligence collection and analysis. Mr. Bolton stepped away and he stepped over the line and committed an offense so grievous, in my view, it warrants that this Senate deny him an up-or-down vote on his nomination. In concluding, Mr. President, I return to the point I made earlier; namely, that Mr. Bolton has largely burned his bridges with his colleagues in New York and is not likely to be an effective diplomat when his diplomacy is increasingly becoming the coin of the realm in protecting and advancing U.S. interests at this very unstable moment in this country. Fifty nine former U.S. Ambassadors and diplomats who have served in five administrations, Democratic and Republican, agree. Yesterday, they sent a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee strongly opposing this nomination--59 former U.S. Ambassadors. I mentioned earlier the number of people in the Bush administration who are outspokenly critical of this nomination. What more do we need to hear, what more do we need to hear that this is a bad nomination and one that is going to jeopardize the interests of the United States? Those Ambassadors recognize, as do I, that at this critical moment in our Nation's future, the President should put the Nation's interests first and nominate an individual with strong diplomatic skills who believes in diplomacy rather than placating his conservative base by continuing to push for the nomination of an unsuitable nominee. I believe it is time for the Senate to send that message loudly and clearly to the President by rejecting efforts to ramrod this nomination through in the closing days of this session. I urge my colleagues to join me in strongly opposing this nomination. Mr. President, I yield floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a gifted musician, successful entrepreneur, devoted wife and mother, constituent, and friend, Helen Armstrong, who passed away on April 28 of this year. Helen was an international virtuoso violinist who dedicated her life to enriching the lives of others through music. Helen Armstrong was born on March 16, 1943, in Rockford, IL. Her career as a violinist began at the age of 3. Before long, she was enrolled at the Juilliard School where she quickly caught the eye of renowned instructors Ivan Galamian and Dorothy DeLay. She was among the select few chosen to study under them in pursuit of a solo career. Other violinists in this group include Helen's childhood friend Yitzhak Perlman and Pinchas Zuckerman. In 1976 Helen made her Lincoln Center debut and went on to perform with various orchestras including the Boston Pops, the Indianapolis Symphony, and the New Polish Philharmonic. She has also toured North America, Europe, and Asia as a recitalist. But Helen Armstrong was not content to be a successful and highly accomplished musician. She was also an entrepreneur and philanthropist who brought music into the lives of others through performance and education. She founded Armstrong Chamber Concerts, Inc. and served as its artistic director for more than 22 years. What began one summer as a way to lure musicians out of New York City to perform in Helen's home in Washington, CT became a thriving enterprise encompassing performance series in Litchfield and Fairfield counties as well as Carnegie Hall recitals, corporate events, and educational programs in schools in Connecticut and New York City. At the heart of ACC is Helen's artistic vision to broaden public interest in chamber music through performance and education, and its primary focus has been to bring musical education to public and private schools through its unique Students' Music Enrichment Program. Over 100,000 students have benefited from this program thanks to Helen Armstrong's remarkable vision an dedication to this cause. One of the most noteworthy examples of Helen's benevolent spirit were her performances at a prison in Danbury. She counted those performances as some of her most rewarding outreach experiences, and said the music made the inmates feel that life was worth living. Helen dedicated her life to spreading her love of classical music, and she has touched the lives and hearts of countless citizens, including my own. I had the privilege of seeing Helen perform, and was truly captivated by her immense talent and passion. Her performance moved me to act as an honorary chairperson of the concert series she organized, and I am honored to have been associated with her organization. Helen Armstrong was a remarkable woman in several respects. Along with her accomplishments as a solo violinist and founder of a successful nonprofit chamber music organization, she was a devoted wife, mother, and grandmother. She was widowed by her first husband, Alan Cohen, in 1978. Despite this terrible loss, Helen continued to promote ACC's mission and to perform while raising her two children. After a long relationship, she married Ajit Hutheesing in 1996. In addition to him, she is survived by her children Debbie and David, her grandchildren Brenden, Tyler, and Cailey, her sister Nancy, and her brother Robert. I offer my deepest condolences to all of them. They have lost a beloved member of their family. Helen's great talent and generous spirit will be sorely missed by them and countless others.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a former colleague and dear friend, Robert Giaimo, who passed away on May 24 of this year. He served the people of Connecticut and the United States as a Member of the House of Representatives for more than 20 years, and I want to speak to my colleagues today about the life and legacy of this dedicated public servant. Bob Giaimo was born in North Haven, CT on October 19, 1919, son of the late Rose and Rosario Giaimo. He attended North Haven public schools, and graduated from Fordham University before receiving his law degree from the University of Connecticut in 1943. During World War II, Bob served as a commissioned officer in the United States Army. When he returned, he served as the chairman of the State of Connecticut Personnel Appeals Board, as a member of the North Haven Board of Education, North Haven Board of Finance, and as third selectman of the town of North Haven. Bob Giaimo's public service culminated with his tenure in the House of Representatives. Elected in 1958, Congressman Giaimo represented Connecticut's third congressional district until his retirement in 1980. During his eleven terms in office, Representative Giaimo served as a member of the House Education and Labor Committee between 1959 and 1963, and went on to serve on the House Appropriations Committee. When the House Committee on the Budget was established in 1974, Representative Giaimo was elected to serve as a member, and was elected chairman of that committee in 1979. He was the first Connecticut Democrat and the first Connecticut Member of Congress since 1931 to chair a congressional committee. One of Congressman Giaimo's greatest legislative achievements was undoubtedly his 1965 sponsorship of the bill that created the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, separate grant-making agencies that support our nation's painters, sculptors, writers, poets, and historians, among others. His dedication to this legislation has made an enormous contribution to America's cultural heritage. When I was elected to Congress in 1975, Bob was already a senior member of the House. But he very graciously took an interest in showing this newcomer the ways of that institution. With me, as with all who knew him, Bob was a public figure who led by example. Never one to seek the spotlight, Bob remained dedicated to the working families, the poor, the elderly, and others who cannot afford to buy a voice in Washington and who instead rely on their elected officials to look out for them in the corridors of power. The quality and caliber of this leadership will be missed and continues to inspire those of us who knew him and who serve in public life. My wife Jackie and I offer our deepest condolences to his wife Marion, his daughter Barbara, and his granddaughter Tracey. They have lost a beloved member of their family. And the people of Connecticut and our Nation have lost a dedicated public servant and an exceptional man. I was honored to attend Representative Giaimo's memorial service on June 1, and found the eulogy, delivered by Reverend Hugh MacDonald, to be particularly moving. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the eulogy be printed in the Record. Eulogy: Robert Giaimo (Reverend Hugh MacDonald, June 1, 2006) The great cathedrals of Europe are a glorious part of our Christian heritage--towering testimonials to an Age of Faith. But anyone who now visits these sublime buildings soon realizes that they also have a history as cemeteries for the celebrated. Whether interred in the basement crypts or encased in magnificent tombs scattered around the sanctuary and aisles, the famous dead almost vie for attention with our living worship. My personal favorite among cathedral tombs is in the Cathedral of Saint Richard in the city of Chichester on the southern coast of England. In the north aisle of that elegant church is a massive stone sepulcher containing the remains of the fourteenth-century Earl of Arundel and his countess. Side by side, atop the monument, lie their carved stone likenesses. A famous warrior, he is clad in medieval armor, and his feet rest up on a lion--the symbol of bravery. On his right, his wife is shown in nun-like robes, her feet resting on a small dog--symbol of fidelity. Purely as sculpture, the Arundel tomb is not all that impressive, and six centuries have blurred the once precise details of the carved faces. But what finally rivets your attention is their hands! The universal custom in pious monument-sculpture is for the hands to be stiffly folded on the chest, pointing heavenward in a gesture of everlasting prayer. Not so with the Arundels! His left arm lies at his side, and in that left hand he holds the empty glove (or gauntlet) for his right hand. So, immediately your eyes seek out that right hand. His right arm is also relaxed at his side, and the hand is thus concealed by the overlapping folds of the countess's robe as she lies beside him. But if you go to the foot of the monument and stoop down a bit, you can discover their touching secret. Under the carved armor and the pleated dress, their hands are clasped in tender love! I find that detail enormously moving. We know almost nothing now about the once famous exploits of this heroic earl and nothing whatsoever about his wife. And in the cathedral that houses their bones, the centuries have witnessed violent religious wars and the cruel ravages of time. But through it all and despite it all, those clasped hands are a reminder of what is noblest in our lives and in our legacy. The poet Philip Larkin put it beautifully in the final line of his meditation on the Arundel tomb when he wrote: ``What will survive of us is love.'' Those words sprang to my mind on Monday after I had talked on the phone with Barbara about the shining love her parents shared. Robert and Marion were married here at Saint Barnabas sixty-one years ago. Sadly, poor health prevents Marion from being here with us this morning for this Mass of Christian Burial. But in fact every celebration of the Eucharist reminds us that nothing can truly separate us from our love of the Lord or our love of each other. Not miles or years or even death! Love is always present tense, and love never comes to an end!! Clearly, what God asks of us is not just theoretical love, love-in-the-abstract. Not at all! God challenges you and me to flesh out our love in acts of living prayer and lives of authentic service. Unless our hands are clasped in love, nothing else really matters. Robert Giaimo understood that challenge, and he lived that faith with sincerity and simple conviction. Harry Truman (God bless him!) once said that the politicians of his era used to pour God over everything--like ketchup! (By the way, I don't know what President Truman would have to say about the current level of religiosity in our political discourse, but I for one would dearly love to hear it!!!) But Bob Giaimo's faith was never showy or self- congratulatory. He didn't preach sermons, he just served people. This was a man who regularly walked the corridors of power, but never forgot his roots, his heritage, his humanity. His towering stature made him an imposing presence, but his genuine humility made him a caring person and a lasting friend. And, of course, a deeply devoted husband, father, and grandfather. The pulpit is not a place to assess his political achievements, but I can't resist a heartfelt ``Thank you!'' to the man who was so influential in creating the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. He firmly believed that the arts not only enrich our lives but actually instruct us how to live. (That's one of the reasons I began this eulogy with that Arundel anecdote.) Our brother has now passed beyond our sight but not at all beyond our reach. He is quite literally only a prayer away. And on each day of our continuing journey of faith, he will continue through the power of his prayer to reach into our lives: to touch us, to lead us, to help us. Because, for Robert Giaimo it has always been quite personal! And isn't that precisely the point Jesus is making in today's gospel selection? Notice the Lord did not say to His anxious Apostle: ``Thomas, I will show you the way, I will teach you the truth, I will give you life.'' No: it's absolutely personal. ``Thomas, I AM the Way and the Truth and the Life.'' No one was ever saved by words or rituals, by laws or creeds. We are saved by the powerful Person of the Lord, and we show our acceptance of that great gift by cherishing all the precious people who share our journey. So, when all is said and done, Bob Giaimo's gift to us was not a legacy of laws but of loving service. Power passes, and fame is fleeting. ``What will survive of us is love.''

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my serious concerns with a bill before this body, H.R. 5970, that unnecessarily links a long-overdue increase in the minimum wage and a broadly-supported package of tax extenders to an unaffordable and irresponsible cut in the tax on multimillion-dollar estates. This so-called ``trifecta'' bill sends a clear message to the American people about the priorities of the leadership on the other side of the aisle--priorities that are badly out of step with the needs of ordinary Americans. Many of us in this body support fiscally responsible reform of the estate tax. But compared to most reasonable proposals, the one in this bill would cost nearly twice as much, while adding very little additional value. Over the last several years, the number of Americans affected by the estate tax has fallen dramatically as the exemption level has been raised. In 2000, with an exemption of $675,000, there were 50,000 taxable estates. That number has fallen to only 13,000 today, with the exemption level now standing at $2 million for an individual and $4 million for a couple. In 2009, the exemption will rise to $3.5 million--or $7 million for a couple--and only 7,000 estates will be subject to the tax. These 7,000 taxable estates represent the largest three-tenths of 1 percent of estates in America, all of which exceed $3.5 million in size. By 2009, only this small fraction will owe even a cent under the estate tax. Compared to current or 2009 rates, this ``trifecta'' bill would provide a tax cut for only the largest 8,200 estates in the country. And the average size of the tax benefit received by each of these estates would be $1.4 million. Out of a nation of 300 million people, only the wealthiest 8,200 would gain from this bill's estate tax proposal, but it would cost the American people $753 billion over the first decade alone once it has been fully phased in. The leadership on the other side of the aisle knows that this body would rightly reject such a gratuitously irresponsible proposal if it were offered as a stand-alone bill. So the majority leader in this body and his counterparts in the House of Representatives have decided, in what amounts to political blackmail, to attach this estate tax measure to a moving vehicle, the package of tax extenders that includes provisions like the research and development tax credit that supports innovation by America's businesses, the tax deduction for college tuition that helps students and their families pay for the skyrocketing cost of higher education, and the tax deduction for teacher classroom expenses, among many other important items. In effect, the supporters of this ``trifecta'' bill have decided to hold hostage these important tax provisions, which benefit families and businesses across the income spectrum, to an estate tax measure that, on its own, would otherwise be rejected. And in a misguided attempt to ``sweeten the deal'' or provide political cover, they have added a provision to raise the minimum wage that, itself, is flawed due to the wage cut it would force upon many employees who earn their pay through tips. Many of us in this body have been fighting for years to increase the minimum wage, only to have our efforts blocked repeatedly. America's lowest-wage workers have waited far too long for a raise--it has been 10 years, almost to the day, since this body last voted to raise the minimum wage to $5.15 per hour. In the time since then, the minimum wage's real buying power has fallen to its lowest level in 51 years. For a full-time worker, a wage of $5.15 per hour translates to a yearly income of $10,700--an amount that is nearly $6,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. These are working adults, with full-time jobs, who are living in poverty. At those wages, these working Americans can barely afford housing and food. They certainly can't afford adequate health care, child care, or education needed to lift them out of a low-wage job. With gasoline prices and other energy costs rising, one wonders how people make ends meet. Unfortunately, too many are falling behind. And too often, the victims are children, whose only fault was to be born into the wrong family. More than a third of the 37 million Americans currently living in poverty are children. Through no fault of their own, these voiceless Americans live day-to-day without adequate food and shelter, forced to choose between food and rent or medicine or utilities. In my State of Connecticut, we have a population of about 3.4 million people and the perception is that we are a rich State. But we are not exempt, in Connecticut, from the scourges of poverty and hunger. In fact, more than 280,000 people in my State, many of them children, are food insecure--meaning they don't have access at all times to the food necessary to lead a healthy life. Two of the largest food banks in Connecticut provide food for more than 350,000 different people each year. Working people make up 25 percent of those using those emergency feeding programs. People are working hard and they can't even feed their families--how is this acceptable? Raising the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour would directly boost the earnings of 6.6 million working Americans. It would also indirectly benefit an estimated 8.3 million additional workers who currently earn close to $7.25 per hour and would likely see their wages rise in response to a minimum wage increase. Some of my colleagues have argued that raising the minimum wage would harm employers or reduce overall levels of employment, but study after study has shown these claims to be unfounded. A recent Gallup poll found that 86 percent of small business owners do not think the minimum wage negatively affects their business. And a substantial body of research by well-known economists finds no significant harm to overall levels of employment based on changes to the minimum wage. So while a minimum wage increase would dramatically improve the lives of millions of Americans, the potential costs would be small. America's lowest-earning working men and women desperately need a raise--even a small one. But this bill, by tying an increase in the minimum wage to a costly ``virtual repeal'' of the estate tax, has the potential to cancel out the good that would be done. By adding $753 billion to the national debt--which already stands at $8.4 trillion-- this estate tax proposal would force deep cuts in services for all Americans, regardless of income. But those who earn the least would likely be hurt the most. No one who supports raising the minimum wage or approving the bipartisan package of tax extenders should be fooled into thinking that this bill represents a serious attempt to help American workers, businesses, or taxpayers. The estate tax proposal that has been attached to these important measures is unaffordable and unnecessary. It would drive us deeper into debt with foreign creditors, force damaging funding cuts during already tight budgetary times--not to mention during a time of war--and increase the burden on our children and grandchildren of paying for our excess. For these reasons, Mr. President, I cannot support this irresponsible legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will be very brief. The majority leader is here, and my friend from Pennsylvania has very adequately--more than adequately--described the history of this legislation. It has been a journey of some time here to bring this legislation to the point we are this evening, to the final adoption unanimously by this body. I am very grateful, as well, to the chairman of our committee, Mike Enzi, who has been tremendously helpful, along with Senator Kennedy and other members of the committee who voted unanimously to report this bill out on a bipartisan basis. As the Senator from Pennsylvania has pointed out, the majority leader and minority leader have been tremendously helpful, along with the majority and minority leader staffs who have helped us on the Senate floor work through some final little knots on this bill that had to be worked out before we could bring this bill to the consideration of the full body. There are some very special people who worked very hard. The autism community is a large community. It is a diverse one. There are many points of view that have been represented by various people. It has been critically important that there has been an effort to come together. They have done that in part because of the leadership of Bob and Suzanne Wright, who played a very instrumental role, who are grandparents of an autistic child and who work tirelessly with the organization they helped found, Autism Speaks. Senator Santorum also mentioned Deirdre Imus, a constituent of mine in Connecticut, who is tenacious in her commitment to issues she gets involved in and has certainly been tenacious on this one. If there were one individual outside of the Members and staff of this body who worked so hard on this, she probably deserves it more than anyone for keeping the flame burning on this effort on behalf on the autism community. Mr. President, 1 out of every 166 children in this country are born with autism spectrum disorder. It is a growing problem, Mr. President. The problem has increased in my own State of Connecticut by close to 1,100 percent since 1993. We don't know exactly what causes this. But this bill will allow us to examine all questions--and I mean every question--arising of what may be provoking this rapid increase in autism. Clearly, our diagnosis, diagnostic efforts, are better today. But that doesn't explain to most of us why the dramatic increases have occurred. So we believe there may be other reasons out there that deserve full examination and exploration. Certainly, looking at ways to treat this issue is also critically important, how to support these families who have an autistic child. There is a tremendous amount of pressure on families who are confronted with this issue. They handle it very well, and many of these families will tell you that while one may look at it from afar as a disability, in many cases you will be amazed how many view it as somehow a blessing in a way. I know that sounds strange to many of my colleagues to hear this, but for families with autistic children, it is difficult, but it is impressive to see how well they handle this. It is inspirational to watch how many families deal with this issue. So tonight is a special night. It is late. We have major bills we have just passed on pension reform, and we are not suggesting this bill is more important than that bill in significance, but I want to tell you something. To an awful lot of families out there tonight who don't know anything about this late hour or what has happened here earlier, we are making a difference in their lives, and we may make a huge difference down the road in the lives of future children and families because we may get to the cause of this and make a difference in trying to stem the reach of autism spectrum disorder. So I am deeply proud we have been involved. We hope we can get, of course, this bill signed into law fairly quickly. But, again, I thank my colleagues. I thank, particularly, Senator Santorum, who has been terrific on this issue and who has been a chief sponsor with me, along with the other Members whom I have mentioned. In conclusion, hundreds of thousands of families across America struggle each and every day with autism spectrum disorder, ASD, one of the fastest- growing developmental disabilities in the United States. While we used to think of ASD as relatively rare, today it is diagnosed at a rate that is 10 times that of a decade ago. In my home State of Connecticut, we have witnessed an increase in diagnoses of ASD of close to 1,100 percent since 1993. What these numbers tell us is that ASD diagnoses are rising at truly alarming rates and we simply must provide more answers to all those affected by this devastating condition. As a nation, we need to support the families that are struggling to raise a child with ASD. There are many theories as to why the prevalence of ASD has increased. Some have suggested that it is a reflection of better diagnostic tools and measures. Other theories focus on genetic or environmental factors. But the fact is that when it comes to autism spectrum disorder we just don't know for certain what causes it, we don't know exactly how to diagnose it, and we don't know how best to intervene so that individuals with ASD can achieve their highest potential. It is absolutely vital that we do more for families struggling with this disorder, which is why the Combating Autism Act is so important. ASD affects as many as 6 out of every 1,000 children, and the economic cost to this country due to autism spectrum disorder is staggering. Healthcare for individuals with ASD over their lifetimes costs an estimated $35 billion per year. Schooling alone can cost as much as $100,000 each year. By 2015, the annual cost of care will be about $300 billion, but we know that this figure can be cut in half with early diagnosis, services, and intervention. As many as 40 percent of new ASD cases are identified in our schools each year, and a child is likely to be nearing his or her 10th birthday before a diagnosis is made. This means that interventions and services that could help these children achieve their full potential are not made available to them during the critical period of early development when interventions are most successful and cost-effective. As a country, we need to do a better job of diagnosing children before they start school. That means training pediatricians, early childhood educators, and day care providers to recognize the early indicators of ASD so that at-risk children are referred to specialists for diagnosis and services as early as practicable. The Combating Autism Act will promote early detection, early evidence-based interventions, and services for individuals with ASD. It also significantly increases our investment in the National Institutes of Health for autism-related research. This legislation will also reauthorize the epidemiologic surveillance programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most importantly, this legislation will mean answers for the families that have been so deeply affected by ASD. For that reason, more than any other, I am grateful that the Senate is voting to pass the Combating Autism Act today. I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Santorum, Senator Enzi, Senator Kennedy, and their staffs for their extraordinary hard work on this bill. I also wish to offer my sincere thanks and appreciation to all of the individuals who are personally affected by autism spectrum disorder--and the many advocacy groups who represent them--for their continued dedication and passionate commitment to this legislation. Without their commitment, we would not be here today on the verge of Senate passage of this critical legislation that will greatly advance our Nation's efforts to address the many issues surrounding autism spectrum disorder and to serve those per * * *

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suspect that Don Imus is so dedicated to raising awareness of this issues because of the work of his wife. That is why he does this, more than anything else. We are delighted to have both of their support and commitment to this important issue. On my own staff, I wish to thank Jim Fenton, Tamar Magarik, and Elizabeth Hoffman; Jen Vesey with Senator Santorum; Shana Christrup and Steve Northrup of Chairman Enzi's staff, and Caya Lewis with Ranking Member Kennedy's staff. We have had some wonderful people on all sides work on this, and I am pleased to recognize them and add their names to the Record.

Mr. DODD. As my colleagues are well aware, the prevalence of ASD in the U.S. is 10 times greater than a decade ago. In my own State of Connecticut, ASD diagnoses have increased by close to 1100 percent since 1993. What these numbers tell us is that ASD diagnoses are rising at truly alarming rates and we simply must provide more answer to all those affected by this devastating condition. We must also create a larger pool of experts in the field so that families can be directed to nearby specialty clinics for confirmation of diagnosis, care and services. Waiting lists at the Nation's top developmental disability centers are as long as 2 to 3 years, and families are often forced to travel far from home to receive needed care and to participate in clinical research studies. Increasing the number of trained physicians and allied health professionals who can provide a medical home for individuals with ASD will enable all those affected to receive the optimal and timely care that they deserve. It is my sincere hope and expectation that by expanding the federal response to ASD and other developmental disabilities through the Combating Autism Act, we will see improved research on ASD, including its causes, and families across America will get the services they so urgently need. In our search for the cause of this growing developmental disability, we should close no doors on promising avenues of research. Through the Combating Autism Act, all biomedical research opportunities on ASD can be pursued, and they include environmental research examining potential links between vaccines, vaccine components and ASD.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, the Claire Collier Social Security Disability Insurance Fairness Act, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send to the desk a resolution about the current outbreak of violence in Israel and Lebanon. I do so for myself, Senators Levin, Sununu, Stabenow, Chafee, and Kennedy. I know that all of us here want to see a peaceful conclusion to the current situation-- peace for Israelis and for Lebanese. The tragic deaths of 57 Lebanese civilians--37 of them children--in the village of Qana on Sunday highlight the urgency for doing so. This resolution would express the sense of the Senate that the United States and international community must work urgently with the Governments of Israel and Lebanon to achieve the following six goals: attaining a cessation in the hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel; effectuating the safe return of Israeli soldiers held in Lebanon; disarming Hezbollah, removing Hezbollah forces from southern Lebanon, and replacing those forces with Lebanese army and security forces; reaching agreement to create and deploy an international stabilization force with a robust mandate to enforce a permanent ceasefire and to fully implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559; organizing an international donors conference to solicit and ensure the provision of international resources for the reconstruction of Lebanon; and ensuring that all parties remain engaged to promote peace and security for Israel and Lebanon and the greater Middle East. I believe that it is important to mention a few points up front. As my colleagues know, the current situation began when two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that is based in Lebanon but supported by Syria and Iran. These soldiers were kidnapped from Israeli soil, and during those kidnapping operations, innocent Israelis were killed, and some northern Israeli cities were shelled with rockets. These facts are very important to remember as we consider the current situation because despite any other frustrations that some people might have with the derailed Israeli-Palestinian peace process, it wasn't Israeli actions which started the cycle of the current bloody situation in which more than 400 Israelis and Lebanese have died. I would also say unequivocally that I believe that Israel is currently acting in self-defense as a response to attacks on its soil and the kidnapping of its citizens. No country that experienced similar attacks would do anything less--certainly not the United States. And I support fully Israel's right to defend its borders and its citizens. All violent confrontations, however, must eventually come to an end-- including this one. I think what we are all hoping--Americans, Israelis, Lebanese--is that a resolution of this flare-up will come quickly and without any additional loss of innocent civilians in Lebanon or Israel, so that a climate conducive to tackling the many complex problems confronting the region can exist. Clearly, that climate does not exist at the moment while fighting is ongoing. However, long-term peace necessitates certain actions. First, I believe that an international stabilization force with real teeth to act against Hezbollah militia and any other terrorist elements will eventually need to be deployed in southern Lebanon. On this point, we must learn from the failures of the current United Nations Stabilization Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, and give any future force the size and mandate to actually fulfill its mission. Second, long-term peace will require full implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, which calls on the Lebanese Army to deploy to protect the southern border, as well as for the disarmament of Hezbollah. Long-term peace will also require Israel to cease its attacks in Lebanon, consistent with the Lebanese Government and international community's ability and willingness to stop terrorist elements from launching attacks on Israel. I would remind my colleagues that Israel withdrew voluntarily from Lebanon in 2000--a move that was recognized by the United Nations Secretary General and Security Council as fulfilling completely the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 425. To that end, I doubt very much whether Israel would like to stay in Lebanon even one day longer than is absolutely necessary to stop the terror and return Israeli citizens to safety. My belief in the need for a quick cessation of hostilities is rooted in my concern that the current violence between Israel and Hezbollah is greatly strengthening the hands of Iran and Syria. This is true especially with respect to Iran, which wants to divert international attention away from its nuclear program as well as position itself as the leader of the Arab Muslim world. Indeed, as the body counts rise, we are seeing the gulf between moderate Arab regimes and their citizens widen dramatically. At the same time, Iran's position as the main backer of Hezbollah is giving it a newfound legitimacy in the eyes of many Arabs. It is critical that we avoid these outcomes because current Iranian nuclear and regional ambitions pose a threat to Israel, to moderate Arab regimes, to the United States, and to the international community alike. Moreover, long-term peace will be impossible unless the international community gets both Iran and Syria to shut off and cut off Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. By ``shut off,'' I mean that Iran and Syria must send a clear signal to Hezbollah to stop its violent terrorist attacks against Israel. By ``cut off,'' I mean that these countries must stop financing, supplying, and providing safe haven to terrorist groups and their operatives. The international community must also send a strong message to Iran and Syria that they need to stop preventing Lebanon from deploying its army to disarm Hezbollah and protect the border. But the current situation will not begin to wind down unless, first and foremost, the Israeli hostages are released unharmed. After that, the short-term goals should be the deployment of an international stabilization force with real teeth in the south and some kind of international monitoring of land, sea, and air crossings to ensure that Hezbollah will not be rearmed by Syria and Iran. The long-term goals are obviously that U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559 is fully implemented. Full implementation of that resolution means, among other things, that an effective Lebanese Army is deployed along that country's southern border and that Hezbollah is disarmed. It is quite apparent that after decades of operational and financial support from Syria, and especially Iran, Hezbollah's military wing is currently too strong for the relatively weak Lebanese Government to deal with. So to the extent that Israeli actions weaken Hezbollah's capabilities, they also create the possibility of strengthening the Lebanese Government's hand to reign in militias and terrorists. But there might be a point of diminishing returns where Hezbollah is somewhat weakened while Iran and Syria are greatly strengthened--an outcome that it is essential to avoid. Hopefully, the combination of the current attacks against Hezbollah, a quick cessation of hostilities, and the immediate deployment--concurrent with the end of hostilities--of an international force with real teeth will make that the case. I realize that there are many voices in the Arab world who accuse the U.S. of ignoring the plight of the innocent Lebanese citizens who have been caught in the crossfire because Hezbollah militants have shamefully hidden themselves and their weapons among the civilian population. I do not believe that this is the case. And I think that the U.S. could help to prove this by organizing an international donors' conference as quickly as possible to assist the Lebanese in rebuilding their country. As I said before, I think we in Congress all share a desire to see peace in the Middle East. I would hope that once all of the steps I have talked about today come into place that the United States would take a lead role in bringing about that peace because U.S. leadership, and our active and high-level engagement, have always been an essential part of the Middle East peace process. I believe that this resolution will send a strong signal that the world needs to support the Lebanese people, respect Israel's right to defend itself, and be tough with Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria. These are the necessary signals that we need to send in order for there to truly be hope at the end of this tunnel. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I ask that the text of the resolution be printed in the Record following my remarks.