Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I just would note that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program is a significant program that helps U.S. manufacturers, small manufacturers with everything from plant modernization to employee training. This cut means that 11,000 small manufacturers are not going to receive services, and 28,000 employees will either be laid off or not hired. So even if you agree with the President that we ought to not be talking about outsourcing, not be talking about manufacturing job loss, that we ought to be investing in small businesses, what is he doing when he cuts 63 percent of the budget for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program? That is a complete reversal of his rhetoric on these issues. He also tries to eliminate entirely the Advanced Technology Program, which spurs cutting-edge research in solving manufacturing problems and increasing competitiveness. Here we are eliminating that program altogether and slashing by more than 50 percent the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program. That is what we do not understand. He is opposed to doing anything about outsourcing. He is opposed to doing anything to provide tax relief for small manufacturers who need help. And he is going to cut the budget in the two areas that can make a significant difference to our manufacturers. I applaud the Senator from California for offering her amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President. I rise in support of this amendment to help the Nation's firefighters safely do their jobs. Specifically, this amendment does three things. First, it restores funding to the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, which I authored in 2000 with Senators DeWine, Levin, and Warner. This law stands as the first federal grant program explicitly designed to help firefighters throughout America obtain better equipment, improved training, and needed personnel. Second, this amendment provides funding for the implementation of the SAFER Act. This law, which I authored with Senator Warner and was enacted last November, authorizes a federal grant program to hire an expected 75,000 new firefighters over the next seven years. Finally, this amendment allocates much-needed funding for deficit reduction. The Senate budget resolution, which largely reflects President Bush's irresponsible fiscal policies, adds a staggering $2.86 trillion to the national debt over the next 5 years. Mr. President, $2.86 trillion dollars! These numbers are totally mind-boggling. The Republicans have always claimed that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. Under their Senate Budget resolution, however, $612 billion will be added to the gross debt from 2004 to 2005; the next year $569 billion will be added; the next year $553 billion; the next year $553 billion; the next year $563 billion; and the next year $564 billion will be added to the debt. Despite the claims of President Bush and the Budget Committee majority, I see no significant progress being made at reducing the increases to the debt. In fact, we've gone from record surpluses to record deficits in only 3 years! The offset we are proposing to pay for this amendment is a reduction in the tax cuts benefiting individuals with annual incomes over $1 million. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Senate budget resolution calls for tax cuts which are extremely beneficial to the wealthiest Americans such as accelerating the repeal of the estate tax by 1 year, and making permanent the capital gains and dividend tax cuts. With the deficit exploding, the country still vulnerable to terrorist attack, and our Nation's firefighters in need of the resources necessary to respond to emergencies and to save lives, it is only right that the top one-tenth of one percent of the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share for homeland security. In fact, Mr. President, homeland security is exactly what this amendment is all about. The defenders on our home front are not dressed in combat fatigues. They do not drive tanks on the streets of the Nation's cities. They wear firefighter uniforms, and they drive fire engines. They risk their lives to keep us safe just like our troops overseas, and I for one appreciate their efforts greatly. I know that the fire service has men and women who are willing to do whatever it takes to get their jobs done. We have first-rate firefighters throughout the Nation, but they are underfunded, understaffed, undertrained, and underequiped to deal with many emergencies that may arise. The responsibilities of America's firefighters have changed. They have certainly come a long way from the ``bucket brigades'' in colonial America, where two rows of people would stretch from the town well to the fire, passing buckets of water back and forth until the fire was extinguished. Today, firefighters must do more. They still have their traditional responsibilities of extinguishing fires, delivering emergency medical services, and ensuring that fire codes are inspected. Now the fire service has new homeland security responsibilities, such as responding to biological and radiological agents. The reality, however, is that cash-strapped States and cities simply do not have the resources--financial as well as personnel--needed to single-handedly safeguard their populations. Nor do they have the fiscal reserves necessary to deal with heightened warning levels for any extended period of time. According to a national Needs Assessment study of the U.S. Fire Service published in December 2002, most fire departments lack the necessary resources and training to properly handle terrorist attacks and large-scale emergencies. The study found that: Using local personnel, only 11 percent of fire departments can handle a rescue with emergency medical services at a structural collapse of a building with 50 occupants. Nearly half of all fire departments consider such an incident beyond their scope. Using local personnel, only 13 percent of fire departments can handle a hazardous material incident involving chemical and/or biological agents with 10 injuries. Only 21 percent have a written agreement to direct the use of non-local resources to handle the situation. An estimated 40 percent of fire department personnel involved in hazardous material response lack formal training in those duties, most of them serving smaller communities. Finally, an estimated 60 to 75 percent of fire departments do not have enough fire stations to achieve widely used response time guidelines. Many fire departments often fail to respond to fires with sufficient personnel to safely initiate an interior attack on a structural fire. These statistics are startling. The risks that firefighters are expected to respond to have far outgrown the ability of city governments to equip firefighters to do what we are asking them to do. This situation demands immediate action by the Senate to address these concerns. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is talking out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to helping firefighters. Secretary Ridge of the Department of Homeland Security talks about training and equipping first responders yet the President's Budget and the Senate budget resolution cuts the FIRE Act grant program by $250 million. This amendment will restore these funds to their authorized level of $900 million for fiscal year 2005. Mr. President, the FIRE Act grant program has been one of the most successful initiatives in recent years. I am currently working closely with Senator DeWine to reauthorize this program for the future. The need is certainly out there in all regions of the country urban and rural, large cities and small communities, North and South, East and West--for these competitive, merit-based grants that assist fire departments with their heaviest burdens. For Fiscal Year 2003, the program received approximately 19,950 applications from fire departments across the nation, totaling $2.5 billion in grant requests, while only $750 million in federal funding was available for such grants. A January 31, 2003 report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that 99 percent of program participants were satisfied with the program's ability to meet the needs of their department. In addition, 97 percent of the participants reported that the program had ``a positive impact on their ability to handle fire and fire-related incidents.'' The report concluded that ``overall, the results of our survey and our analysis reflect that the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program was highly effective in improving the readiness and capabilities of firefighters across the nation.'' The FIRE Act grant program is truly a success story, and it deserves the Senate's full support. It is surprising to me then that President Bush and the Senate budget resolution would slash $250 million from this very successful program. It is also surprising to me that President Bush would show images of firefighters in a campaign advertisement when his budget, as well as the Senate budget resolution, provides not one cent for the SAFER Act, which would fund 75,000 new firefighters over the next seven years. It makes no sense. The need for additional firefighters on our Nation's streets is great. According to National Fire Protection Association standards, a minimum of four firefighters is required to initiate an interior attack on a house fire. And 73 percent of departments serving populations between 10,000 and 25,000 lack such personnel. For fire departments serving populations between 25,000 and 50,000, the number climbs to 82 percent. For fire departments serving populations between 50,000 and 100,000, 76 percent lack the minimum of four firefighters. And 56 percent of fire departments protecting 100,000 and 250,000 people also do not have the necessary four firefighters. Then it is 41 percent for departments serving 250,000 and 500,000 people, 40 percent for departments protecting populations between 500,000 and one million people, and 0 percent for departments protecting at least one million people. Just as the FIRE Act provides the equipment and training resources for firefighters to do their job, the SAFER Act complements it by also providing the human resources to meet the challenge of an extended war against terrorism. Since 1970, the number of firefighters as a percentage of the nation's workforce has steadily declined. Today in the United States there is one firefighter for every 280 citizens. We have fewer firefighters per capita than nurses and police officers. We need to turn the trend around now more than ever. Understaffing is dangerous for the public and for firefighters. Chronic understaffing means that many firefighters do not have the backup and on-the-ground support they need to do their jobs safely. The sad consequence is that about every three days we lose a firefighter in the line of duty. On some days, the losses are unimaginably high. Firefighters need reinforcements, and the Congress should be prepared to give them all the help they need. This amendment therefore provides funding for the SAFER Act at its FY2005 authorized level of $1.03 billion. In closing, it is important to recall the important role that firefighters have played in American history since its earliest days. In fact, firefighting can be linked to some of our Nation's most illustrious personages. Benjamin Franklin established the first volunteer fire department in Philadelphia in 1735. George Washington himself was a volunteer firefighter across the Potomac River in Alexandria, Virginia, and he imported the first fire engine from England in 1765. Of course, on September 11, 2001, 343 members of the New York Fire Department made the ultimate sacrifice in their efforts to save thousands of lives trapped in the World Trade Center. The role played by those firefighters who lived and died in the line of duty on that tragic day made the Nation proud. On that day and on every other day, they are the first ones in and the last ones out. They risk their own lives to save the lives of others. They stare danger in the face because they know that they have a duty to fulfill. The Congress has a duty to the fire service as well. We must ensure that there is full funding for the FIRE Act and the SAFER Act, so I urge my colleagues to support this 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. 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. I thought I had 4 or 5 minutes.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, when this President came to office he called himself the education President and called for significant reforms. When he offered these reforms he promised to provide us with the resources needed to implement them. Taking him at his word, this body took up and enacted the No Child Left Behind Act two years ago. Yet here we are, only 2 years later, and No child Left Behind is being underfunded by $8.6 billion. When we passed the No Child Left Behind Act we pledged to expect more, and provide more, to our Nation's schools. And yet this pledge is not reflected in this budget. I have to ask, how do my Republican colleagues and the administration, expect us to raise test scores, provide high quality teachers and prepare students for the 21st century without the funds to do so? Furthermore, who is it that they expect to feel the burden of these cuts? I can tell you who it will be. First, it will be the States. States that need every dollar possible to do more than they have ever been asked to do before. States that are experiencing the worst fiscal crisis in decades. Second, it will be the localities. With less funds to do more, hard decisions will have to be made at the local level. Should local taxes be raised? Should music and art be cut? Should after school programs be eliminated? Should physical education classes be cut in the midst of a childhood obesity epidemic? Ultimately, the students will suffer. They will not be given the teachers that they need. They may not get the tutoring that they were promised. Music, art and foreign language may no longer be a part of the curriculum. After school programs could be cut. When we passed No Child Left Behind, we made it clear that we were expecting more from our schools--and rightfully so. We were expecting more so that American children--all American children--children in the suburbs, children in our inner cities, children in our rural areas-- would have real opportunities to reach their full potential. This past September, some Connecticut students went back to schools that were labeled under performing by No Child Left Behind. And yet this budget is not committed to helping them overcome that label. This bill will not give them the added funds they need to fully perform. If we fail to adequately fund No Child Left Behind, our States, our localities, our school districts, local taxpayers, and most importantly, our children, will suffer. Budgets are about priorities. What priority could be more important than ensuring the future of our children by providing them with a first-class, world-class education.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an important issue that holds great meaning to me--the issue of youth suicide in our country. Youth suicide is both a public and mental health tragedy--an acute crisis that knows no geographic, racial, ethnic, cultural, or socioeconomic boundaries. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 3,000 young people take their lives each year, making suicide the third overall cause of death between the ages of 10 and 24. Young people under the age of 25 accounted for 15 percent of all suicides completed in 2000. In fact, more children and young adults died from their own hand than from cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke and chronic lung disease combined. Equally alarming are the numbers of young people who consider taking or attempt to take their lives. Recent CDC figures estimate that almost three million high school students, or twenty percent of young adults between the ages of 15 and 19, consider suicide every year. And over two million children and young adults actually attempt suicide. I find these figures to be staggering and simply unacceptable. And, sadly, we rarely find these facts disseminated widely amongst public audiences. We rarely read them in newspapers or hear them on television. We know that youth suicide is intricately linked to mental health issues like depression and substance abuse. Yet, we also know all too well that both youth suicide and children's mental health continue to carry an unfortunate stigma--a stigma that all too often keeps these crucial issues unspoken and discourages children and young adults from seeking the help they so desperately need. We have a societal obligation to break through the stigma attached to youth suicide and children's mental health. We have an obligation to reach out to our young people--to help them understand that whatever difficulties or illnesses they might be experiencing are only temporary and treatable in a comfortable setting. And, most importantly, we have an obligation to instill in our young people a sense of value, self- worth, and resilience. All too often, children and young adults considering suicide lose sight of themselves, their talents, and their potential in life. All too often they lose sight of the love their families, friends, and communities have for them. I am pleased that our Nation has already taken several positive steps toward better understanding the tragedy of youth suicide and its emotional and behavioral risk factors. Several recent reports like the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention, and the Surgeon General's Call to Action To Prevent Suicide have made youth suicide a top national public and mental health priority. Today, hundreds of community-based programs across the country offer a variety of early intervention and prevention services to thousands of children and young adults--services that include comprehensive screening, assessment, and individualized counseling. Nearly thirty states, including my home State of Connecticut, have developed or already implemented statewide youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategies that coordinate appropriate services in schools, juvenile justice systems, foster care systems, mental health programs, substance abuse programs, and other youth-oriented settings. Furthermore, the Federal Government has stepped up its role in both supporting these community-based activities and conducting relevant research and data collection. Several mental and public health agencies have shown a growing interest in youth suicide, including the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Health Resources Services Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institute of Mental Health. However, despite these important gains, we still face significant challenges. Today, a large number of states and localities are finding themselves with unprecedented budget deficits--making the establishment of new services and the retention of existing services increasingly more difficult. Statewide strategies are often underfunded or understaffed to be properly effective. And while a number of Federal agencies have supported youth suicide activities, there has been no comprehensive inter-agency strategy implemented to share data, disseminate research, or evaluate the efficacy of youth suicide early intervention and prevention programs. Today, I am introducing bipartisan legislation with my colleagues Senator DeWine and Senator Smith. The Youth Suicide Early Intervention and Prevention Act of 2004 will further support the good work being done on the community level, the State level, and the Federal level with regards to youth suicide. This legislation will support, through new grant initiatives, the further development and expansion of statewide youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategies and the community-based services they seek to coordinate. It will encourage greater Federal support in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of these strategies and services. And it will create a new inter-agency collaboration that will focus on research, policy development, and the dissemination of data specifically pertaining to youth suicide. Finding concrete, comprehensive and effective remedies to the epidemic of youth suicide cannot be done by lawmakers on Capitol Hill alone. Those remedies must also come from individuals--doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, nurses, teachers, advocates, survivors, and affected families--who are dedicated to this issue or spend each day with children and young adults that suffer from illnesses related to suicide. I feel that we have made an important first step with this legislation today. However, I also know that our work is not done. I hope that, as a society, we can continue working collectively to both better understand the tragedy of youth suicide and develop innovative and effective public and mental health initiatives that reach every child and young adult in this country--compassionate initiatives that give them encouragement, hope, and above all, life. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an important issue that holds great meaning to me--the issue of youth suicide in our country. Youth suicide is both a public and mental health tragedy--an acute crisis that knows no geographic, racial, ethnic, cultural, or socioeconomic boundaries. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 3,000 young people take their lives each year, making suicide the third overall cause of death between the ages of 10 and 24. Young people under the age of 25 accounted for 15 percent of all suicides completed in 2000. In fact, more children and young adults died from their own hand than from cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke and chronic lung disease combined. Equally alarming are the numbers of young people who consider taking or attempt to take their lives. Recent CDC figures estimate that almost three million high school students, or twenty percent of young adults between the ages of 15 and 19, consider suicide every year. And over two million children and young adults actually attempt suicide. I find these figures to be staggering and simply unacceptable. And, sadly, we rarely find these facts disseminated widely amongst public audiences. We rarely read them in newspapers or hear them on television. We know that youth suicide is intricately linked to mental health issues like depression and substance abuse. Yet, we also know all too well that both youth suicide and children's mental health continue to carry an unfortunate stigma--a stigma that all too often keeps these crucial issues unspoken and discourages children and young adults from seeking the help they so desperately need. We have a societal obligation to break through the stigma attached to youth suicide and children's mental health. We have an obligation to reach out to our young people--to help them understand that whatever difficulties or illnesses they might be experiencing are only temporary and treatable in a comfortable setting. And, most importantly, we have an obligation to instill in our young people a sense of value, self- worth, and resilience. All too often, children and young adults considering suicide lose sight of themselves, their talents, and their potential in life. All too often they lose sight of the love their families, friends, and communities have for them. I am pleased that our Nation has already taken several positive steps toward better understanding the tragedy of youth suicide and its emotional and behavioral risk factors. Several recent reports like the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention, and the Surgeon General's Call to Action To Prevent Suicide have made youth suicide a top national public and mental health priority. Today, hundreds of community-based programs across the country offer a variety of early intervention and prevention services to thousands of children and young adults--services that include comprehensive screening, assessment, and individualized counseling. Nearly thirty states, including my home State of Connecticut, have developed or already implemented statewide youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategies that coordinate appropriate services in schools, juvenile justice systems, foster care systems, mental health programs, substance abuse programs, and other youth-oriented settings. Furthermore, the Federal Government has stepped up its role in both supporting these community-based activities and conducting relevant research and data collection. Several mental and public health agencies have shown a growing interest in youth suicide, including the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Health Resources Services Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institute of Mental Health. However, despite these important gains, we still face significant challenges. Today, a large number of states and localities are finding themselves with unprecedented budget deficits--making the establishment of new services and the retention of existing services increasingly more difficult. Statewide strategies are often underfunded or understaffed to be properly effective. And while a number of Federal agencies have supported youth suicide activities, there has been no comprehensive inter-agency strategy implemented to share data, disseminate research, or evaluate the efficacy of youth suicide early intervention and prevention programs. Today, I am introducing bipartisan legislation with my colleagues Senator DeWine and Senator Smith. The Youth Suicide Early Intervention and Prevention Act of 2004 will further support the good work being done on the community level, the State level, and the Federal level with regards to youth suicide. This legislation will support, through new grant initiatives, the further development and expansion of statewide youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategies and the community-based services they seek to coordinate. It will encourage greater Federal support in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of these strategies and services. And it will create a new inter-agency collaboration that will focus on research, policy development, and the dissemination of data specifically pertaining to youth suicide. Finding concrete, comprehensive and effective remedies to the epidemic of youth suicide cannot be done by lawmakers on Capitol Hill alone. Those remedies must also come from individuals--doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, nurses, teachers, advocates, survivors, and affected families--who are dedicated to this issue or spend each day with children and young adults that suffer from illnesses related to suicide. I feel that we have made an important first step with this legislation today. However, I also know that our work is not done. I hope that, as a society, we can continue working collectively to both better understand the tragedy of youth suicide and develop innovative and effective public and mental health initiatives that reach every child and young adult in this country--compassionate initiatives that give them encouragement, hope, and above all, life. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Illinois very much.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, I want to thank my colleague from Illinois for his eloquent comments. He made an opening comment and proposed that we go to any Main Street anywhere in the country and ask the simple question: Should your tax dollars be used to subsidize the exportation of an American job? To equate the outsourcing of a person's job with that of a service or a product--as if somehow someone losing a job and knowing what that means, that that individual and their family will have an inability to have the kind of health care coverage, if they had it, that they need, and it is going to be difficult to find another job, we now know--and I am sure my colleague can comment on this--that that person who loses their job as a result of outsourcing and then seeks another job, except for two States, in Nebraska and Nevada, the salaries or wages they are getting are on average some 25- percent less than the job they lost. What we are asking to do is what any self-respecting government would do, and that is to stand up and defend people's jobs in this country. I think the question the Senator posed is an excellent one. I would point out, the Senator has the amendment correct. I find the second-degree amendment rather amusing. It says the administration--none of this language will go into effect unless the Secretary of Commerce certifies that there is some harm occurring to the economy. So if he never certifies anything, this entire amendment falls. It is kind of a phony amendment when talking about what to do. I appreciate immensely the Senator's comments. I wonder if he might share some additional thoughts on just what happens when people look for second jobs and how difficult that is.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. I send a modification to the Dodd amendment to the desk and ask it be so modified.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. I was prepared to vote. We offered the amendment at about 3:30 yesterday afternoon. This is a very simple proposal. There are those who are for outsourcing. The administration has indicated that it is a good thing for the economy to outsource jobs. I presume there are people in the Chamber who share that view. Why not vote up or down instead of going through the gyration of trying to find some cute way of avoiding having to vote on this issue or coming up with some phony alternative believing that outsourcing is good for the economy? I think shipping jobs away, destroying the manufacturing base and human capital investment that makes it possible in the 21st century for us to be competitive in a global economy is the wrong way to proceed. I understand there are those who disagree with me on that. If they do, come down and vote no. It is that simple, and the Senate can speak on this issue.

Mr. DODD. I would just like to point out----

Mr. DODD. I remind my colleague, and I am sure he knows these numbers, this year's budget proposal reduces worker investment programs by $400 million. So here you have 2.8 million jobs being lost in manufacturing. Those people who cannot find work are getting jobs at far less wages and salaries than they had in their previous job. Yet we find when it comes to worker education and investment issues the budget actually reduces the amount we are going to commit to those programs by almost a half a billion dollars. I wonder if my colleague has something to say about that.

Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield on that very point just made?

Mr. DODD. That is exactly the case. Let me address the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, and some comments made at the time of the introduction of that amendment which are worthy of note. First, my friend from Kentucky went on and recited the 6 million jobs that exist in this country where people work for foreign corporations that are located in the United States and he went down each State and identified the jobs. About 90 or 95 percent of those corporations come from the 27 or 28 nations that are exempted under this amendment. My friend from New Hampshire talked about a large employer in New Hampshire from the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is not covered by this amendment. Someone else talked about Japan. Japan is not covered by this amendment. As a result of an inquiry made by my friend from Montana to make sure we exempted those countries with which we have joint procurement policies under the World Trade Organization, the language of this amendment excludes those nations. The idea somehow that these jobs in America will be in jeopardy is not based on any fact whatever. I will be happy to list them for my colleagues: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, European Community, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Korea, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Aruba, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. There may be others. That is about 90 to 95 percent, as best we can tell, of the so-called jobs that might be in jeopardy. I suggest if we cannot have equal access to government procurement in various other countries, then we do have a problem. Of those countries where there is not a level playing field, for those that are for fair and free trade, as I listened to my colleague from Iowa talk about it earlier, the United States cannot compete for government procurement contracts in India. We cannot compete in China. We cannot compete in those other countries. If they are willing to say we can compete for their government procurement contracts, this Senator has a different point of view. But we are being told we cannot do it. Do not tell me that is fair or free trade. It is not--by any estimation. I will not take a backseat to anyone when it comes to trading policies. I supported many. I believe that is where we must be if we will succeed in the 21st century. I have waivers in here on national security. I understand there is outsourcing that goes on when national security issues are involved. I have written a specific provision, just check the box. You tell me this will jeopardize national security, the Secretary of Defense checks the box. That is it. You can go ahead and outsource. I am not trying to make it difficult for anyone. I don't want to make it more bureaucratic. But when I hear the Pentagon talk about bureaucracy and I look at some of the requirements for even purchasing a personal computer, 38 pages, the idea is there of making a determination that something is in the national security interests and therefore you do not have to do it. Let me offer to my colleague from Kentucky an alternative to his amendment which, if he is willing to accept, I am willing to take. I want to get answers out of these issues. Instead of his amendment as it reads, virtually nothing has to happen, and nothing happens with this bill because he says the title of this amendment shall take effect 30 days after the Secretary of Commerce certifies that the provisions of this title will not result in the loss of more jobs or be harmful to the U.S. economy. If the Secretary never certifies then, of course, none of the provisions go into law. This amendment, if adopted, would virtually gut everything we have tried to talk about over these last 24 hours. That amendment is unacceptable. If you are willing to say the initial certification shall be made by the Secretary of Commerce no later than 30 days after the enactment of this act, then I am willing to consider that because that requires an affirmative action for saying that outsourcing is what we want to continue doing. I do not like amending my amendment with this kind of a provision. But if you want to go that route, I am willing to listen, even though the Secretary of Commerce is the President's campaign manager and so forth, and the administration is already on record saying they think it is a good thing. I am willing to admit there are many good people who think outsourcing is a good thing. I am not disparaging people who believe that. All I am saying is, there are a lot of us who do not think we ought to be promoting it with U.S. taxpayer money. For those of us who do not think it is a great idea--I suspect a lot of our fellow Americans agree with that conclusion--we would like to vote up or down. If you think it is a bad idea, as apparently the Senator from Kentucky does and the Senator from New Hampshire--and I respect them immensely-- then, very simply, vote against the amendment and shoot it down. Then we will move on to the next subject matter. But to clutter it up with amendments, suggesting somehow that you agree with what I am suggesting, or at least implicitly do, because you are not challenging the underlying amendment but, rather, offering something that, if adopted, would make it impossible--unless the Secretary of Commerce decided to change political parties and contradict his President and decided he was going to certify something--this amendment requires nothing, no action on his part at all and, thus, obviously the entire provision dealing with outsourcing would fall. It is kind of a cute way of not having to vote on my amendment but, in effect, killing it with the adoption of the second-degree amendment. So I have sent over, through staff, some alternative language which I am asking them to consider as a way, instead, of wrapping this up. As I say, I was prepared to vote on this at 4:30 yesterday afternoon, or at 5:30, whenever people wanted to, but there is obviously another game going on. There is the old New England expression: I was born at night but not last night. I think I understand the game. We are not going to deal with this issue. We are not going to vote on this, or at least we are going to try to avoid voting on it through every possible maneuver. I regret that, but I guess that is the way things are. I think it is unfortunate. I think we should be speaking. The American people care about this issue. They care about trade. I think most people believe trade is in the best interest of the United States. I agree with them on that. I also think it is in our interest not to squander our human capital. I think we need to do everything possible to see to it that we are in a position to continue to defend ourselves by trying to do what we can to preserve the jobs that are necessary and the underlying industries for which they work so we will have the capacity to be able to build the infrastructures that we need both for our domestic products as well as our national security structure. I have 5,400 small manufacturers in my State. They are worried they are going to be cut out because there is always a better deal someplace else. I think the short-term quarterly analysis that fails to take into consideration the long-term implications for our country are dangerous. That is one Senator's point of view. That is one of the reasons I offered this amendment, again, not because I am a protectionist, an isolationist--my 24 years here deny that kind of a label categorically--but because I honestly believe this is something we better address now. If we do not, I think we will look back and deeply regret that we did not. Let me stop. I know the Senator from Arizona has some thoughts he would like to share. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Dodd amendment.

Mr. DODD. Obviously, they have a strong interest in this. We will try to take something out of the court system and come up with an answer that would not involve--although we would not necessarily eliminate that, at the end of the day if the fund was inadequate, you could go back. But the idea would be to get compensation to victims, give some finality and certainty to everyone. The danger for businesses and the industry is they want certainty. Tell me what I owe, what we have to do so we can move on. My hope is in the coming weeks we can solve that matter. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. Amendment No. 2660 If I can come back to the matter before us, I thank Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader, on the asbestos issue, and Senator Leahy, among others, along with Senator Frist and Senator Hatch, who really have been doing a tremendous job in keeping everyone at the table to work at that issue. I thank several other people for their work on this proposal dealing with the outsourcing of American jobs. Again, this is a major achievement. We never have done something like this before, but this Congress and this body is stepping to the plate and saying this continuing erosion of jobs in this country is something the Federal Government, anyway, will be far more diligent about than we have been. I thank Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, the floor leaders of the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction of the underlying bill. I particularly thank Senator Baucus for his support of the underlying Dodd amendment yesterday. I am very grateful to him for expressing that support and Senator Grassley indicating, as well, his support. I thank Senator Coleman, who wanted to be a cosponsor of the bill very early. I thank him for that. I thank Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, who is tireless in his participation on these matters all the time. He has been very helpful over the last several days, along with his staff, in getting this resolved. Senator Corzine of New Jersey spoke yesterday about this bill; Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, who spoke with such great passion about the issue of jobs and what is happening to American workers and their families; Senator Durbin of Illinois, who is always eloquent on these matters; Senator Stabenow, from Michigan, who spoke very directly about conditions in her own State and what happens with job loss. Senator Boxer of California spent some time here yesterday talking about conditions in California and specifically in the agricultural sector which she cares deeply about, in watching Federal tax dollars being used to purchase agricultural products outside of the United States, thus causing job loss. She made that point very strongly yesterday and I commend her for it; Senator Dorgan of North Dakota, as well, for his remarks in support of this proposal; others who were cosponsors, including Senator Mikulski, who supported the legislation. I thank her for backing this proposal, as well. Again, this was a very positive step. I am hoping the bill will be adopted. We will have a vote on it. For those who think outsourcing is a good thing, then you ought to vote against this amendment. I would like your vote, but if you think outsourcing jobs in the United States with Federal taxpayer money is something we ought to continue to pursue, then you will have an opportunity to vote against this amendment. If that is an honest reflection of your views, then you ought to express them accordingly. If you feel as I and others do that we ought to be sending a message using ourselves as an example and a model and saying we ought to be trying to do better, and that is when it comes to Federal dollars here, we ought to be doing everything we can to encourage the employment of people in the United States, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that you cannot continually erode the human capital in this country and expect to reconstitute it during moments of crisis or need. If we continually erode the human capital elements and destroy, in the process, a manufacturing base, which is occurring at an incredible rate of speed--as I pointed out earlier yesterday and today, some 2.8 million jobs have been lost in the last 36 months in the manufacturing sector alone--as those jobs leave, the ability to come back and reconstitute them in a way that we may find absolutely necessary, not only for the production of domestic products for sale at home and globally, but also in the manufacture of critical components of our defense structures-- very shortly we could find ourselves in this century ill-prepared to meet new challenges. So there are a lot of good reasons we ought to be concerned, not the least of which is what happens to these families when they painfully discover their job has been lost, and someone, at a fraction of their wage or salary, has been hired merely because it looks better, because it increases profitability on a quarter-to-quarter basis. We ought to be thinking in the longer term. In my view, we ought to be thinking about the coming generation and what kind of country we will leave. So while I respect the business decisions that are made to outsource--although I disagree with many of them, I understand them--I hope business understands, for those of us in the public sector who have a broader responsibility--not just to those who are engaged in the business and their bottom line but to those who work for them as well-- that we are going to try to do what we can to discourage the outsourcing of jobs where it is not necessary either for the national security needs of the Nation or because you cannot acquire these products anywhere in the United States. Certainly, we provide for exceptions in the legislation to cover those circumstances. So, again, I think this is a major step forward. And I will be looking forward to how the administration reacts. Let me also point out I will come back to another item in a minute as to a comment made by Senator Inhofe, but I hope the Dodd amendment will be voted on favorably. Madam President, I do not know if the yeas and nays have been asked for on the Dodd amendment.

Mr. DODD. Let me take a couple of minutes and, first, explain what has transpired in the last number of seconds. It is rather a quick action on a number of hours of discussion. First, let me thank Senator McCain and Senator McConnell for their willingness to work on some language. I thank the leader, Senator Daschle. Senator Baucus, of course, has worked tirelessly, and Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and many others have been involved in their comments. This is a significant breakthrough occurring with the adoption, I hope we will have now, of my amendment. It says you should not be using Federal taxpayer money to subsidize the outsourcing of jobs. The McCain amendment is something we fundamentally agreed to in the underlying amendment, but it reinforces the notion that certainly, when national security issues are involved and there is a conclusion that we, in effect, have a waiver or have an exception with that being involved, certainly we are not suggesting there should not be the outsourcing of a job if national security is in jeopardy. That was not the intention. The adoption of the McCain amendment reinforces that idea. We incorporated it anyway. I am grateful to Senator McCain and Senator Warner who talked about that issue. There was no disagreement, even with the initial proposal I made on that issue. So we accept. It strengthens the issue for those who were concerned this may have been a vulnerability. We welcome that addition. The language with Senator McConnell, which we worked on as well, invites the Secretary of Commerce, within 90 days of the passage of the legislation, to certify that in fact there are no job losses in the country occurring as a result of outsourcing. So we look forward to their involvement in furthering discussion. But we have for the first time established at least one principle and that is we believe, generally speaking with some exceptions, we ought not, with Federal taxpayer money, be subsidizing the outsourcing of jobs that could be done here at home. This is a significant accomplishment if it is adopted in the coming minutes before the conclusion of this debate. I welcome the participation of all. I think all of us are concerned. We read about a continuing flow, accelerated flow of jobs going offshore, particularly nations that do not recognize our right to compete for government procurement. We exempted 28 countries with which we have reciprocal arrangements. So when the argument was made earlier in the day by one of our colleagues that this amendment was somehow going to jeopardize American jobs in the United States for people who are working for foreign corporations located here, the fact is, most of those foreign corporations, the overwhelming majority of them, come from the 28 countries, many of which are among the European nations and Pacific rim countries, to the exclusion of Japan, with which we have reciprocal arrangements on procurement. So those nations were excluded. We are focusing our attention on where some of the major outsourcing is going where you don't have those kinds of protections, where the level playing field does not exist in our country for our ability to compete for jobs. For those of us who support fair and free trade, we want those options to exist. They don't today in too many places. This legislation is designed to try to address part of that. There are other issues we need to talk about, but this is one significant piece, we think, of that puzzle. With that in mind, I am happy to yield the floor and listen to others who may want to discuss this before we actually vote on the Dodd amendment in a few minutes. But I, again, thank all of those involved who made it possible for us to achieve what I think is a good result and one that will invite further involvement. Needless to say, in the months ahead if we find out there has been a lot more erosion in this area, we may have other ideas to address this issue, but for the time being we think this is a major step forward.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I comment briefly again on the pending matter while he is still in the Senate. I say to the Senator from Oklahoma regarding the asbestos legislation, something I have been involved in for a number of years, as late as last evening I met with asbestos study group people. The insurance industry is deeply involved, as is organized labor, relating to a large extent to some of the victims of exposure to asbestos. I am very hopeful, still hopeful we can reach a conclusion. There are some 700,000 pending cases. I don't know if the Senator mentioned that number specifically, but it is a staggering number of cases. Some 60,000 or 70,000 new cases are being filed each year of people claiming harm and injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. There have been at least 70 bankruptcies declared by businesses directly related to the exposure of people who have been exposed to asbestos, and claims filed against them. There is a danger of many more occurring. This is a matter that does cry out for solution. We think we have a potential solution, not that anything is perfect, but there have been a lot of people working on this over the last number of months, most intensely the last year or so. I thank Senator Frist, the majority leader of the Senate, and his staff, for working very hard along with Senator Hatch. Senator Leahy has been terrific. Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader, has made strong commitments and is interested in seeing a bill we can support. It is almost like a three-legged stool. We will have to reach an agreement between the manufacturers, the insurance industry, which will end up paying the lion's share of this, and the victims themselves or groups that represent them. No one wants a situation where we try to come up with a solution that would take the matter out of the courts, having medical criteria established so people who are really sick will get the help, and those who are not sick obviously would not be able to take advantage of this. But we do not want, at the end of the day, a Johns Manville situation, a resolution of people who have been exposed to products of Johns Manville Corporation where ultimately the amount of money set aside results in 5 cents on the dollar for victims. No one wants to see that happen at the end of the day. The medical criteria question has been resolved. Thanks to Senator Specter of Pennsylvania and work he has done, the administration of how this would work has largely been agreed to by all the major three groups, the people involved. We are still some distance apart on what the final amount of money ought to be to put in a fund that would adequately provide for those who would meet the medical criteria laid out in the legislation. If people are committed to this, we can get this done. While there may be a lot of bills around here people want to take credit for, as being major accomplishments, I cannot think of anything more important as an economic message than to come up with a good resolution of the asbestos problem. I commend my colleague from Oklahoma for coming to the Senate and talking about this.

Mr. DODD. I raise an issue, because it has been raised in the last 24 hours or so, that one of the things the administration is doing is putting resources into vocational education, education and job training. I know my colleague, from his extensive work in this area, and knowing the committees we serve on together deal with some of these issues, but you might just recount what the proposals are in vocational education, job training, all of these programs that would put more resources out there to make it possible when people lose their jobs to find additional work. Isn't it a fact we are cutting back in these budgets?

Mr. DODD. Madam President, what is the order now?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan for her support of this amendment and also commend her for her comments and her eloquent testimony about the 2,700 people in the small town of western Michigan of 9,000 people who are about to watch the economic vitality and livelihood of their community move on. This has gone on, of course, across the country and is one of the problems we face every single day, too often in too many communities across our Nation. One of the aspects is the outsourcing that is going on. Again, we can offer tax incentives to try to discourage people from making those decisions, but in the final analysis they can reject the tax incentive and decide they will outsource jobs. We are saying with this amendment--and I appreciate the Senator's strong endorsement--you may be able to do that with your own money, but the question is, Should you be able to do it with taxpayers' money? We don't think so. We have created all sorts of waivers and exceptions for national security. If there is no other source that would allow this work to be done except by outsourcing, I have made provisions throughout the amendment where the head of an agency--it does not require the President of the United States--can check the box. I assume someone will say this will undercut our national security because we outsource a lot of jobs in the defense contract area. Just check the box. If the Joint Strike Fighter is in trouble, check the box. I don't want you to begin the day by saying it does not make any difference if I outsource. It does make a difference. That is what my colleague from Michigan is saying. It makes a difference. If there is a reason and rationale for purposes of national security, or because you cannot get the product anyplace else other than through outsourcing, we accept that. We are not being difficult about this but at least draw that conclusion, not just the bottom line conclusion, that I can make a bigger profit off it because I outsource the job. I am deeply grateful to the Senator for her comments about the underlying motivations. I can offer incentives and disincentives which someone can take or not take, but when it comes to the taxpayers' dime, the money the taxpayers, out of their hard-earned dollars, send to this city to support various activities, the fact we are using taxpayer money to ship someone's job overseas, that I object to. I don't think that is an outrageous request at a time when we are watching the acceleration of outsourcing going on day after day after day. That is what my colleague and I object to. I have been on the floor with my amendment for 24 hours and all I want is a vote. If you think outsourcing is a good thing, and many people do; the administration clearly does--their month-old economic report, which the Senator from Illinois again referenced a few minutes ago; I talked about it yesterday; here it is; it is not my comments, not the comments of the Senator from Michigan; this is their authority in which they conclude that outsourcing of jobs is good for the economy--then vote against my amendment. I am not trying to be difficult. If I am defeated, I am defeated. I have offered amendments and lost before. I am not shocked when I bring up an amendment and lose, but if you think I am on the right track, vote for it. But vote.