Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to remind my colleagues that October is National Spina Bifida Awareness Month and to pay tribute to the more than 70,000 Americans and their family members who are currently affected by Spina bifida--the Nation's most common, permanently disabling birth defect. Spina bifida is a neural tube defect that occurs when the central nervous system does not properly close during the early stages of pregnancy. Spina bifida affects more than 4,000 pregnancies each year, with 1,500 babies born with Spina bifida each year. There are three different forms of Spina bifida--the most severe being myelomeningocele Spina bifida, which causes nerve damage and severe disabilities. Myelomeningocele Spina bifida is diagnosed in 96 percent of children born with this condition. Additionally, 70 to 90 percent of the children born with Spina bifida are at risk of mental retardation, a condition caused when spinal fluid collects around the brain. The exact cause of Spina bifida is not known, but researchers have concluded that women of childbearing age who take daily folic acid supplements can reduce their chances of having a Spina Bifida pregnancy by up to 75 percent. Progress has been made with regard to the importance of consuming folic acid supplements and maintaining diets rich in folic acid. The September 17, 2004, edition of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publication, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, finds that 40 percent of women of childbearing age reported taking a vitamin containing folic acid every day, an increase of eight percentage points from 2003. This increase suggests a substantial positive change in behavior. Since the Food and Drug Administration decision to fortify enriched grains with folic acid, the CDC has documented a 26 percent decline in these birth defects. Despite this success, thousands of pregnancies each year continue to be affected by these preventable birth defects. Thus, increasing use of vitamins containing folic acid remains an important strategy for preventing these birth defects. Although folic acid consumption reduces the risk and incidence of Spina bifida pregnancies, we will still have babies born with Spina Bifida who need intensive care and families that need guidance and support in caring for and raising these children. As a result of this neural tube defect, most babies suffer from a host of physical, psychological, and educational challenges, including paralysis, developmental delay, numerous surgeries, and living with a shunt in their skulls in an attempt to ameliorate their condition. Today, approximately 90 percent of all babies diagnosed with this birth defect live into adulthood, approximately 80 percent have normal IQs, and approximately 75 percent participate in sports and other recreational activities. With proper medical care, people who suffer from Spina Bifida can lead full and productive lives. However, they must learn how to move around using braces, crutches or wheelchairs, and how to function independently. They are also at risk of a host of secondary health problems ranging from depression and learning disabilities to skin problems and severe latex allergies. Lifesaving breakthroughs in research, combined with improvements in health care and treatment of children with Spina Bifida, now fortunately lead many with Spina bifida to live into adulthood. However, adults with Spina bifida face many new challenges in the fields of education, job training, independent living, health care for secondary conditions, and concerns related to aging. I am grateful for my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond who, along with myself, has been working to improve the quality of life for individuals with Spina bifida with the passage of the Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities Prevention Act of 2003 and supporting increased funding for the National Spina Bifida Program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In fiscal year 2004, Congress provided a much needed $3 million in funding for the National Spina Bifida Program. I strongly urge my colleagues to support increased funding in fiscal year 2005 to ensure that the CDC has the resources necessary to prevent Spina bifida, improve quality-of-life for those living with the condition, and to deliver important public health messages to those communities most at-risk for a Spina bifida pregnancy. I want also to recognize the special work of the Spina Bifida Association of America, an organization that has helped people with Spina bifida and their families for nearly 30 years, working every day to prevent and reduce suffering from this devastating birth defect. The SBAA was founded in 1973 to address the needs of the individuals and families affected by Spina bifida and is currently the only national organization solely dedicated to advocating on behalf of the Spina bifida community. As part of its service through approximately 60 chapters in more than 125 communities across the country, the SBAA puts expecting parents in touch with families who have a child with Spina bifida. These families answer questions and concerns and help guide expecting parents. The SBAA then works to provide lifelong support and assistance for affected children and their families. Together, the SBAA and the Spina Bifida Association of Connecticut work tirelessly to help families meet the challenges and enjoy the rewards of raising their child. I would like to acknowledge and thank SBAA and the SBAC for all that they have done for the families affected by this birth defect, especially those living in my State. The Spina bifida community and our nation owe a tremendous debt to the SBAA for its work over the past three decades. I am honored to be an honorary co-chair along with Majority Leader Frist of the 16th Annual Roast for Spina Bifida to benefit the Association and its work in local communities around the country. As a nation, we have accomplished a great deal in our battle against birth defects. However, much more work remains to be done. I urge all of my colleagues and all Americans to endorse the important efforts to prevent Spina Bifida but also to support those already living with this often debilitating birth defect. Those living with Spina bifida and their loved ones deserve our utmost support. It is my hope that by recognizing National Spina bifida Awareness Month we can move closer to the laudable goal of eventually eliminating the suffering caused by this terrible birth defect.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak about the most recently passed piece of legislation; that is, the FSC/ETI tax bill that consumed a great deal of time over the last several days. I begin by congratulating Senators Grassley and Baucus who wrote a very good bill in the Senate. When that bill left the Senate, I thought that it was a very sound piece of legislation, one that not only addressed the immediate problem dealing with trade issues, but also incorporated some other good ideas that all of us believed were important to be a part of that legislation. All of them were in one way or another bipartisan amendments offered on the floor of the Senate. The legislation provided tax deductions for American manufacturers to stimulate job growth in our economy. It protected American workers' overtime provisions that had been adopted by this body and the other body on several occasions over the last year. The legislation limited the outsourcing of American jobs with the use of American taxpayer money. Senator Specter and I and 68 of our colleagues endorsed that amendment which was before the Senate. In addition, the Senate-passed bill contained an extremely important and delicate compromise worked out between the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Kentucky that would have provided financial relief to hard-pressed tobacco farmers, while at the same time establishing critical new protections for the health and safety of our children, 2,000 of whom start smoking each and every day in the United States. The Senate bill was a very good piece of legislation. It was a sensible bill and a well-crafted bill. Senators Baucus and Grassley did an outstanding job. Unfortunately, that bill is at best dimly reflected in the conference report that we voted on today. The Senate bill essentially has been mugged, if I might say, by the other body and by the administration. In its place, the Senate was asked to consider a conference report that lacks many of the provisions most important to America's small businesses and to workers. In their place, the conference report has added a number of provisions that amount to little more than sops to a variety of special interests from NASCAR to makers of ceiling fans. In the process the bill neuters the ability of Congress to make meaningful contributions to economic growth. At the same time it creates new threats to fiscal discipline, which is at an all-time low. Allow me to discuss several of these shortcomings in more detail, and to discuss other provisions that were either left out of this conference report or changed dramatically from the legislation that left this body only a few weeks ago. First, I am concerned that this bill may not achieve its central goal: lifting the European Union duties, which currently are at 12 percent and could reach as high as 17 percent. Instead of simply repealing the Foreign Sales Corporation and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion (FSC/ETI), the conference report uses House language which phases the subsidy out over two years and allows companies to receive a percentage of the subsidy based on what they export each year. We were told early on that the European Union would find the Senate language acceptable for the removal of sanctions. We were also told that the language from the other body raises serious reservations within the European Union. In last week's Washington Post, the European Union spokesman Anthony Gooch was quoted as saying: ``The export subsidy phases out of existence slowly when it should be lifted immediately.'' So here we are, about to pass a massive tax bill that is supposed to fix our FSC/ETI problem, and yet we are not even sure if it will do that job. In other words, we might have to do this all over again. The E.U. had said that the Senate-passed language would be acceptable, but had expressed concern over the House language. And here we are with a conference report with the House language. I find this baffling and deeply troubling. And while some would welcome another opportunity to pass even more special interest tax cuts in another FSC/ETI bill, this Senator would certainly not. Second, instead of meaningful, broad-based, and fiscally responsible tax relief for manufacturing here in the United States, the conference report includes a smorgasbord of special provisions. Even the administration's Treasury Secretary just last week highly criticized this legislation as including a ``myriad of special interest tax provisions that benefit few taxpayers and increase the complexity of the tax code.'' I am quoting the Secretary of the Treasury about this bill we just overwhelmingly adopted. Let me mention some of these provisions, and then ask your own constituents whether they think this is a wise use of their tax dollars. We are going to provide a $101 million tax break that would allow NASCAR racetracks to recover costs over 7 years; a $445 billion Alaska energy tax break; $42 million for film and television production; $27 million to the horse and dog racing industries. Ask your constituents whether they think these provisions are critically important at a time when we have massive deficits, whether these interests are the kinds of interests we should be including in a bill primarily designed to increase manufacturing, to limit the kinds of export problems we have as a result of trade agreements. It seems to me we have gone far afield of what we should have been doing, far afield of what the Senate did only a few weeks ago. I might point out as well that in this legislation we are not doing what we ought to be doing, and that is, of course, trying to provide some real relief for the manufacturing sector in our economy. It is a well-known fact that our manufacturing sector is hurting. The erosion of our manufacturing base is of great concern. Under the present Administration we have lost nearly 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. Just last Friday, the September unemployment numbers showed that we only added 96,000 new jobs. This is one-third the job growth of 300,000 per month that would have been achieved if job growth had occurred at the rate this average for a recovery. The September unemployment numbers also showed that we actually saw manufacturing jobs fall by 18,000--the largest drop since December, 2003. Despite this fact, this conference report weakens language that would have rewarded domestic manufacturing by giving an even bigger tax cut to companies that manufacture more of their goods in the U.S. It expands the definition of what constitutes manufacturing to include industries that hardly fall within the category of manufacturing. By diluting the definition of manufacturing and expanding this out by some 9 or 10 percent, we are going to make it harder for the very industries which are critically important to our long-term economic growth to create jobs. By expanding that definition, we have set ourselves back. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation's complex analysis of the manufacturing deduction in this bill, which they are required to do by law and which was tucked away at the end of the conference report, only slightly more than 10 percent of small businesses will be affected by these provisions. Only 10 percent of small businesses will be able to enjoy the benefits of this legislation. Since the title of this bill is a jobs bill, I would have expected more help for our smaller companies which are the biggest source of job growth in our Nation. The Joint Tax report also notes that ``the provision will result in an increase in disputes between small businesses and the IRS.'' Reasons for such a dispute ``include the complexity of the provision and the inherent incentive for small businesses and other taxpayers to characterize the activities as qualified production activities to claim the deduction under the provision.'' Just what a small business needs, a more complex Tax Code and problems with the IRS. Third, this legislation changes a major provision which was adopted in the bill as it left the Senate--a provision that stopped the use of federal tax dollars to subsidize the outsourcing of American jobs. As the author of this provision dealing with outsourcing, I am terribly disappointed that, despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of our colleagues on a bipartisan basis approved language that prohibited the use of American taxpayer money to outsource jobs outside of the United States, this provision was stripped out in the conference report. We ought to be exporting our products and our services, not jobs in this country. At a time when as many as 14 million white-collar jobs could be lost over the next 10 years from outsourcing and with 2.7 manufacturing jobs already lost in the last four years, the American people deserve a majority in Congress to stand up against the surge of outsourcing afflicting this country. The unanimous vote of the 12 conferees on the Republican side to take the outsourcing provisions out of this bill, I think, is a slap in the face of American workers. The fact we would be using Federal taxpayer money to hire someone offshore to do a job that ought to be done in the United States I think is wrong. I am for fair trade and free trade. We ought to stand up for the American worker. They are worried and concerned about their future. They are bothered about whether they are going to have enough to take care of their families' needs. Yet we found nothing wrong with continuing to have provisions in our policies that allow tax money to be used to hire people outside of this country, when jobs are needed in the U.S. We have the worst job production in almost 70 years in the U.S. We ought not to be stepping back. This bill stripped out a provision that was adopted here by a vote of 70 to 26. I think that was a great mistake. I regret that my colleagues on the conference committee sought to do that. It is no secret how much this Administration supports outsourcing. They believe, it is, in their words ``a good thing.'' They said so in the President's Economic Report to Congress this year, and they so again in this conference agreement. Fourth, the conference report does nothing to protect overtime pay. Six million citizens rely on overtime pay to provide for their families' needs. So many families are struggling to make ends meet. The cutback in overtime is an unfair burden that American workers should not have to bear. Overtime pay amounts to about 25 percent of the income of workers who work overtime. These include police officers, firefighters, nurses, and many others. Workers stripped of overtime protections will end up working longer hours for less pay. The Bush administration's overtime regulation would deny overtime protections to as many as 6 million hard-working men and women, including registered nurses, cooks, clerical workers, nursery schoolteachers, and others. Even veterans, who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, would be hurt. If they received some training as soldiers that would give the administration an excuse to classify them as ``managers'' in the civilian workforce, they could be denied overtime-- even if they resume the same job. That is an outrage. The Senate has voted against the Bush rule three times and said you should not impose that rule. The House voted twice to say don't impose that rule. Yet the conference committee sought to drop it entirely. So the Bush administration's rule on overtime will affect 6 million Americans adversely. Fifty-five categories of jobs that qualify for overtime pay are gone. That is now out, despite the fact we insisted it be part of this legislation. Fifth, the conference report breaks an agreement we made not only to protect tobacco farmers but also children. It was a bipartisan agreement that simply said that if we were to help out tobacco farmers, we were going to have FDA regulations to protect children from the life-threatening dangers of tobacco. These dangers--and the costs they pose to our nation--are enormous. By regulating tobacco products and taxing them higher, tobacco farmers are going to be adversely affected. Some tobacco--specifically tobacco made into cigar wrappers--is grown in my State. I see my colleague from North Carolina here and I know how important that issue is to her and her constituents, just as it is in Kentucky. I think they deserve help as a result of this legislation, but I also believe part of the deal here was that we were going to allow this industry to be regulated by the FDA. To strip the FDA provision out, I think, was a great mistake. I think that we will regret it. It costs us $75 billion a year in health care costs to deal with tobacco-related illnesses in America. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, tobacco use by pregnant women alone causes between $400 million and $500 million per year due to complications of low birth weight, premature births, and sudden infant death syndrome. Every day, another 2,000 kids start smoking in America, one third of whom will die prematurely. That is not speculation. That is a fact. Yet this bill stripped it out and said we would provide relief to tobacco farmers but forget about doing a better job of regulating an industry that is causing so much harm and sadness in our country because of the related illnesses and death caused by people who smoke. Sixth, the conference report is missing a provision included in the Senate bill I cosponsored, which is the Landrieu amendment. We are going to have a separate vote on that later. It is not a likely amendment that will be offered and voted on in the House. We will vote on it, but it is still not going to be included in legislation that goes to the President for signature. That was the provision that would have honored patriotic employers who continue to pay the salaries of their employees, who are members of the National Guard and Reserve and are deployed in the war on terrorism--whether it be in Afghanistan or Iraq. Employers would have been eligible for a 50-percent tax benefit for wages they paid to members of the National Guard and Reserve while on Active-Duty status. The credit would have been good up to 12 months, about the length of a standard deployment in Afghanistan or Iraq. Forty-one percent of activated Guard and Reserve take a reduction in pay when called to duty. This places a tremendous burden on their loved ones back home. Yet conferees stripped the provision out of the conference report. As my friend and colleague from Louisiana pointed out earlier, the $44 million tax credit for ceiling fans included in the conference report would have paid for 1 year of Guard and Reserve tax credits. Yet the conferees chose ceiling fans over businesses, or saving jobs for our National Guard and Reserve people. Finally, this conference report is fiscally reckless. While the offsets are likely to expire, the tax breaks are likely to be extended--if past history under this leadership is any guide. That will only add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit. We have the highest deficit in the history of our country. This is a birth tax on young children being born because we already know they bear an obligation to pay back in interest to the Federal Government a staggering amount of money. The idea we are going to have higher mortgage rates, higher car payments, and tuition costs because of mounting deficits, because $1.8 trillion of America's debt is held by nations outside of the United States--principally Japan and China. That is dangerous, in my view. This bill adds tremendously to the national debt. We are not paying for it. For all of those reasons, I think we would have been wise to wait when cooler heads prevail, and deal with what we should have been dealing with, or at least draft legislation that was the rationale for bringing it up in the first place, and deal with the trade issue. We didn't do that well in this bill. I was in a small minority to vote against this, but I believe strongly that if you think something is as wrong as this is, you have to speak out against it. For the reasons outlined here, and because we so emasculated what we did in the Senate a few weeks ago and brought back a piece of legislation that hardly resembled what we did in the Senate, I could not vote for this legislation. I hope we come back in January and reconsider some of the provisions included in this bill and do a better job on behalf of the American taxpayer and future generations of Americans. I yield the floor. For his last 5 years, Jesse's right hand on tobacco issues was David Rouzer, and David has been my senior adviser as we have worked through this buyout. At a young age, David began working on his family's tobacco farm in Johnston County, NC. He understands the stress that tobacco farmers have been under, and he has labored tirelessly to get us to this day. I made the buyout a top priority when I arrived in the Senate because our tobacco-producing communities have suffered terribly--terribly--in recent years. The rigid Government program created in the 1930s was not designed for the intense world competition of today. It was not designed to withstand the consequences of the master settlement agreement. In past years, our farmers led the world in tobacco production. Now they account for only 7 percent of flue-cured tobacco sold worldwide. The time has come to end the last of the Depression-era farm programs. Our farmers want to operate in a free market. As the U.S. market share of tobacco has slipped, the quota system, with its price supports, kept U.S. producer costs artificially high. These high prices led to tobacco imports from lower cost countries, such as Brazil and China. Under the current tobacco program formula, the decline in demand for American tobacco produced a cut in quota, the amount of tobacco a farmer can grow and sell. In just the last 5 years, the tobacco quota has been cut almost 60 percent. That is the equivalent of cutting your paycheck by 60 percent. There is not a business in America that would not take a serious hit with a 60-percent cut in revenue. And according to agricultural economists, these farm families were about to get an additional 33- percent cut in quota for the 2005 crop-year. These cuts have had profound impacts on North Carolina's tobacco communities. For almost 70 years, the U.S. Government-issued tobacco quota was something you could take to the bank, literally. Under permanent law, they could expect a yearly return on investment. Farmers used it as collateral for loans in order to put the next year's crop in the field. Families handed quota down from generation to generation. That paid the death tax as part of keeping family farms alive. Widows have counted on quota as an investment to supplement their Social Security. By buying out these quota holders, we give families the option of retiring with dignity. We give them the ability to pay off the banks for loans made against an ever-shrinking collateral. By getting the buyout done before the next quota cut, literally thousands of families in rural North Carolina will be saved from bankruptcy. Rather than having to quit the farm, this buyout gives our farmers the ability to compete in the free market, and if farmers want to continue to grow leaf, they can compete worldwide without the artificial cost increase. Many will also use this opportunity to invest in new equipment and transition to other crops. This tobacco buyout will help not only the farmers and their families, but their hard-pressed communities. It is the retailers, equipment dealers, chemical and fertilizer dealers, and a whole array of small local businesses that will also benefit from the tobacco buyout. These are the very small businesses that create the majority of new jobs in tobacco-producing States--jobs that are much needed. With our action today, we come to the end of an era in tobacco policy. We stop conceding tobacco production to countries such as China and Brazil. We stop foreclosures to thousands of farmers, and we stop the negative economic ripple effect throughout rural communities in the Southeastern States. For that, we can all be extremely proud. To those who have worked so hard on the tobacco quota buyout, on behalf of the thousands of farm families in North Carolina and throughout the Southeast, a heartfelt thank you. What has been accomplished is a legislative miracle and a monumental achievement. It has been a great privilege to work with you. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to express my deep sorrow that many of my colleagues and many millions of Americans share over the loss of Christopher Reeve a remarkable individual who, as a result of a tragic paralyzing injury that he suffered while horseback riding, dedicated his last 10 years to making a positive difference. Rather than wallowing in his own misery and sorrow, he used those 10 years to inspire and change America in terms of our attitudes and perceptions about people with such serious injuries and disabilities. I know that we will miss him very much. We have admired him immensely for his courage and dedication. I express my condolences to his family. I wish to express the deep sorrow I feel over the loss of someone I knew not terribly well, yet someone I had the pleasure of meeting on a number of occasions. Some of my colleagues, particularly Senators Harkin and Kennedy, knew him better than I and may express their own views on the subject. It was a sad day for America to lose this courageous individual. I hope his message on a number of subject matters, not the least of which was stem cell research, will be heard and that his memory and the work he was engaged in will be our work in the coming years.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there are a few of us who would like to be heard on different subject matters. Maybe we could work out some arrangement so we don't have to wait around. I have about 20 minutes to speak on the bill that was just agreed to. I know other colleagues will also request time on various matters. I will ask unanimous consent that once matters of business are finished, I be recognized for 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President. today I join my friend and colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, in support of a resolution declaring next week National Character Counts Week. Senator Demenici and I have worked together 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. In 1994, Senator Domenici and I established the Partnerships in Character Education Pilot Project and have worked regularly since then to commemorate National Character Counts Week. 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 be built with the bricks of English, math and science, but character education certainly is the mortar. Character education means teaching students about such qualities as caring, citizenship, fairness, respect, responsibility, trustworthiness, and other qualities that their community values. 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. Character education is not a separate subject, but part of a seamless garment of learning. Taking this to heart, teachers and administrators at the Ivy Drive Elementary School in Bristol, CT, incorporate the fundamentals of character education into a school wide program. In its eighth year, the Character, Assets & Resiliency Education, C.A.R.E, program integrates several pillars of character into daily lessons and special events. This year Ivy Drive chose ``swimming to success'' as their theme to build on the previous year's ``lets go fishing'' giving each child the opportunity to focus on the fundamentals of character education. Two Hartford, CT Elementary Schools, Burr Elementary and Kennelly Elementary, recently demonstrated outstanding community service through their character education program. Supervised by their teachers, students raised close to $1000 in financial support for the family of a fifth grade student who died of leukemia. In doing so, they implemented the character pillars of caring, citizenship, and diligence. The New Haven Public Schools recently implemented a 4-year character education curriculum within a pre-existing social development program. Grades K-3 experience the ``incredible years'' curriculum, focusing on social skills and peer relations through service learning, community outreach, and teacher and parent training. A total of 700 character related lessons were taught in 2003- 2004. Community service projects included visits to the central firehouse, local animal shelter and elderly care home. 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. The American public wants character education in our schools, too. Studies show that about 90 percent of Americans support schools teaching character education. As all education policy should be, character education is bi- partisan. This year we have 31 cosponsors to our resolution, cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. Character education is also actively supported by a number of national education and youth organizations including 4-H and the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. Character education can and is being incorporated into children's lives in and outside of the classroom. This measure provides a helping hand to our schools and communities to ensure those children's future 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. s. res. 462

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Gregg for taking what I hope is one of many steps in closing what most, if not all of us agree, is an egregious loophole in current law relating to student loans. In the 1980's, the Higher Education Act sought to attract more lenders to the student loan program by offering nonprofits a 9.5 percent rate on return on student loans in exchange for their participation in the program. At a time of high interest rates, it provided an assurance to nonprofits that they could make student loans and stay afloat economically. The 9.5 percent subsidy was an incentive to bring the nonprofit sector into the lending business, to offer students more options in choosing a lender. The subsidy made sense at the time. In 1993, a time when interest rates were coming down, 9.5 percent amounted to a windfall for lenders. Congress rescinded the policy but grandfathered loans already made, assuming that the volume of these loans would decline as borrowers paid them off. That assumption turned out to be wrong. Exploiting a loophole in current law, some lenders, including for- profits that have acquired nonprofits, have been rolling new loans into old accounts, sometimes for as little as a day, to qualify for the subsidy. That means that in today's market, some guaranteed a 9.5 percent profit on 3.4 percent student loans. The Federal Government is making up the 6.1 percent difference. How egregious is this practice? From January 2004 to June 2004, one bank alone amassed over $3.2 billion in 9.5 percent loans by exploiting this loophole. The General Accounting Office GAO, has found that the overall volume of loans receiving a 9.5 percent return has increased to more than $17 billion this year from $11 billion in 1995. This is money that should be going to the student loan program and the Pell grant program, not bank profits. In response to this discovery, the Department of Education has been asked to issue new rules clarifying that the practice in question is, in fact, not within the intent of current law. They have refused to do so. They claim that their hands are tied, that only Congress can close the current loophole. The GAO disagrees. In a report issued September 21, the GAO states that the Department could use less formal guidance to clarify or alter its position on the practice, or publish an interim rule that would close the loophole until a formal rulemaking process is complete. The GAO also suggests that the Department publish an emergency rule. This type of rule allows Federal agencies to skip the formal process if they believe it would be ``impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to public interest.'' The Department does not believe the current situation rises to that level. Clearly, it is against the public interest, and against the interest of the U.S. Treasury, to allow this practice to continue. According to some, the payments in question could cost the U.S. Treasury nearly $1 billion by the end of this calendar year and at least $5 billion over the next 10 years. This is money that could be used to send kids to college. Mr. President, in response to this crisis, Senator Gregg has proposed a bill to close the 9.5 percent loophole. There is just one problem with his bill. It does not close the loophole completely and it does not close the loophole permanently. The loophole should be completely and permanently closed. I applaud Senator Gregg for taking this first step. Between enactment of the change and the time that it expires next year, his bill will achieve a $285 million savings for the student loan program. If we were to shut down the loophole completely, we would achieve a $400 million savings within the same time frame. That would amount to an additional $115 million for student financial aid. In response to Senator Gregg's bill, Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to close the loophole completely and permanently. This is something that my Democratic colleagues and I have been fighting to do since last October. Unfortunately, the amendment was not accepted. Mr. President, the Pell grant maximum has remained flat for 3 years. Tuition is up. And all the while, the Federal government is giving away a $1 billion annual subsidy through 9.5 percent loans. The Federal Government is paying hundreds of million of dollars in unnecessary subsidies to student loan companies. The bill before us allows this practice to continue, even if it is to a lesser extent. I hope we will have an opportunity in the near future to take definitive action to correct this egregious short-coming in the law.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fair Access to Clinical Trials (FACT) Act. I want to begin by thanking Senator Kennedy, Senator Johnson, and Senator Wyden for joining me in introducing this legislation. Our bill will create a clinical trials registry--an electronic database--for drugs, biological products, and medical devices. Such a registry will ensure that physicians, the general public, and patients seeking to enroll in clinical trials have access to basic information about those trials. It will require manufacturers and other researchers to reveal the results of clinical trials so that clinically important information will be available to all Americans, and physicians will have all the necessary information to make appropriate treatment decisions for their patients. Events of the past several months have made it clear that such a registry is needed. Serious questions have been raised about the effectiveness and safety of antidepressants when used in children and youth. It has now become clear that the existing data indicates that these drugs may very well put children at risk. However, because the data from antidepressant clinical trials was not publicly available, it took years for this risk to be realized. In the meantime, millions of children have been prescribed antidepressants by well-meaning physicians. While these drugs undoubtedly helped many of these children, they also led to greater suffering for others. Unfortunately, antidepressants are just one example of a story that has become all too common. In the case of antidepressants, negative data might actually have been suppressed, and if this is discovered to be the case, those responsible should be dealt with harshly. However, because of what is known as ``publication bias,'' the information available to the public and physicians can be misleading even without nefarious motives. The simple fact is that a study with a positive result is far more likely to be published, and thus publicly available, than a study with a negative result. Physicians and patients hear the good news, but rarely the bad news. In the end, the imbalance of available information hurts patients. Our bill would correct the imbalance of information, and prevent manufacturers from suppressing negative data. It would do so by expanding clinicaltrials.gov, an existing registry that is operated by the National Library of Medicine (NLM). Currently, clinicaltrials.gov includes information for patients seeking to enroll in clinical trials for drugs to treat serious or life-threatening conditions. The FACT Act would expand the registry to include all trials (except for preliminary safety trials), and would also require the submission of results data. At the same time, the bill would ensure that clinicaltrials.gov continues to operate as a resource for patients seeking to enroll in trials. Our legislation would enforce the requirement to register trials in two ways. First, by requiring registration as a condition of Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, no trial could begin without submitting preliminary information to the registry. This information would include the purpose of the trial, the estimated date of trial completion, as well as all of the information necessary to help patients to enroll in the trial. Once the trial is completed, the researcher or manufacturer is required to submit the results to the registry. If they refuse to do so, they are subject to monetary penalties or, in the case of federally funded research, a restriction on future funding. It is my belief that these enforcement mechanisms will ensure broad compliance. However, in the rare case where a manufacturer does not comply, this legislation also gives the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to publicize the required information. Let me also say that any time you are collecting large amounts of data and making it public, protecting patient privacy and confidentiality must be paramount. Our legislation would in no way threaten that privacy. The simple fact is that under this bill, no individually identifiable information would be available to the public. I believe that the establishment of a clinical trials registry is absolutely necessary for the health and well-being of the American public. But I would also like to highlight two other benefits that such a registry will have. First, it has the potential to reduce health care costs. Studies have shown that publication bias also leads to a bias towards new and more expensive treatment options. A registry could help make it clear that, in some cases, less expensive treatments are just as effective for patients. In addition, a registry will ensure that the sacrifice made by patients who enroll in clinical trials is not squandered. Many patients would be less willing to participate in trials if they understood that the data are unlikely to be made public if the results of the trial are negative. We owe it to patients to make sure that their participation in a trial will benefit other individuals suffering from the same illness or condition. The problems associated with publication bias have recently drawn more attention from the medical community, and there is broad consensus that a clinical trials registry is one of the best ways to address the issue. Accordingly, the American Medical Association (AMA) has recommended the creation of such a registry, and the major medical journals have established a policy that they will only publish the results of trials that were registered in a public database before the trial began. Our legislation meets all of the minimum criteria for a trial registry set out by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. To its credit, the pharmaceutical industry has also acknowledged the problem, and has created a registry to which manufacturers can voluntarily submit clinical trials data. I applaud this step. However, if our objective is to provide the public with a complete and consistent supply of information, a voluntary registry is unlikely to achieve that goal. Some companies will provide information, but others may decide not to participate. We need a clinical trials framework that is not just fair to all companies, but provides patients with peace of mind that they will receive complete information about the medicines they rely on. The American drug industry is an extraordinary success story. As a result of the innovations that this industry has spawned, millions of lives have been improved and saved in our country and around the globe. Because of the importance of these medicines to our health and well- being, I have consistently supported sound public policies to help the industry to succeed. This legislation aims to build upon the successes of this industry, and help ensure that the positive changes to our health care system that prescription drugs have brought are not undermined by controversies such as the one now surrounding antidepressants, which is at least in part based on a lack of public information. This bill will help ensure that new and innovative medicines will be used by well-informed patients. I look forward to working with industry, physicians, the medical journals, patient groups, and my colleagues to move this legislation forward. This bill has already been endorsed by the National Organization for Rare Disorders, Consumers Union, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. I thank these organizations for lending their expertise as we crafted this legislation, and I ask that a copy of their letters of endorsement be included in the Record after this statement. Clinical trials are critical to protecting the safety and health of the American public, and for this reason, trial results must not be treated as information that can be hidden from scrutiny. Recent events have made it clear that a clinical trials registry is needed. Patients and physicians agree that such a registry is in the interest of the public health. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I am hopeful that it will become law as soon as possible.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fair Access to Clinical Trials (FACT) Act. I want to begin by thanking Senator Kennedy, Senator Johnson, and Senator Wyden for joining me in introducing this legislation. Our bill will create a clinical trials registry--an electronic database--for drugs, biological products, and medical devices. Such a registry will ensure that physicians, the general public, and patients seeking to enroll in clinical trials have access to basic information about those trials. It will require manufacturers and other researchers to reveal the results of clinical trials so that clinically important information will be available to all Americans, and physicians will have all the necessary information to make appropriate treatment decisions for their patients. Events of the past several months have made it clear that such a registry is needed. Serious questions have been raised about the effectiveness and safety of antidepressants when used in children and youth. It has now become clear that the existing data indicates that these drugs may very well put children at risk. However, because the data from antidepressant clinical trials was not publicly available, it took years for this risk to be realized. In the meantime, millions of children have been prescribed antidepressants by well-meaning physicians. While these drugs undoubtedly helped many of these children, they also led to greater suffering for others. Unfortunately, antidepressants are just one example of a story that has become all too common. In the case of antidepressants, negative data might actually have been suppressed, and if this is discovered to be the case, those responsible should be dealt with harshly. However, because of what is known as ``publication bias,'' the information available to the public and physicians can be misleading even without nefarious motives. The simple fact is that a study with a positive result is far more likely to be published, and thus publicly available, than a study with a negative result. Physicians and patients hear the good news, but rarely the bad news. In the end, the imbalance of available information hurts patients. Our bill would correct the imbalance of information, and prevent manufacturers from suppressing negative data. It would do so by expanding clinicaltrials.gov, an existing registry that is operated by the National Library of Medicine (NLM). Currently, clinicaltrials.gov includes information for patients seeking to enroll in clinical trials for drugs to treat serious or life-threatening conditions. The FACT Act would expand the registry to include all trials (except for preliminary safety trials), and would also require the submission of results data. At the same time, the bill would ensure that clinicaltrials.gov continues to operate as a resource for patients seeking to enroll in trials. Our legislation would enforce the requirement to register trials in two ways. First, by requiring registration as a condition of Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, no trial could begin without submitting preliminary information to the registry. This information would include the purpose of the trial, the estimated date of trial completion, as well as all of the information necessary to help patients to enroll in the trial. Once the trial is completed, the researcher or manufacturer is required to submit the results to the registry. If they refuse to do so, they are subject to monetary penalties or, in the case of federally funded research, a restriction on future funding. It is my belief that these enforcement mechanisms will ensure broad compliance. However, in the rare case where a manufacturer does not comply, this legislation also gives the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to publicize the required information. Let me also say that any time you are collecting large amounts of data and making it public, protecting patient privacy and confidentiality must be paramount. Our legislation would in no way threaten that privacy. The simple fact is that under this bill, no individually identifiable information would be available to the public. I believe that the establishment of a clinical trials registry is absolutely necessary for the health and well-being of the American public. But I would also like to highlight two other benefits that such a registry will have. First, it has the potential to reduce health care costs. Studies have shown that publication bias also leads to a bias towards new and more expensive treatment options. A registry could help make it clear that, in some cases, less expensive treatments are just as effective for patients. In addition, a registry will ensure that the sacrifice made by patients who enroll in clinical trials is not squandered. Many patients would be less willing to participate in trials if they understood that the data are unlikely to be made public if the results of the trial are negative. We owe it to patients to make sure that their participation in a trial will benefit other individuals suffering from the same illness or condition. The problems associated with publication bias have recently drawn more attention from the medical community, and there is broad consensus that a clinical trials registry is one of the best ways to address the issue. Accordingly, the American Medical Association (AMA) has recommended the creation of such a registry, and the major medical journals have established a policy that they will only publish the results of trials that were registered in a public database before the trial began. Our legislation meets all of the minimum criteria for a trial registry set out by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. To its credit, the pharmaceutical industry has also acknowledged the problem, and has created a registry to which manufacturers can voluntarily submit clinical trials data. I applaud this step. However, if our objective is to provide the public with a complete and consistent supply of information, a voluntary registry is unlikely to achieve that goal. Some companies will provide information, but others may decide not to participate. We need a clinical trials framework that is not just fair to all companies, but provides patients with peace of mind that they will receive complete information about the medicines they rely on. The American drug industry is an extraordinary success story. As a result of the innovations that this industry has spawned, millions of lives have been improved and saved in our country and around the globe. Because of the importance of these medicines to our health and well- being, I have consistently supported sound public policies to help the industry to succeed. This legislation aims to build upon the successes of this industry, and help ensure that the positive changes to our health care system that prescription drugs have brought are not undermined by controversies such as the one now surrounding antidepressants, which is at least in part based on a lack of public information. This bill will help ensure that new and innovative medicines will be used by well-informed patients. I look forward to working with industry, physicians, the medical journals, patient groups, and my colleagues to move this legislation forward. This bill has already been endorsed by the National Organization for Rare Disorders, Consumers Union, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. I thank these organizations for lending their expertise as we crafted this legislation, and I ask that a copy of their letters of endorsement be included in the Record after this statement. Clinical trials are critical to protecting the safety and health of the American public, and for this reason, trial results must not be treated as information that can be hidden from scrutiny. Recent events have made it clear that a clinical trials registry is needed. Patients and physicians agree that such a registry is in the interest of the public health. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I am hopeful that it will become law as soon as possible.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to announce the introduction of the Information Technology for Health Care Quality Act. Let me thank Senator Kennedy for joining me in introducing this bill. By encouraging health care providers to invest in information technology (IT), this legislation has the potential to bring skyrocketing health care costs under control and improve the overall quality of care in our nation. We are facing a health care crisis in our country. The Census Bureau recently released a report showing that 45 million Americans were without health insurance in 2003--an increase of 1.4 million over 2002. In many respects, we have the greatest health system in the world, but far too many Americans are unable to take advantage of this system. The number of uninsured continues to rise because the cost of health care continues to soar. Year after year, health care costs increase by double-digit percentages. The cost of employer-sponsored coverage increased by 11 percent this year, after a 14 percent increase in 2003. Employers are dropping health care coverage because they can no longer afford to foot the bill. One of the ways to provide health care coverage to every American is to reign in health care costs. And expanding the use of IT in health care is the best tool we have to control costs. Studies have shown that as much as one-third of health care spending is for redundant or inappropriate care. Estimates suggest that up to 14 percent of laboratory tests and 11 percent of medication usage are unnecessary. Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, we know that it takes, on average, 17 years for evidence to be incorporated into clinical practice. Along these same lines, a recent study showed that patients receive the best evidence-based treatment only about half the time. Significant cost-savings will undoubtedly be realized simply by moving away from a paper-based system, where patient charts and test results are easily lost or misplaced, to an electronic system where data is easily stored, transferred from location to location, and retrieved at any time. With health IT, physicians will have their patients' medical information, at their fingertips. A physician will no longer have to take another set of X-Rays because the first set was misplaced, or order a test that the patient had six months ago in another hospital because she is unaware that the test ever took place. The potential for cost-savings from simply eliminating redundancies and unnecessary tests, and reducing administrative and transaction costs, is substantial. Of course, when we consider the improved quality of care and patient safety that will result from wider adoption of health IT, the impact on cost is even greater. For example, IT can provide decision support to ensure that physicians are aware of the most up-to-date, evidence- based best practices regarding a specific disease or condition, which will reduce expensive hospitalizations. Given all of these benefits, estimates suggest that Electronic Health Records (EHRs) alone could save more than $100 billion each year. The full benefits of IT could be multiple hundreds of billions annually. Such a significant reduction in health care costs would allow us to provide coverage to millions of uninsured Americans. The benefits of IT go beyond economics. I am sure that all of my colleagues are familiar with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) estimate that up to 98,000 Americans die each year as a result of medical errors. A RAND Corporation study from last year showed that, on average, patients receive the recommended care for certain widespread chronic conditions only half of the time. That is an astonishing figure. To put it in a slightly different way, for many of the health conditions with which physicians should be most familiar, half of all patients are essentially being treated incorrectly. Most experts in the field of patient safety and health care quality, including the IOM, agree that improving IT is one of the crucial steps towards safer and better health care. By providing physicians with access to patients' complete medical history, as well as electronic cues to help them make the correct treatment decisions, IT has the potential to significantly impact the care that Americans receive. It is impossible to put a value on the potential savings in human lives that would undoubtedly result from a nationwide investment in health care information technology. It might seem counterintuitive that we can realize tremendous cost savings while, at the same time improving care for patients. But in fact, improving patient care is essential to reducing costs. IT is the key to unlocking the door--it has the potential to lead to improvements in care and efficiency that will save patients' lives, reduce costs, and reduce the number of uninsured. Unfortunately, despite the impact that IT can have on cost, efficiency, patient safety, and health care quality, most health care providers have not yet begun to invest in new technologies. The use of IT in most hospitals and doctors' offices lags far behind almost every other sphere of society. The vast majority of written work, such as patient charts and prescriptions, is still done using pen and paper. This leads to mistakes, higher costs, reduced quality of care, and in the most tragic cases, death. There is no question in my mind that the Federal government has a significant role to play in expanding investment in health IT. The legislation that I am introducing today defines that role. First, this bill would establish Federal leadership in defining a National Health Information Infrastructure (NHII) and adopting health IT standards. While I am pleased that the administration has already appointed a National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, I believe that the authority given to the Coordinator and the resources at his disposal are not equal to the enormity of his task. That is why my legislation creates an office in the White House, the Office of Health Information Technology, to oversee all of the Federal Government's activities in the area of health IT, and to create and implement a national strategy to expand the adoption of IT in health care. This office would also be responsible for leading a collaborative effort between the public and private sectors to develop technical standards for health IT. These standards will ensure that health care information can be shared between providers, so that a family moving from Connecticut to California will not have to leave their medical history behind. At the same time, this bill would ensure that the adopted standards protect the privacy of patient records. While the creation of portable electronic health records is an important goal, privacy and confidentiality must not be sacrificed. This legislation would also provide financial assistance to individual health care providers to stimulate investment in IT, and to communities to help them set up interoperable IT infrastructures at the local level, often referred to as Local Health Information Infrastructures--LHIIs. IT requires a huge capital investment. Many providers, especially small doctors offices, and safety-net and rural hospitals and health centers, simply cannot afford to make the type of investment that is needed. Finally, this legislation would provide for the development of a standard set of health care quality measures. The creation of these measures is critical to better understanding how our health care system is performing, and where we need to focus our efforts to improve the quality of care. IT has the potential to drastically improve our ability to capture these quality measures. All recipients of Federal funding under this bill would be required to regularly report on these measures, as well as the impact that IT is having on health care quality, efficiency, and cost savings. The establishment of standard quality measures is also the first step in moving our nation towards a system where payment for health care is more appropriately aligned--a system in which health care providers are paid not simply for the volume of patients that they treat, but for the quality of care that they deliver. To this end, my legislation would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report to Congress on possible changes to Federal reimbursement and payment structures that would encourage the adoption of IT to improve health care quality and patient safety. It is time for our country to make a concerted effort to bring the health care sector into the 21st century. We must invest in health IT systems, and we must begin to do so immediately. The number of uninsured, the skyrocketing cost of care, and the number of medical errors should all serve as a wake-up call. We have a tool at our disposal to address all of these problems, and there is no more time to waste. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to announce the introduction of the Information Technology for Health Care Quality Act. Let me thank Senator Kennedy for joining me in introducing this bill. By encouraging health care providers to invest in information technology (IT), this legislation has the potential to bring skyrocketing health care costs under control and improve the overall quality of care in our nation. We are facing a health care crisis in our country. The Census Bureau recently released a report showing that 45 million Americans were without health insurance in 2003--an increase of 1.4 million over 2002. In many respects, we have the greatest health system in the world, but far too many Americans are unable to take advantage of this system. The number of uninsured continues to rise because the cost of health care continues to soar. Year after year, health care costs increase by double-digit percentages. The cost of employer-sponsored coverage increased by 11 percent this year, after a 14 percent increase in 2003. Employers are dropping health care coverage because they can no longer afford to foot the bill. One of the ways to provide health care coverage to every American is to reign in health care costs. And expanding the use of IT in health care is the best tool we have to control costs. Studies have shown that as much as one-third of health care spending is for redundant or inappropriate care. Estimates suggest that up to 14 percent of laboratory tests and 11 percent of medication usage are unnecessary. Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, we know that it takes, on average, 17 years for evidence to be incorporated into clinical practice. Along these same lines, a recent study showed that patients receive the best evidence-based treatment only about half the time. Significant cost-savings will undoubtedly be realized simply by moving away from a paper-based system, where patient charts and test results are easily lost or misplaced, to an electronic system where data is easily stored, transferred from location to location, and retrieved at any time. With health IT, physicians will have their patients' medical information, at their fingertips. A physician will no longer have to take another set of X-Rays because the first set was misplaced, or order a test that the patient had six months ago in another hospital because she is unaware that the test ever took place. The potential for cost-savings from simply eliminating redundancies and unnecessary tests, and reducing administrative and transaction costs, is substantial. Of course, when we consider the improved quality of care and patient safety that will result from wider adoption of health IT, the impact on cost is even greater. For example, IT can provide decision support to ensure that physicians are aware of the most up-to-date, evidence- based best practices regarding a specific disease or condition, which will reduce expensive hospitalizations. Given all of these benefits, estimates suggest that Electronic Health Records (EHRs) alone could save more than $100 billion each year. The full benefits of IT could be multiple hundreds of billions annually. Such a significant reduction in health care costs would allow us to provide coverage to millions of uninsured Americans. The benefits of IT go beyond economics. I am sure that all of my colleagues are familiar with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) estimate that up to 98,000 Americans die each year as a result of medical errors. A RAND Corporation study from last year showed that, on average, patients receive the recommended care for certain widespread chronic conditions only half of the time. That is an astonishing figure. To put it in a slightly different way, for many of the health conditions with which physicians should be most familiar, half of all patients are essentially being treated incorrectly. Most experts in the field of patient safety and health care quality, including the IOM, agree that improving IT is one of the crucial steps towards safer and better health care. By providing physicians with access to patients' complete medical history, as well as electronic cues to help them make the correct treatment decisions, IT has the potential to significantly impact the care that Americans receive. It is impossible to put a value on the potential savings in human lives that would undoubtedly result from a nationwide investment in health care information technology. It might seem counterintuitive that we can realize tremendous cost savings while, at the same time improving care for patients. But in fact, improving patient care is essential to reducing costs. IT is the key to unlocking the door--it has the potential to lead to improvements in care and efficiency that will save patients' lives, reduce costs, and reduce the number of uninsured. Unfortunately, despite the impact that IT can have on cost, efficiency, patient safety, and health care quality, most health care providers have not yet begun to invest in new technologies. The use of IT in most hospitals and doctors' offices lags far behind almost every other sphere of society. The vast majority of written work, such as patient charts and prescriptions, is still done using pen and paper. This leads to mistakes, higher costs, reduced quality of care, and in the most tragic cases, death. There is no question in my mind that the Federal government has a significant role to play in expanding investment in health IT. The legislation that I am introducing today defines that role. First, this bill would establish Federal leadership in defining a National Health Information Infrastructure (NHII) and adopting health IT standards. While I am pleased that the administration has already appointed a National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, I believe that the authority given to the Coordinator and the resources at his disposal are not equal to the enormity of his task. That is why my legislation creates an office in the White House, the Office of Health Information Technology, to oversee all of the Federal Government's activities in the area of health IT, and to create and implement a national strategy to expand the adoption of IT in health care. This office would also be responsible for leading a collaborative effort between the public and private sectors to develop technical standards for health IT. These standards will ensure that health care information can be shared between providers, so that a family moving from Connecticut to California will not have to leave their medical history behind. At the same time, this bill would ensure that the adopted standards protect the privacy of patient records. While the creation of portable electronic health records is an important goal, privacy and confidentiality must not be sacrificed. This legislation would also provide financial assistance to individual health care providers to stimulate investment in IT, and to communities to help them set up interoperable IT infrastructures at the local level, often referred to as Local Health Information Infrastructures--LHIIs. IT requires a huge capital investment. Many providers, especially small doctors offices, and safety-net and rural hospitals and health centers, simply cannot afford to make the type of investment that is needed. Finally, this legislation would provide for the development of a standard set of health care quality measures. The creation of these measures is critical to better understanding how our health care system is performing, and where we need to focus our efforts to improve the quality of care. IT has the potential to drastically improve our ability to capture these quality measures. All recipients of Federal funding under this bill would be required to regularly report on these measures, as well as the impact that IT is having on health care quality, efficiency, and cost savings. The establishment of standard quality measures is also the first step in moving our nation towards a system where payment for health care is more appropriately aligned--a system in which health care providers are paid not simply for the volume of patients that they treat, but for the quality of care that they deliver. To this end, my legislation would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report to Congress on possible changes to Federal reimbursement and payment structures that would encourage the adoption of IT to improve health care quality and patient safety. It is time for our country to make a concerted effort to bring the health care sector into the 21st century. We must invest in health IT systems, and we must begin to do so immediately. The number of uninsured, the skyrocketing cost of care, and the number of medical errors should all serve as a wake-up call. We have a tool at our disposal to address all of these problems, and there is no more time to waste. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children and Family HIV/AIDS Research and Care Act of 2004. This bipartisan legislation will address the special needs of children and youth with HIV/AIDS--needs that are too often overlooked, both domestically and internationally. This legislation recognizes the simple fact that when it comes to HIV prevention, research, care, and treatment, children and youth are not just small adults. To give them a chance for a healthy future, we must ensure that their unique needs are met. I want to begin by thanking my good friend Senator Bond of Missouri for joining me in introducing this important legislation. Senator Bond has provided crucial support for children and for children's health. Over the years, he has been a leader in the fight to protect children from birth defects and developmental disabilities. He has also done a great deal to ensure that our nation's children's hospitals and community health centers have the resources they need to continue to provide essential care to children and families. I am very pleased to work with him to move this legislation forward. Children's growing bodies are especially susceptible to the rapid advancement of HIV infection. Because their immune systems are still immature, the disease typically progresses more rapidly and differently in children than in adults. For example, children with HIV infection are more prone to neurological abnormalities and certain opportunistic infections than adults. In addition, because children's bodies are growing and developing, HIV/AIDS can have profound effects on children's physical growth and ability to reach developmental milestones such as crawling, walking and learning to talk. While research has definitively shown that initiating drug treatment in children in a timely manner promotes normal growth and development, and prolongs life, treating children with HIV/AIDS presents particular challenges. Appropriately formulated and dosed HIV/AIDS drugs are urgently needed to ensure that children receive optimal care. Currently, liquid formulations that young children can swallow are not always readily available. In addition, pediatric dosing and safety information for these powerful drugs is often lacking, particularly for younger children. This lack of information puts children at risk; too much medication can be toxic and too little will not effectively suppress the virus. Over time, under-dosing can lead to drug resistance, a particularly serious concern for children who will need to use these medications for years, if not decades. Appropriate HIV/AIDS care and treatment for children and youth also requires that special attention be paid to their social development needs. Children and youth have unique concerns regarding disclosure and stigma that may be exacerbated by frequent absences from school and social activities, and the onset of sexual maturity. Working with schools and other social and community institutions is imperative to promoting a sense of normalcy. Because children are not typically medical decision-makers, developing long-term care partnerships with parents and other caregivers is also crucial to successful care and treatment. At the same time, maximizing each child's own ability to take active participation in different aspects of his or her own care can increase a child's sense of ownership over treatment, improving adherence and overall health. By reauthorizing and expanding Title IV of the Ryan White CARE Act this legislation will help to ensure that the unique care and treatment needs of children are addressed. This program is a lifeline for more than 53,000 women, children, and youth affected by HIV/AIDS served annually by Title IV-funded projects. Through 91 grants in 35 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, Title IV projects provide medical care, case management, support services, mental health, transportation, child care, and other crucial services to families affected by HIV/AIDS. Title IV is the smallest of the four main titles of the Ryan White CARE Act, yet reaches the highest proportion of minorities. Key to the success of Title IV projects is the model of ``family- centered care.'' This model of care treats the whole family as the client, whether several family members are infected by HIV, or just a parent or child. The family-centered care model is crucial to developing strong partnerships between consumers and providers, leading to better health outcomes for women, children, and youth. By allowing affected family members to receive services, as well as the infected individuals, Title IV projects promote health at the family level, thereby prolonging life, improving quality of life, and saving money by keeping people out of the hospital. I would like to take a moment to recognize the work done by the Children, Youth and Family AIDS Network of Connecticut, which provides Title IV services to more than 500 children, youth, women, and families affected by HIV/AIDS in my home state. I have heard from many of these individuals about just how important these services are to their quality of life. While recommitting the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to family-centered care and the unique work of Title IV, this legislation will also expand the innovative strategies Title IV projects have used to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission. Since 1994, when the administration of preventive drug interventions was shown to significantly reduce perinatal HIV transmission, the number of newborns infected with HIV has decreased dramatically. Yet mother-to- children transmission does continue to occur, largely due to missed opportunities for identifying HIV-positive pregnant women and providing the supportive services needed to ensure adherence to recommended treatment regimens. We propose to fund demonstration grants to assess the effectiveness of two strategies in reducing mother-to-children transmission: (1) Increasing routine, voluntary HIV testing of pregnant women and (2) increasing access to prenatal care, intensive case management, and supportive services for HIV-positive pregnant women. In addition, this bill will encourage research into key care and treatment questions affecting the pediatric populations. These include: the long-term health effects of preventive drug regimens on HIV-exposed children; the long-term health, psycho-social, and prevention needs for children and adolescents perinatally HIV-infected; the transition to adulthood for HIV-infected children; and safer and more effective treatment options for infants, children, and adolescents with HIV disease. Since history suggests that a vaccine may prove to be the most effective, affordable, long-term approach to stopping the spread of HIV, this legislation will also ensure that children are not an afterthought when it comes to the development of an HIV vaccine. Currently, some of the populations hardest hit by the pandemic--infants and youth--are at risk of being left behind in the search for an effective vaccine. Because we cannot assume that a vaccine tested in adults will also be safe and effective when used in pediatric populations, it will be important to ensure that promising vaccines are tested in infants and youth as early as is medically and ethically appropriate. Failure to begin planning for the inclusion of these groups in clinical trials could mean significant delays in the availability of a pediatric HIV vaccine, at the cost of countless thousands of lives. This legislation will ensure that we begin now to address the logistical, regulatory, medical, and ethical issues presented by pediatric testing of HIV vaccines so that children can share in the benefits of any advances in vaccines research. I want to thank several organizations for lending their expertise to the development of this legislation, in particular the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth and Families, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, all of whom support this bill. I would also like to note that the AMS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition is endorsing this legislation. I would ask unanimous consent that three letters of endorsement be printed in the Record. HIV/AIDS is the single greatest health care catastrophe facing the world today. We need to do much more to seek effective treatments and, eventually, a cure for this horrible illness. This legislation is by no means sufficient to reach that goal, but it is a step towards ensuring that children are not left behind as we make progress, and then when we do finally eradicate HIV/AIDS once and for all, children and youth are able to benefit immediately. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senators Edwards, Levin and Kennedy, the Youth Service Scholarship Act. This Act would authorize the Secretary of Education to award college scholarships of up to $5,000 a year to high school students and undergraduates who perform community service. A recent study titled Community Service and Service Learning in U.S. Public Schools reveals that 66 percent of public schools involve students in community service. This means that approximately 54,000 public schools in America currently engage about 13.7 million students in community service each year. Other studies have shown that nearly 84 percent of high school students participate in volunteer activities either in or out of school, and two-thirds of college students have recently participated in volunteer activities. The Youth Service Scholarship Act is dedicated to assist low-income students who dedicate a significant portion of their time to volunteer service with money for college. This Act would authorize the Secretary of Education to award college scholarships of up to $5,000 to high school students who perform over 600 hours of community service in two years. In order to be considered, high school applicants must maintain a 2.0 grade point average, submit character recommendations, and write an essay on the nature of their community service. Additional money is available if the student continues to participate in a significant amount of community service once they are in college. Volunteerism not only brings support and services to communities in need, it provides significant benefits to the students who participate. Research has shown that students who volunteer are 50 percent less likely to use drugs and alcohol, or engage in destructive behavior. Additionally, students who volunteer are more likely to receive good grades, be philanthropic, graduate, and be interested in going to college. In the 21st Century, higher education is not a luxury, it is a necessity. For many of our low-income youth, finding money to pay for college is an obstacle to enrollment. This scholarship program provides aid to motivated and inspirational youth. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Youth Service Scholarship Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children and Family HIV/AIDS Research and Care Act of 2004. This bipartisan legislation will address the special needs of children and youth with HIV/AIDS--needs that are too often overlooked, both domestically and internationally. This legislation recognizes the simple fact that when it comes to HIV prevention, research, care, and treatment, children and youth are not just small adults. To give them a chance for a healthy future, we must ensure that their unique needs are met. I want to begin by thanking my good friend Senator Bond of Missouri for joining me in introducing this important legislation. Senator Bond has provided crucial support for children and for children's health. Over the years, he has been a leader in the fight to protect children from birth defects and developmental disabilities. He has also done a great deal to ensure that our nation's children's hospitals and community health centers have the resources they need to continue to provide essential care to children and families. I am very pleased to work with him to move this legislation forward. Children's growing bodies are especially susceptible to the rapid advancement of HIV infection. Because their immune systems are still immature, the disease typically progresses more rapidly and differently in children than in adults. For example, children with HIV infection are more prone to neurological abnormalities and certain opportunistic infections than adults. In addition, because children's bodies are growing and developing, HIV/AIDS can have profound effects on children's physical growth and ability to reach developmental milestones such as crawling, walking and learning to talk. While research has definitively shown that initiating drug treatment in children in a timely manner promotes normal growth and development, and prolongs life, treating children with HIV/AIDS presents particular challenges. Appropriately formulated and dosed HIV/AIDS drugs are urgently needed to ensure that children receive optimal care. Currently, liquid formulations that young children can swallow are not always readily available. In addition, pediatric dosing and safety information for these powerful drugs is often lacking, particularly for younger children. This lack of information puts children at risk; too much medication can be toxic and too little will not effectively suppress the virus. Over time, under-dosing can lead to drug resistance, a particularly serious concern for children who will need to use these medications for years, if not decades. Appropriate HIV/AIDS care and treatment for children and youth also requires that special attention be paid to their social development needs. Children and youth have unique concerns regarding disclosure and stigma that may be exacerbated by frequent absences from school and social activities, and the onset of sexual maturity. Working with schools and other social and community institutions is imperative to promoting a sense of normalcy. Because children are not typically medical decision-makers, developing long-term care partnerships with parents and other caregivers is also crucial to successful care and treatment. At the same time, maximizing each child's own ability to take active participation in different aspects of his or her own care can increase a child's sense of ownership over treatment, improving adherence and overall health. By reauthorizing and expanding Title IV of the Ryan White CARE Act this legislation will help to ensure that the unique care and treatment needs of children are addressed. This program is a lifeline for more than 53,000 women, children, and youth affected by HIV/AIDS served annually by Title IV-funded projects. Through 91 grants in 35 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, Title IV projects provide medical care, case management, support services, mental health, transportation, child care, and other crucial services to families affected by HIV/AIDS. Title IV is the smallest of the four main titles of the Ryan White CARE Act, yet reaches the highest proportion of minorities. Key to the success of Title IV projects is the model of ``family- centered care.'' This model of care treats the whole family as the client, whether several family members are infected by HIV, or just a parent or child. The family-centered care model is crucial to developing strong partnerships between consumers and providers, leading to better health outcomes for women, children, and youth. By allowing affected family members to receive services, as well as the infected individuals, Title IV projects promote health at the family level, thereby prolonging life, improving quality of life, and saving money by keeping people out of the hospital. I would like to take a moment to recognize the work done by the Children, Youth and Family AIDS Network of Connecticut, which provides Title IV services to more than 500 children, youth, women, and families affected by HIV/AIDS in my home state. I have heard from many of these individuals about just how important these services are to their quality of life. While recommitting the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to family-centered care and the unique work of Title IV, this legislation will also expand the innovative strategies Title IV projects have used to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission. Since 1994, when the administration of preventive drug interventions was shown to significantly reduce perinatal HIV transmission, the number of newborns infected with HIV has decreased dramatically. Yet mother-to- children transmission does continue to occur, largely due to missed opportunities for identifying HIV-positive pregnant women and providing the supportive services needed to ensure adherence to recommended treatment regimens. We propose to fund demonstration grants to assess the effectiveness of two strategies in reducing mother-to-children transmission: (1) Increasing routine, voluntary HIV testing of pregnant women and (2) increasing access to prenatal care, intensive case management, and supportive services for HIV-positive pregnant women. In addition, this bill will encourage research into key care and treatment questions affecting the pediatric populations. These include: the long-term health effects of preventive drug regimens on HIV-exposed children; the long-term health, psycho-social, and prevention needs for children and adolescents perinatally HIV-infected; the transition to adulthood for HIV-infected children; and safer and more effective treatment options for infants, children, and adolescents with HIV disease. Since history suggests that a vaccine may prove to be the most effective, affordable, long-term approach to stopping the spread of HIV, this legislation will also ensure that children are not an afterthought when it comes to the development of an HIV vaccine. Currently, some of the populations hardest hit by the pandemic--infants and youth--are at risk of being left behind in the search for an effective vaccine. Because we cannot assume that a vaccine tested in adults will also be safe and effective when used in pediatric populations, it will be important to ensure that promising vaccines are tested in infants and youth as early as is medically and ethically appropriate. Failure to begin planning for the inclusion of these groups in clinical trials could mean significant delays in the availability of a pediatric HIV vaccine, at the cost of countless thousands of lives. This legislation will ensure that we begin now to address the logistical, regulatory, medical, and ethical issues presented by pediatric testing of HIV vaccines so that children can share in the benefits of any advances in vaccines research. I want to thank several organizations for lending their expertise to the development of this legislation, in particular the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth and Families, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, all of whom support this bill. I would also like to note that the AMS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition is endorsing this legislation. I would ask unanimous consent that three letters of endorsement be printed in the Record. HIV/AIDS is the single greatest health care catastrophe facing the world today. We need to do much more to seek effective treatments and, eventually, a cure for this horrible illness. This legislation is by no means sufficient to reach that goal, but it is a step towards ensuring that children are not left behind as we make progress, and then when we do finally eradicate HIV/AIDS once and for all, children and youth are able to benefit immediately. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with Senators Snowe, Kennedy, Collins, Murray, Durbin, Lautenberg, Clinton and Johnson to introduce legislation which would supply greatly needed support to college students struggling to balance their roles as parents with their roles as students. The Child Care Access Means Parents in School Act, CCAMPIS, would increase access to, support for, and retention of low-income, nontraditional students who are struggling to complete college degrees while caring for their children. The typical college student is no longer an 18 year old recent high school graduate. According to a 2002 study by the National Center for Education Statistics, only 27 percent of undergraduates meet the ``traditional'' undergraduate criteria of earning a high school diploma, enrolling full-time, depending on parents for financial support and not working or working part-time. This means that 73 percent of today's students are considered nontraditional in some way. Clearly, nontraditional students--older students with children and various job and life experiences--are filling the ranks of college classes. Why? Because they recognize the importance of college to future success. It is currently estimated that a full-time worker with a bachelor's degree earns about 60 percent more than a full-time worker with only a high school diploma. This amounts to a lifetime gap in earnings of more than $1 million. Today's nontraditional students face barriers unheard of by traditional college students of earlier years. Many are parents and must provide for their children while in school. Access to affordable, quality and convenient child care is a necessity for these students. But obtaining the child care that they need is often difficult because of their limited income and nontraditional schedules, compounded by declining assistance for child care through other supports. Campus based child care can fill the gap. It is conveniently located, available during the right hours, and of high quality and lower cost. Unfortunately, it is unavailable at many campuses. Even when programs do exist, they are often available to only a fraction of the eligible students. That is where the Dodd-Snowe CCAMPIS Act comes in. The Dodd-Snowe CCAMPIS Act increases and expands the availability of campus based child care in three ways. First, it raises the minimum grant amount from $10,000 to $30,000. For most institutions of higher education, $10,000 has proven too small relative to the effort to complete a Federal application. Grant offices on campuses often pass small grants over in favor of those that appear more cost effective. Second, the Dodd-Snowe CCAMPIS Act ensures that a wider range of students are able to access services. Present language defines low- income students as students eligible to receive a Federal Pell Grant. This language excludes graduate students, international students, and students who may be low-income but make slightly more than is allowed to qualify for Pell grants. CCAMPIS will open eligibility for these additional populations. Third, the CCAMPIS Act raises the program's current authorization level from $45 million to $75 million so that we not only expand existing programs, we create new ones. Research demonstrates that campus based child care is of high quality and that it increases the educational success of both parents and students. Furthermore, recipients of campus based child care assistance who are on public assistance are more likely to never return to welfare and to obtain jobs paying good wages. Currently, there are approximately 1,850 campus based child care programs but over 4,000 colleges and universities eligible to participate in the CCAMPIS program. Currently, CCAMPIS funds only 343 programs in 25 states and the District of Columbia. Meanwhile, the number of nontraditional students across America is increasing. As these numbers increase, the need for campus based child care will be increasingly unmet. This is a modest measure that will make a major difference to students. It will offer them new hope for starting and staying in school. I am hopeful that it can be considered and enacted as part of the Higher Education Act. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important measure forward. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senators Edwards, Levin and Kennedy, the Youth Service Scholarship Act. This Act would authorize the Secretary of Education to award college scholarships of up to $5,000 a year to high school students and undergraduates who perform community service. A recent study titled Community Service and Service Learning in U.S. Public Schools reveals that 66 percent of public schools involve students in community service. This means that approximately 54,000 public schools in America currently engage about 13.7 million students in community service each year. Other studies have shown that nearly 84 percent of high school students participate in volunteer activities either in or out of school, and two-thirds of college students have recently participated in volunteer activities. The Youth Service Scholarship Act is dedicated to assist low-income students who dedicate a significant portion of their time to volunteer service with money for college. This Act would authorize the Secretary of Education to award college scholarships of up to $5,000 to high school students who perform over 600 hours of community service in two years. In order to be considered, high school applicants must maintain a 2.0 grade point average, submit character recommendations, and write an essay on the nature of their community service. Additional money is available if the student continues to participate in a significant amount of community service once they are in college. Volunteerism not only brings support and services to communities in need, it provides significant benefits to the students who participate. Research has shown that students who volunteer are 50 percent less likely to use drugs and alcohol, or engage in destructive behavior. Additionally, students who volunteer are more likely to receive good grades, be philanthropic, graduate, and be interested in going to college. In the 21st Century, higher education is not a luxury, it is a necessity. For many of our low-income youth, finding money to pay for college is an obstacle to enrollment. This scholarship program provides aid to motivated and inspirational youth. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Youth Service Scholarship Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with Senators Snowe, Kennedy, Collins, Murray, Durbin, Lautenberg, Clinton and Johnson to introduce legislation which would supply greatly needed support to college students struggling to balance their roles as parents with their roles as students. The Child Care Access Means Parents in School Act, CCAMPIS, would increase access to, support for, and retention of low-income, nontraditional students who are struggling to complete college degrees while caring for their children. The typical college student is no longer an 18 year old recent high school graduate. According to a 2002 study by the National Center for Education Statistics, only 27 percent of undergraduates meet the ``traditional'' undergraduate criteria of earning a high school diploma, enrolling full-time, depending on parents for financial support and not working or working part-time. This means that 73 percent of today's students are considered nontraditional in some way. Clearly, nontraditional students--older students with children and various job and life experiences--are filling the ranks of college classes. Why? Because they recognize the importance of college to future success. It is currently estimated that a full-time worker with a bachelor's degree earns about 60 percent more than a full-time worker with only a high school diploma. This amounts to a lifetime gap in earnings of more than $1 million. Today's nontraditional students face barriers unheard of by traditional college students of earlier years. Many are parents and must provide for their children while in school. Access to affordable, quality and convenient child care is a necessity for these students. But obtaining the child care that they need is often difficult because of their limited income and nontraditional schedules, compounded by declining assistance for child care through other supports. Campus based child care can fill the gap. It is conveniently located, available during the right hours, and of high quality and lower cost. Unfortunately, it is unavailable at many campuses. Even when programs do exist, they are often available to only a fraction of the eligible students. That is where the Dodd-Snowe CCAMPIS Act comes in. The Dodd-Snowe CCAMPIS Act increases and expands the availability of campus based child care in three ways. First, it raises the minimum grant amount from $10,000 to $30,000. For most institutions of higher education, $10,000 has proven too small relative to the effort to complete a Federal application. Grant offices on campuses often pass small grants over in favor of those that appear more cost effective. Second, the Dodd-Snowe CCAMPIS Act ensures that a wider range of students are able to access services. Present language defines low- income students as students eligible to receive a Federal Pell Grant. This language excludes graduate students, international students, and students who may be low-income but make slightly more than is allowed to qualify for Pell grants. CCAMPIS will open eligibility for these additional populations. Third, the CCAMPIS Act raises the program's current authorization level from $45 million to $75 million so that we not only expand existing programs, we create new ones. Research demonstrates that campus based child care is of high quality and that it increases the educational success of both parents and students. Furthermore, recipients of campus based child care assistance who are on public assistance are more likely to never return to welfare and to obtain jobs paying good wages. Currently, there are approximately 1,850 campus based child care programs but over 4,000 colleges and universities eligible to participate in the CCAMPIS program. Currently, CCAMPIS funds only 343 programs in 25 states and the District of Columbia. Meanwhile, the number of nontraditional students across America is increasing. As these numbers increase, the need for campus based child care will be increasingly unmet. This is a modest measure that will make a major difference to students. It will offer them new hope for starting and staying in school. I am hopeful that it can be considered and enacted as part of the Higher Education Act. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important measure forward. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish a happy 70th birthday to an outstanding citizen and dear friend, Peg Curtin. Peg was one of my earliest and strongest supporters when I first ran for Congress in 1974. Peg's family and mine have been close since the 1950s, when my father served in the House and then in the U.S. Senate. For nearly three decades, Peg has compiled an outstanding record of public and community service in Connecticut. She has truly given her heart and soul to the people of our State. From 1974 to 1977, Peg was a union organizer for the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees and a member of the international staff of the AFL-CIO. In 1975, she was part of the transition team of one of our State's most beloved Governors, the late Ella T. Grasso. That year, Peg also began the first of 4 years as a member of the New London City Council, including one year as the city's mayor. Among her many accomplishments was the development and implementation of New London's first-ever affirmative action plan. From 1979 to 1996, Peg devoted her time and energy to the State of Connecticut. For 12 years, she served as under secretary at the Office of Policy and Management's Division of Intergovernmental Relations. There, her talents enabled her to handle a demanding and diverse array of tasks, from state labor negotiations to emergency assistance during natural disasters. Peg then went on to manage labor relations for 6 years at the University of Connecticut Health Center. She retired in 1996 after once again winning a seat on the New London City Council, an office she continues to hold today. Peg Curtin's public service is not limited to her official duties. She has been involved in numerous charitable causes. There are far too many for me to list here on the floor, but I will just mention a few: the Connecticut Special Olympics, the American Red Cross, and the March of Dimes. It is only fitting that at tonight's celebration of Peg's birthday, the proceeds for the events will benefit two of the causes about which Peg cares so deeply--the New London Youth Organization and the New London Parks Conservancy. We in Connecticut are lucky to have Peg Curtin working on our behalf. There is no doubt in my mind that our State is a better place today because of her efforts. I am privileged to call her my friend, and I truly admire her commitment to service, charity, and community. It is my pleasure to wish Peg a very happy birthday, and to send her my best wishes for many, many more wonderful years.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the extension of the middle-class tax cuts that the Senate will pass shortly. While the conference report to accompany H.R. 1308, the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004, is not perfect, I do plan to support this initiative because I feel strongly that we should provide tax relief to working families. These are families that work hard and play by the rules. Over the past 3\1/2\ years, they are also families who, as a group, have suffered the most from the economic slowdown. In general, they are working harder, earning less, and paying more for the necessities of life. The least we can do for these families is provide them with some measure of tax relief to make their financial burden a bit lighter. Tax bills enacted in the previous 3\1/2\ years primarily benefitted the very most affluent. The conference agreement we consider today benefits those who truly need tax relief. This conference report extends four important middle-class tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of this year. These are: first, the $1,000 child tax credit, which has been scheduled to fall to $700 next year; second, the current 10-percent income tax bracket; third, a set of tax measures to offset the marriage penalty; and fourth relief from the alternative minimum tax, which without action, would unfairly force more middle income families into paying higher taxes totaling $23 billion over the next 10 years. The conference report also provides assistance to military families in combat zones by increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC, and the child credit for military families in 2004 and 2005 by giving them the option to include combat pay in their calculations. This provides an additional $199 million of assistance to military families in combat zones since under current law many soldiers are denied their rightful EITC and child credit because combat pay is excluded. While this is just a two-year fix, I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that Congress take action to permanently fix this glitch in the law. I was pleased that the conference report also includes several provisions that are vital to education, environmental protection, and job growth. These include the teacher expense deduction, which allows teachers to deduct up to $250 annually for their classroom expenses; expensing of Brownfields environmental remediation costs; tax credits for electricity produced from certain renewable resources; and the extension of the research and development tax credit, which has done much to create jobs and enhance our Nation's competitiveness. However, while I will support this conference report, it is at best incomplete legislation for two reasons. First, because it fails to pay for the more than $145 billion in tax cuts that it contains. I am very concerned with the shocking deterioration in fiscal discipline by the administration and congressional leadership. When President Bush took office in January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected a Federal budget surplus of $5.6 trillion by 2011. Today, that projected record surplus has turned into a record deficit that is expected to total $4.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Regrettably, efforts to make this package a more fiscally responsible one has been blocked and rebuffed by the leaders of this Congress, including the efforts by members of the leadership's own party. Just 2 months ago, several Members from both sides of the aisle proposed a package which would have ensured that not a penny would have been added to the deficit. But the proposal was rejected by the administration and Republican congressional leadership. According to an address this week by Rodrigo de Rato, the President of the International Monetary Fund, budget and trade deficits in the United States are a large and growing threat. He stated, ``We believe that such a large imbalance is a risk not only to the United States economy, but to the world economy.'' We know only too well from past instances that if deficits are left unchecked, they will exert an enormous upward pressure on interest rates and in so doing will increase the cost of homes, cars, higher education, and establishing and running a small business. These increased costs have the potential to dwarf any relief provided by a bill such as the one now before the Senate. I also find it lamentable that the Senate was not provided with an opportunity to consider this legislation in its entirety since what has been brought before us is a conference report most of whose provisions were never brought before the Senate for full consideration. Had it been fully debated in the Senate under normal procedures, Senators might have been able to make this legislation more fiscally responsible. But because of the procedural tactics of Republican Congressional leadership, Senators never had a chance to do that. The second reason why this legislation is at best incomplete is that it fails to lower the income threshold for the refundable child tax credit. By not including this important provision, 4.3 million hard- working families will see the value of their child tax credit significantly diminished. That is unfair to those men and women working to lift themselves up economically and provide a decent life for their children. And so while I am going to support this legislation, I would like to make it very clear to this body that I do not think that our efforts to help working families are adequately discharged by this legislation. There is much work to be done to give poor and working people meaningful opportunity to achieve secure lives for themselves and their children now and for generations to come. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. On behalf of all of us, I am sure my colleagues will agree when they read his remarks, we thank him for his leadership and look forward to working with him to strengthen the OAS, to make it a more viable and important organization as these wonderful friends and neighbors of ours grapple with the economic and natural disasters they face and as they do everything in their power to strengthen democracy and freedom throughout this hemisphere. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, as all Americans, especially those in Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana well know, this hurricane season is proving terribly destructive and it is not over yet. Many of my colleagues have risen before this body to describe the damage caused by Hurricanes Charley, Francis, and Ivan. I want to commend them for their efforts and commend this body for the speed with which it passed $2 billion worth of aid to help Florida recover from the devastation. I understand additional aid packages are also under consideration, and I urge my colleagues to move as swiftly as possible to provide all necessary aid to help those who were affected by these storms. At the same time, I want to call attention to another region which was also hard-hit by these storms. To date, Hurricanes Charley, Francis, and Ivan, as well as Tropical Storm Jeanne have claimed the lives of well over 1,000 people and caused extensive damage throughout the Caribbean, especially in Haiti, Grenada, and Jamaica. Just this past week, Tropical Storm Jeanne made landfall on the Island of Hispaniola. Rain, mud slides and flooding have made it the season's deadliest storm, claiming at least 1,070 lives in the impoverished nation of Haiti, 19 in the Dominican Republic and 7 in Puerto Rico. As of September 21, 50 percent of the city of Gonaives, in northern Haiti, remained under water, and the loss of lives and infrastructure to the people of Gonaives are enormous and likely to increase. Tropical Storm Jeanne is only the latest in what has been a deadly hurricane season. Two weeks ago, Hurricane Ivan cut a swath of destruction across much of the Caribbean. Keith Mitchell, the Prime Minister of Grenada, called the damages to his island, ``beyond imagination,'' and with good reason. Over 90 percent of the buildings in Grenada were damaged by the storm. Two thirds of the population, approximately 60,000 out of a total of 95,000 residents, are now homeless. Power is out across the island, and the Grenadan people are in desperate need of food, water, and shelter. The Hurricane even destroyed a 17th century stone prison, allowing a number of inmates to escape. I am pleased that the United States has already provided nearly $1 million in direct assistance to Grenada, $700,000 to Jamaica, $300,000 to the Bahamas, and $60,000 to Haiti. The Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, moreover, currently has teams on the ground throughout the Caribbean, assessing what steps the United States should take to bring additional aid to this devastated region. But the Caribbean remains in desperate need. United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination teams have estimated that more than 50,000 people require urgent water and sanitation services in Jamaica. In the Gonaives region of Haiti, at least 20,000 are homeless, and 80 percent of the population was severely affected by the storm. Indeed, our immediate goal has to be providing basic necessities: food, water, shelter. But while we must focus on these requirements, we cannot forget that rebuilding lost infrastructure in these countries will require a much more significant and sustained commitment of aid. It is always difficult to estimate total damages so soon after such a devastating storm, but one thing is certain--the cost of recovery will be immense. The World Bank estimates the rebuilding costs in Grenada alone are likely to rise to several billion dollars. The United States and the international community must rise to this challenge. Many countries and organizations have already made some important contributions. CARICOM nations, in particular, have stepped forward to provide assistance. Trinidad and Tobago has pledged $1.7 million to Grenada and Jamaica, and around 200 troops from CARICOM countries have helped restore order in St. George's, the capital of Grenada, where looting was rampant in the immediate aftermath of the storm. These storms, however, did more than just knock out power and telephone lines. They damaged schools and hospitals. They destroyed agriculture and industry critical to the long-term economic future of the region. In Grenada, the nutmeg crop, which is critical to the Grenadan economy, suffered extensive damages, and these crops will take years to recover, since Nutmeg trees take as many as 20 years to grow to their full potential. The year's banana crop was almost entirely lost, and the tourist industry was also badly damaged. National Public Radio quoted an advisor to Prime Minister Mitchell as saying, ``Grenada has no economy. The economy is dead.'' Flooding, meanwhile, has destroyed homes and crops throughout Haiti, particularly in the northern region of Gonaives. Most of the agricultural land outside that city has been flooded, and at least 20,000 are without homes. The poorest nation in the Americas, Haiti has already suffered from political turmoil as well as flooding, which four months ago claimed the lives of at least 1,700 people. As I mentioned earlier, this time, more than 1,070 have lost their lives. Mr. President, Louis Telesford, a 27 year old Grenadan, had his wooden home destroyed by Hurricane Ivan. According to the Associated Press, he is now living along with 15 other people in his neighbor's concrete house. ``It's going to be a long, long time before we recover,'' said Mr. Telesford. ``We need help.'' I urge the administration to ensure that we provide this critical assistance.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to address the Senate in morning business for 2 minutes.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, as I noted earlier today on the Senate floor, I had the privilege of attending the inaugural ceremony of His Excellency Miguel Angel Rodriguez to be the next Secretary General of the Organization of American States. It was an honor to be present for that event. I was inspired by the words of the Secretary General as he assumed his new office. Earlier today, I put the entire speech in the Congressional Record so that our colleagues would have an opportunity to review it. One paragraph in particular caught my attention because it is so relevant to what we are attempting to do with the programs we fund in the legislation before us: In this twenty-first century, inspired by the values we share, imbued with the ideals of our forefathers, and outraged by the pain of poverty, inequity and exclusion, we women and men of the Americas must redouble our efforts, to expedite the achievement and full exercise of human freedom and dignity. These words are especially relevant to the abysmal state of affairs in Haiti. We truly should be outraged by the poverty, inequity and exclusion that most of the 8 million Haitians live with everyday. Two-thirds of Haiti's 8 million people live in poverty. Twenty-five percent of Haitian children under the age of five are chronically malnourished. The average life expectancy is 53 years. The infant mortality rate is 80 per 1000 births--an extraordinarily high percentage. HIV/AID affects more than 5 percent of the Haitian population--the highest infection rate in the Western Hemisphere and comparable to rates being experienced in Sub Saharan Africa. And if an ordinary day in Haiti was not bad enough, natural disasters had made recent days even more unspeakable. Over the last 4 months these natural disasters have made an already vulnerable population more endangered. Four months ago, flooding took the lives of 1,700 Haitians. More recently, Tropical Storm Jeanne has already been responsible for the deaths of at least 1,000 people--we will probably never know the full extent of lives lost as many bodies swept out to sea during the torrential rains will never be recovered. As if that were not enough, insecurity prevails through most of the country with armed gangs threatening to kill individuals for their political views or affiliations. Secretary General Rodriguez is absolutely right: We truly must redouble our efforts so that every Haitian can live in freedom with dignity, rather than in abject poverty and pervasive insecurity. In that regard, I appreciate the attention that the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee have paid to Haiti's plight in the bill before us. Even though the overall allocation in the fiscal year 2005 budget for foreign assistance programs is very limited, the bill before us contains approximately $80 million in assistance for Haiti: $20 million in Child Survival and Health programs; $25 million in development assistance to support agricultural and environmental and other development related programs; $25 million in Economic Support funds for judicial reform programs, and $10 million of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Control monies for police training. I certainly support all of those allocations. But given the challenges confronting Haiti today, it isn't nearly enough. More importantly, it neglects a very critical and immediate need confronting Haiti now, namely planning and organizing elections so that the interim, unelected regime can be replaced by a government chosen by the Haitian people in free and fair elections. Past experience makes it patently obvious that without the assistance of the international community, Haitian authorities will be unable to conduct municipal, parliamentary and presidential elections next year. Some steps have been taken to begin the electoral process. The new Provisional Electoral Council, CEP, has been formed, but it has yet to agree on a calendar for the elections or on the measures necessary to ensure their success. But the CEP alone will not be able to conduct these elections without money and technical assistance from the international community. The United Nations has already asked the Organization of American States to assist the CEP with the first steps toward holding elections, namely creating a voter registration list. Further down the road the OAS will be asked to assist with other aspects of the elections. The OAS is willing and committed to assisting Haiti with its electoral process, but it cannot do it without adequate funding. The amendment I have proposed to the pending legislation would contribute $10 million for that effort. Mr. President, $10 million won't cover the entire costs of Haiti's elections, but it is an important signal that the US is prepared to be a partner in that effort. It should also position the OAS to solicit additional funds from other interested OAS members. The United States has committed itself and our resources to assisting Iraq and Afghanistan conduct elections over the next 6 months. Surely we can do as much for a small country in our own hemisphere. Are the people of Haiti any less worthy to live in freedom and democracy than those in Iraq or Afghanistan? I do not believe they are--I hope my colleagues don't either. And for that reason I would urge that they support this amendment. Amendment No. 3694

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleagues. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for taking a little time to go over this issue. These are our choices. There are those who may think the path we are on is a reasonable and sound one, that these numbers really do not make any difference. We hear that all the time: Deficits don't matter. My colleague from North Dakota has laid out exactly why they do matter and why we are going to have to pay for these things and get our fiscal picture in shape, or we are going to pay an awful price. When we think of the IMF warning countries about their economic policies or fiscal policies, we are normally talking about third and fourth world nations. Here is the head of the IMF now telling the greatest economy in the history of the world: You better get your act together; not only are you going to hurt yourself, but you are going to hurt the world economy. In a few days, Americans have a choice to make, and the choice the Senator from North Dakota laid out is a clear one. Politics is about the future. What the Senator is talking about is the future. I am tired hearing about debates 40 years ago. Americans want to know what is going to happen to their kids and grandchildren, and the Senator from North Dakota laid out the scenario that if we do not make the right choices, it will cost us dearly. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DODD. In 40 months.