Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, Senator Snowe, cosponsors of this amendment, and myself, believe the amendment deserves support. We urge adoption of it. I thank my colleagues for listening.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been requested?

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. The whole goal, of course, of the underlying bill before us is to move families from welfare to work. That has been the goal of those who initiated this proposal some time ago. Of course, many of us ask the question how in good conscience we could do that, turn our backs on those who are doing what we asked them to do, and that is to leave the dependency of welfare and to enter the workforce. Yet without the adoption of the Snowe-Dodd amendment, it is quite clear some 450,000 to 500,000 children who are presently receiving childcare assistance would have to be dropped from receiving childcare assistance. I don't think any of us want to be a party to that at all. Let me further point this out to my colleagues as a backdrop of why the Snowe-Dodd amendment is so critically important. Between 1994 up to 2001, we have seen employment by families headed by single mothers soar from 61 percent to now about 75 percent of single parents with children who are in the workforce. Among low-income mothers with children under the age 6, who have the greatest childcare costs and needs, employment has risen from 44 percent in 1996 to about 60 percent in the year 2000. Let me further point out there are 7 million children every day who go home from school alone, without any kind of afterschool or childcare assistance. These are children aged, some of them, between 6 and 7 years of age. I don't have to say much more to make the case about the importance of doing what we can here to see to it we have the necessary childcare assistance that working families, poor working families are going to need. What is presently occurring across the country is States cannot pick up the slack in the current bill. In the year 2003 alone, facing the worst State economies since World War II, 16 States have reduced eligibility levels so that fewer children will qualify for assistance. About 600,000 children in 24 States were put on waiting lists. Nearly every State made other changes in their childcare programs, such as reducing subsidies, increasing parent copays, cutting or eliminating afterschool programs, or shutting off assistance to families not on welfare--working poor families. States even made cuts in childcare quality investments such as reducing safety inspections. In my own State of Connecticut, last week the State legislature recommended cutting another $20 million for the States Care4Kids childcare program. I say another $20 million because this is the most recent cut enacted in my State. The program will have gone from $121.5 million in fiscal year 2002 down to $70 million for next year. In the meantime, of course, costs for childcare have continued to rise. Although the economy seems to be improving, not just Connecticut, but many States continue to face very tough budget decisions. On this chart, every one of these little figures represents 2,000 children on a wait list across the country. I will not go through the entire list, but just to get some idea of what I am talking about, in Alabama, 16,700; Arizona, 8,000; California, 280,000; Florida 48,800; here in the District of Columbia, 1,400. In my State of Connecticut, 15,000 children are on wait lists; in Georgia, 30,000. It goes on. These are 24 States that keep lists. Other States don't keep waiting lists at all because frankly they don't want to know the numbers, and I don't blame them, because they are struggling across the country with the numbers of children who are qualified and would be eligible for childcare assistance but can't get it. These are the children on the wait list who presently need it. Imagine, if you are not a parent of a young child yourself, colleagues, you may have children who are parents. Ask them, ask people in your office, what it is like today if you are going to work, you have a young child, and you are asked to pay $4,000 to $6,000 to $8,000 to $10,000 a year for childcare assistance. Our staffs are pretty well taken care of. We have childcare centers for Senate employees. We have childcare centers around Capitol Hill and other places. But if you are a working parent holding down a job and you don't have those kinds of incomes and revenues, you have some idea of what it must be. Data from the Child Care Bureau shows 21 percent of childcare recipients receive TANF funds. This means nearly 80 percent of childcare funds are used to help working poor families. If childcare funds are not increased, the working poor will be cast aside so States have sufficient funds to help the welfare poor. We ought not rob Peter to pay Paul. Both need our help--those on welfare moving to work and those who have moved from welfare to work but are just barely hanging on. If we deprive them of this additional assistance they fall right back. What good is that, in the welfare reform bill, where our underlying goal is to move people from welfare to work, not only temporarily but permanently, if we can? The level of funding in the Finance Committee bill which provides an increase of $200 million a year, in our view--Senator Snowe and myself and others who are cosponsoring this amendment--is woefully insufficient. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it would cost about $1.5 billion in additional childcare money to meet the work requirements under the Senate welfare bill. But that is not the full story. The Congressional Budget Office also estimates even if there were no increase in the work requirements in this bill--of course, there are additional work requirements--it would cost an additional $4.5 billion over the next 5 years to maintain assistance for the 2 million children who currently receive help for childcare. A subsidy provided for the family today would simply not cover the cost 5 years from now. Again, you don't have to have a Ph.D. in economics to understand that. To do otherwise is to shift costs to States or the parents, neither of whom are in a position to pick up the slack for the Federal Government. Let me put this chart up as well. It will give you some sense of what I am talking about. You may not be able to see this very clearly. Every single one of the X's in every one of these States all across the country indicates the State has cut back in one way or another in terms of childcare assistance. As I mentioned earlier, 24 States have a waiting list for childcare. Other States do not have a waiting list--not because they do not need assistance, but because they do not want to keep those waiting lists. It is good news that welfare caseloads are down, although I understand the caseloads in a number of States have actually gone up. A reduced caseload does not mean a reduction in the need for childcare for low-income working families. What we know from studies about families leaving welfare is they are leaving welfare for low-wage jobs. They have left the ranks of the welfare poor to join the ranks of the working poor. Their need for childcare assistance has not changed. In fact, it may have gone up. Many State administrators believe the availability of childcare is one of the chief reasons welfare caseloads have declined. Nevertheless, the purpose of childcare funding is to assist low- income families regardless of whether they receive welfare. Childcare can easily cost between $4,000 and $10,000 a year for one child, more than the cost of public college tuition in nearly every State. Therefore, the fact that welfare rolls have been declining is irrelevant to whether families need childcare assistance. Nearly one-quarter of the TANF funds used to support childcare assistance is either transferred from TANF to childcare or spent directly on childcare. But estimates show that States are expected to spend a declining percentage of TANF funds on childcare as work requirements increase and TANF reserve funds from early years of the program are exhausted. In fact, most States, including my own of Connecticut, have exhausted their TANF reserve funds, or have nearly exhausted them. States simply are not awash in TANF money. If they were, they would not be slashing childcare funding. Yet nearly every State has made cuts in childcare assistance. Let us be very clear. The promise made in 1996 when four separate childcare programs were consolidated as part of welfare reform was this would be a simpler program to administer, and childcare assistance would no longer be tied to welfare. Childcare assistance would be available for low-wage families regardless of welfare receipt. Now it appears that lacking sufficient funds, States such as my own are shutting off assistance to the working poor. My colleagues are telling these families: Work your way off welfare, but once you are off, that is it. They are among the working poor. They are no longer a concern to many of my colleagues here. I disagree. I thank Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, the chair and ranking Democrat of this committee, along with Senator Hatch and others for understanding this basic concept. Working poor families need this help or they will fall back into a dependency role. If we do not adopt this amendment, as I mentioned, some 450,000 kids of the 2 million presently being served could lose childcare assistance. I mentioned as well how single working mothers and their employment force has actually gone up to 75 percent and the poorest families actually have gone up almost 20 percent in the last 4 or 5 years. These mothers need childcare assistance. They don't have alternatives. They are single parents. They do not live necessarily in the old neighborhoods where there was someone next door or down the block or on the neighboring farm who would take care of them. They need this kind of help. I know my time has expired. Let me say this is not only my view. There is a list of organizations which I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record, beginning with the National Governors Association, all of whom, regardless of political persuasion or ideology, urge support for our amendment. They understand these families need our support. I ask unanimous consent that the list be printed in the Record, along with letters of endorsement.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Delaware for graciously allowing me to take a few minutes here to speak on the amendment I am offering along with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. I thank her at the outset for her eloquent comments yesterday about the importance of this amendment and her kind comments about the Senator from Connecticut as well. Let me also very quickly, while he is still here with us on the floor, commend my good friend from Utah. I remember with fondness, going back almost 15 or 16 years ago, when we offered the very first effort to include as part of our efforts on behalf of working families of this country a childcare proposal. That never would have happened without the tremendous leadership of the Senator from Utah, who was pretty much alone, I might say, in those days, in advocating this important initiative on the part of the Federal Government to try to do something to help these families who were trying to stay on the work rolls. I would be remiss in any discussion about a childcare proposal not to reference the incredible work of the Senator from Utah. Again, I thank him for his leadership and I thank him as well for his cosponsorship of this amendment we are offering today.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may be allowed to speak for up to 12 minutes under the time under the control of the Democratic side.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following legislation be introduced and printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I share the outrage of every other Member in this Senate over the heinous and violent crimes that are committed against over 300,000 women a year. These crimes are especially horrific when the perpetrator knows his victim and knows her to be pregnant. Today, a significant number of States already allowed stricter penalties for crimes of violence committed against pregnant women. At the Federal level, I believe that it is appropriate and necessary to conform our Federal laws to the statutes of these States. Particularly heinous crimes ought to receive particularly harsh penalties. And for that reason, I strongly supported the Feinstein amendment during today's debate. Like the underlying legislation, the Feinstein amendment would have allowed Federal prosecutors to ``double- charge'' those individuals convicted of crimes against pregnant women, and would have set forth severe and just punishments for those crimes. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated. I also realize that punishing individuals for crimes against women, both pregnant and not, is only one step toward reducing domestic violence. We must do more as a society not only to punish but to prevent domestic violence. For this reason, I strongly supported the Murray amendment today. This amendment would have protected the economic security of women who are victims of domestic violence by allowing them to keep their jobs if and when they needed to take time off to attend court and receive medical care related to an act of domestic violence committed against them. It would have also authorized important new initiatives for the establishment of family violence research and education centers to develop, implement, disseminate, and evaluate family violence prevention and early intervention services and strategies. Again, I was disappointed when this amendment failed. We have come a long way from the days when domestic violence was considered a private matter. Major initiatives like the Violence Against Women Act have offered protection for women while treating domestic violence for what it is--crimes committed by cowards. However, as the continued prevalence of domestic violence cases show, we have a long way to go. Regrettably, the underlying bill that was before us today is not principally focused on curbing violence and punishing those individuals found guilty of committing these heinous crimes. Rather, the legislation was focused on advocating a cause about which its proponents feel very deeply, but a cause that a majority of Americans do not share--the cause of eroding and ultimately ending women's right to choose. I happen to support a woman's right to choose as set forth in the Roe vs. Wade decision. And I find it regrettable and inappropriate that legislation that ought to be focused on eroding the number of heinous crimes committed against all women focuses instead on eroding a woman's right to choose. For this reason, while I supported both the Feinstein and Murray amendments, I am unable to support the underlying bill. For those who wish to advocate a cause not related to the issue of domestic violence, I urge them to advocate it in the open and not by stealth. But for those who want to reduce further the number and severity of crimes against women to continue working with people like Senators Feinstein and Murray. Working together, I am confident we can make a substantial difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of women across the country.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I had heard some reports about this. I had never seen this letter before, but I find it incredible. Like many of my colleagues, I have attended various meetings with the families of guardsmen and reservists who have deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq over the last number of months. I have also been at armories in my State as the men and women have come back from their service there. I have even visited with our troops in Iraq for a few days in December. I cannot believe that these men and women, many of whom have spent a year boots-on-the-ground overseas would be treated in this way. These men and women have already had to put their jobs and families on hold as they go over for a year--maybe getting back for a week or so. It is hard enough to do that, hard enough to be away, hard enough to go through the perils of serving in a war zone as these young men and women are doing. But I find it stunning to also be told because of the training they may receive in order to help us rebuild Iraq and defend their fellow men and women in the uniform, that the training they got now deprives them of getting as much as 25 percent of their income. I am told that as much as 25 percent of the earning power of an average worker in this country comes from overtime pay. People coming back who just served their country, who put their life on the line, and been away for a year, are now being told if they got job training over there, they will no longer be eligible for overtime pay. That is incredible.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for the question. I see our friend from Illinois, as well, so I will not take much time. I am glad the Senator pointed this out. It reinforces the argument I mentioned a moment ago that according to Labor Department studies, this elimination of overtime pay for 250 job classifications will reduce the earning power of the average working family by 25 percent. What the Senator from Massachusetts is saying is not only will you have less pay, but you will have to work longer hours, as well. I am glad the Senator referenced the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. We went through World War II, we went through Korea, Vietnam, through economic downturns, and no administration ever suggested the kind of changes in overtime pay this Bush administration is advocating today. I urge, as my colleague from Massachusetts has, give us a chance to vote. Give this body a chance to express its will on whether we think during these times of economic hardship people ought to be able to get overtime pay. If you are a nurse, clerical worker, firefighter, a reporter, a paralegal, dental hygienist, graphic artist, the list goes on, those are the job classifications in which you will be denied overtime pay. Your work remains the same, you do not get the extra pay, you work longer hours. Let's vote on the Harkin amendment. Let's have an up-or-down vote to determine whether this body believes overtime pay ought to still be the practice in this country.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, again I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. He has in a sense answered the question himself with these numbers. It is hard to believe, given the times, the hardship, 90,000 people a week are exhausting their unemployment insurance benefits. We know of the pressures that exist on families already. We know how hard it is today economically. It is not an uncommon story to hear, whether you are in the home State of the Presiding Officer in Ohio, or Massachusetts, Illinois or Connecticut, to have families where two, three, and four jobs are held in order to make ends meet and how critically important it is to have that income coming in. When we read about jobs being outsourced across the country, being shipped off to India and China, and the administration is saying that that is a good thing for the economy, when 2.6 million manufacturing jobs have been lost, many of which have left the country, we have to be concerned about the future of America's families. These are all pressure points on these families who are living on the margins. We are not talking about families who are necessarily in poverty but families who are struggling to provide for their basic needs, trying to prepare for children going on to college, seeing to it they get a good education, keeping them properly clothed, and in good health. Forty-four million Americans do not have health care. The overwhelming majority of that 44 million are working people with two incomes. That is the average. Over 80 percent of the 44 million people without health care are working families. Now you take up to 25 percent of their income away and make them work longer hours. How is that balancing work and family? This body took 7 years to pass the Family and Medical Leave Act with the help of my good friend from Massachusetts. We tried to make it possible for people to balance their needs, but now, this administration is depriving these families and their children from receiving basic necessities. I am glad my colleague from Massachusetts has raised the issue beyond just the numbers and statistics we cite. These are real people and real lives out there struggling to make ends meet. And now the Republican leadership is depriving this body a chance to vote on this amendment which would prohibit the administration from moving forward with their overtime proposal. I am glad my colleague made the point about the firefighters, about the EMT services, about the police officers. These are the first responders on homeland security. This administration is not only turning their back on veterans and people in uniform who are going to be shoved into the class of not getting overtime pay, but even our first responders now are going to be asked to pay a price as well. Let's vote on the Harkin amendment. Let's have an up-and-down vote to determine whether or not this body believes overtime pay ought to still be the law of the land and not relegated to a handful of people. So, Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his efforts. I am glad to join with him as a cosponsor of the Harkin amendment.

Mr. DODD. I will be happy to yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator. The Senator from Massachusetts has been a Member of this Chamber for a number of years, and I have been here for almost a quarter of a century. I say to my colleague from Massachusetts, I was born at night but not last night. You can use the rules of this institution for various purposes. It seems clear to this Member that the reason the Republican leadership--a determined minority within the majority--is engaging in these parliamentary sorts of gymnastics is because they know the outcome. I suspect a strong majority of us would speak with a resounding voice in saying no, you shouldn't implement a rule that would prohibit hard- working Americans from collecting overtime pay. This is particularly troublesome at a time when so many are out of work and where two incomes in a family may be necessary to keep up with the mortgage payments, or to pay college tuition, or make car payments. We cannot deprive 8 million Americans who today have the right to collect overtime. The only reason the Republican leadership is prohibiting a vote is because they know the outcome--the amendment would pass.

Mr. DODD. Again, I thank my colleague for his question. I don't know how you can draw any other conclusion than my colleague from Massachusetts has. As I recall--again, my colleague has a wonderful sense of history, and I think my memory is not bad but correct me if I am wrong--during the Reagan administration, during the Bush administration, the President's father, extended unemployment benefits in those years when people were out of work. I think during both Republican and Democratic administrations, they said we ought to extend those unemployment benefits and raise the minimum wage. But in this administration's case, the answer is a resounding no. Not only do they not allow us to vote on those matters and extend those benefits as every administration has over time, but, of course, they are going a step further and proposing regulations. Let me be clear so people understand. If you are among one of 250 current white-collar occupations, if you are a nurse, a firefighter, a police officer, emergency medical training personnel, health technician, clerical worker, surveyor, chef, if you are in those categories and many more, even though your work obligations don't change at all, it gives your employer the right to reclassify you as no longer someone who qualifies for overtime pay. Even though your work doesn't change, you will be deprived of overtime pay, no matter how many hours you work. I don't understand.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for securing the time. I may not need all of that time. I want to take a few minutes to express my deep concerns about the pending amendment. I am in favor of the pending amendment. My concern is that an effort will be made to somehow avoid having to vote on this critical issue, the issue of overtime pay. First, let me commend Senator Harkin of Iowa for being so tenacious and patient about this amendment. He has offered this proposal in the past. We carried the amendment, as I recall, in the Chamber, only to watch the matter be dispensed with and dropped in conference. He has tried to bring up this matter before. In fact, prior to the recess period, Senator Harkin was on the floor of this Chamber for a number of hours, trying to get a vote. I think he agreed to a simple 20 minutes or 25 minutes of debate on whether we would be able to prohibit the administration from implementing a new regulation that would take overtime away from millions of working Americans. I have no doubt about the outcome of the vote if we can actually get a vote. I have no doubt the overwhelming majority of our colleagues, if given the chance to express themselves on the proposed regulation by the administration, would support the Harkin amendment. We have done that already. I think that is where Members are, both Democrats and Republicans. But a determined minority here will not allow us to have this vote. We will not get the chance to express whether we believe that hard- working Americans who work beyond their 40 hours ought to get paid for the overtime work they do. I was stunned to learn not only is the administration proposing the regulation that would prohibit overtime pay for people, but actually, within administration documents, they instruct employers on how to craft their working relationships with their employees to avoid paying overtime pay, moving people into whole new classifications they had never held. I am baffled that the administration has unveiled such an antiworker, antifamily proposed regulation. It is simply one more bad economic policy decision that I think is indefensible, and I think we would like a chance, both Democrats and Republicans, to express ourselves on this proposal. I am determined, along with the Senator from Iowa and many others, to stay here and do whatever we have to do to get an up-or-down vote on whether we ought to ban people from collecting overtime pay when they work those hours.

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thought I had 4 or 5 minutes.

Mr. DODD. I will maybe take less than that. I associate myself with the comments of Senator Kennedy and Senator Conrad in this debate. It was 200 years ago this year that Thomas Jefferson said that any nation that ever expects to be ignorant and free expects what never was and never possibly can be. That was at the outset of the 19th century. Here we are, gathered in this great Chamber at the outset of the 21st century and we are arguing whether we can afford to give those who are the wealthiest in our society a little bit less of a tax cut than they otherwise might be getting in order to see to it that a significant majority of our young people get the opportunity of a higher education which they are being denied, not because they lack the drive or determination or absolute desire to acquire the skills necessary to improve the quality of their lives and the lives of all of us in this country but because they lack the means. What I hear my colleague saying is the total amounts are going up. What has not gone up is the amount of money we provide to each student. Because of a declining economy--and we are talking about families here with incomes of $15,000 a year or less who qualify for Pell grants--we have seen a growing number of families and a growing number of students who want to go on and get a higher education. In 1975, Pell grants paid for somewhere around 80 percent of a college education. That is a generation ago. Today, I don't need to remind people who may be listening to this discussion, $5,000, even at a public institution, doesn't necessarily cover even 50 percent of the cost of a higher education. Nevermind, the cost at private institutions. In fact, at public colleges and universities, tuition has gone up some 26 percent since President Bush took office and 77 percent of all students attend public institutions. This Pell increase, up to a little more than $5,000, really will help students and their families, students who want to get an education and want to contribute to the wealth of this Nation. We now know, in the coming years, in the next 10 years, 80 percent of the 23 million new jobs we hope are going to be created will require that a person applying for them have more than a high school education--80 percent of the 23 million jobs. What are we doing in this year, this year, to prepare those students so they can acquire the skills necessary to get the jobs that will require that someone have additional education beyond high school? We are asking today, in this amendment, that the most wealthy in our society take a little less of the tax cut President Bush has offered them in order to pay to see to it that more and more Black and Hispanic children in this country, those who primarily fall into Pell income categories, can get Pell grants to go on and get an education. I don't know of many affluent people who would disagree with this request. The very beneficiaries of the tax cut, I suspect, if you polled them, would say, I'll take less of a tax cut if in fact you put those resources to seeing to it that people who come from the poorest families in our society, who have the intelligence and ability to go on and get an education, will qualify for an additional amount of money under the Pell grants. That is what the Senator from Massachusetts is asking. We ought to be supporting that on a bipartisan basis. I can't imagine, as we talk about job creation and talk about this Nation remaining No. 1 in the 21st century, that we want to shortchange the ability of qualified young people to go on to higher education. Pell grants make a huge difference. We are unfortunately depriving these kids of the necessary dollars they need, and all because we are not asking the most affluent 1 percent income earners to take a little bit less of a tax cut than they might otherwise be getting. I urge the adoption of the Kennedy amendment.

Mr. DODD. The Senator from Maryland is correct. This budget contains a $250 million cut in FIRE Act grants. There have been over 19,000 awarded since the program was established from 33,000 departments across the country. These fire departments absolutely need the equipment and training resources. In addition, the SAFER Act will put 75,000 new firefighters on the street over the next seven years. Recent studies by major organizations indicate there are chronic shortfalls in the numbers of people who serve in paid and volunteer and combination departments. This is a good amendment. We are asking those who make more than $1 million a year to take a little less of a tax cut than they would ordinarily get. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I heard my colleague mention the tragedy that occurred in Spain, with the tremendous loss of life there as a result of a terrorist attack, and we don't know whether it was ETA or another organization. I inform my colleagues that we drafted a resolution expressing our sense of outrage over these events. I chair the United States-Spain Council every year and have developed strong friendships with the people there. I know the budget matters are gripping our attention, but I ask the managers at some point to find a few minutes this evening to set aside the budget and express our sense of solidarity with the people of Spain, as well as our great sense of loss of what occurred. It is in connection directly to what my colleagues are offering on this amendment on homeland security, which I support. I hope we might express our unanimous support for the people in Spain.

Mr. DODD. Three minutes.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this amendment deals with afterschool programs. I know most of my colleagues are tremendously supportive of this program. When we passed the No Child Left Behind Act 2 years ago, we insisted that we fund, to the extent possible, $2 billion for afterschool programs. Over the last 2 years, we have only funded half of that program, serving a little more than 1 million children when the need exceeds 2 million children. I think all of us have given talks in our States about the value of afterschool programs. The President himself has talked eloquently about it, saying afterschool programs keep kids safe, help working families, and improve academic achievements. He is absolutely right. But we are leaving more than 1 million children behind as a result of not fully funding at the authorized levels afterschool programs. I am asking, with this amendment, that we fund with an additional $1 billion to reach more than 1 million kids who could really use this critically important program. Over the years this body has overwhelmingly supported afterschool initiatives. This is an opportunity for us to live up to the requirements that we insisted upon when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act 2 years ago. I urge my colleagues to be supportive of this effort. We pay for the $1 billion by reducing the tax cut for the most affluent Americans by $1 billion. That is a tiny fraction that can serve over 1 million children in afterschool programs. I urge adoption of the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2762.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, even though the Senate is extremely busy with respect to consideration of the Senate budget resolution, the recent tragedy in Spain makes it terribly important that the Senate pause from its regular business this afternoon to speak with one voice about our profound outrage and sorrow with respect to what transpired just a few short hours ago in Madrid. The resolution which has been introduced by Senators Frist, Daschle, myself, and others is an opportunity for the Senate to send its condolences to the people of Spain. I would also like to bring to the attention of my colleagues that a book of condolences will be open at the Embassy of Spain tomorrow, March 12, and Monday, March 15. In addition, a funeral service for the victims of this heinous attack will be held at St. Matthews Cathedral on Monday, March 15, at 5:30 p.m. Mr. President, I know I join all my colleagues when I express how deeply disturbed I am by today's bombings in the Spanish capital of Madrid, and I strongly condemn those responsible for what is a heinous crime against human life. These horrific attacks--the deadliest in Spain's history--have now left over 180 innocent people dead and more than 900 wounded. Such carnage is almost unimaginable, and I know that I join with all Americans in expressing my outrage over these acts of violence. I also join with my fellow Americans in expressing my solidarity with the Spanish people and the families of the innocent victims. This is a time of great distress and pain for them--it is a memory that will long endure in their hearts and minds. And I know that in the difficult days ahead, America and the Congress will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Spain, just as Spain supported America through some of our darkest hours after September 11, 2001. In so many ways, Spain's friendship has been invaluable to the United States. Spain has been a critical partner in the fight against terrorism, a true ally during the war in Iraq, and an important economic partner in the global marketplace. And indeed, through my roles as a United States Senator and Chairman of the U.S.-Spain Council, I have seen firsthand the immense depth and strength of the United States-Spain bond. This bond continues to flourish because our countries and our peoples share the fundamental values of freedom and democracy. In today's complicated world, the United States and Spain are true friends. And I would like to say to the Spanish people--rest assured that during this time of tragedy, your nation has no greater friend than the American people. As my colleagues are aware, these horrific terrorist attacks have occurred only days before Spain is to hold its general elections. The attacks were likely meant to disrupt Spain's strong democratic institutions. And they were surely aimed at the values of freedom and democracy that both Spain and the United States hold dear. Although it is not yet clear who was behind these attacks, I have a message for them, wherever they are. The values that Spain and America share will not be broken by cowardly acts of terror; the friendship and cooperation between our nations will continue. And despite your efforts, elections will be held--the Spanish democracy will continue to thrive. In times of need, we grow more united. And together, we will move forward to ensure that this world is safe for freedom-loving people everywhere. I thank the majority leader and minority leader for putting this resolution forth this afternoon. It is a timely resolution to take a few minutes out from the budget resolution to share our collective thoughts and to express them to the people of Spain over this incredible tragedy. I associate myself with the remarks that have been given by the majority leader, the Democratic leader, and my colleague from Virginia who have spoken eloquently about our feelings. I recall vividly the day after September 11 reading Spanish papers. The headlines in the Spanish papers in Madrid and Barcelona said the following in Spanish: Nosotros somos, Americos. I think, tonight, all Members in the Senate would want to say to the people of Spain in this moment: Nosotros somos, Espanolas.