Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to honor the memory of Pfc. Anthony D'Agostino, of Waterbury, CT, who was killed in Iraq this past Sunday. He was just 4 days short of his 21st birthday. Private D'Agostino was part of the U.S. Army's 16th Signal Brigade, based in Fort Hood, TX. He was one of 15 soldiers killed when a missile struck a Chinook helicopter that was carrying American troops to Baghdad International Airport for a trip home to spend 2 weeks with family and friends. I join all of America in mourning each and every one of these brave soldiers, and in praying for the recovery of the 20 soldiers who were injured in the attack. It's a sad fact of war that as the death toll mounts, the daily casualty reports can become almost routine. But each time I read the story of a Connecticut soldier who has perished overseas and this is the sixth such story in this war I'm reminded of how many lives are touched by every single man or woman who makes the ultimate sacrifice so that all of us can live in peace, freedom, and security. Anthony was a true Connecticut son, spending virtually his entire life in our State. He grew up in Middlebury, attending Middlebury Elementary School and Memorial Middle School, and in 2001, he graduated from the W.F. Kaynor Regional Vocational-Technical High School, specializing in electricity. After graduating, he lived in Waterbury until he enlisted in the Army 2 years ago. Men and women across America who make the decision to join our Armed Forces do so for a variety of reasons. For Anthony D'Agostino, it was a decision that was forged in the fire of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Like so many Americans, in the aftermath of those terrible attacks, Anthony decided that he wanted to contribute something to his country. Tragically, he and his family would ultimately make the most painful contribution of all. Joining the Army was a homecoming of sorts for Anthony. He was born in Georgia while his father Steven was stationed at Fort Benning. And when it was time for Anthony to enter basic training 19 years later, he returned to the same base where his father once served. Those who knew Anthony say he had a tremendous work ethic, whether that meant giving his all on high school sports teams, or mowing his grandparents' lawn with a stand-up mower. Even while he was in Iraq, he asked his family to send over Spanish books so he could use what little spare time he had to better himself. He had dreams of returning home and attending the U.S. Military Academy in West Point. Anthony D'Agostino knew he was facing serious danger when he left for Iraq 8 months ago. But it was a danger he was prepared and proud to accept as a soldier in the United States Army. Anthony had a sense of responsibility, dedication, and commitment well beyond his years. And Connecticut will never forget him. My heart goes out to Anthony's father Steven, his mother Deb, his stepfather Paul, and to his entire family.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to express my concerns about language included in the Interior Appropriations Conference Report that I believe is unfair to Native Americans--specifically, those Native Americans who have been waiting years for an accounting from the Tribal Trust. While no tribes in Connecticut are directly impacted by this language, many others throughout Indian Country are. In my view, the provision contained in this conference report undermines the expectations of all Americans who believe that the Federal Government should abide by the rule of law when the Government administers Federal programs and initiatives. Since 1996, the Department of the Interior has been engaged in a legal battle with Native Americans who want the Department to provide a full accounting of money owed to Indians by the Department. The conflict grew out of the Department's continuous mismanagement of Indian oil royalties, grazing fees and the like for more than a century. As many as half a million Native Americans have been wrongfully denied monies that are owed to them. It appears that the Department may have squandered billions of dollars over the course of the last 116 years. Money that should have gone to Indian education and housing, healthcare and community development was instead wasted. Recently, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the Department to account for all royalties owed to Native Americans. Judge Lamberth also held the Secretary in contempt of court, because he believed that the Department had not been completely forthcoming about how the Department was working to resolve the dispute. The contempt ruling was overturned on appeal; but needless to say, this conflict has been heated. Now, this conference report arrives here before the Senate with language that would delay a lawful judicial order rendered by Judge Lamberth and language that would prevent Judge Lamberth from issuing further contempt orders against the Secretary, regardless of the merits of any such order. I am told that the Senate Legal Counsel has expressed concerns about the constitutionality of the new language because it essentially legislates a judicial outcome by telling a Federal judge how to interpret the law. I am opposed to the inclusion of this provision. It is my hope that the Senate will take steps to mitigate against the damage that this language may cause. Too many Native Americans have already waited too long for justice. Requiring them to wait longer serves no valid public policy and is simply wrong.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kennedy, Bingaman, Reed, Clinton and Murray to introduce the Democratic proposal to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, the College Quality, Affordability and Diversity Improvement Act of 2003 (QUAD). The Higher Education Act authorizes the Federal Government's major activities as they relate to financial assistance for students attending colleges and universities. It provides aid to institutions of higher education, services to help students complete high school and enter and succeed in postsecondary education, and mechanisms to improve the training of teachers. According to a recent CRS report, tuition went up last year at four- year public universities from 1.9 percent in New York to 23.8 percent in Massachusetts. In Connecticut, tuition went up 8.1 percent. According to the College Board, the average cost of attending a public four-year college including tuition, fees, room and board is over $9,000. For private four-year colleges, the average cost is over $24,000. Another study indicates that 29 percent of an average family's income goes toward public university tuition payments and 41 percent of an average family's income goes toward private university tuition. In comparison, the average family's mortgage payment represents 32 percent of the annual income. The simple fact is that many parents are deeply worried about how they are going to pay for their children's higher education. Constant hikes in tuition are not only a source of concern for parents, in some cases they are a source of panic. The legislation we are introducing today is an attempt to alleviate this worry and help working parents and working students afford the high cost of college. We do this in a number of ways. The QUAD Act will increase the amount of Pell grants available to working families. Two decades ago, Pell grants covered 84 percent of average costs at four-year universities; today they cover less than 30 percent. This bill will reverse this downward trend by raising the maximum Pell Grant for students by $450, from $4,050 to $4,500. The bill works through the tax code and student loans to make sure students are getting the financial support that they need on the most favorable terms. We eliminate origination fees on subsidized student loans, double the size of the Hope Credit, and allow college graduates a chance to refinance their consolidated loans so that they can take advantage of today's historically low interest rates. QUAD works to level the playing field in admissions by requiring universities and colleges to be more up-front about their admissions policies and by creating a grant program so that low-income students and minority students have available to them college test preparation programs that on average increase a student's SAT score by 100 points. The bill creates two new retention programs to ensure that students that start college complete their degrees. Low-income students are half as likely as upper income students to complete a bachelor's degree in four years. African-American students are half as likely as white students to graduate, and four in ten Hispanics who enroll in four-year institutions drop out within three years. QUAD will improve opportunities for undergraduates and graduate students at Minority Serving Institutions by creating new grant programs, removing regulatory burdens and increasing the funding levels of current initiatives. The bill also helps colleges and school districts recruit and train more highly qualified teachers and provides better training for principals and superintendents. In addition to all of this, QUAD directly addresses the problem of rising college costs. This bill puts into place a requirement that states maintain their portion of higher education funding at 90 percent from fiscal year to fiscal year. If the Federal Government is going to make a commitment to providing more resources to higher education by increasing monies for student aid, it is only fair that we require states to maintain their current share of assistance. States should not be using our proposed increases in federal aid as an excuse to decrease their own spending levels. The states and the Federal Government should be working together on higher education, and not using one or the other as an excuse to reduce their share of the costs. This bill also creates incentives for colleges to cut costs. QUAD creates a demonstration program to provide seed money to colleges and universities that want to explore innovative ways to reduce costs and pass savings on to students. This can be accomplished across universities by pooling resources, making joint purchase of supplies or employee benefits, and creating joint degree programs. Recently, a 20-member consortium of Wisconsin universities spent $285,000 on staff and resources to find a way to purchase health care jointly. In the first year, they realized a savings of $3.8 million. That is a pretty impressive return on an investment of $285,000. Building on this type of initiative, our bill provides grants of $200,000 to consortia in other states around the country to incentivize these same kinds of cost-cutting measures, measures that have no effect on academic mission or quality of student life. In the end, it is essential in this reauthorization that we do everything we can to ensure that qualified students are not being locked out of college. The economic costs for families would be immense. A full-time worker with a bachelor's degree earns about 60 percent more than a full-time worker with only a high school diploma. Over a lifetime, the gap in earnings exceeds $1 million. I hope our colleagues who are not cosponsoring this bill will give it serious consideration. By working together, I believe that the Senate as a body can act to ensure that every young person in our Nation has an opportunity to rise as high as their talents, dreams and determination will take them.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Alexander in introducing the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act, which reauthorizes the Community Services Block Grant, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and the Assets for Independence Act. I would especially like to congratulate Senator Alexander, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Children and Families, and his staff for working so hard to ensure that this bill would be a bipartisan piece of legislation. I, like many of my colleagues, was greatly disturbed by the latest U.S. Census poverty data released last month, which shows that poverty rose to 12.1 percent in 2002, bringing the total number of people living in poverty to 34.6 million. The number of children in poverty rose by 400,000, which means that nearly 17 percent of children are living in poverty. Even more disturbing is that the number of people who lack health insurance rose by 2.4 million in 2002, bringing the total number of uninsured to an alarming 43.6 million. Although the proportion of uninsured children did not change between 2001 and 2002, 11.6 percent of all children remain without the necessary safety net of health insurance. Our children truly are our future; we must treat them like the precious resources that they are and provide them with the services and assistance they need. There are many troubling signs for families today, particularly families with children. Unemployment continues to be a problem. Families are running out of unemployment benefits without finding jobs. The most recent data from the Department of Health and Human Services shows that welfare caseloads continue to decline overall, but in many States over the last year, caseloads are increasing. With States facing their worst budget crisis since WWII, many programs for low-income families are being cut. This is particularly a problem given that half the states are cutting child care funds. Parents need affordable child care to get and keep jobs. Clearly, this is a time of crisis for our Nation's low-income individuals and families. It is time for our government to help them through these difficult economic times and give them the opportunities and the tools to lift themselves back onto their feet. The bill that we are introducing today will reaffirm our nation's commitment to alleviating poverty and upholding the American ethos of helping our neighbors. For over 40 years, Community Action Agencies have been using Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) funds to coordinate and deliver comprehensive poverty programs and services to our nation's poor. From administering Head Start programs, to delivering meals to the sick and elderly, providing adult education and literacy, and implementing the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, CSBG funds are reaching and helping nearly a quarter of all people living in poverty in the United States. It goes without saying, that ideally, we would like to reach out to each and every individual and family living in poverty, but this bill is a start. It is a good start. It is a firm commitment to communities that when times are tough, Community Action Agencies will continue to work at the local level to address local needs. The bill will enhance community flexibility in serving the poor and working poor. I don't need to tell you, that a poor person living in urban New Haven has different needs from an impoverished family living in rural Danielson, CT. The same holds true for Community Action Agencies across our Nation. One Community Action Agency could be using their CSBG funds to teach computer skills in a town where a major manufacturing plant just closed down, while another Community Action Agency is using the same funds to develop rural waste water management systems. I am pleased that this reauthorization retains and strengthens the flexibility that makes CSBG such a unique and successful program, by upholding and strengthening the successful and innovative Results Oriented Management Assessment (ROMA) system of accountability and monitoring procedures. I am also pleased that reauthorization of this bill will allow crucial assistance to reach more of our country's poor and working poor by setting a minimum eligibility level for assistance at 125 percent of the poverty level and a maximum of 60 percent of the State median income. In Connecticut alone, nearly 32 percent, or 437,492 households, are below 60 percent of the State median income. Conversely, if we had set the maximum at 185 percent of the poverty threshold, we would only reach 269,373 households. By using the State median income as a maximum, not only will this bill be benefitting the Nation's families living in poverty, but it will also assist those working poor families just above the poverty line, including those leaving welfare to make a smooth and permanent transition to self-sufficiency. The bill also reauthorizes the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, which allocates grants to States to operate home energy assistance programs for low-income households. According to the most recent data from the Department of Health and Human Services, 4.8 million households received winter heating assistance, 250,000 benefitted from cooling aid and 87,000 received summer crisis aid in fiscal year 2001. This legislation makes funding LIHEAP more responsive to community needs by basing emergency funding triggers on the price of home energy bills and the average number of heating and cooling days in a month. These simple automatic triggers will ensure that LIHEAP funds are readily available in times of crisis. Again, I would like to congratulate and thank Senator Alexander for his fine work on this bipartisan piece of legislation. I firmly believe that this bill is a step in the right direction. Every day in this chamber and throughout the halls of the Senate, we talk about leaving no child behind, food stamps, comprehensive health care, job training and rural housing assistance. Mr. President, this bill encompasses all of these programs and services, and many more important poverty initiatives. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and join us in helping to strengthen low income communities, so that we can help more families become self-sufficient. In these tough economic times, families deserve this support.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, for over two decades, the Afghan people have endured conflict and internal unrest. And although they are now in the process of rebuilding their country, for many, safety remains elusive. One reason is the continued presence of landmines, which were put into use by occupying powers and governments such as the Soviet Union and Taliban. Unfortunately, these weapons, whose danger is recognized by nations throughout the world, remain a major threat to the safety of ordinary Afghans--especially children. I know my colleague, Senator Leahy, has been a leader in calling the world's attention to the dangers created by land mines and the obligation of the United States and other governments to help ensure that innocent civilians, especially children, are not killed or critically injured by land mines and unexploded ordnance left behind after armed conflict ceases. There are now over 10 million land mines throughout Afghanistan. This number is truly staggering. It is estimated that the process of clearing these devices could take up to 25 years--almost three decades. These land mines pose a tremendous danger to the children of Afghanistan. As my colleagues may be aware, Afghan children often perform a variety of chores that entails their passage through mine- laden fields. In fact, as several types of mines are small and brightly colored, children can be tempted to pick them up or to play with them. Too often, young Afghans die or lose a limb as a result of landmine- related incidents. Indeed, every month, 150 Afghans are injured by landmines, and many of these are children. We need to help these innocent children. We need to protect them not only from the horrors of war, but from the dangers that are left behind. Let me call to the attention of my colleagues an ideal organization to further this effort. Its name is ``No Strings,'' and it is a new aid organization that seeks to use theater and puppetry to provide life-saving education about landmines to children in Afghanistan. ``No Strings'' is composed of two main groups: one with a broad background in humanitarian relief organizations, and the other with extensive experience in the field of children's educational entertainment and puppetry. I believe my colleague, Senator Leahy also is aware of this organization. I had intended to offer an amendment so that, ``No Strings''--and other worthy organizations--would be able to engage Afghan children and teach them life saving mine safety lessons. Clearly, we must act in order to help to protect a generation of Afghans. However, since Senator Leahy has generously offered to join with me in discussing this matter with appropriate officials at the State Department to encourage the Department to fund innovative programs like ``No Strings,'' I will withhold offering the amendment at this time.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kennedy, Bingaman, Reed, Clinton and Murray to introduce the Democratic proposal to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, the College Quality, Affordability and Diversity Improvement Act of 2003 (QUAD). The Higher Education Act authorizes the Federal Government's major activities as they relate to financial assistance for students attending colleges and universities. It provides aid to institutions of higher education, services to help students complete high school and enter and succeed in postsecondary education, and mechanisms to improve the training of teachers. According to a recent CRS report, tuition went up last year at four- year public universities from 1.9 percent in New York to 23.8 percent in Massachusetts. In Connecticut, tuition went up 8.1 percent. According to the College Board, the average cost of attending a public four-year college including tuition, fees, room and board is over $9,000. For private four-year colleges, the average cost is over $24,000. Another study indicates that 29 percent of an average family's income goes toward public university tuition payments and 41 percent of an average family's income goes toward private university tuition. In comparison, the average family's mortgage payment represents 32 percent of the annual income. The simple fact is that many parents are deeply worried about how they are going to pay for their children's higher education. Constant hikes in tuition are not only a source of concern for parents, in some cases they are a source of panic. The legislation we are introducing today is an attempt to alleviate this worry and help working parents and working students afford the high cost of college. We do this in a number of ways. The QUAD Act will increase the amount of Pell grants available to working families. Two decades ago, Pell grants covered 84 percent of average costs at four-year universities; today they cover less than 30 percent. This bill will reverse this downward trend by raising the maximum Pell Grant for students by $450, from $4,050 to $4,500. The bill works through the tax code and student loans to make sure students are getting the financial support that they need on the most favorable terms. We eliminate origination fees on subsidized student loans, double the size of the Hope Credit, and allow college graduates a chance to refinance their consolidated loans so that they can take advantage of today's historically low interest rates. QUAD works to level the playing field in admissions by requiring universities and colleges to be more up-front about their admissions policies and by creating a grant program so that low-income students and minority students have available to them college test preparation programs that on average increase a student's SAT score by 100 points. The bill creates two new retention programs to ensure that students that start college complete their degrees. Low-income students are half as likely as upper income students to complete a bachelor's degree in four years. African-American students are half as likely as white students to graduate, and four in ten Hispanics who enroll in four-year institutions drop out within three years. QUAD will improve opportunities for undergraduates and graduate students at Minority Serving Institutions by creating new grant programs, removing regulatory burdens and increasing the funding levels of current initiatives. The bill also helps colleges and school districts recruit and train more highly qualified teachers and provides better training for principals and superintendents. In addition to all of this, QUAD directly addresses the problem of rising college costs. This bill puts into place a requirement that states maintain their portion of higher education funding at 90 percent from fiscal year to fiscal year. If the Federal Government is going to make a commitment to providing more resources to higher education by increasing monies for student aid, it is only fair that we require states to maintain their current share of assistance. States should not be using our proposed increases in federal aid as an excuse to decrease their own spending levels. The states and the Federal Government should be working together on higher education, and not using one or the other as an excuse to reduce their share of the costs. This bill also creates incentives for colleges to cut costs. QUAD creates a demonstration program to provide seed money to colleges and universities that want to explore innovative ways to reduce costs and pass savings on to students. This can be accomplished across universities by pooling resources, making joint purchase of supplies or employee benefits, and creating joint degree programs. Recently, a 20-member consortium of Wisconsin universities spent $285,000 on staff and resources to find a way to purchase health care jointly. In the first year, they realized a savings of $3.8 million. That is a pretty impressive return on an investment of $285,000. Building on this type of initiative, our bill provides grants of $200,000 to consortia in other states around the country to incentivize these same kinds of cost-cutting measures, measures that have no effect on academic mission or quality of student life. In the end, it is essential in this reauthorization that we do everything we can to ensure that qualified students are not being locked out of college. The economic costs for families would be immense. A full-time worker with a bachelor's degree earns about 60 percent more than a full-time worker with only a high school diploma. Over a lifetime, the gap in earnings exceeds $1 million. I hope our colleagues who are not cosponsoring this bill will give it serious consideration. By working together, I believe that the Senate as a body can act to ensure that every young person in our Nation has an opportunity to rise as high as their talents, dreams and determination will take them.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Alexander in introducing the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act, which reauthorizes the Community Services Block Grant, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and the Assets for Independence Act. I would especially like to congratulate Senator Alexander, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Children and Families, and his staff for working so hard to ensure that this bill would be a bipartisan piece of legislation. I, like many of my colleagues, was greatly disturbed by the latest U.S. Census poverty data released last month, which shows that poverty rose to 12.1 percent in 2002, bringing the total number of people living in poverty to 34.6 million. The number of children in poverty rose by 400,000, which means that nearly 17 percent of children are living in poverty. Even more disturbing is that the number of people who lack health insurance rose by 2.4 million in 2002, bringing the total number of uninsured to an alarming 43.6 million. Although the proportion of uninsured children did not change between 2001 and 2002, 11.6 percent of all children remain without the necessary safety net of health insurance. Our children truly are our future; we must treat them like the precious resources that they are and provide them with the services and assistance they need. There are many troubling signs for families today, particularly families with children. Unemployment continues to be a problem. Families are running out of unemployment benefits without finding jobs. The most recent data from the Department of Health and Human Services shows that welfare caseloads continue to decline overall, but in many States over the last year, caseloads are increasing. With States facing their worst budget crisis since WWII, many programs for low-income families are being cut. This is particularly a problem given that half the states are cutting child care funds. Parents need affordable child care to get and keep jobs. Clearly, this is a time of crisis for our Nation's low-income individuals and families. It is time for our government to help them through these difficult economic times and give them the opportunities and the tools to lift themselves back onto their feet. The bill that we are introducing today will reaffirm our nation's commitment to alleviating poverty and upholding the American ethos of helping our neighbors. For over 40 years, Community Action Agencies have been using Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) funds to coordinate and deliver comprehensive poverty programs and services to our nation's poor. From administering Head Start programs, to delivering meals to the sick and elderly, providing adult education and literacy, and implementing the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, CSBG funds are reaching and helping nearly a quarter of all people living in poverty in the United States. It goes without saying, that ideally, we would like to reach out to each and every individual and family living in poverty, but this bill is a start. It is a good start. It is a firm commitment to communities that when times are tough, Community Action Agencies will continue to work at the local level to address local needs. The bill will enhance community flexibility in serving the poor and working poor. I don't need to tell you, that a poor person living in urban New Haven has different needs from an impoverished family living in rural Danielson, CT. The same holds true for Community Action Agencies across our Nation. One Community Action Agency could be using their CSBG funds to teach computer skills in a town where a major manufacturing plant just closed down, while another Community Action Agency is using the same funds to develop rural waste water management systems. I am pleased that this reauthorization retains and strengthens the flexibility that makes CSBG such a unique and successful program, by upholding and strengthening the successful and innovative Results Oriented Management Assessment (ROMA) system of accountability and monitoring procedures. I am also pleased that reauthorization of this bill will allow crucial assistance to reach more of our country's poor and working poor by setting a minimum eligibility level for assistance at 125 percent of the poverty level and a maximum of 60 percent of the State median income. In Connecticut alone, nearly 32 percent, or 437,492 households, are below 60 percent of the State median income. Conversely, if we had set the maximum at 185 percent of the poverty threshold, we would only reach 269,373 households. By using the State median income as a maximum, not only will this bill be benefitting the Nation's families living in poverty, but it will also assist those working poor families just above the poverty line, including those leaving welfare to make a smooth and permanent transition to self-sufficiency. The bill also reauthorizes the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, which allocates grants to States to operate home energy assistance programs for low-income households. According to the most recent data from the Department of Health and Human Services, 4.8 million households received winter heating assistance, 250,000 benefitted from cooling aid and 87,000 received summer crisis aid in fiscal year 2001. This legislation makes funding LIHEAP more responsive to community needs by basing emergency funding triggers on the price of home energy bills and the average number of heating and cooling days in a month. These simple automatic triggers will ensure that LIHEAP funds are readily available in times of crisis. Again, I would like to congratulate and thank Senator Alexander for his fine work on this bipartisan piece of legislation. I firmly believe that this bill is a step in the right direction. Every day in this chamber and throughout the halls of the Senate, we talk about leaving no child behind, food stamps, comprehensive health care, job training and rural housing assistance. Mr. President, this bill encompasses all of these programs and services, and many more important poverty initiatives. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and join us in helping to strengthen low income communities, so that we can help more families become self-sufficient. In these tough economic times, families deserve this support.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Durbin, Schumer, Lieberman, and Edwards be added as cosponsors.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me thank all Members. Let me particularly thank my colleague from Kentucky and my colleague from Missouri, as well as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, who graciously said we would try to work this out. I appreciate my colleagues doing what they did, and I appreciate those who didn't even vote with us. It is a very important moment. I am very grateful to everyone who gave us consideration. I am particularly grateful to the Members who cast their votes with us. I know it was a difficult vote, but it will do a lot for the States. Procurement of Tanker Aircraft

Mr. DODD. Again, my colleagues from Kentucky and Missouri and I would prefer to have some other way we could do this, but if we don't get it done now, it is going to be very difficult for us to meet these obligations at all. This additional amount in fiscal year 2004 will get us back on track and allow us to complete this process and to see the election cycle work in a way that all of us would be proud to see. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, and, of course, on behalf of my colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, as well, to address this matter. I do not want to take a lot of time on this amendment. There are other Members who have obligations they want to meet. This amendment is pretty straightforward. Let me begin by thanking my colleague from Kentucky, my colleague from Missouri, and others with whom, over the last several years, we have worked to create and pass the Help America Vote Act, which was signed into law by the President 1 year ago next week. This is a law, of course, to try to improve the conduct of Federal elections across the country. I need not remind my colleagues, of course, of the condition of the Federal election system based on the results we saw in the national elections in the year 2000. The piece of legislation that authorized these funds was adopted 98 to 2 by this body, and almost by a similar percentage of votes in the other body. Last week, Senator McConnell and I came to the floor. I was going to suggest we offer an additional appropriation on the $87 billion package for Iraq. But, rightly, as my colleague from Kentucky pointed out, that was not the appropriate place to do this. We agreed in a colloquy that we would try to find an opportunity to provide the additional resources necessary so the State and local officials across this country could meet the obligations of doing these elections in a proper way. I point out to my colleagues that the sense of timing is important. In the Federal elections in 2004, the first primary of which is in the District of Columbia on January 13--less than 3 months away--all States and localities must provide provisional ballots to any voter who is challenged. Those provisional ballots must be verified, according to State law, in 2004. Also, in 2004, all States and localities must be prepared to implement the anti-fraud provisions that the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, fought so diligently and hard for as part of the Help America Vote Act which affect first-time voters who register by mail. There are other requirements, of course, by 2004, and a whole series of things that must be done by 2006. Needless to say, as the State and local officials will tell you, getting mechanisms in place to get it done requires advanced timing. This cannot just happen in the last few months before the elections occur. I also point out to my colleagues that, obviously, the States are facing tremendous budget constraints themselves. This is not the ideal way we would like to do this, but we have no other choice but to be part of this budgetary cycle and to include these dollars in this particular effort. In a time when we are committing, obviously, billions in Federal resources to build democracies around the world--and I supported that; I had reservations about it but, nonetheless, that is critically important--we cannot ignore the needs of our own democracy. Obviously, I think we would all agree we need to do what we can as well, as a nation that prides itself on being the leader when it comes to the conduct of our elections, to try to get these systems working better than they have been. Again, I thank my colleagues who have worked very hard on this matter. This was truly a bipartisan effort. It continues to be one. We have tried to work together on these matters over the last several years so as not to create any partisan feelings. I think that has been the case. So today, in a bipartisan way, we are asking our colleagues to be supportive of this additional amount in the appropriations process so we can get the moneys back to our States. I am sure every one of my colleagues has heard from their State and local officials. By the way, the States are doing a very good job. You may have read recent articles of how the States are getting up to speed, putting things in place, getting their implementation plans in order, and doing so with a great deal of expedition and care. Several States have already utilized some of the newer approaches as a result of their own State efforts, which are proving to be very successful. I think we are on the right track. I think we are doing the right thing. The National Governors Association, of course, reported the difficulties they are having with their budget problems, as I mentioned a moment ago. I do not want to take a lot of time of my colleagues. I think they know what the issues are. I have talked to many of them. Just last week, Senator McConnell and I came to this floor to express our concerns that the Congress not leave here this session without providing sufficient resources to the States to implement the minimum requirements and other election priorities, for Federal elections enacted under the Help America Vote Act. Some of those requirements must be implemented in time for the Federal elections next year. The States are living up to their end of the bargain--all States are well along in the development of their state plans and many are in the initial implementation stages of the effort. But we must live up to our side of the bargain. In his budget request, the President recommended funding these programs in fiscal year 2004 at only one-half of the authorized amount, for a total of $500 million. To their credit, the Appropriations Subcommittee fully funded that request, and I thank the distinguished chairman, Senator Shelby, and my friend and colleague, the ranking member, Senator Murray, for their efforts. However, State and local budgets simply cannot absorb this $500 million shortfall. More importantly, any shortfall in fiscal year 2004 follows on a similar shortfall of over $600 million in the fiscal year 2003 appropriations. Unless we increase funding in this fiscal year, our commitment to the States to share in the funding of the new requirements for Federal elections will fall over $1 billion short. In a time when we are committing billions of dollars in Federal resources to build democracies around the world, we simply cannot afford to shortchange our own. The basic premise of a democracy is that every citizen must have an equal voice in the determination of its government. And in this Nation, that voice is expressed through the equal opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted. If America is to continue to be the leader and example for emerging democracies around the world, then our system of giving our citizens an equal voice--our system of elections--must meet this test. Unfortunately, what we learned in the elections of 2000 was that not all Americans enjoy an equal voice. In fact, some citizens were denied a voice at all because of malfunctioning or outdated voting equipment, inaccurate and incomplete voter registration records, and allegations of voter intimidation and fraud. The silver lining of the 2000 elections was that it created the opportunity to recognize the challenges confronting our system of Federal elections and the ability to respond with bipartisan determination to provide Federal leadership to overcome those challenges. And 98 members of the Senate responded to that opportunity by overwhelmingly passing the Help America Vote Act last year. I once again want to thank my distinguished colleagues, and coauthors of the Help America Vote Act, Senator McConnell and Senator Bond, for their bipartisan leadership in that effort and for their continuing commitment to see our promise for Federal funding fulfilled. I especially want to recognize the leadership of my distinguished colleague, Senator McConnell, whose unfailing leadership on this issue has help to bring us to this point. As then Chairman of the Rules Committee, he chaired the first hearings on election reform and introduced one of the first measures in Congress to offer assistance to the States. And today we stand before you again, united by our desire to fulfil the commitment and promise of HAVA to the States, and to every American voter, to be a full partner in Federal elections. But rhetoric alone will not fulfill this commitment, nor will it fix the problems that came to light in the 2000 elections. It will take leadership and funds. And that is what the Help America Vote Act provides. HAVA provides federal leadership in the form of new minimum requirements that all states must meet in the conduct of Federal elections. Those requirements will ensure that all voters can check their ballots and correct them before they are cast and counted. The requirements will ensure that no voter who believes he or she is registered and eligible to vote can be turned away from the polls--but must be given a provisional ballot to cast and then have verified pursuant to State law. And those requirements will ensure the accuracy of voter registration lists against fraud and mistakes through the creation of a single statewide registration list. In short, HAVA will strengthen our democracy by giving an equal voice to all citizens by making it easier to vote and harder to cheat. Implementing these reforms will not be cheap and so for the first time in our history, Congress committed to being a full partner in the funding of these reforms by authorizing $3.8 billion to fund the implementation of these requirements. Federal funding is critical to nationwide implementation of this Act and may well govern the success and effectiveness of the new law. To help pay for election reforms and avoid an unfunded mandate on the States, HAVA authorizes a total of nearly $4 billion over three fiscal years, including over $2 billion in fiscal year 2003; $1 billion in fiscal year 2004; and $645,000 in fiscal year 2005. Of the $1.5 billion Congress appropriated last year to fund grants to the States, $650 million has been distributed to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa. I thank my colleagues for their support during the FY03 appropriations process, particularly Senator Stevens, Chair of the Appropriations Committee and Senator Byrd, the Ranking Member, for providing this substantial down-payment on our commitment to the States. But we now know that the FY03 appropriation will not provide sufficient funds for the States to fully implement their State plans and meet the new requirements of the law. And the shortfall in the first critical year of funding under HAVA is only compounded by the additional shortfall of $500 million in the bill before the Senate today. Given the dire financial budget constraints faced by our states and counties, the total shortfall of over just over $1 billion in promised Federal support creates an unfunded mandate that is both unfair and unnecessary and threatens to undermine the very reforms that were adopted last year. According to the National Governors Association, the current financial health of state and local governments was at its lowest point since World War II last year and has worsened in the past 10 months. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, States have struggled to close deficits that have totaled approximately $190 billion over the past three years and the best estimate at this time is that they will face deficits of more than $40 billion in fiscal year 2005. And the counties are in no better economic situation than the States. According to the National Association of Counties, nearly 72 percent of counties are facing budget shortfalls and 56 percent of counties are facing reductions in State funding for State-mandated programs. While counties are struggling to deal with the revenue reductions, the demand for county-provided services continues to rise. State and local governments are willing and anxious to implement the new requirements; they simply cannot go it alone. And that was the historic message of the Help America Vote Act: the Federal Government will step up to our responsibility to be a full partner in funding Federal election reforms. Full Federal funding for HAVA is crucial to ensuring that the reforms that Congress overwhelmingly approved, on a broad bipartisan basis, and the President endorsed with his signature, are implemented. The very integrity of our elections, and consequently our democracy, hangs in the balance. Full funding of HAVA is critical to our national credibility for fairness and accuracy in Federal elections. It is fundamental to the integrity of our democratic process. This amendment not only fulfils out commitment to date, it assures that the very reforms Congress enacted last year will actually be implemented. This effort is overwhelming supported by a bipartisan and powerful coalition of State and local election officials, in conjunction with all the major civil rights, disability, language minority, and other voter interest groups in the United States. I thank each and every one of them for their strong support in passing HAVA and their continuing commitment to see that Congress makes good on its promise to be a full partner in Federal elections by fully funding the provisions of HAVA. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Coalition be included in the Record following my remarks. No civil right is more fundamental to our democracy than the right to vote and no need for Federal funding is more essential to securing that democracy than is the commitment made by this body to ensure the integrity and accuracy of our Federal elections. I thank my colleagues for their continuing support of this effort and urge my colleagues to fulfill our commitment of last year to ensure the integrity of our Federal elections and the very foundation of our democracy by supporting this bipartisan amendment to fully fund the Help America Vote Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a letter supporting this amendment in the Record.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment to lift restrictions on travel to Cuba. I and many of my colleagues have been trying for the last five years to restore American citizens' right to travel where they choose, including to the island of Cuba, if that is their desire. The broad cross-section of bipartisan cosponsors of this amendment are in agreement that the time has come to lift the very archaic, counterproductive, and ill-conceived ban on Americans traveling to Cuba. Not only does this ban hinder rather than help our effort to spread democracy, it unnecessarily abridges the rights of ordinary Americans. The United States was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. Yet when it comes to Cuba, our Government abridges these rights with no greater rationale than political and rhetorical gain. Cuba lies just 90 miles from America's shore. Yet those 90 miles of water might as well be an entire ocean. We have made a land ripe for American influence, forbidden territory. Look, there is no doubt in my mind that Fidel Castro does not want the light of freedom shone on his island. He is a dictator and wants nothing more than to keep his people in the darkness. Sadly, U.S. policy has helped make his worker easier. We have enabled the Cuban regime to be a closed system, with the Cuban people having little contact with their closest neighbors. Surely we do not ban travel to Cuba out of concern for the safety of Americans who might visit that island nation. Today Americans are free to travel to Iran, Sudan, Burma, Syria, and even to North Korea--but not to Cuba. You can fly to North Korea; you can fly to Iran; you can travel freely. It seems to me if you can go to those countries, you ought not be denied the right to go to Cuba. If the Cubans want to stop Americans from visiting that country, that ought to be their business. But to say to an American citizen that you can travel to Iran, where they held American hostages for months on end, to North Korea, which has declared us to be an enemy of theirs completely, but that you cannot travel 90 miles off our shore to Cuba, is a mistake. To this day, some Iranian politicians believe the United States to be ``the Great Satan.'' We hear it all the time. A little more than two decades ago, Iran occupied our embassy and took innocent American diplomats hostage. To this day, protesters in Tehran burn the American flag with the encouragement of some officials in that government. Those few Americans who venture into such inhospitable surroundings often find themselves pelted by rocks and accosted by the public. Similarly, we do not ban travel to Sudan, a nation we attacked with cruise missiles a few short years ago, for its alleged support of terrorism; to Burma, a nation with one of the most oppressive regimes in the world today; to North Korea, whose soldiers have peered at American servicemen through gun sights for decades; or Syria, which has one of the most egregious human rights records and is one of the foremost sponsors of terrorism. I totally agree with my colleagues that it borders on negligence when 10 percent of the Treasury's Office on Foreign Assets Control budget is devoted to tracking down and punishing grandmothers and grandfathers because they have visited Cuba. Don't we have more important programs to spend resources on? How about tracking down the financial resources that continue to support terrorist groups like al-Qaida? We know that activities of that organization and others like it are a direct threat to U.S. national security. We know that more government resources are need to ensure that events like September 11, 2001 never again are repeated against our citizens. Chasing down bikers who have visited Cuba is doing nothing to ensure our citizens are protected against terrorist attacks. It is time to get our priorities straight and end the inconsistency with respect to U.S. travel restrictions to Cuba. We ban travel to Cuba, a nation which is neither at war with the United States nor a sponsor of international terrorist activities. Why do we ban travel? Ostensibly so that we can pressure Cuban authorities into making the transition to a democratic form of government. I fail to see how isolating the Cuban people from democratic values and ideals will foster the transition to democracy in that country. I fail to see how isolating the Cuban people from democratic values and from the influence of Americans when they go to that country to help bring about the change we all seek, serves our own interests. The Cuban people are not currently permitted the freedom to travel enjoyed by many peoples around the world. However, because Fidel Castro does not permit Cubans to leave Cuba and come to this country is not justification for adopting a similar principle in this country that says Americans cannot travel freely. We have the Bill of Rights. We need to treasure and respect the fundamental rights that we embrace as American citizens. Travel is one of them. If other countries want to prohibit us from going there, then that is their business. But for us to say that citizens of Connecticut or Alabama cannot go where they like is not the kind of restraint we ought to put on people. If Americans can travel to North Korea, to the Sudan, to Iran, then I do not understand the justification for saying that they cannot travel to Cuba. I happen to believe that by allowing Americans to travel to Cuba, we can begin to change the political climate and bring about the changes we all seek in that country. Today, every single country in the Western Hemisphere is a democracy, with one exception: Cuba. American influence through person-to-person and cultural exchanges was a prime factor in this evolution from a hemisphere ruled predominantly by authoritarian or military regimes to one where democracy is the rule. Our current policy toward Cuba blocks these exchanges and prevents the United States from using our most potent weapon in our effort to combat totalitarian regimes, and that is our own people. They are the best ambassadors we have. Most totalitarian regimes bar Americans from coming into their countries for the very reasons I just mentioned. They are afraid the gospel of freedom will motivate their citizens to overthrow dictators, as they have done in dozens of nations over the last half century. Isn't it ironic that when it comes to Cuba we do the dictator's bidding for him in a sense? Cuba does not have to worry about America spreading democracy. Our own Government stops us from doing so. Let me review for my colleagues who may travel to Cuba under current government regulations and under what circumstances. The following categories of people may travel to Cuba without applying to the Treasury Department for a specific license to travel. They are deemed to be authorized to travel under so-called general license: Government officials, regularly employed journalists, professional researchers who are ``full time professionals who travel to Cuba to conduct professional research in their professional areas,'' Cuban Americans who have relatives in Cuba who are ill--but only once a year. There are other categories of individuals who theoretically are eligible to travel to Cuba as well, but they must apply for a license from the Department of the Treasury and prove they fit a category in which travel to Cuba is permissible. What are these categories? The first is so called freelance journalists, provided they can prove they are journalists; they must also submit their itinerary for the proposed research. The second is Cuban Americans who are unfortunate enough to have more than one humanitarian emergency in a 12-month period and therefore cannot travel under a general license. The third is students and faculty from U.S. academic institutions that are accredited by an appropriate national or regional educational accrediting association who are participating in a ``structural education program.'' The fourth is members of U.S. religious organizations. The fifth is individuals participating in public performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions and exhibitions. If that isn't complicated enough--just because you think you may fall into one of the above enumerated categories does not necessarily mean you will actually be licensed by the U.S. Government to travel to Cuba. Under current regulations, who decides whether a researcher's work is legitimate? Who decides whether a freelance journalist is really conducting journalistic activities? Who decides whether or not a professor or student is participating in a ``structured educational program''? Who decides whether a religious person is really going to conduct religious activities? Government bureaucrats are making those decisions about what I believe should be personal rights of American citizens. It is truly unsettling, to put it mildly, when you think about it, and probably unconstitutional at its core. It is a real intrusion on the fundamental rights of American citizens. It also says something about what we as a government think about our own people. Do we really believe that a journalist, a government official, a Senator, a Congressman, a baseball player, a ballerina, a college professor or minister is somehow superior to other citizens who do not fall into those categories; that only these categories of people are ``good examples'' for the Cuban people to observe in order to understand American values? I do not think so. I find such a notion insulting. There is no better way to communicate America's values and ideals than by unleashing average American men and women to demonstrate by daily living what our great country stands for and the contrasts between what we stand for and what exists in Cuba today. I do not believe there was ever a sensible rationale for restricting Americans' right to travel to Cuba. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and an end to the cold war, I do not think any excuse remains today to ban this kind of travel. This argument that dollars and tourism will be used to prop up the regime is specious. The regime seems to have survived more than 40 years despite the Draconian U.S. embargo during that entire period. The notion that allowing Americans to spend a few dollars in Cuba is somehow going to give major aid and comfort to the Cuban regime is without basis, in my view. Political rhetoric is not sufficient reason to abridge the freedoms of American citizens. Nor is it sufficient reason to stand by a law which counteracts one of the basic premises of American foreign policy; namely, the spread of democracy. The time has come to allow Americans--average Americans--to travel freely to Cuba. I urge my colleagues to support the pending amendment and restore American citizens' rights to travel wherever they choose, including to the island of Cuba.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague. Let me just say that this amendment is providing for the number of demands being made on the States. The Senator from Missouri points out what has to be done by the next calendar year, and, just a few weeks from now, on January 13, the Federal primary season, and State and locals are up against the requirements. We are going to get the nominees to the Election Assistance Commission confirmed, but this keeps us on track with the funding. We won't need to come back to this again for another year, but this has to be done now. We authorized over $3.8 billion for this bill over three fiscal years. This will get us on track for FY03 and FY04 so the States can complete the job. As the Senators have said, this is not our preferred method for providing full funding. Everybody agrees we have to get it done. Contrary to what my friend from Oklahoma says, if we don't get it done now, it will make it that much more difficult to accomplish these goals and it will create huge problems. I will not go through the litany, but I hope my colleagues, when the point of order is made--and I will offer a waiver of that point of order--will support the States on this. I don't want to take much more time. The chairman has other obligations.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak in memory of Ira Paull, who passed away suddenly on September 28 at the age of 52. I was very fortunate to work with Ira during the 7 years he spent on Capitol Hill as a staff member on the Senate Banking Committee. He worked on the staff of Senators John Heinz, Jake Garn, and Alfonse D'Amato. Ira was an integral part of virtually every critical piece of legislation that came out of the Banking Committee. His knowledge was vast and his counsel well-respected by Senators on both sides of the aisle. I personally had the privilege of working with Ira in my capacity as chairman of the Securities Subcommittee. In particular, I have fond memories of Ira as he accompanied me, Senator Heinz, and my staff on a congressional delegation to Europe in 1990 looking into European Community Financial Services issues. Ira's reputation on the Hill was that of a bright and talented lawyer, and also of an individual with a quick wit and a tremendous sense of humor. He became well-known for writing opening statements for committee hearings that were not only well-informed and comprehensive, but would even, on occasion, incorporate rhyme or poetry that would bring a smile to everyone's face. Though his job on the committee was to provide counsel to Republican Senators, he earned a great deal of respect from Democrats as well. He formed deep and lasting friendships with staff members from both sides of the aisle, including my own staff, who valued his advice and counsel and cherished his friendship. Ira Paull was a hard worker, a dedicated public servant, and a wonderful person who was taken from us far too soon. He will be greatly missed by everyone who had the opportunity to know him. I offer my deepest sympathies to his brother Gerson, to his sisters, Susan, Leah, and Linda, and to his entire family. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record statements on Ira's passing submitted by former Senators Garn and D'Amato.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to express my disappointment about the outcome of the last vote. I voted not to invoke cloture. I did so with great reluctance. A number of Members called me over the last several days about the class action reform bill that was before us. I appreciate very much the comments of both the majority leader and the minority leader, my good friend from Delaware, Tom Carper, Herb Kohl, and others who have worked very hard on this legislation. I have great respect for what they have tried to do. I hope the majority leader will take up the offer of the Democratic leader and so we come together and work out what the provisions of this bill ought to be, at least the main provisions of it, and move forward. I am deeply committed to class action reform, but I do not want to move forward under a process where I am being told merely that I have a right to bring up amendments. I have that right anyway. It seems to me if we are going to try to put a bill like this together, it takes meaningful cooperation, it takes sitting down. It is hard work. We have done it in the past. As the author of the securities litigation reform bill, the uniform standards legislation, terrorism insurance, the Y2K bill--all matters that brought together the trial bar and the business community trying to sort it out--I know that this can be done. It took a lot of work and a lot of hours to do it in the past. I strongly recommend on class action reform, that we make the same sort of effort. It is not that difficult to get a good bill, but it does take work. Again, it takes meaningful cooperation. We need to have that if we are going to succeed. I am terribly disappointed, but I must say to those who argued for cloture that there is a way of achieving the right results and the process we just went through this is not the way to go, in my view. I can say, without invoking the names of my colleagues, there are a number of us who voted no on cloture who believe as strongly as I do about the need for reform and who would like to see a bill passed. So the majority leader and his staff, the staff of the Judiciary Committee and other interested parties--and there are not that many--if they can put something together, we can move forward. We could have another cloture vote, if we need to have one, although I doubt we will need one, with a more cooperative process there would be no need for one. I believe we can and should go forward. The challenge is whether or not they want to do that. If they just want to have a 59-to-39 vote and move on to another issue, then that may indicate to some of us what the real intentions were here. If they are interested in getting this bill done, then there is a way to do it. There are those of us who are willing to roll up our sleeves and get it done. In fact, many of the same people have been involved for months now in the asbestos legislation. I have an uneasy feeling we are heading in the same direction with that bill. It takes hard work. Members from both sides have to sit down, bring people together, and put in the hours it takes to finish the job. If we allow this to sort of wander along without dealing with the intricacies and the complicated questions involved, then one can almost predict with certainty what is going to happen at the end of the day. So the offer is there. I make it to my friends and colleagues on this side of the aisle and the other. I am prepared to be a part of those efforts, if they find it fruitful and worthwhile, or to sit on the sidelines and watch it happen and be supportive of whatever they are able to produce. Let's move forward and get this done. The American people deserve better. We are not working together as often as we should on critical questions. If we do not do it, then we do a great disservice to the American public. So I hope the leaders would take up the offers that have been made, sit down and see if we cannot pull this bill together. For those who are interested, we ought to be prepared to start that process today-- this afternoon--if people are so willing. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago the Senate began debate on President Bush's $87 billion emergency funding request for Iraq and Afghanistan. Since that time, many amendments have been considered by this body. Most of them have failed largely along partisan lines. That is unfortunate in my view. After all, we are talking about spending 87 billion American taxpayer dollars, and this during a time when so many of our national priorities remain unaddressed. Our education system, our health care system, and our homeland security priorities are all drastically underfunded. More and more Americans are finding themselves out of work. Certainly we need to continue to support our troops in Iraq and to assist the Iraqi people to rebuild their country. But we can't do this alone and ignore the vital domestic needs that so many Americans are today facing. About a month ago, I rose in this Chamber to share my thoughts about United States policy toward Iraq. I did so shortly after President Bush's September 7th televised address to the Nation on the same subject. In that speech, the President was candid with the American people about what we should expect in Iraq, namely that it is going to be ``difficult and costly'' to rebuild that country and to bring democracy to a people who have had no tradition of political freedom or self-determination. This Senator welcomed the President's honest assessment of what we are likely to be facing in Iraq. It was a positive change from the doublespeak and ``non-answers'' that the Congress and the American people have been hearing from some officials in the administration since before the outset of our military engagement in that country. Of course, what the President told us wasn't news. The difficulty and the cost of our involvement are painfully apparent. More than 150,000 coalition forces remain in Iraq 5 months after the President declared the end to major hostilities. One hundred and thirty thousand of those men and women are Americans. And every day there are reports of yet another American service man or woman being killed. With the approval of this $87 billion emergency supplemental, the United States will have committed more than 150 billion of American taxpayers' dollars in a matter of months for our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan--the vast majority of those sums for the Iraq mission. In light of those statistics, who could disagree with the President that our mission in Iraq has become difficult and costly--both monetarily and in human terms. I only question why it took our President so long to come to that realization. In fact, it now appears that estimates of human and monetary costs that were formerly discounted by the Bush administration--statements made by Army General Eric Shinseki and the President's former Chief Economic Advisor Lawrence Lindsey--might not have been so far off the mark. During his most recent address to the Nation, President Bush also explained, in simple terms, United States policy objectives: destroy terrorists, enlist the support of other nations for a free Iraq, and help Iraqis assume responsibility. He was less clear on how he intends to achieve those objectives, or to mitigate the myriad of costs to the American people. That is why many of our colleagues who have spoken on the floor have decried the fact that at the very time we are being asked to approve $87 billion in additional money for the military and reconstruction costs of Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration has yet to lay out a clear plan for how any of the objectives mentioned by the President are to be achieved. Perhaps progress is now possible in internationalizing the rebuilding of Iraq. I take note in particular of yesterday's unanimous U.N. Security Council vote in support of the United States- sponsored resolution on Iraq. However, it is important to remember that this resolution is only the first step toward achieving a broad international coalition with additional governments and international organizations willing to share the burden of this difficult and costly occupation. Our military has done an exemplary job in winning the war. They should be commended. But they also need help winning the peace. Our forces are stretched thin and our troops are tired. Tragically, more than 332 American military personnel have now died in Iraq, 1,511 have been wounded, and 335 have sustained other injuries. One hundred and twenty of those deaths were unrelated to hostile fire dehydration, auto accidents, and other causes. These deaths have prompted legitimate questions about the adequacy of the equipment our troops have been provided for the hostile environment being encountered. Efforts by the U.S. Army to address some of these equipment shortcomings have not been fully funded in the pending legislation. That is the Army's assessment--not mine. That is why I offered an amendment on October 2, to transfer $300 million from Iraqi reconstruction funds to U.S. Army accounts for the purchase of equipment vital to the safety of our troops or to reimburse them for equipment they were forced to buy for themselves. In the broader scope of things, I continue to believe that those few hundred million dollars were a mere drop in the bucket. But this drop could have helped protect and provide our troops with hydration and other lifesaving equipment that they need. I was very disappointed that my amendment failed, largely along partisan lines, because I strongly believe that the first and most important priority of this funding bill should be to protect our troops. United States liberation of Iraq has not ended the suffering of the Iraqi people. They continue to suffer, and they are frustrated as well. While the decades of fear and brutality perpetrated by the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein are now gone, uncertainty and hardship continue despite the best efforts of U.S. Ambassador Paul Bremer and members of the Coalition Provisional Authority. And this uncertainty and hardship have brought resentment--resentment against U.S. forces, resentment against the U.N. mission headquartered in Baghdad, resentment between and within local communities. That resentment has brought with it increasing acts of violence. While I have not yet had an opportunity to make a first-hand assessment of the situation in Iraq, many who have believe that security remains the most immediate and pressing challenge confronting the Provisional Coalition Authority. It is my hope that the monies contained in this legislation for our troops, coupled with the $5 billion allocated to assemble and train Iraqi police and security forces will improve the security climate so that the road is clear for the equally difficult task of rebuilding the country. I fully support those elements of the supplemental request. However, I have serious questions about some of the so-called reconstruction priorities that the administration intends to pursue once the emergency supplemental is approved--projects that the administration has identified as high priorities in need of immediate funding. A number of these misplaced priorities have been mentioned during the course of this debate. Let me remind my colleagues of some of these: No. 1, a $100 million witness protection program for 100 Iraqi families--that is $1 million per family; No. 2, two maximum security prisons at a total cost of $400 million-- $50,000 per prison bed; No. 3, $15 million for the purchase of computers, with a price tag of $3,000 per computer; No. 4, $20 million for 4 weeks of business training classes at $10,000 per student; and No. 5, $30 million to teach English as a second language to Iraqis. These are just a few of the questionable spending priorities embedded in the measure before us. I supported President Bush last year when he sought authority from Congress to use all necessary means to secure Iraq's compliance with U.N. resolutions. But even while doing so I was deeply concerned that absent broad international support for preemptively removing Saddam Hussein, the American taxpayer and our troops would be left holding the bag when the time came to win the peace in Iraq. That concern has proven well placed. Indeed, I am not only troubled by the so-called emergency programs that I just mentioned; what concerns me even more is that we all know that Iraq is going to need more money--above and beyond this current request. A lot more. Yet despite the recent U.N. Security Council resolution, many doubts remain as to the administration's willingness or ability to ensure that other governments and international organizations will begin to share some of those future costs. The President did not listen to those of us who cautioned him about the implications of removing Saddam Hussein unilaterally. This debate gives him a second chance to listen to similar concerns being articulated about attempting to unilaterally deliver democracy to Iraq. Without significant and meaningful help from others we risk an even more ``costly and difficult'' engagement in Iraq than the President has contemplated. Equally serious, the President risks losing the support of the American people for his policy. Without that support continued U.S. involvement will not be sustainable. During consideration of this legislation, Members of this Congress have taken certain steps to press the administration on the issue of burden sharing. These were not partisan efforts because this is not a partisan issue. It is not partisan to insist that the President not have a blank check to pay for all of Iraq's reconstruction. It is sound fiscal policy. Quite simply, we cannot afford to write endless checks for this purpose. Even before the administration's supplemental request, the Congressional Budget Office had calculated that the annual budget deficit would reach $480 billion--the largest in history. Over the past 3 years, 3.2 million Americans have lost their jobs--44,000 alone in July. So there are clearly pressing needs at home that remain unmet. We could do a lot with an additional $20 billion on the domestic side of the Federal ledger. We could do a lot in the area of health care: $20 billion could provide health coverage for approximately 1.3 million Americans; current Medicare prescription drug proposals include large gaps in coverage; the $20 billion could be used to close those gaps; and $20 billion would provide Medicaid coverage for an additional 300,000 children, adults, senior citizens, and individuals with disabilities. We could do a lot in addressing our Nation's education shortfalls: $8.5 billion would fully fund No Child Left Behind; $6.15 billion would fully fund title I programs--programs to help our poorest schools better serve our children; $750 million would bring afterschool programs to their fiscal year 2004 authorized levels; $29 million would restore the Troops to Teachers Programs. We could also do a lot in supporting important programs for our Nation's children. Twenty billion dollars would: provide 4.4 million more kids with childcare; enable participation of 2.8 million kids in Head Start; fund enrollment of 26.7 million kids in afterschool programs; or 16.6 million more kids covered by health care. The bottom line is that we are not going to be able to do any of those things if we continue to go it alone in Iraq. Moreover, the huge and unprecedented amounts of national debt that we are incurring are going to cripple our economy for the foreseeable future. Why do we go through this silly budget exercise of declaring all these projects an emergency? It is so that our budget rules won't apply--so somehow it won't count. Well, Mr. President, it does count. And I think we should agree here and now that this is real money. Other programs, real programs, important programs, won't be funded because of the so-called emergency projects I mentioned earlier. There are trade- offs. It is now clear that these trade-offs aren't going to be confronted by the President unless the voices of the unilateralists in the Bush administration are silenced, or at least the President stops listening to them. The recent U.N. resolution was an important first step toward that end. Hopefully it has taught this administration an important lesson: that to garner international help in building democracy in-- Iraq help we desperately need--there must be compromise and respect for other points of view. There is nothing wrong with compromising or with sharing the costs and responsibilities for Iraq's future. In fact, I believe that Congress has a responsibility to see that those costs and responsibilities will be shared. International burden sharing was a condition of congressional support for funding U.S. peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo. This very Congress included a burden sharing requirement in the legislation passed earlier this year authorizing U.S. participation in the Global HIV/AIDS Fund. Why should Iraq be different? Senate adoption last night of the Bayh amendment, which would convert a portion of the reconstruction monies to loans, should be understood as one small step toward more equitable burden sharing in the rebuilding of Iraq. During consideration of this legislation we have taken some important first steps. But these are only small steps, and much more needs to be done if the $87 billion we are about to approve is to be effectively used. I will reluctantly support final passage of this bill because I believe we have an obligation to support our troops. However, I want to make it clear, here and now, that if this President expects my future support, he is going to have to bring together a much broader international coalition than currently exists--one that will provide significant financial and military support to our efforts. The recent U.N. resolution holds out the promise that this may be possible, but it is only a promise--it is up to the President to see it become a reality. We cannot and must not let this administration continue to deny what we all know to be true; namely, that ``multilateralizing'' the reconstruction and democratization of Iraq is the right thing to do. It is the right thing for America. It is the right thing for Iraq. And it is the only way to ensure that we will be able to fulfill our responsibilities to the American people. Let us hope that the administration will use the resources and authorities contained in this bill to accomplish that goal.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky. Very briefly, I had intended to offer an amendment at an appropriate time, most reluctantly, because it is unrelated to the subject matter at hand. But all my colleagues can relate to this frustration from time to time. When there is something you want to get done and you have few opportunities to get it done, you pick any vehicle coming along which might help you get it done. Recognizing that this was going to be one of the last funding measures to move along this year, I had intended at the appropriate time to offer an amendment that would have provided additional resources for the Help America Vote Act, on which my friend from Kentucky and Senator Bond and many others played a very critical role almost a year ago when it became the law of the Nation. In fact, October 29, 2003, will mark the 1-year anniversary of the day the President signed the legislation into law. I am hopeful we can get the level of funding up to full in a timely manner. As all my colleagues must know, almost every Secretary of State, local election official, and legislative officer around the country are anxious for Congress to meet our obligations. The states can then get their election administration and technology up and running in the years 2004-2006 in a way that will be in compliance with the efforts made to pass the Help America Vote Act in the first place. But my colleague from Kentucky, as he has done on numerous occasions, has persuaded me there may be a better opportunity and a better place to get this job done. So I wanted to take a moment out to express my appreciation. I thank him for his willingness to help me try to achieve these results in the coming weeks if at all possible. To reiterate, I was prepared to offer an amendment to fully fund the Help America Vote Act, HAVA. Senators Corzine, Johnson, and Durbin had asked to cosponsor that amendment. Why? Because now is the time to make our rhetoric a reality to live up to our promise of just 1 year ago to fully fund the new Federal requirements we imposed on the States for conducting Federal elections. The President has recognized that Iraq and Afghanistan have many emergency needs, including the ability of those nations to establish democracies by conducting free and fair elections. As a result, the administration request for the fiscal year 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq, Afghanistan and the Global War on Terrorism earmarked at least $35 million for voter registration and elections in Afghanistan. I accept that priority. All countries must have the resources to establish and maintain their democracies and to administer and conduct elections for their citizens. The voice of the people, exercised at the polls, secures the future of any democracy, whether abroad or at home. And while I remain unconvinced that all of the funding in this bill is truly an emergency--such as for $3,000 computers or $50,000 dump trucks--when it comes to election funding, I will agree with the President. Funding to ensure the system by which a nation establishes and preserves a democracy is an emergency. But if it is an emergency in Afghanistan, it can be no less of an emergency in America. The basic premise of a democracy is that every citizen must have an equal voice in the determination of its government. In this Nation, that voice is expressed through the equal opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted. If America is to be the example for emerging democracies, whether in Afghanistan, or Iraq or any other part of the world, then our system of giving our citizens an equal voice--our system of elections--must meet this test. But what we learned in the elections of 2000 was that not all American citizens enjoyed an equal voice. In fact, some citizens were denied a voice at all because of malfunctioning or outdated voting equipment, inaccurate and incomplete voter registration records, and allegations of voter intimidation and fraud. A bipartisan group of members came together last Congress to change that and on October 29--almost exactly 1 year ago--President Bush signed into law the Help America Vote Act. At the signing ceremony at the White House, the President proclaimed: [w]hen problems arise in the administration of elections, we have a responsibility to fix them. But rhetoric alone will not fix the problems. It will take leadership and funds, and that is what the Help America Vote Act provides--Federal leadership in the form of new minimum requirements that all States must meet in the conduct of Federal elections and $3.8 billion to fund the implementation of these requirements. Some of these requirements must be in place in time for the Federal elections next year. But Congress has failed to provide the funds to the States to finance them. All 50 States have begun the process of drafting the required State plans outlining how Federal funds will be used to meet the requirements. Many of the States have begun implementation of the new requirements; but, they require full funding of the promised Federal funds to complete implementation of some requirements by next year and have compliant voting equipment in place by the 2006 Federal elections. Federal funding is the most critical key to nationwide implementation of this Act and may well govern the success and effectiveness of the new law. Federal funding is crucial. Since the States are in key planning and implementation stages of HAVA, they are relying on Federal funds to make election reform a reality nationwide. To help pay for election reforms and avoid an unfunded mandate on the States, HAVA authorizes a total of $3.9 billion over 3 fiscal years: $2.16 billion in fiscal year 2003; $1.04 billion in fiscal year 2004; and $660,000 in fiscal year 2005. But in fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated only $1.5 billion. Of that amount, $650 million has been distributed to all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa. I thank my colleagues for their support during the fiscal year 2003 appropriations process. In particular, I thank my two lead co-sponsors of HAVA and both major players in the appropriations process--Senator McConnell who was lead co-sponsor of election reform and Senator Bond who also co-sponsored HAVA and championed the anti-fraud provisions. I also thank Senator Stevens, chair of the Appropriations Committee and Senator Byrd, ranking member on Appropriations. But the fact is, the fiscal year 2003 appropriation reflects a reality starkly different from our promise. As a result, the States have experienced a shortfall of over $660 million in the first critical year of funding under HAVA. Given the dire financial budget constraints faced by our States and counties, the shortfall in promised Federal support creates an unfunded mandate that is both unfair and unnecessary. While the fiscal year 2004 Transportation, Treasury appropriations bill has not been completed in the Senate, I note that both the President and Congress has earmarked a mere $500 million for HAVA, a funding level that is half of what was authorized and is both inadequate and unacceptable. According to the National Governors Association, the current financial health of State and local governments was at its lowest point since World War II last year and has worsened in the past 10 months. Full Federal funding for HAVA is crucial to ensuring that the reforms that Congress overwhelmingly approved, on a broad bipartisan basis, and the President endorsed with his signature, are implemented. The very integrity of our elections, and consequently our democracy, hangs in the balance. Surely, it cannot be argued that building ``taj mahal'' Iraqi prisons and market centers for the private sector in Afghanistan are more of an emergency than securing democracy in America. We can do both. We must do both. But it is unacceptable to chose the reconstruction needs of Iraq and Afghanistan over the needs of our own democracy. Full funding of HAVA is critical to our national credibility for fairness and accuracy in Federal elections. It is fundamental to the integrity of our democratic process. The problem of Federal funding for HAVA can be solved by Congress today, now. The problem of Federal funding for HAVA can be solved right here in the context of the fiscal year 2004 Supplemental bill that we debate today. I seek bipartisan support from my colleagues to help me strengthen democracy both abroad and at home--the same bipartisan support that lead 98 members of this Senate and 357 Members of the House to pass HAVA just 1 year ago; the same bipartisan support, and need, that encouraged President Bush to sign this legislation into law. In order to make election reform a reality, and to live up to the promise we made to State and local officials to be a full partner in Federal elections, I intend to offer an amendment to this measure which will provide full funding for HAVA in an amount of $1.86 billion. This amount reflects the total authorization for the Federal partnership. This effort is overwhelmingly supported by a bipartisan and powerful coalition of State and local election officials, in conjunction with all the major civil rights, disability, language minority, and other voter interest groups in the United States. I thank each and every one of them for their strong support in passing HAVA and their continuing commitment to see that Congress makes good on its promise to be a full partner in Federal elections by fully funding the provisions of HAVA. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter by the coalition, entitled ``Democracy Begins At Home: Fully Fund the Help America Vote Act.''

Mr. DODD. Any effort to fully fund HAVA is as much of an emergency as the needs presented in the bill before us for Iraq and Afghanistan and I am prepared to ask the Senate to support full funding of HAVA on the same emergency basis. However, there are sufficient funds in the reconstruction portion of this bill which are of questionable emergency status that can be used to offset the entire cost of fully funding election reform. For example, $450 million from the public safety, national security and justice sector of this bill, including, $400 million in funds to construct 2 maximum security prisons of 4000 beds each at a cost of $50,000 per prison bed; and $50 million for witness protection at a cost of $1 million per Iraqi family. There is $1.02 billion from the electrical sector, including $1 billion for the development and construct of thermal power stations-- which are more expensive than other forms of power generation and will take up to 3 years to construct; and $20 million for embedded consultants, building repairs and a master plan for the Iraqi Electricity Commission. There is $37 million from the public works section, including funds for waste management that would pay for a portion of the proposed 2,000 dump trucks, at a cost of $50,000 per truck. There is $353 million from the private sector development funds, including $200 million for an American-Iraq Enterprise Fund to be run by a private board of directors; $85 million for 5000 computers at a cost of $3000 per computer and basic and specialized computer training and teaching English as a second language to Iraqis; $25 million to modernize equipment and curriculum in vocational institutes; and $43 million subsidy to private employers for on the job training of new employees and the improvement of employment centers. I close with a quote from the Coalition's letter: No Civil Right Is More Fundamental to America's Democracy than the Right to Vote. As Our Nation Spends Billions of Dollars Helping to Promote Democracies Abroad, Congress Simply Should Not Allow Doubts about the Legitimacy of Our Electoral Process to Continue to Linger Here at Home. I urge my colleagues to fulfill our commitment of last year to ensure the integrity of our Federal elections and the very foundation of our democracy by fully funding the Help America Vote Act. I commend Senator McConnell for his commitment to securing additional funds this year, and so I will withhold offering my amendment at this time. Exhibit 1 Democracy Begins at Home--Fully Fund the ``Help America Vote Act'' September 29, 2003. Dear Member of Congress: We, the undersigned organizations, urge you to ensure that full funding for the Help America Vote Act (P.L. 107-252) (``HAVA'') is included in the upcoming supplemental appropriations for reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. As you know, the Bush administration has requested that Congress provide $21.4 billion for these reconstruction efforts. We ask that Congress provide, at the same time, a mere fraction of that amount for the purpose of strengthening our own democracy here at home. The Help America Vote Act was enacted with overwhelmingly bipartisan support in order to prevent the many problems of the 2000 election from ever happening again. Among its many reforms, it places significant mandates upon states and localities to replace outdated voting equipment, create statewide voter registration lists and provide provisional ballots to ensure that eligible voters are not turned away, and make it easier for people with disabilities to cast private, independent ballots. To help pay for these reforms, HAVA authorizes a total of $3.9 billion over three fiscal years, including $2.16 billion for FY03 and $1.045 billion for FY04. To date, however, the actual funding of HAVA has been woefully inadequate. So far, only $1.5 billion of FY03 funding has been appropriated, and $830 million of that amount has yet to reach the states because the President has not nominated and the Senate has not confirmed the members of the new Election Assistance Commission. Additionally, only $500 million is currently included in pending FY04 appropriations; once again, this is a sum that falls well below what is needed for successful implementation of HAVA. States and localities were assured by Congress that this new law would not evolve into a set of unfunded federal mandates. It is now time for Congress to honor its commitment to the states and to the American public at large. Given the difficult fiscal circumstances facing state and local governments, immediate and full funding of HAVA is now needed in order to make essential progress before Election Day in 2004. Without the strong leadership that HAVA promised at the federal level, states and local governments simply do not have the ability to complete implementation of the important reforms that they are now required to make. No civil right is more fundamental to America's democracy than the right to vote. As our nation spends billions of dollars helping to promote democracies abroad, Congress simply should not allow doubts about the legitimacy of our electoral processes to continue to linger here at home. We thank you for your support of funding for the ``Help America Vote Act,'' and we look forward to working with you on this critical issue. Should you have any questions, please contact Rob Randhava of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights at (202) 466-6058, Leslie Reynolds of the National Association of Secretaries of State at (202) 624-3525, or any of the individual organizations listed below. Sincerely, organizations representing state and local officials National Association of Secretaries of State. National Conference of State Legislatures. Council of State Governments. National Association of State Election Directors. National Association of Counties. National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund. National League of Cities. International City/County Management Association. International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials and Treasurers. National Association of County Recorders, Election Officials and Clerks. civil rights organizations Alliance for Retired Americans. American Association of People with Disabilities. American Civil Liberties Union. American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial Organizations. Americans for Democratic Action. Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund. Asian Law Alliance. Asian Law Caucus. Asian Pacific American Legal Center. Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. California Council for the Blind. Center for Governmental Studies. Center for Voting and Democracy. Common Cause. Demos: A Network for Ideas & Action. Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. League of Women Voters of the United States. Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees. National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems. National Council of Churches. National Council of La Raza. Neighbor to Neighbor Action Fund. Organization of Chinese Americans. People For the American Way. Project Vote. Public Citizen. The Arc of the United States. United Auto Workers. United Cerebral Palsy. U.S. Action Education Fund. U.S. Public Interest Research Group. National Spinal Cord Injury Association. National CURE (Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Events). American Foundation for the Blind. National Industries for the Severely Handicapped. Association of University Center on Disabilities. American Council of the Blind.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky. I thank Senator Reid as well, the minority whip, Senator Stevens, and Senator Inouye for interrupting his prepared statement. I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join my friend and colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, in introducing a resolution declaring next week ``National Character Counts Week.'' Senator Domenici and I have worked together for many years on the issue of character education and hope that by designating a special week to this cause, students and teachers will come together to participate in character building activities in their schools. In 1994, Senator Domenici and I established the Partnerships in Character Education Pilot Project and have worked regularly since then to commemorate National Character Counts Week. I am pleased that we are continuing our efforts today to help expand States' and schools' abilities to make character education a central part of every child's education. Our schools may be built with the bricks of English, math and science, but character education certainly is the mortar. Character education means teaching students about such qualities as caring, citizenship, fairness, respect, responsibility, trustworthiness, and other qualifies that their community values. Character education provides students a context within which to learn. If we view education simply as the imparting of knowledge to our children, then we will not only miss an opportunity, but will jeopardize our future. Character education isn't a separate subject, but part of a seamless garment of learning. Taking this to heart, teachers at Duffy Elementary School in West Hartford, Connecticut, have incorporated the fundamentals of character education into their schoolwide curriculum so that every child has the opportunity to focus on one aspect of character education in each garde. In turn, these learning opportunities have translated into action within the community. Philip R. Smith Elementary School in South Windsor, Connecticut, was recently named a National School of Character by the Character Education Partnership for demonstrating outstanding character education initiatives that yield positive results in student behavior, school climate and academic performance. Their schoolwide approach has also translated into a number of community wide service projects. Annually, students organize and run a blood drive for the community and sponsor a two-month long clothing and can food drive for the homeless. In response to 9/11, students raised close to $1,500 in change for the Red Cross. Mr. President, character education programs work. Schools across the country that have adopted strong character education programs report better student performance, fewer discipline problems, and increased student involvement within the community. Children want direction--they want to be taught right from wrong. The American public wants character education in our schools, too. Studies show that about 90 percent of Americans support schools teaching character education. As all education policy should be, character education is bipartisan. This year we have 28 cosponsors to our resolution, cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. Character education is also actively supported by a number of national education and youth organizations including 4-H, Boys and Girls Clubs of America and the Little League. Character education can and is being incorporated into children's lives in and outside of the classroom. This measure provides a helping hand to our schools and communities to ensure those children's future are bright and filled with opportunities and success. Character education not only cultivates minds, it nurtures hearts. While our children may be one-quarter of our population, they are 100 percent of our future.