Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, may I also make a unanimous consent request that at the conclusion of my remarks, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, be recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a truly singular figure in history, an individual whose very name has become synonymous with poetry and theater, William Shakespeare. This past week marked the 440th anniversary of William Shakespeare's birth in 1564. Nearly four centuries after his death, William Shakespeare's impact remains a resounding one, here in America and around the world. His works range from uproarious comedies to tragedies that move audiences and readers to tears. He continues to remind us both of the greatness of which man is capable, and the frailties which too often prevent us from realizing our potential. Shakespeare's prolific and outstanding career is virtually unmatched in the history of Western literature and drama. Perhaps the most telling illustration of the magnitude of Shakespeare's work is that the two books most often found in American homes are the Bible and the Complete Works of William Shakespeare. I am pleased to note that my home State of Connecticut is home to a number of Shakespeare theaters and festivals. Shakespeare on the Sound in Norwalk will entertain 10,000 people over the course of this summer. The Elm Shakespeare Company in New Haven now draws about 30,000 people per production. And Stratford, named after the town where Shakespeare was born, is currently in the process of renovating its landmark Shakespeare theater, which will hopefully reopen this coming summer. I would also like to recognize the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, an organization that works to perpetuate Shakespeare's legacy and to preserve his estates in Stratford-upon-Avon in the United Kingdom. Here in the United States, the American Friends of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust work to support the Trust's goals. Together with the Newington-Cropsey Foundation, located in Hastings-on-Hudson, NY, they have placed four of what will ultimately be eight bronze monuments by the sculptor Greg Wyatt in the ``Great Garden'' at New Place, where Shakespeare spent his last days and wrote The Tempest. Replicas of those sculptures, each of which represents a particular Shakespeare work, have been presented to the Folger Shakespeare Library here in Washington. The American Friends of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust also sponsor student summer sessions at Stratford for Columbia, Georgetown, and other American universities. I applaud the American Friends of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust for all the work they do. And I salute all those in Connecticut and around the world who strive to keep the name and works of William Shakespeare alive and well today. With their help, Shakespeare's words, both in print and on stage, will continue to inspire millions for many, many years to come.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to an outstanding American soldier, BG Richard L. Ursone. General Ursone, a native of Stamford, CT, is retiring June 30, 2004 after 33 years of distinguished service in the United States Army Medical Service Corps. General Ursone played a critical role in shaping and successfully executing the mission of the United States Army Medical Department. When brave men and women across our country commit to serving our country in the Armed Forces, our country also makes a commitment to them. And part of that commitment is to provide them with world-class medical care, both on and off the field of battle. Throughout his career, General Ursone has made invaluable contributions to the health and well-being of soldiers in the United States Army. Over the past three decades, General Ursone has served in a series of demanding assignments around the globe and in leadership positions of increasing responsibility. Of particular note was General Ursone's service in combat during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. From 1990 to 1991, General Ursone, then a Lieutenant Colonel, served as commander of the 47th Medical Logistics Battalion. He successfully deployed and led his soldiers in supporting the war effort and the entire U.S. Army Central Command Theater of Operations with the delivery and replenishment of needed medications and medical supplies. From 1994 to 1996, then-Colonel Ursone served as the commander of the U.S. Army Medical Materiel Center, Europe in Pirmasens, Germany. Through his leadership, he reengineered the center's business practices to ensure that our soldiers stationed in Europe and their families received medical supplies and medications quickly and efficiently. His hard work and many accomplishments were recognized with the prestigious Vice President Gore's Hammer Award. In 2000, he was promoted to brigadier general. As a general officer he served in multiple senior positions and was also appointed as the fourteenth chief of the Army Medical Service Corps. As the commander of the Europe Regional Medical Command, General Ursone led a health care system comprised of a medical center, two hospitals, and 27 clinics. This medical command supported operations spanning over three continents--Europe, Africa and Asia--while simultaneously providing healthcare to over 250,000 soldiers, family members, retirees and civilians from the Department of Defense. In subsequent assignments as the Assistant Surgeon General for Force Sustainment and the Assistant Surgeon General for Force Projection from June 2002 to June 2004, General Ursone's leadership was integral in preparing the Army Medical Department to serve our troops in their efforts against the new and unfamiliar threat of global terrorism. As chief of the Medical Service Corps, General Ursone has unified the most diverse group of specialties in the Army. His commitment to leader development and mentoring of junior officers helped the Corps achieve annual increases in recruiting and retaining officers. General Ursone's vision and leadership have created opportunities for officers to serve our Nation while also achieving their own professional and personal aspirations. Health care in the Army encompasses a staggering array of services, from basic medical and dental checkups to prescription medications to emergency care on the battlefield to vaccinations against biological and chemical threats. Officers serve as medical operations officers, healthcare administrators, medical logisticians, preventive medicine officers, allied scientists, behavioral science officers as well as optometrists and pharmacists. To lead and manage such a wide and complex network, you need to be a special person--one who is able to think strategically and act appropriately for the time and circumstances. You need a leader who will take swift and decisive action in a crisis, like when General Ursone worked around the clock managing the evacuation and care of the victims of the USS Cole bombing. You need a compassionate leader capable of implementing Women, Infant and Child programs. Above all, you need a leader who recognizes that his decisions will have a tremendous impact on thousands and thousands of individual soldiers and their families. In each and every one of these critical areas, Richard Ursone has gone above and beyond the call of duty. Brigadier General Ursone's service and contributions to fellow soldiers and our Nation are eloquent testimony to his loyalty, dedication, talents, and abilities. General Ursone is not a physician. However, it is difficult to imagine any individual who has done more to ensure that every single soldier, family member and retiree in the U.S. Army receives the most advanced, efficient, and compassionate health care. His commitment to the men and women of our Armed Forces is truly an inspiration to us all. I send him my best wishes on his well- deserved retirement. And on behalf of our Nation, I extend to him thanks and gratitude for a remarkable career of service.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Sgt. Felix Delgreco of the Connecticut Army National Guard, who was killed in action in Iraq on Friday, April 9, at the age of 22. Sgt. Delgreco was the first Connecticut National Guardsman to be killed in Iraq. His unit, the C Company, 102nd Infantry, was based in Bristol and had been deployed in Kuwait since March. It had been in Baghdad for less than 3 days when Sgt. Delgreco was killed. Felix Delgreco enlisted in the Guard in 1999, while he was still in high school. Before he went overseas this year, he had been deployed twice once on a peacekeeping effort in Bosnia in 2001, and once in 2003 to West Point for a homeland security mission. Felix Delgreco was not ordered to go to Iraq. No one forced him to get on a plane. He volunteered. Felix Delgreco was an American patriot who wanted to serve his country and to help build a brighter future for the people of Iraq. He took it upon himself to make a difference in his community and in his world. Felix Delgreco's friends say he was a friendly, outgoing young man who could fit in anywhere. He enjoyed writing poetry and playing music, and worked backstage during school plays at Simsbury High School. He was an Eagle Scout who took the values of leadership, service, and honor seriously. His cooking skills were well-renowned, both among his fellow scouts and among those who served with him in the Guard. He had dreams of one day running for President. From time to time, he would even plan out the details of his 2024 campaign with his friends. Sgt. Delgreco was an individual whose warmth, enthusiasm, and spirit touched everyone around him. Perhaps his former scoutmaster, Richard Gugliemetti, put it best when he said, ``Felix Delgreco made us all better people.'' Felix Delgreco could have chosen many other paths in life. But he chose one of commitment, of duty, and of service. That was the kind of person Felix Delgreco was. And we are all forever in his debt for the tremendous sacrifice he made so that we can live in freedom and security. I extend my deepest sympathies to Sgt. Delgreco's parents, Felix and Claire, to his entire family, and to everyone who was fortunate to know him. Tyanna Avery-Felder

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in memory of U.S. Army SP4 Tyanna Avery-Felder, of Bridgeport, Connecticut, who was killed in the line of duty in Iraq. She was 22 years old. Specialist Avery-Felder, who served as a cook with the Army's Stryker Brigade, based in Fort Lewis, WA, died on April 6, 2004, 2 days after her convoy was hit by an improvised explosive device in Mosul, Iraq. She is the first woman from Connecticut to be killed in Iraq since the United States began military operations there in March 2003. Tyanna Avery-Felder's death is a sobering reminder to all of us, and particularly to people in my home State of Connecticut, that the brave members of our Armed Forces who are risking their lives for us overseas are no longer simply sons, brothers, and fathers. They are daughters, mothers, and sisters, as well. Specialist Avery-Felder was not the only soldier in her family. She was married to U.S. Army SP4 Adrian Felder. The couple met while they were both completing their basic training in Fort Lewis, and they were married on December 20, 2002, just a few months before the war in Iraq began. Both of them knew of the commitment, risk, and sacrifice inherent in military service. But it was Tyanna who was called to serve overseas in Iraq. And it was she who would make the most powerful sacrifice of all. Tyanna Avery-Felder was a graduate of Kolbe Cathedral High School in Bridgeport, where she enjoyed playing basketball and singing in the gospel choir. She spent 1 year at Southern Connecticut State University before enlisting in the Army. She was determined to be a teacher for young children when she finished her military service. Tyanna was a driven, goal-oriented young woman whose mind was hard to change once she made it up. And she was the kind of soldier who inspired her drill instructor at boot camp to compliment her on her toughness. But Specialist Avery-Felder also had a kind heart, and a loving relationship with her parents and her husband. All of us in Connecticut and across America owe a deep and solemn debt of gratitude to Tyanna Avery-Felder and to her family for her service to our country. On behalf of the U.S. Senate, I offer my deepest condolences to Tyanna's husband Adrian, to her parents, Ray and Ilene, and to everyone who knew and loved her.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, it is with a great deal of sadness that I rise in memory of an outstanding journalist and a good friend, Mary McGrory, who passed away last night at the age of 85. Mary was truly one of the most accomplished journalists of our time. She was a real news reporter--one who spent enormous amounts of time and energy getting to the bottom of a story, and then spent hours more putting it into the right words. With her trademark wit and Pulitzer- Prize winning prose, Mary McGrory helped millions of Americans understand some of the most significant events of the past 50 years-- from the McCarthy hearings, the Kennedy assassination, and Watergate to the attacks of September 11 and the buildup to the war in Iraq. She began her career in journalism writing book reviews and other pieces for the Boston Herald-Traveler. In 1947, she transferred to the Washington Star, and it was there that she made her mark as a reporter. She remained at the Star until the paper shut down in 1981. From then on, she wrote for the Washington Post for over two decades. The only thing that could stop Mary from writing was the stroke she suffered a little over a year ago. Mary's skill, integrity, and relentless effort won her tremendous esteem from her colleagues, as well as from the public figures whose lives and actions she detailed. Mary broke into a field that was very much a man's world, and she established herself as one of its giants. Her stature was clear to anyone who ever saw her during a political campaign, when fellow reporters and even the candidates themselves would literally carry her bags. Mary came from the old school of reporting. During her later years, while many of her younger colleagues traveled with laptops, digital recorders, and cell phones, Mary made do with her pen and notebook. Mary was never one to beat around the bush in her writing. You always knew where she stood. Her no-nonsense approach could delight those who agreed with her, and infuriate those who did not. But regardless of whether you were on her side or not, Mary McGrory earned your respect. I was fortunate to experience not only Mary's writing, but her singular personality. She was truly someone who enjoyed life and tried to squeeze every last drop out of it. I would like to share a few thoughts on Mary from some of her colleagues: David Broder of the Washington Post said: If you traveled with Mary, you watched a consummate craftsman hard at work, an interviewer whose soft purr put citizens at ease and disarmed the most hard-shelled old pols. She talked with everyone, and everyone, great and small, wanted to talk with her. Leonard Downie, Jr., the Executive Editor of the Washington Post: Mary was simply one of the best opinion columnists of her time. Maureen Dowd of the New York Times called Mary: the most luminous writer and clearest thinker in the business. Finally, Brian McGrory of the Boston Globe, who is also Mary's cousin, described Mary's life as: one of the most important, colorful, and enduring newspaper careers that the American public has had the pleasure to read. I mourn Mary's passing. But I also celebrate her life. She was truly an outstanding reporter and writer, and a remarkable human being. We will all miss her very much.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate today to introduce legislation, ``The No Child Left Behind Reform Act.'' This legislation makes three basic changes to the No Child Left Behind Act which was signed into law in January of 2002. The No Child Left Behind Act received the support of this Senator and 86 of our colleagues. Like most, if not all, of our colleagues who supported this bill, I supported it because I care about improving the quality of education in America for all of our children. I believed that this law would help to achieve that goal by establishing more rigorous standards for measuring student achievement, by helping teachers do a better job of instructing students, and last but not least, by providing the resources desperately needed by our schools for even the most basic necessities to help put the reforms we passed into place. Regrettably, the high hopes that I and many others had for this law have not been realized. The law is being implemented by the Administration in a manner that is inflexible, unreasonable and unhelpful to students. Furthermore, the law is not only failing to help teachers do their best in the classroom, it reflects, along with other Administration policies and pronouncements, a neglect and even hostility towards members of the teaching profession. Worse still, the Administration's promise of sufficient resources to implement No Child Left Behind's much needed reforms is a promise that has yet to be kept. Indeed, the current budget proposed by the Bush Administration underfunds No Child Left Behind by $9.4 billion. Since passage slightly over 2 years ago, the law has been funded at a level that is more than $26 billion below what was promised when the President signed the Act into law. As a result of the failures of the current Administration to fulfill its commitment to our nation's school children under this law, those children and their teachers are today shouldering new and noteworthy hardships. Throughout the State of Connecticut, for example, students, teachers, administrators and parents are struggling to implement requirements that are often confusing, inflexible and unrealistic. And they are struggling to do so without the additional resources they were promised to put them into place. As I have said on numerous occasions in the past, resources without reforms are a waste of money. By the same token, reforms without resources are a false promise--a false promise that has left students and their teachers grappling with new burdens and little help to bear them. The legislation I am introducing today proposed to make three changes to the No Child Left Behind Act. These changes will ease current burdens on our students, our teachers and our administrators without dismantling the fundamental underpinnings of the law. First, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act will allow schools to be given credit for performing well on measures other than test scores when calculating student achievement. Test scores are an important measure of student knowledge. However, they are not the only measure. There are others as well. These include dropout rates, the number of students who participate in advanced placement courses, and measures of individual student improvement over time. Unfortunately, current law does not allow schools to use these additional measures in a constructive manner. Additional measures can only be used as a measure of how a school is failing, not how a school is succeeding. This legislation will allow schools to earn credit for succeeding. Second, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act will allow schools to target school choice and supplemental services to the students that actually demonstrate a need for them. As the current law is being implemented by the Administration, if a school is in need of improvement it is expected to offer school choice and supplemental services to all students--even if not all students have demonstrated a need for them. That strikes me as a wasteful and imprecise way to help a school improve student performance. For that reason, this legislation will allow schools to target resources to the students that actually demonstrate that they need them. Clearly, this is the most efficient way to maximize their effect. Finally, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act introduces a greater degree of reasonableness to the teacher certification process. As it is being implemented, the law requires teachers to be ``highly qualified'' to teach every subject that they teach. Certainly none of us disagree with this policy as a matter of principle. But as a matter of practice, it is causing confusion and hardship for teachers, particularly secondary teachers and teachers in small school districts. For example, as the law is being implemented by the Administration, a high school science teacher could be required to hold degrees in biology, physics and chemistry to be considered highly qualified. In small schools where there may be only one 7th or 8th grade teacher teaching all subjects, these teachers could similarly be required to hold degrees in every subject area. Such requirements are unreasonable at a time when teachers are increasingly hard to find. The legislation I introduce today will allow States to create a single assessment to cover multiple subjects for middle grade level teachers and allow states to issue a broad certification for science and social studies. In my view, these changes will provide significant assistance to schools in Connecticut and other states currently struggling to comply with the No Child Left Behind law. I would hope that our colleagues would look with some favor on it. Of equal if not greater importance is the urgent need to provide our schools with the additional resources they need to help our children learn. Obviously, funding this law is beyond the scope of this bill. I would note, however, that efforts to increase education funding to authorized levels have thus far been unsuccessful. Earlier this year, I supported Senator Murray's amendment to fully fund No Child Left Behind by increasing the budget allocation by $8.6 billion. Unfortunately, Senator Murray's amendment was defeated purely on party lines. Clearly, funding for No Child Left Behind is not at the top of the Majority's priority list. I will continue to work to change this outcome. Clearly, our children deserve the resources needed to make their dreams for a better education a reality. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, the Senator, again, is exactly correct. As I noted earlier, we are talking about families who are middle-income families, who are lower middle-income families who are out there struggling to make ends meet. As I pointed out, the increased cost of a public education, as well as a private education, in 38 months has gone through the ceiling, outpacing the cost of anything else. Inflation has been relatively flat in the last number of months with the economy where it is. But yet in the midst of all that, we have seen a 26- percent increase in the cost of going to a private college or university, and a 14-percent increase to go to a public institution. So we have seen this tremendous increase in a family's income going toward education and tuition. As I pointed out earlier, 29 percent of a family's income goes to pay for public university tuition; 41 percent goes to pay for private university tuition. The debt these kids are faced with, their families are faced with, is an additional strain on families who are already paying so much to see to it their kids can get the education they need. And we know so clearly the importance of education. You find yourself almost wondering why you have to say this. I don't know of anyone who believes that for a single second this country's ability to maintain itself in a leadership position economically and politically can be sustained without the proper education. Thomas Jefferson said, 200 years ago this year, in 1804, any nation that ever expects to be ignorant and free expects what never was and what never possibly could be. If you believe that had validity in 1804, you certainly must believe that in 2004 it has even more validity, not only in terms of embracing and supporting our constitutional principles, but also as to the importance of being able to get the education to produce the goods and services of high value which 5 percent of the world's population, which lives in this country, will be able to market to the 95 percent of the world's population which lives outside this country. Anyone who believes for a single second that you can deny 200,000 young people, as you will this year--almost a quarter of a million young people--the opportunity to go on to higher education because we cannot come up with a few extra bucks to put into a Pell Grant Program or a Work-Study Program--if you think America benefits from that, then you are deluding yourself. This will be the first generation where the older generation is actually cutting back on its commitments in its attempts to provide access to higher education for people in this country. I hope in the coming days as we move through the appropriations process and the like, our colleagues will find it possible to break this freezing of the budgets to make it possible for students who are completing this academic year and thinking about next year, or thinking about graduate school, or leaving high school and wanting to go on to college--that the Congress of the United States, the President of the United States, would stand up and say: We are going to do what we can. We are going to meet that promise I made in New Hampshire in the fall of 2000 when I promised I would increase Pell grants to more than $5,000 per child. I am going to meet that promise before this term is over. My hope is we will achieve that particular result. I see my colleague from Rhode Island.

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. DODD. In response to my colleague, I very clearly remember supporting the senior Senator from Massachusetts and his amendment that would have increased the higher education budget, including, obviously, an increase in the Pell grants to meet exactly what the commitment of the President had been on this subject matter. We were unable to get that. It is important to point out to people the effects. We have now had a freeze in Pell grants over the last 3 years, despite the President's campaign promise to raise them. I mentioned earlier that a Pell grant now pays about 34 percent of the cost of public higher education. It was at 80 percent when it was originally passed. Let me also state what shrinking resources and rising costs have done. My colleague from Massachusetts has pointed out that the average student now finishes college in excess of $17,000 debt. As a result of freezing the Pell grant over the last 3 years, and the administration's proposal to raise freshman loan limits, we are now told that student debt could increase nationally by almost $5 billion. If we take student debt, that will now grow as a result of not having Pell grants trying to keep some pace with the increased cost of education, if students have to take out more loans, we will have student debt amount to $5 billion more nationally than presently is the case. The President's budget also froze funding for work-study programs in addition to Pell grants. We watched, over the last 38 months, tuition costs go up at public universities 26 percent. Costs go up and the President's budget says: No, no, I am not going to give you a nickel more for Pell grants. Freeze work-study. Freeze Pell grants. Not a penny more for higher education despite costs going up and here is $5 billion more debt to shoulder as you leave higher education to go out and try to get a job, get into the workforce, raise a family. I don't know of anyone who believes that is a sound investment in the 21st century. I thank my colleague for raising those points.

Mr. DODD. I would say to my colleague, he has hit the nail on the head in talking about elementary and secondary education, beginning with, obviously, Head Start and preschool efforts. He has cited the numbers, and he is absolutely correct. But more than the numbers, when you start to talk about the dollar amounts, I think you can probably see the eyes of even the most determined listener to glaze over. When I talk about an $8.6 billion shortfall to No Child Left Behind this year alone, shortchanged more than $26 billion since passage, I am disturbed. It is the children and the families themselves that feel the shortfalls. Families lacking the kinds of investments that we know make a difference in their children's educational lives. We know categorically, after more than a quarter of a century of watching, the benefits of the Head Start Program. It gives them that even start. When they enter kindergarten or the first grade, it puts them on a level playing field with other children who come from slightly more advantaged situations than they may have. We know that getting Title I money into our school districts has made a huge difference to schools, and certainly we need to be doing far better on special education. But to give some idea of what these shortfalls mean, this year alone over 7,500 school districts are going to see their elementary school funding cut this July. Millions of disadvantaged children will be left behind because of inadequate resources in Title I. More than 1.3 million children won't receive afterschool services because of funding freezes that have occurred. Teacher quality, English language acquisition, impact aid, rural education all have been frozen in this country despite the increasing demands that have occurred. The President's budget eliminates 38 programs in areas such as arts education, school counseling, small school support, dropout prevention. You don't need to tell the American public about the importance of these things. They make a difference every day. The fact is that we are just decimating these significant efforts, many of which were achieved and were created through bipartisan effort and support. I am deeply concerned about what is happening to these younger people as they enter the school system, where we want them to have an equal opportunity to learn, where they get uncertified teachers and old textbooks, some that say today maybe one day we will land a man on the moon. We actually have children using textbooks that predate 1969 when we landed a man on the moon. Imagine in 2004, you discover your child has a science book that says that. That happens today. Or that your child walks into a biology class or chemistry class in elementary school and almost 35 percent of them in poor rural districts and poor urban districts do not have a certified teacher who is teaching. This is the United States of America. If you want us to grow and be stronger, you are going to have to make the investments. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for raising these issues about both elementary and secondary education as well as higher education. The American public needs to know this.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I commit to my colleague and to others as well. This has been an ongoing effort. It will be a continuing one. Nothing is more important. I have often said, if you can only solve one issue, I would choose this one. I don't think there is any more important problem to solve. Not that others are not important, but if we fail to address the education question effectively, then we leave every other issue in jeopardy, to chance. That goes to the heart of endorsing and supporting our constitutional principles, our values system, as well as our economic growth. I am not minimizing other issues. I am often asked, as we all are, what is the single most important issue we have to deal with. Obviously issues of going to war, sending young men and women into harm's way, amending the Constitution, confirming a justice to the Supreme Court are high on that list. I would place education as the No. 1 priority, a substantive issue that ought to be on every one of our lists. I thank the Senator for taking a few minutes out of today to talk about this. There will be other opportunities to raise these concerns and these questions, and I hope that before this session of Congress ends, we will have a more effective result for the American people.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island. He very appropriately points out he succeeded Claiborne Pell, whom the Senator from Massachusetts and I had the great privilege of serving with. The Senator from Rhode Island knows the wonderful contribution he made to millions of young Americans, Americans of all ages, but particularly young Americans. I was not aware of what my colleague from Rhode Island told me. I think that is extremely important information. I would hope, as I am sure he does, the conferees and the American public would let conferees and the leadership here in Congress know this shortfall must not be allowed to exist if we are going to have any hope at all of meeting some of the obligations we have. I might ask my colleague from Rhode Island, give us some indication how that is working now. Does he believe that is going to be the case? And what would be the implications of that?

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I believe the Senator has the floor.

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I am responding to a question. Without yielding my right to the floor, I am asking my colleague from Rhode Island to respond to a question.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I want to take a few minutes and talk about an issue off the pending matter, if I may, before the Senate. While it may not be germane to the subject matter before the Senate, the matter I want to talk about is extremely germane to the American public and what they are interested in. That is education. I particularly want to focus for a few minutes on higher education. We are now coming into the months of April and May when students will be wrapping up their academic year and taking exams. Those who are in their last year will be graduating and going out into the private sector or graduate school. As we focus on graduation and the termination of an academic year, I think it is important to take stock of the financial availability of most students to access higher education in this country, and what we are doing about it as we conclude this academic year. It is also important to ask what will be available next year to students who are either starting higher education or are continuing their higher education. What are the economic challenges these individuals and their families face as it relates to affording college? I want to spend a couple of minutes describing what the present situation is as it relates to college cost, how important it is to have access to college, and where we are today in our ability to try to make college more accessible and more affordable. In the 21st century we must have the best educated and best prepared generation of Americans we have ever produced if we are going to be highly competitive in a global marketplace and have a growing and expanding economy to produce goods and services of increasing value; that is, more technology and more sophistication to offer the 95 percent of the population which lives outside the United States all over this globe. We have seen tuition and fees at public colleges and universities go up 26 percent over the last 38 months. Since President Bush took office on January 20 of 2001, tuition and fees at public colleges and universities has gone up more than 25 percent--close to 26 percent in 38 months. Last year alone, on average, tuition at a public university rose 14 percent, and over 10 percent in my own State of Connecticut. The average total cost of attending a public 4-year college is now over $9,000, and for private colleges the average cost is $24,000. As tuition rates increase, so does the portion of a family's income needed to pay tuition. On average, 29 percent of a family's income goes toward public university tuition and 41 percent goes toward private university tuition. Just think about that: almost 30 percent of a family's income paying a public college tuition and more than 40 percent to go to a private university or college. In comparison, a family's mortgage payment represents 32 percent of annual income. Education is now eating up more of a family budget than a home mortgage--the largest single investment most families ever make is owning their own home. It is estimated that approximately 200,000 college-ready high school graduates will not pursue higher education this year because they do not have the resources to do it and don't have access to the various programs that may provide them some assistance. Apart from initial affordability, students also often graduate with huge amounts of debt. In Connecticut, the average student graduates in 4 years $15,000 in debt. The numbers are rather clear. We are seeing a tremendous economic burden growing with each and every passing year, for families and individuals who wish to go on and get that absolutely critical higher education they need and we need them to have. Pell grants are such a great cornerstone of the Federal financial aid system, but they are shrinking in value. Pell grants originally covered 80 percent of the cost of attending a public university. Today, at $4,050, they cover only 30 percent; and at a 4-year private college, 16 percent. Imagine that, from 80 percent down to 34 percent. The maximum Pell amount remains stagnant at a time when tuition is going up, people are losing jobs and extra income, and when higher education is increasingly the ticket to a better life not only for the students but for us, as well. Today, the average low-income student has an annual unmet need of almost $4,000 in college expenses, costs not covered by grants, loans, work, or family savings. These are the students that an increase in the Pell grant would most directly help. What are we doing about this? The President's budget is clearly not in the best interest, at all, of serving this critical need that, by all accounts, we admit is necessary. I don't know of anyone who does not go back to their respective States and talk about the importance of education, the importance particularly of higher education, that people have the ability to earn that degree. I am sure every one of my colleagues has said exactly the words I am about to share, or something similar: No one ought to be denied a higher education because they lack the financial resources. It goes to the depth of a person's drive, the depth of their character, the depth of their ambition. It ought not be the depth of their parents' or their pockets that determines whether someone can have access to a higher education. I am sure we all feel that way.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield to my colleague.

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

Mr. DODD. Again, Madam President, I am very grateful to my colleague from Rhode Island for pointing out matters I had not addressed; that is, these other areas of higher education. This is an assault on higher education. But more importantly, it is an assault on young people in this country who are going to provide the well-being. I always like to point out this Nation historically, even during times of our most significant crises, has found a time and a place to support higher education. I have often pointed out one of the first acts of Congress in 1789, as we were still struggling to get on our feet, was the Northwest Ordinance, which set aside lands for education. It was a rather remarkable accomplishment. Think of all the things the first Congress had to deal with. Education was one of the top priorities on their list. Then right in the middle of the Civil War--imagine the country divided, wondering whether we would survive as a nation--the Congress of the United States passed something called the Morrill Act, which was the land grant colleges. I believe the University of Rhode Island--I know the University of Connecticut got started as a land grant college, and I know colleges all across this country got their start because of the Morrill Act. Congress found the money during the great Civil War to fund higher education. Even before the end of World War II, before the defeat of nazism and the Japanese empire, the Congress passed the GI Bill. And think, if you will, of the investment made in those years, coming off the war years, and how we have benefitted, when you consider a generation of Americans which was able to get an education and go on, and how we have been paid back a thousandfold by the contributions of a generation of young Americans who fought in World War II, who were able to get an education, and then provide the kind of innovation and creativity and jobs and incomes that has helped us grow to the great Nation we are in terms of economic strength. So there was the Northwest Ordinance, the Morrill Act, the GI bill, generations that understood the importance of investing in education. Here we are in the 21st century, we have a President that not only doesn't have an idea about how to increase resources for higher education, he wants to cut back on what we have. How do you explain that to the American people when we are trying to increase the opportunities for higher education? I thank my colleagues.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me begin by, first of all, commending my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee. I am not a member of this distinguished committee. I had the good fortune of serving on the Judiciary Committee in the other body years ago, in the House of Representatives. I have great respect for my colleagues who serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee in either body because they deal with some of the most contentious issues before the American public. It is not easy to be the chairman of that committee, regardless of which party is in the majority in the Senate. I have the utmost respect for my friend from Utah. He and I have spent many years serving in this body together. There have been countless pieces of legislation that we have worked on together that are the law of the land today. I have great admiration for him. He is a legislator. I say that because there seems to be a shrinking number of legislators around here regardless of party affiliation. He is a legislator. That means someone who is willing to sit down and work out issues. I wish to begin by thanking and commending him for his efforts on this difficult subject matter, asbestos. This is an area in which I have had a longstanding interest, as many of my colleagues know, going back a number of years. This issue is of critical importance to my State of Conneticut, because it is the home of numerous small and large manufacturers, as well as several major insurance companies. They have a strong interest in the outcome of a resolution of this very perplexing problem of asbestos litigation and related issues. I have a strong interest in trying to come up with a solution for, first and foremost, victims of asbestos exposure. It is estimated that more than 27 million people who have been exposed to asbestos over the years. Regrettably, we know there are many who will die prematurely because of their exposure to this product. In fact, last year alone, 10,000 people in this country died as a result of their exposure to asbestos. The numbers are truly staggering. We know there are over 600,000 past and pending cases involving over 6,000 businesses, that have been cited as defendants in these cases. And we know there are going to be literally millions of people who are going to suffer. So we must attempt to provide a better answer than the present system which has clogged up our courts, which has denied too many victims-- seriously impaired victims--of the kind of compensation they deserve. I have had a longstanding interest in trying to come up with a solution. We have gotten very close to such a solution. Let me begin by reporting on the progress that has been made. There is a tendency to only discuss the areas where there is still disagreement, and I think that only tells part of the story. People such as Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy, have worked tirelessly on this issue. The majority leader, Senator Frist, and the minority leader, Senator Daschle and their staffs have also spent a great deal of time on this legislation. Senator Daschle has always kept his door open, and repeatedly tried to see if we could proceed with a meaningful negotiation process. Such a process must occur in order to bring the various parties together around a resolution of this issue. There are many others who have been critically involved in this issue. We heard from Senator Feinstein earlier and other members of the Judiciary Committee. Senator Nelson from Nebraska has also worked hard on this issue. Senator Carper has also worked on this issue. There are many others who care about this issue and have spent a great deal of time on it. Senator Specter has been performing an invaluable service in trying to work out the administrative structure of the proposed compensation fund. I am sure I am leaving some of my colleagues out, and I apologize for that, knowing, as I do, that almost every State, without exception, is affected by this lingering question. When there are over 600,000 total cases, every State and Senator is affected. Seventy companies have already declared bankruptcy on this issue alone because of the judgments that have come in against them. As a result of those 70 bankruptcies, over 70,000 jobs have been lost from these companies. This is a major economic problem, as well as a major health issue that needs and demands resolution. The good news is this: There are about five or six major issues involved in the question of whether we can establish a bona fide trust that would allow for fair and equitable compensation to those who have been determined to suffer from diseases related to exposure of asbestos. The five or six major issues are the following: One, can we establish medical criteria which would make it possible to determine who has been exposed and to what extent have they been adversely affected as a result of that exposure. I thought that issue would never get resolved. This has not been an easy task. Can you imagine trying to bring doctors together with organized labor, manufacturers, and insurance companies, all sitting down and agreeing on what the medical criteria for this legislation should be? I am pleased to announce that months ago we were actually able to reach an agreement on the medical criteria. Amazingly, the issue of medical criteria has been resolved. The second issue is whether we could create an administrative system to process and review claims. This is also not an easy undertaking. Thanks to Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and thanks to his constituent, Judge Becker, and, by the way, the involvement of a number of our Senate colleagues under the auspices of Senator Specter's leadership--we have reached an agreement in this area we think is going to work. Creating an administrative system is a major accomplishment. Many people thought we would never be able to resolve this issue. On two of the major five or six issues, we have already achieved results. But it took weeks to work out the details behind these agreements. An asbestos compensation trust fund idea is complex. It is very complex. When we envision a trust fund that might have to last for 30 years or more, that must deal with thousands and thousands of cases of people who have been exposed to asbestos, it is a serious undertaking. Every comma, every period, every semicolon can and does mean something. So we have to be very careful in how we draft this legislation. We have hundreds of manufacturers who have been, and continue to be affected by what we are doing. There are major insurance companies that clearly must be involved and will contribute to a trust fund, as the manufacturers will be. Organized labor, representing the hundreds of thousands of victims, must ensure that a trust fund is going to have adequate funding, and that monetary awards are fair and efficiently provided. We have seen the consequences of the current system. In fact, in the Johns-Manville trust resolution, the trust that was established under the name of that particular company, is a example of the problems with the current system. They believed that the amount of money initially placed put into that trust was going to more than adequately provide for the victims who have been exposed under the Manville situation. As it turns out today, the Manville trust is only paying about 5 percent of the compensation victims should be receiving. It went very wrong, not because the people who put it together planned it that way, but nevertheless that is what happened. No one I know of wants that to happen here, but it makes my point that this is a complex issue. And that getting this right is very important. We must be sure that this solution is going to work well. So it takes a little time--and in my opinion, it is time well spent. I do not know why at this very hour we have this legislation before us. It is not ripe yet. It has not matured enough yet. There are still huge issues outstanding. Obviously, one of the major open issues is the overall dollar amounts. I know it sounds like a lot of money--and there is a lot of money at stake here. But when we start talking about 25 or 30 years of a trust fund's existence, the difference is somewhere around $115 billion and $155 billion, give or take a billion here and there. As Senator Everett Dirksen said: A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money. This is real money. We are not talking about hundreds of billions of dollars difference. We are talking $20 to $30 billion or so over 30 years, spread among a large number a defendant companies and insurers who face greater losses and greater uncertainty under the current system. It seems to me if we get actuaries together, and agree at the universe of potential claimants, and provide them fair compensation, we should be able to come up with a neutral number to satisfy the needs of expected claimants. We have changed approaches from where we started at the outset of this debate. We initially tried to create a bill that was ``evergreen,'' that is, that it would be the complete solution to this problem for as far as the eye could see in the future. However, we began to realize the difficulties of creating a fund that lasts forever. Several factors caused us significant uncertainty. For example, we still import asbestos in this country. There is still asbestos being used, or at least people are being exposed to it even though we now know the problems that result from exposure. So the idea that we are going to have a final number in perpetuity, I think, was abandoned by all sides. We have contended that this number is somewhere between $115 billion and $155 billion. If that does not end up being right at the end of the day, then we ought to resort back to the present tort system to solve the problem. I just heard my colleague from Utah say his bill includes that provision. With all due respect, I must disagree with my friend from Utah because the provision in the bill being offered by the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Tennessee, the majority leader, has a 7- year gap between when the trust fund may run out of money and when the tort system could be used by a victim. Now, that is hardly reassuring to the victims and their families that the system that presently is in place which provides them some financial relief will be taken off of the table in the event that the trust fund becomes insolvent. Let me quickly point out as well, that these numbers of 115 or 155-- if one takes the high end or the low end, are hardly unreasonable. The Rand Corporation, which is hardly an organization that identifies ideologically with the left or right or Democrats or Republicans, has estimated that the cost of the current problem is somewhere around $300 billion. So at the outset we are talking about a trust of only $155 billion. While we disagree over actual dollar amounts at this point, I believe that people of good will, sitting down, can come to an honest compromise that would satisfy all parties involved in this debate. Another open issue is the value of the claims themselves. If we are able to reach agreement on the medical criteria and able to reach agreement on an administrative system, it seems to me, again, that good people who care about this should be able to resolve this issue and provide fair compensation to victims of asbestos. Another outstanding issue that needs resolution is what to do with pending claims. There are some claims that have been adjudicated. Some are completely adjudicated, others are only in the discovery process. I do not want to get too technical legally, but I think most people would understand there are some cases that are already mature in the judicial system. Determining at what point in the judicial process, should cases be abrogated and claimants directed into the trust fund is a difficult question. When is the judicial process allowed to be completed where those claims exist? I do not have an answer for that one today, but, again, I think people of good will who care about this issue and realize what a huge problem this is could come to some thoughtful, reasonable compromise on how to deal with pending claims. That is not the complete universe of all the problems, but those are the major ones. Two of them we have solved. Three or four of them deserve additional time and effort to resolve. Certainly the intent of the amendments adopted in Committee by Senators Feinstein and Biden that addresses pending claims and returning back to the tort system in the event of insolvency are ideas that should be reconsidered and adapted. There may be others ideas that are also helpful. The point is there are people making suggestions to resolve these questions. I do not understand why this body is being asked to make a definitive decision on this bill that none of us have seen because it was introduced only 2 or 3 days before the last senatorial recess. We are being asked to accept voting on cloture on this matter on Wednesday or Thursday of this week. I might point out that last November or early December we reached an agreement, a compromise, on how to proceed to the class action issue. I happened to be one of those involved in that negotiation. Why do we not bring up that bill? That bill is ripe and ready to go, not that many of my colleagues would support it. But for those of us who are willing to support a class action reform bill, we reached an agreement on that 4 or 5 months ago, and yet that bill is not being brought up. Why not? That bill is ready to go. This bill is not ready to go. Why are we taking 3 days in a very abbreviated session of the Senate, when we do not have much time remaining, some 30 days, to bring up a matter where there is so much disagreement that could be resolved if we would spend the time doing it as Senator Specter has done, as Senator Daschle has done, and as Senator Leahy has done? I know Senator Hatch and his staff have also worked tirelessly on this topic. Legislating on a matter like this is hard work. It is labor intensive. Any one of my colleagues, Republican or Democrat, who has been in the Senate for any length of time will say that on major legislation, particularly legislation that is precedent setting such as this is, people are required to roll up their sleeves and put in a tremendous amount of hours to resolve these matters. In my view, it cannot be done thoughtfully or carefully by engaging in open-ended floor debate with amendments flying around that no one really knows the implications of, some of which are passed 51 to 49, others defeated 51 to 49. When we are dealing with something as serious as this, where literally thousands and thousands of lives depend upon receiving adequate compensation, we know we are dealing with a very complex problem. I urge that a cloture motion not be filed. I know one has not yet been filed, and my strong appeal to the majority leader would be please do not file this cloture motion. There is still time. This is only April. I presume we are going to be here until sometime in early October. Give us the chance, insist upon people meeting and trying to resolve these issues. It may come down that a few of these matters are not resolvable through negotiation, and the only way to resolve them is by having some floor votes on them. I accept that may be the final determination. But we ought not to jump to that when there still is an opportunity to resolve some of these outstanding questions. I have spoken to organized labor, John Sweeney, and his representatives. They want a bill. It is their membership, many of them, who suffer from the exposure to asbestos. It is their membership that is losing jobs in companies that are declaring bankruptcy. They want a bill, but they want to make sure when they have a bill that the resources will be there to provide adequate compensation. By and large, the insurance industry, with some exceptions, wants a bill because they realize that the current system is flawed and could cause untold economic hardships on some of these companies. It could cause some of them to collapse, and I am not exaggerating when I say that. They are very interested in getting a bill. I know the overwhelming majority of manufacturers, those that were either involved in the production or use of asbestos over the years, in most cases before anyone knew of the great harms caused by this product, they want a bill. This is one of those unique situations where all of the parties, all of them, and including, I might add, many of the trial lawyers involved in this area, understand some different resolution of this issue is needed other than the present tort system. Obviously, that is not the view of everyone who is a trial lawyer, but many of them have already spoken out on this issue. So we have a unique political environment where the major participants are anxious to get a bill. I rarely find that. Normally one finds people highly divided where labor or business is at complete opposite ends of the spectrum on a matter that is before us. Here, nearly all stakeholders want a bill. Instead of sitting down and keeping people at the table and working it out, we are prematurely bringing up something causing this bill likely to fail, and fall before we have an opportunity to resolve the differences. As I said a moment ago, why not bring up class action? Why not bring that up? That is ready to go. Where is the business community that has said to me over and over again: Why don't we get a class action bill here? We have been ready since November and December. Here it is April and nothing has happened on class action. Yet you bring up and consume 3 days of time on the floor of the Senate with a bill that everyone knows, if you invoke cloture or file a cloture motion on the motion to proceed, it is going to fail. And it should fail. It should fail. I say that with deep regret. I have committed the time of staff members and my own time over the last number of years on this issue. I think to come this close to resolving a major issue affecting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and their families and attempt to address it in a premature fashion is a huge mistake. So my appeal to my colleagues is: Sit back and work this out. It is hard, but it can be done. And, if we get near the end of the session and we have not been able to resolve everything, either wait until we get back in January or bring it up and leave a smaller number of issues out on the floor to be resolved by votes on the floor and healthy debate. But don't jam this now, particularly when we know the outcome, taking up the valuable time of this body on the floor where the time can be better used to take up issues where there has been agreement, at least agreement by a significant majority of us to move forward on the legislation. That has been done now on class action. Why doesn't the majority leader come over and move to proceed to that bill so we can vote on it? We have been ready for that now, as I said, since 3 or 4 or 5 months ago. There has been no action at all. No action. Why not? Why is that bill not on the floor right now, being debated and discussed? Of course we have seen the same thing with medical malpractice. There is no effort to negotiate it out. There is a proposal on the Democratic side. It is different from what the majority has proposed, but not that different. You could bring those two sides together and resolve the issue. Doctors deserve better than they are getting. They are being told the Democrats are stopping everything. Why is it the majority refuses to even sit down and try to work out the differences? I stand ready. My staff does. Again, I am not a member of the committee. Obviously, Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy, as I mentioned earlier, have done a tremendous amount of work on this and deserve a great deal of credit for trying their best at this. The leader on this side, politically, is Senator Daschle. I have been with him on numerous occasions when we met with the manufacturers, met with the insurance industry. As Senator Daschle has said over and over again, his door has been open to do whatever it takes to try to get a bill done. I know from personal knowledge he has offered on numerous occasions to meet with the majority leader and others to try to figure these things out. I mentioned Senator Specter already. Senator Biden, obviously, Senator Feinstein, and a number of others have been involved in this, trying to get this done. My hope is that the majority leader will not wait until Thursday. Listen to us over here. We can get this done. It could be a proud moment of this Senate's session, to have actually come up with an answer to a major problem in this country. We are getting very close to resolving it. It will take a little more work, in my view, over the next coming weeks, but it could be done. My plea this afternoon would be that filing a cloture motion on the motion to proceed would be withheld, that we bring up other matters that are ripe and ready to go forward, and send the people back to work on this bill and let's see if we cannot draft a piece of legislation of which America can be proud. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. I commend the Senator from California for her statement and comments. She has been deeply involved in this effort, as have many of us over the last number of months, if not years. She has made a very comprehensive set of suggestions, to which I think our colleagues want to pay serious attention. I know my colleague from Utah will. He is a fairminded individual who cares deeply about this legislation as well. But I commend her for her comments.

Mr. DODD. Will the Senator from Utah yield for 1 minute?

Mr. DODD. At an appropriate time, I say to the distinguished chairman of the committee, I will ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the Senator I may have some time, too. I don't know what the order is, but is such a request appropriate, Mr. President?

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent at the conclusion of the remarks by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Utah, that the Senator from Connecticut be recognized for 30 minutes.