Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to honor the memory of an outstanding public servant and a dear friend, John Michael Bailey, who passed away on September 23 at the age of 59. My friendship with Jack Bailey was long and deep. Our families were close friends, and we knew each other as children. We ran against each other for Congress in 1974, and I will always remember his civility during that campaign. We stayed friends during the campaign, and we remained close until his untimely passing. Jack served as the chief State's attorney in Connecticut for 9 years--the longest tenure of anyone to hold that office. With his cigars, dark suits, and slicked-back hair, he outwardly resembled a figure out of a Hollywood crime drama. But his success as a lawyer, and his integrity as a human being, were no fictions. He spent 27 years as a criminal prosecutor, and his tireless work earned him the respect of political leaders in both parties. He was tough on crime, but also fair. He was truly a pioneer in law enforcement in Connecticut, leading the fight to get violent offenders off the streets and to crack down on the abuse of senior citizens. A number of his initiatives and methods have been adopted by law enforcement officials across America. Jack Bailey's influence in Connecticut will be felt for years to come. Not only did he set up units and institutions that will serve as his legacy; he also was a mentor to many of the younger attorneys and officers who are now the new faces of law enforcement in our state. But for his debilitating illness, Jack Bailey would still be serving the people of Connecticut. As his sister, former Congresswoman Barbara Kennelly, said, ``He thought he had the best job in the world.'' He stayed in his office as long as he could taking two medical leaves of absence--before finally resigning a year ago. The only thing that kept Jack from his job was a terrible disease that has no cure. I join all of Connecticut's citizens in expressing my deep gratitude to Jack for spending so many years making our lives safer, and better. He served us with dignity, class, and great honor. My deepest sympathies go out to Jack's wife Dee, to his sons John and Brian, and to all who knew and loved him.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, over the past decade, the science of genetics has developed at an astonishing pace. The mapping of the human genome is undoubtedly one of the greatest scientific achievements of my lifetime. We have not even completely grasped the wide array of potential benefits that may come from our newfound genetic knowledge. Certainly, the impact on our health will be profound. Doctors will be able to read our unique genetic blueprints and predict the likelihood of developing diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's, or Parkinson's. They will also be able to use an individual's genetic information to develop treatments for these same diseases and target individuals with the treatment that will work best for them. This is not science fiction--it is already beginning to happen. For all the promise of the genetic age, there is also an inherent threat. Science has outpaced the law and Americans are worried, and rightly so, that their genetic information will be used, not to improve their health, but to deny them health insurance or employment. There is no information more personal and private than genetic information and no information more worthy of special protection. Our genetic code is the very blueprint of ourselves. It is with us from birth, and to some extent it determines who we will become. What an incredibly powerful tool, with its vast potential to help us live healthier lives. But the nature of genetic information also makes it dangerous to the individual if used incorrectly. This is why so many of us, on both sides of the aisle, saw the need several years ago for legally enforceable rules to maximize the potential benefits of genetic information and minimize its potential dangers. The legislation before use represents a culmination of the efforts of many of us to establish such rules. It represents an enormous step forward, and I wish to acknowledge the hard work of everyone who was involved in crafting this legislation. This bill provides significant new protections against the misuse of genetic information. It ensures that Americans who are genetically predisposed to health conditions will not lose or be denied health insurance, jobs, or promotions based on their genetic makeup. Reaching an agreement on this legislation means that our laws dealing with genetic information can begin to catch up to the reality of our technological capability in the field. With these protections in place, individuals need not feel reluctant to get the tests that may save or improve their lives. Although the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA, took important steps towards preventing genetic discrimination, this legislation is more specifically tailored to prohibiting its misuse. Health plans and health insurance issuers will not be allowed to underwrite, determine premiums, or decide on eligibility for enrollment based on genetic information. Employers will not be allowed to alter hiring practices based on genetic information. The American public can feel secure in the knowledge that their genetic blueprint will not be used to harm them, that a genetic marker indicating a possible illness later in life will not cause them to lose a job or health insurance. This is by no means a perfect or complete bill. In particular, while it poses some important limitations on the collection of personal genetic information by insurance companies, it would allow them to collect this information, without consent, once an individual is enrolled in a health plan. While insurers are expressly prohibited from using this information for the purposes of underwriting, I am concerned that once they have this information, it may be difficult to control how it is used and who has access to it. We all know from experience that the difficulty of protecting information increases exponentially with each additional person who has access to that information. Let me add that, during negotiations, good faith attempts were made on both sides to address these concerns. Unfortunately, we could not reach an agreement on this issue that made all parties comfortable. As a result, the bill falls short of offering comprehensive privacy protection. Personal genetic information is already widely available, and the risk of abuse is high. Health plans and employers will have legitimate reasons for collecting genetic information. But individuals should be given the power to regulate how such information is distributed, and with whom it is shared. As this bill becomes law, and I sincerely hope it will, I will monitor closely how it is implemented, and the extent to which privacy is protected. We may need to revisit this issue in the future. Despite this shortcoming, I support this bill, as it represents a vast improvement over current law in many ways. I hope that it will become law in the very near future. We all should feel free to make our health care decisions based on our health care needs, not based on fear. Today, we are close to making that goal a reality.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch, Senator Brownback, and Senator Specter in introducing legislation to advance the use of umbilical cord blood for clinical applications and research. I first became aware of the potential therapeutic benefits of cord blood when my daughter was born 2 years ago. At that time, our doctor informed me and my wife that preserving a small amount of blood from the umbilical cord could prove enormously beneficial later in her life. Should she become ill with a disease requiring bone marrow reconstitution, he told us, her own cord blood stem cells could be used. This would eliminate the need to find a suitable bone marrow donor. The bill that we are introducing today will begin a new national commitment to the development of this technology--which has the potential to reduce pain and suffering and save the lives of so many Americans afflicted with some of the most debilitating illnesses. Cord blood has already been used successfully in treating a number of diseases, including sickle cell anemia and certain childhood cancers. However, the use of cord blood is still fledgling. Recent developments have suggested that the stem cells derived from cord blood may be useful in treating a much wider range of diseases, such as Parkinson's disease, diabetes, and heart disease. Like many Americans, I had never heard of cord blood before the birth of my daughter. It is not widely used--at least in this country. In the first 8 months of this year, 95 percent of all bone marrow reconstitutions were done using a bone marrow transplant. Only 5 percent used cord blood. This figure is surprising when we consider the potential benefits of cord blood relative to bone marrow. First, it can be very difficult to find a suitable bone marrow donor. According to a General Accounting Office, GAO, report, of the 15,231 individuals needing bone marrow transplants between 1997 and 2000 who conducted a preliminary search of the National Bone Marrow Donor Registry, NBMDR, only 4,056 received a transplant--a 27-percent success rate. This number is even lower for minorities. Cord blood would not only produce an additional source of donation, it also does not require as exact a match as bone marrow. In addition, cord blood is readily available. While it can take months between finding a bone marrow match and actually receiving a transplant, a unit of cord blood can be utilized in a matter of days or weeks. Cord blood also lowers the risk of complications of both the donor and the recipient. The need to extract bone marrow from the donor is eliminated, and the risk of infection or rejection by the recipient is significantly reduced. Finally, research has suggested that cord blood might produce better outcomes than bone marrow in children. Why then, given all of these benefits, has the use of cord blood not become much more prevalent in the United States? In Japan, where the use of cord blood in clinical settings is more advanced, nearly half of all transplants now use cord blood rather than bone marrow. The relatively infrequent use of cord blood in our country is at least partly attributable to the lack of a national infrastructure for the matching and distribution of cord blood units. There are a handful of cord blood banks around the country doing excellent work, but there is a much more developed infrastructure for bone marrow. This is thanks to legislation passed by Congress in 1986 that established a National Registry for bone marrow. By the way, that legislation is due to be reauthorized next year--and I would like to voice my strong support for that reauthorization. Our bill would create a similar infrastructure for cord blood. Specifically, it would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, acting through the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, to establish a National Cord Blood Stem Cell Bank Network, as well as a registry of available cord blood units. The network and registry would be required to collect a minimum of 150,000 units, which should be sufficient to provide a suitable match for 90 percent of the U.S. population. Donor banks would also be required to educate the general public about the potential benefits of cord blood, and encourage an ethnically diverse population of cord blood donors. Given the untapped potential of cord blood, at least 10 percent of the available units must also be made available for research. Finally, the legislation authorizes an appropriation of $15 million for fiscal year 2004, and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2005 through 2008. Mr. President, before finishing today I would like to make it clear that I strongly support the continuation of the excellent work done by the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP). Cord blood should act as a complement to--not a replacement for--bone marrow. In many cases, a bone marrow transplant is still the preferred therapy. Physicians should have the ability to decide on a case-by-case basis which is best for their patients. That is why I am hopeful that the NMDP will have a very active role in designing and supporting the National Cord Blood Stem Cell Network and Registry. Ideally, the two will work together to provide a single resource where doctors can search both cord blood stockpiles and a list of marrow donors for a suitable match for their patients. I firmly believe that the creation of a national infrastructure for cord blood will, in time, save the lives of thousands of gravely ill Americans. We have a responsibility to encourage use of cord blood where appropriate today, and invest in research to fully tap the potential of this technology. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch, Senator Brownback, and Senator Specter in introducing legislation to advance the use of umbilical cord blood for clinical applications and research. I first became aware of the potential therapeutic benefits of cord blood when my daughter was born 2 years ago. At that time, our doctor informed me and my wife that preserving a small amount of blood from the umbilical cord could prove enormously beneficial later in her life. Should she become ill with a disease requiring bone marrow reconstitution, he told us, her own cord blood stem cells could be used. This would eliminate the need to find a suitable bone marrow donor. The bill that we are introducing today will begin a new national commitment to the development of this technology--which has the potential to reduce pain and suffering and save the lives of so many Americans afflicted with some of the most debilitating illnesses. Cord blood has already been used successfully in treating a number of diseases, including sickle cell anemia and certain childhood cancers. However, the use of cord blood is still fledgling. Recent developments have suggested that the stem cells derived from cord blood may be useful in treating a much wider range of diseases, such as Parkinson's disease, diabetes, and heart disease. Like many Americans, I had never heard of cord blood before the birth of my daughter. It is not widely used--at least in this country. In the first 8 months of this year, 95 percent of all bone marrow reconstitutions were done using a bone marrow transplant. Only 5 percent used cord blood. This figure is surprising when we consider the potential benefits of cord blood relative to bone marrow. First, it can be very difficult to find a suitable bone marrow donor. According to a General Accounting Office, GAO, report, of the 15,231 individuals needing bone marrow transplants between 1997 and 2000 who conducted a preliminary search of the National Bone Marrow Donor Registry, NBMDR, only 4,056 received a transplant--a 27-percent success rate. This number is even lower for minorities. Cord blood would not only produce an additional source of donation, it also does not require as exact a match as bone marrow. In addition, cord blood is readily available. While it can take months between finding a bone marrow match and actually receiving a transplant, a unit of cord blood can be utilized in a matter of days or weeks. Cord blood also lowers the risk of complications of both the donor and the recipient. The need to extract bone marrow from the donor is eliminated, and the risk of infection or rejection by the recipient is significantly reduced. Finally, research has suggested that cord blood might produce better outcomes than bone marrow in children. Why then, given all of these benefits, has the use of cord blood not become much more prevalent in the United States? In Japan, where the use of cord blood in clinical settings is more advanced, nearly half of all transplants now use cord blood rather than bone marrow. The relatively infrequent use of cord blood in our country is at least partly attributable to the lack of a national infrastructure for the matching and distribution of cord blood units. There are a handful of cord blood banks around the country doing excellent work, but there is a much more developed infrastructure for bone marrow. This is thanks to legislation passed by Congress in 1986 that established a National Registry for bone marrow. By the way, that legislation is due to be reauthorized next year--and I would like to voice my strong support for that reauthorization. Our bill would create a similar infrastructure for cord blood. Specifically, it would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, acting through the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, to establish a National Cord Blood Stem Cell Bank Network, as well as a registry of available cord blood units. The network and registry would be required to collect a minimum of 150,000 units, which should be sufficient to provide a suitable match for 90 percent of the U.S. population. Donor banks would also be required to educate the general public about the potential benefits of cord blood, and encourage an ethnically diverse population of cord blood donors. Given the untapped potential of cord blood, at least 10 percent of the available units must also be made available for research. Finally, the legislation authorizes an appropriation of $15 million for fiscal year 2004, and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2005 through 2008. Mr. President, before finishing today I would like to make it clear that I strongly support the continuation of the excellent work done by the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP). Cord blood should act as a complement to--not a replacement for--bone marrow. In many cases, a bone marrow transplant is still the preferred therapy. Physicians should have the ability to decide on a case-by-case basis which is best for their patients. That is why I am hopeful that the NMDP will have a very active role in designing and supporting the National Cord Blood Stem Cell Network and Registry. Ideally, the two will work together to provide a single resource where doctors can search both cord blood stockpiles and a list of marrow donors for a suitable match for their patients. I firmly believe that the creation of a national infrastructure for cord blood will, in time, save the lives of thousands of gravely ill Americans. We have a responsibility to encourage use of cord blood where appropriate today, and invest in research to fully tap the potential of this technology. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to remind my colleagues that October is National Spina Bifida Awareness Month and to pay tribute to the more than 70,000 Americans and their family members who are currently affected by Spina Bifida--the Nation's most common, permanently disabling birth defect. Spina bifida is a neural tube defect that occurs when the central nervous system does not properly close during the early stages of pregnancy. Spina bifida affects more than 4,000 pregnancies each year, with 1,500 babies born with spina bifida each year. There are three different forms of spina bifida with the most severe being myelomeningocele spina bifida, which causes nerve damage and severe disabilities. This severe form of spina bifida is diagnosed in 96 percent of children born with this condition. Between 70 and 90 percent of the children born with spina bifida are at risk of mental retardation when spinal fluid collects around the brain. The exact cause of spina bifida is not known, but researchers have concluded that women of childbearing age who take daily folic acid supplements reduce their chances of having a spina bifida pregnancy by up to 75 percent. Progress has been made convincing women of the importance of consuming folic acid supplements and maintaining diets rich in folic acid. However, this public education campaign must be enhanced and broadened to reach segments of the population that have yet to heed this call. Although folic acid consumption reduces the risk and incidence of spina bifida pregnancies, we will still have babies born with spina bifida who need intensive care and families that need guidance and support in caring for and raising these children. The result of this neural tube defect is that most babies suffer from a host of physical, psychological, and educational challenges, including paralysis, developmental delay, numerous surgeries, and living with a shunt in their skulls in an attempt to ameliorate their condition. Today, approximately 90 percent of all babies diagnosed with this birth defect live into adulthood, approximately 80 percent have normal IQs, and approximately 75 percent participate in sports and other recreational activities. With proper medical care, people who suffer from spina bifida can lead full and productive lives. However, they must learn how to move around using braces, crutches or wheelchairs, and how to function independently. They also must be careful to avoid a host of secondary health problems ranging from depression and learning disabilities to skin problems and latex allergies. After decades of poor prognosis and short life expectancy, breakthroughs in research combined with improvements in health care and treatment children with spina bifida are now living long enough to become adults with this condition. Yet, with this extended life expectancy people with spina bifida now face new challenges in the fields of education, job training, independent living, health care for secondary conditions, aging concerns, and other related issues. I am grateful for my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond who, along with myself, sponsored the Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities Prevention Act of 2003, S. 286. This important legislation helps prevent spina bifida as well as meets the current and growing needs of individuals with spina bifida live active, productive, and meaningful lives. Our legislation helps those with spina bifida and their families learn how to treat and prevent secondary health problems which range from learning disabilities and depression to severe allergies, and respiratory and skin problems that make life difficult and at times, fraught with danger that make life difficult for these patients by authorizing the National Spina Bifida Program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC. All of these problems can be treated or prevented, but only if those with spina bifida are properly educated and taught what they need to do to keep themselves healthy. The national program focuses and coordinates the agency's efforts to educate health care providers about the range of spina bifida issues-- including the availability of in utero surgery--as well as help promote the dissemination of information regarding how to prevent the myriad complications of the condition. Last year, I chaired a hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension's Subcommittee on Children and Families on birth defects, in which Connecticut resident Fred Liguori's testimony provided a parent's valuable perspective on spina bifida. After losing two pregnancies, the Liguori's were informed their unborn child had spina bifida. After careful consideration and information from the SBAA, the Liguoris elected to proceed with in utero surgery that could reduce the effects of spina bifida. Since the late 1990s, doctors at four U.S. hospitals have been operating before birth on babies diagnosed with spina bifida. By closing the spinal lesion early in pregnancy, these doctors believe they can minimize the damage created by fluid leaking from the spine, as well as by the spinal cord's contact with amniotic fluid. Surgeons have found that closing the hole in the spine in this fashion before birth may correct breathing problems in 15 percent of the children receiving the procedure and may reduce the need for a shunt to drain brain fluid build up by between 33 percent and 50 percent. While the in utero surgery was successful, their three-year-old son still requires extensive therapy and medical attention. Fred Liguori's testimony made it clear that a national spina bifida program is critically needed for the prevention of this condition and to improve the quality of life for those individuals and their families living with spina bifida. Fortunately, in fiscal year 2003, Congress was wise to provide $2 million in funding to establish and support a national spina bifida program and is poised to provide a much-needed increase in funding for fiscal year 2004. The House provided a $500,000 increase while the Senate included a total of $3 million for the program for fiscal year 2004. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Senate allocation as this level of funding is needed to ensure that the CDC has the resources necessary to support and expand its comprehensive efforts to prevent spina bifida, improve quality-of-life for those living with the condition, and to deliver important public health messages to those communities most at-risk for a spina bifida pregnancy. I want also to recognize the special work of the Spina Bifida Association of America, SBAA, an organization that has helped people with spina bifida and their families for nearly 30 years, working every day--not just in the month of October--to prevent and reduce suffering from this devastating birth defect. The SBAA was founded in 1973 to address the needs of the individuals and families affected by and is currently the only national organization solely dedicated to advocating on behalf of the spina bifida community. As part of its service through 60 chapters in more than 100 communities across the country, the SBAA puts expecting parents in touch with families who have a child with spina bifida. These families answer questions and concerns and help guide expecting parents. The SBAA then works to provide lifelong support and assistance for affected children and their families. Together the SBAA and the Spina Bifida Association of Connecticut, SBAC, work tirelessly to help families meet the challenges and enjoy the rewards of raising their child. I would like to acknowledge and thank SBAA and the SBAC for all that they have done for the families affected by this birth defect, especially those living in my State. I would also like to commend the leadership of Hal Pote, President of the Spina Bifida Foundation--uncle of Greg Pote who lives with spina bifida, Alex Brodrick, President of the Spina Bifida Association of America, father of Joel Brodrick who lives with spina bifida, and Cindy Brownstein who serves as Chief Executive Officer of the SBAA. The spina bifida community and our Nation owe a tremendous debt to the SBAA for its work over the past three decades. As a Nation, we have accomplished a great deal in our battle against birth defects. However, much more work remains to be done. I urge all of my colleagues and all Americans to endorse the important efforts to prevent spina bifida but also to support those already living with this often debilitating birth defect. Those living with spina bifida and their loved ones deserve our utmost support. It is my hope that by recognizing National Spina Bifida Awareness Month we can move closer to the laudable goal of eventually eliminating the suffering caused by this terrible birth defect.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I renew my request. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Army did not come to me. This is an official briefing provided by the United States Army Comptroller to both the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees. I am just reading what they said. They didn't make an attempt to get in touch with me. Their briefing materials speak for them. They say that there is a requirement for $420 million to fund the ordnance disposal on the battlefields still out there, and, in addition, there is a shortfall in Army equipment. That is it plain and simple. What the committee has said is: You can only do one or the other, but you will not have enough money to do both. I am suggesting you ought to be able to do both. To provide the $300 million, that is great, that helps. But the $300 million doesn't cover the $420 million for the battlefield clearance and for the shortfalls that occurred in this equipment. This is not about allowing service members to go out and buy shirts and gloves simply that they like. This is about equipping our soldiers with the most effective gear available to protect them from hostile fire as well as from the intense desert climate. I am not arbitrarily making up figures. The suggestion here is we come up with an additional $322 million to cover both circumstances--that is, the battlefield clearance as well as the equipment--and pay for it, by the way, not by readjusting moneys within the defense needs but in the reconstruction side of this supplemental request, that you can do away or at least delay, if you want, the idea of buying computers at $3,000 a copy, a witness protection program at $50 million for 50 families, and whether or not you can cut down prison construction from $400 million to $200 million. With my amendment, there is still plenty of funding to implement the reconstruction plans of the Coalition Provisional Authority. I don't know why this is so controversial. Why don't we just accept this amendment? If I did it by not going into these reconstruction accounts, they might take it. But because I am talking about a witness protection program and ridiculously high-priced computers and going after excessive prison construction, which I think is hardly an emergency, all of a sudden this is a bad amendment and I am a dreadful guy for making folks come back and miss a plane. I don't want a soldier out there getting hurt because they don't have the right equipment. I didn't make this up. The Army didn't come to me specifically. They made this case on September 26, the source was a briefing provided to Congress' defense committees by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller, entitled, ``FY04 Supplemental Request for the Global War on Terrorism: The Army At War.'' That is where it comes from. I appreciate what the committee did with $300 million. But the committee report says you have to make a choice: Clearing up the battlefield or provide funding for soldiers' equipment. And I don't think the Army ought to be put in that position. I don't think you ought to ask them to have to make that choice. That is the reason for the amendment. Again, I am sorry people have to come back and vote. That is not my intention. But I, in good conscience, believe this is a responsible amendment. I would have thought it might be accepted instead of making a lot more out of this than has to be the case. We all agree they ought to get the equipment. Why not just agree to the amendment? If you want to table the amendment, put people on record saying they would rather spend money on a witness protection program at $1 million a family in Iraq when the average family makes $2,200 a year, you explain that to the American taxpayer, why an Iraqi family would get $1 million in witness protection. That is ridiculous. Spending $3,000 for a computer and $400 million to create new prison operations over there is not an emergency need. You make the choice whether or not you think that is more important than seeing these young people get what they need. I stand by the amendment. It is the right thing to do. I yield back the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DODD. I apologize to my colleagues. I know it is a late hour. This is an important amendment, and I hope my colleagues can support it. I rise to propose this amendment to the emergency supplemental spending bill to ensure that Congress and the administration keep sight of what I believe must remain our number one priority for the conduct of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the protection of our American troops. According to the U.S. Army, the President's supplemental bill falls short of over $200 million for critical gear for our soldiers slated to rotate in Iraq and Afghanistan in the months ahead. This amendment was designed specifically to see to it that those U.S. troops coming into Iraq, into a theater of war, would receive important equipment they need to perform their missions effectively. This equipment includes important high-tech body armor, bullet-proof helmets, special water packs to keep soldiers hydrated, and other survival gear. I don't need to make the case about what is happening in Iraq on a daily basis, nor do I need to stress the importance of this kind of equipment. My colleagues are well aware of this situation. As it stands now, the supplemental bill before the Senate only covers expenses for soldiers' personal equipment up to the first 3 months of 2004 and does not take into account very soon a considerable number of men and women who will be entering the theater to relieve soldiers who are there now. In an $87 billion emergency spending package for 2004, one would think we could find enough money to meet the pressing equipment needs of our young men and women in uniform. That is why I was surprised to find an official list from the U.S. Army Comptroller's Office dated September 26 detailing several important items that remain unfunded in this supplemental. Above all else, it is a requirement that thousands of our soldiers, particularly those in the Reserves and the National Guard, be equipped with the most effective personal equipment available. Our troops need this gear to improve their performance in combat and to enhance their safety under intense conditions. As my colleagues know, every day our men and women in uniform have been ordered into harm's way, sent into extreme heat--exceeding 120 degrees in some cases--with strenuous missions in different settings throughout Iraq and Afghanistan. My chart shows what a foot soldier wears on his shoulders in Iraq: 60 pounds of body armor, tactical equipment, in hot desert heat, carrying high-tech night vision equipment, special framed backpacks, and other survival gear. In 120 degrees, carrying all this equipment becomes quite burdensome, so they have special hydration systems necessary for troops to safely survive the desert heat. These water pack systems, called camelbaks, are attached to the soldier's backpack to allow easy access to water when they are in motion. Unfortunately, with the shortage of funds, the Army could not afford to equip all soldiers with this equipment, so many soldiers are using bulky canteens that quickly heat up in the desert sun. Most of the canteens do not have adequate capacity to carry the water they need in Iraq's intense heat. This information comes from the U.S. Army. I am not making this up from news reports. This is what our military is telling us and where a shortfall exists in this supplemental. In other cases, the soldiers are paying hundreds of dollars out of their own pockets to buy the equipment themselves, everything ranging from the camelbaks to gun scopes, because in spite of the Army's stated priorities, the administration did not procure enough personnel equipment for these men and women. I think we can do better than that. The 2003 Defense Appropriations Act included language demanding answers to why the very men and women we send into combat are being forced to spend upwards of $300 per person. Our own Congress made this point: They are spending up to $300 per person on equipment to outfit themselves for combat in Iraq. The Army has yet to report on this issue and has established a rapid fielding initiative designed to outfit our soldiers with the most modern equipment available so they do not have to spend their own money on the latest body armor hydration systems. Out of $324.5 million needed to fund this program in Iraq and Afghanistan, only $122.5 million was to be available in this supplemental budget bill. That means if our soldiers, many of whom are less than 21 years of age, making under $20,000 a year, want the right gear for their mission, they are going to have to dig into their own pockets to buy their own hydration equipment, radios, weapon sights, combat helmets, and individual body armor. Let me cite an article that appeared in yesterday's Washington Post called ``The Children Of War,'' section C, page 16. There was an interview with the children whose parents are fighting in the Persian Gulf. One young person points out that her father has been buying other supplies already--a portable hammock, special water pouches, et cetera. That is from a child talking about her parent having to buy his own equipment. I don't know of anyone who believes that ought to persist. Now, in response to the Army's request, the committee added $300 million to the present supplemental request which could be used for either this additional equipment or the clearance of weapons and mines still lingering on Iraqi battlefields. It says it right here, in the Congressional Record, dated October 1, 2003, when the Supplemental Appropriations bill's accompanying report was printed. On page S12222, there is a chart detailing expenditures in the Army Operations and Maintenance account. $300 million is to be allocated for ``SAPI body armor/Rapid Fielding Initiative or battlefield cleanup.'' But the Army says it needs an additional $420 million just to handle the Iraqi battlefield clearance. As the pending legislation stands now, there is still not enough money in the bill to do both, and both items--more safety equipment and Iraqi battlefield clearance--are top Army priorities. I think we need to address both of these issues. For those reasons, I have asked my colleagues to support this amendment to allocate an additional $322 million for the critical equipment of our troops and adequate resources for battlefield clearance to fully meet the Army's current requirements. The funding in my amendment is fully offset by reductions in some of these reconstruction accounts called emergencies. I want to draw my colleagues' attention to them. Looking at this next chart. I have reprinted items submitted to us by the Administration in their request, entitled ``Coalition Provisional Authority Request to Rehabilitate and Reconstruct Iraq,'' dated September 2003. It lists in this supposed emergency budget proposal, among other things, $15 million to procure 3,000 computers. That means we are providing computers at $5,000 a piece. This does not seem reasonable, when you could find a perfectly reasonable computer for $750. I have a lot of respect for what the Iraqis are going through, but I do not know, for the life of me, why you are going to spend around $3,000 to $5,000 per computer, and $40 million to train them under this so-called emergency budget. You can go down even further on this list, and there are additional points to make. I will not go through all these items because of the time constraints. But my bill takes the money from two or three areas to come up with this $250 million to make up the difference between the $300 million in the bill and this additional amount to cover both battlefield clearance and the equipment they need. Out of the money the administration has proposed to fund the construction of two 4,000-bed maximum security prisons, at a cost of $400 million--$50,000 per bed in an Iraqi prison--these moneys would be in addition to the $99 million also included in that account for the refurbishing and construction of 26 prisons and detention centers that existed under the regime of Saddam Hussein. Even without spending one penny of the $400 million--by the way, we recommend taking $200 million of this, not all the $400 million. Even without spending one penny of the $400 million for the maximum security prisons, the prison capacity in Iraq will be nearly doubled from the 11,200 to 19,700, thanks to our efforts. The question I would ask--anyone ought to ask--is, Do we really believe, in a democratic Iraq, there will be a need to imprison three times more Iraqi citizens than were kept behind bars under Saddam Hussein? We would be transferring $200 million out of this account, cutting it in half--not eliminating all of it. We would also like to take $50 million out of the $100 million fund for the Iraqi witness protection program. That is right, there is $100 million listed in the Administration's budget justification materials for the emergency supplemental for witness protection. By the way, that is $100 million for 100 families. Now, the average Iraqi makes $2,200 a year. I don't know what anyone is thinking here. And I do not understand how we can provide $1 million per family, when we are at the same time not meeting the requirements that our men and women in uniform are lacking. The offsets for my amendment therefore include $50 million from the witness protection program as well as $70 million from the proposals for computers, computer training and even English classes proposed in this so-called emergency budget. There are a lot of emergencies that need to be met, but you are going to be hard pressed to convince the American public that doubling the capacity of prisons is an emergency, or providing witness protection at $1 million per family, or buying computers at $3,000 each--when we are being told we cannot provide the necessary resources for our men and women in uniform. In sum, I want to make the point that the Administration's supplemental budget request has simply not been scrubbed sufficiently. I do not believe any of my colleagues, if they were sitting down going over this in detail, would make a case that in $20 billion of construction money for Iraq, that a $100 million witness protection program, $400 million to double or triple the prison cells at $50,000 a bed in their prisons, and that $3,000 for computers--and $40 million, by the way, is to provide computer training--I would like to see someone get a $40 million appropriation to provide computer training for anyone else in this country, let alone to do it over in Iraq. So these are the areas that we would take money from to provide for the $322 million to provide for the men and women in uniform who need these resources. I mentioned earlier the kind of equipment. I will come back and just identify this for my colleagues. Again, this is not my assessment. This is the U.S. Army saying what they need. They need adequate provisions for clean water, additional high-tech backpacks, advanced combat helmets and body armor, additional radios, machine gun sights and tripods, M-16 ammunition, high-tech GPS compass equipment, additional desert boots, sun and wind dust goggles and gloves, grappling hooks, door ramming kits, sniper rifles, binoculars, and special night vision goggles. That is their list. Yet they are being told: Either spend money to clear Iraqi battlefields of mines and other dangerous materials or receive effective safety gear. This seems unacceptable. The Army needs money for both of these line items. And I think we ought to do both. I am saying do both. Do not add to the deficit, just take the $20 billion that we have for the reconstruction and go after some of these items that I do not think anyone--regardless of where you come out politically. Let us take care of our men and women in uniform going over to Iraq. I do not think any of us want to read a story where one of our young troops has to go out and buy their own equipment to protect themselves. This is the 21st century. And in this day and age, the sole superpower in the world should not have to tell its military personnel to fend for themselves. So for those reasons, I urge the adoption of the amendment. I apologize to my colleagues for taking time tonight, but I thought they ought to understand what was at stake and why I thought this amendment was particularly important. For those reasons, I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I withhold the remainder of my time.

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

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to speak in memory of U.S. Army Sgt Travis Friedrich, of Naugatuck, CT, who was killed fighting for his country in Iraq on Saturday, September 20. He was 26 years old. Like so many of our brave men and women who are serving overseas today, Sgt Friedrich was a reservist. He was a graduate student at the University of New Haven, working on his degree in forensic science, and was also working full-time as a laboratory technician in Waterbury. When he was summoned to active duty in January, he left behind family and friends who loved him, and a promising education and career. But Sgt Friedrich answered his country's call and he did so in exemplary fashion. Sgt Friedrich grew up in Hammond, NY, and was a shining star in both academics and athletics. He graduated from Brockport State College, majoring in chemistry and criminal justice, and came to Connecticut 3 years ago with dreams of becoming an investigator in law enforcement. Tragically, it was a dream he would not live to fulfill. Everyone who knew Travis Friedrich said that he represented the best of the American armed forces and, indeed, the best of America. His friends remembered his sense of humor, and his leadership as co-captain of his college crew team. He also had a tremendous work ethic whether he was on the field of battle, in a classroom, or on the job. And he loved his family and friends, just as he loved his country. When people like Travis Friedrich make the decision to enlist in our armed forces, they do so knowing that one day, they could be called upon to make profound sacrifices--and possibly the ultimate sacrifice-- for this nation, and the values and freedoms that we represent. That's not an easy decision to make, but for an individual with the courage and the integrity of Travis Friedrich, it was a natural one. ``Wherever I go,'' Sergeant Friedrich once said, ``I want to do my share.'' He did his share, and much, much more. I salute Travis Friedrich for his bravery, his heroism, and his service to his country. I offer my most sincere condolences to his parents, David and Elizabeth, and to all of his friends and family.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help address a growing problem in America--our ability to provide safe and affordable housing that meets the needs of older Americans. Currently there are 35 million Americans over 65 years old. That number will double within the next 30 years. By 2030, 20 percent of the U.S. population will be over 65 years old. Nearly one third of all public housing units are occupied by senior citizens. This figure has been steadily growing in recent years and will undoubtedly continue to grow in the future. It is critically important that we remain committed to providing low-income seniors with safe and affordable housing. The bill I am introducing will promote the development of assisted living programs to provide a wide range of services, including medical assistance, housekeeping services, hygiene and grooming, and meals preparation. Providing these services will in turn give older Americans greater opportunities to decide for themselves where they live and how they exercise their independence. The Elderly Housing Plus Supportive Health Support Demonstration Act, will provide Federal grants to allow public housing authorities around the country to develop new strategies for providing better housing for senior citizens. The bill will give public housing authorities the tools they need to improve our public housing stock so our seniors will not be prematurely forced out of their homes. The bill authorizes competitive grants through the Department of Housing and Urban Development to upgrade and reconfigure elderly buildings, and buildings with elderly and non-elderly disabled residents. The bill will also provide funding for service coordinators and/or congregate services programs. Unfortunately, as we examine the public housing stock across the country from the perspective of older Americans, we find a bleak situation. Over 66 percent of existing public housing units are more than 30 years old and most are not designed to meet the needs of older Americans. For example, too few of our housing units are equipped to facilitate mobility for those in wheelchairs. Even such simple things as having a kitchen counter top that can be reached from a wheelchair may make the difference between a senior being able to stay in his or her home or having to leave, often to be sent to an institution where seniors have less independence and control over their lives. Because most public housing seniors are Medicaid-eligible, the bill will also open a path to reducing Medicaid costs, 42 percent of which goes to housing elders in costly nursing homes. The cost to the Medicaid program of a beneficiary living in public housing converted to assisted living has been shown to be as much as one-third that paid to a nursing home on a long-term per capita basis. The scarceness of affordable assisted living units has other social costs that we must consider as we set national housing policies for the future. Often, the cost of taking care of an aging family member can be devastating to American families. Too often, working men and women are torn between the need to maintain their jobs and the desire to provide the best possible care to their aging family members. Advances in medicine are allowing us to live longer, healthier lives. Longevity is a great blessing, but it also poses significant challenges for individuals, families, and society as whole. One of the greatest challenges we will face in the decades ahead is the challenge of developing new kinds of housing that respond to the needs of our growing elderly population. It is my hope that this bill will generate earnest discussion on these important matters and will ultimately lead to action to ensure that every American senior can live in security and dignity. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Elderly Housing Plus Health Support Demonstration Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help address a growing problem in America--our ability to provide safe and affordable housing that meets the needs of older Americans. Currently there are 35 million Americans over 65 years old. That number will double within the next 30 years. By 2030, 20 percent of the U.S. population will be over 65 years old. Nearly one third of all public housing units are occupied by senior citizens. This figure has been steadily growing in recent years and will undoubtedly continue to grow in the future. It is critically important that we remain committed to providing low-income seniors with safe and affordable housing. The bill I am introducing will promote the development of assisted living programs to provide a wide range of services, including medical assistance, housekeeping services, hygiene and grooming, and meals preparation. Providing these services will in turn give older Americans greater opportunities to decide for themselves where they live and how they exercise their independence. The Elderly Housing Plus Supportive Health Support Demonstration Act, will provide Federal grants to allow public housing authorities around the country to develop new strategies for providing better housing for senior citizens. The bill will give public housing authorities the tools they need to improve our public housing stock so our seniors will not be prematurely forced out of their homes. The bill authorizes competitive grants through the Department of Housing and Urban Development to upgrade and reconfigure elderly buildings, and buildings with elderly and non-elderly disabled residents. The bill will also provide funding for service coordinators and/or congregate services programs. Unfortunately, as we examine the public housing stock across the country from the perspective of older Americans, we find a bleak situation. Over 66 percent of existing public housing units are more than 30 years old and most are not designed to meet the needs of older Americans. For example, too few of our housing units are equipped to facilitate mobility for those in wheelchairs. Even such simple things as having a kitchen counter top that can be reached from a wheelchair may make the difference between a senior being able to stay in his or her home or having to leave, often to be sent to an institution where seniors have less independence and control over their lives. Because most public housing seniors are Medicaid-eligible, the bill will also open a path to reducing Medicaid costs, 42 percent of which goes to housing elders in costly nursing homes. The cost to the Medicaid program of a beneficiary living in public housing converted to assisted living has been shown to be as much as one-third that paid to a nursing home on a long-term per capita basis. The scarceness of affordable assisted living units has other social costs that we must consider as we set national housing policies for the future. Often, the cost of taking care of an aging family member can be devastating to American families. Too often, working men and women are torn between the need to maintain their jobs and the desire to provide the best possible care to their aging family members. Advances in medicine are allowing us to live longer, healthier lives. Longevity is a great blessing, but it also poses significant challenges for individuals, families, and society as whole. One of the greatest challenges we will face in the decades ahead is the challenge of developing new kinds of housing that respond to the needs of our growing elderly population. It is my hope that this bill will generate earnest discussion on these important matters and will ultimately lead to action to ensure that every American senior can live in security and dignity. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Elderly Housing Plus Health Support Demonstration Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, later today, or at some point, I gather that the Defense Production Act reauthorization bill will be before the body. It expires today, so there is a sense of urgency, I gather, in getting this bill done. When the bill comes up, my intention is to offer an amendment to the Defense Production Act, the reauthorization bill, for the consideration of my colleagues. I gather from conversation my staff and others have had that there will be possibly some objections to this amendment over jurisdictional grounds. My hope is something can be worked out on this amendment, so that we can avoid that particular situation. Let me tell you why I say that. This bill, if reauthorized, would reauthorize the Defense Production Act for 5 years. Presently there is a system in place which allows defense contracts to go to prime contractors, where, as a result of a provision that existed since World War II, offset agreements are permitted in such a way that despite the amount of money we will allocate for these defense contracts, these offset agreements basically wipe out the dollar amounts that would go to subcontractors and others. The net result is that each year we are losing about 10,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector because of these offset agreements, which were written primarily--I am almost quoting--to provide assistance to war-torn Europe at the end of World War II. It made a lot of sense to try to get resources into those struggling countries so they could get on their feet after the devastation that occurred during World War II. So these offset agreements were principally designed to assist struggling nations to get back on their feet. There are a lot of ways you might want to describe the European Community today but ``war- torn'' is hardly one we would use to describe it. These provisions have existed for almost 50 years, and their usefulness is long over. This really hurts smaller contractors in the U.S. I want to lay out what this amendment will do, if I get a chance to offer it today. I would have offered it in committee but I was told to wait until we got to the floor to have an opportunity to offer it here. Now I am being told I cannot offer it here because we must get the bill done, it expires today, and we don't have time to deal with it. If I have to wait 5 more years to bring this up, and if we are losing 10,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector each and every year as a result of that, not to mention the dollar loss, and losing subcontractors on a manufacturing base, then I am hard pressed to understand why we would not find a way to accommodate that which is rather modest language here in this proposal. I will explain why. The amendment is about one thing--saving jobs. Since the Banking Committee began consideration of this important legislation, I have been discussing an issue of great importance to manufacturers in my State of Connecticut and around the country. I am referring to the issue of foreign offset contracts. Under these arrangements, a foreign nation will agree to buy products from U.S. defense companies only if our manufacturers outsource a considerable amount of work to that country's labor force. This goes back to the end of World War II, as I mentioned. On the face of it, these arrangements might seem relatively benign, promoting a prosperous defense trade among the U.S. and its military allies. However, as I have learned over the last number of months, these arrangements may, in fact, be weakening the U.S. defense industrial base and producing considerable job losses throughout our Nation. These arrangements are a relic of World War II, when our Nation decided that offset arrangements were one aspect of rebuilding war-torn Europe. I do not think anybody could call me bold or rash if I were to say that the economic infrastructure of Europe as a whole is no longer war-torn in the beginning of the 21st century. On the contrary, it is highly developed and very advanced. Yet some of our allies on that continent continue to insist that offset arrangements remain a condition of contracting with American firms, particularly defense firms. This is not an issue of trade or protectionist policies. As most colleagues are aware, I have long supported both bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, such as the ratification of GATT and the establishment of fast-track authority for the American President. I am a believer in international trade. That is not what this amendment is about. This amendment is about outdated practices that, by and large, have caused needless transfer of a countless number of U.S. jobs to our trading partners and our allies, particularly in Europe. I must confess that when I first began to look at this issue, I was a skeptic. I thought this migration of American jobs abroad was simply the painful but unavoidable byproduct of international trade, and I thought these losses were outweighed by the benefits of trade. But upon further study, I have come to the conclusion that these offset agreements are resulting in the needless loss of American jobs with little or no compensating benefits. Let me explain why. What impact do these agreements have on our country, on our businesses, and on our workers? The answer is, by and large, a highly negative one. This is not just the opinion of this Senator. It is the well-considered conclusion of nonpartisan, highly informed sources at the General Accounting Office and the Department of Commerce under this administration, I might add. It is also the opinion of business leaders, many of whom think offset agreements are little more than a form of coercion. Business leaders in my own State have told me they see offsets as no better than a necessary evil, a tax on their ability to export their goods and services. The Commerce Department recently reported that in the year 2000--I hope my colleagues will listen to this--the Commerce Department reported in the year 2000, out of $5.6 billion exported by the U.S. aerospace and defense industries, $5.1 billion was offset by these arrangements. In other words, offset arrangements imposed on contracts with American firms amounted to nearly 90 percent of their export value. In the year 2002, 2 years later, and 2003, this year, the total value of offsets is projected to be close to 100 percent by the Department of Commerce on the value of these contracts, virtually eliminating any gains from U.S. exports of these goods. Moreover, the Commerce Department says offsets are displacing between 9,000 and 10,000 American workers annually, and that is a conservative estimate, I might add. With these kinds of figures, it is difficult to see how the United States could benefit at all from these offset contracts. Let me repeat the numbers. According to the Department of Commerce, of the $5.6 billion exported by the U.S. aerospace and defense industries, $5.1 billion was offset by arrangements to these countries. Lately, in 2002 and 2003, the Department of Commerce estimates that close to 100 percent of the value of these contracts will be eliminated, the gains will be eliminated from the export of these goods, and losing almost 10,000 jobs a year is something that ought to concern each and every Member. What makes this issue even more distressing is that as a result of these arrangements, we are not only losing these jobs unnecessarily, in my view, given the long outdated necessity for offset agreements with the European Community, but we are losing our Nation's military industrial capacity, and that ought to be a serious matter to all of us here. We need to be vigilant in maintaining an industrial base when we can in these critical industries. Essentially, U.S. contractors are helping other nations build up their strategic industries at the expense of the United States's defense manufacturing base, and the U.S. Government is doing nothing, unfortunately, to stop this from happening. Our prime contractors admit this is an unfortunate trend and insist they are being forced to follow these arrangements to stay competitive in their foreign contract bids. As I see it, these offsets amount to unfair trade practices, plain and simple. While U.S. prime contractors may be selling their defense system abroad, they are being coerced--against their wishes--into laying off U.S. workers and domestic suppliers in favor of foreign workers and suppliers. In turn, as the U.S. Defense Department decides to buy these same weapons systems, we are now even more frequently turning to these newly established foreign suppliers. In several recent reports, the General Accounting Office and the Commerce Department have repeatedly tried to alert Congress to the disastrous effects these arrangements are having on America's economic and defense security, but their warnings have gone unheeded. In fact, the two major governmental bodies established by the Defense Procurement Agency to monitor and coordinate U.S. policy on foreign offsets have been effectively dissolved. The most important of these bodies is the interagency team on foreign offsets whose job it was--is or was--to engage with foreign countries in an effort to mitigate the effects of these offsets. My colleagues should be alarmed to know that this interagency team, headed by the Department of Defense, has reported no activity since the year 2000. In fact, this team has been stripped of resources and staff. They don't exist. Certainly, we all understand that the Defense Department has been preoccupied with other priorities--I understand that--over the last couple of years; namely, the effort to wage and win wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. No one can seriously claim the Department of Defense should have any higher priorities than those. That is not my point. That is why I think this amendment is critically important to shift to the Department of Commerce the principal responsibility of monitoring and mitigating these offset arrangements. It is an economic issue fundamentally, and the fact the Defense Department has not financed or staffed this interagency team says to me we ought to shift that responsibility, considering the economic implications of not trying to reduce these archaic and outdated offset arrangements with the European nations and others. For this reason, my amendment would transfer the authority over the interagency team--this is what the amendment does; it is not a radical amendment at all. The amendment would transfer the authority over the interagency team to the Commerce Secretary and would require the Secretary to negotiate with foreign countries toward the reduction and eventual elimination of all foreign offsets. In addition, it would expand the Commerce Department's data collection system to include the effects of offset on America's second- and third-tier subcontractors. I believe these provisions would greatly enhance America's response to the growing specter of foreign offset arrangements and provide a clear picture of the total impact these arrangements are having on our economy. But I think we ought to do something more. As I said before, offset arrangements have essentially allowed foreign governments to coerce U.S. contractors into laying off American workers and shifting their jobs to foreign employees. This is an unfair trade practice, in my view, and must be addressed as such. For this reason, this amendment further directs the U.S. Trade Representative to designate offsets that exceed the total value of the underlying contract as unjustifiable and burdensome on U.S. commerce, subjecting the country to U.S. sanctions accompanying such a designation. Already various important policy and trade organizations and associations have expressed their support for the proposal I wish to offer to the Defense Production Act, including the International Association of Machinists and Auto Workers, the American Shipbuilding Association, the AFL-CIO, the Manufacturing Alliance, as well as the Aerospace Components Manufacturers. This is a unique combination of industries, business, and labor saying this World War II proposal is no longer justified. Let me explain how it works. These offset agreements they insist on-- Holland is the biggest offender, by the way. They say to a corporation in the United States: You want to sell your products. Fine. But you have to provide a certain amount of workers here. So instead of looking around for the best subcontractor to provide, say, ball bearings by a firm in Ohio or Connecticut, they then have to hire the firm in Holland or some other European country. This was designed, as I say, to help Europe at the end of World War II. It made a lot of sense. But 70 years later, the idea that I have to say to a manufacturer in the United States you cannot get this bid because I have to do it to win the contract in Holland--if it was 5 percent or 10 percent, I might think that is unfair. But they are getting 300 percent in Holland--300 percent. According to the Department of Commerce, the average is now between 90 and 100 percent in every European country. If I thought this bill was going to be authorized for 3 months, I would wait and try to build support. This bill is a 5-year authorization bill. Almost 10,000 jobs a year are going to be lost, not to mention small manufacturing firms that go out of business. Then when we need those ball bearings, to use that example, we no longer have a firm in Ohio or Connecticut, and I have to deal with a firm in Holland or Sweden or some other place. It is dangerous to lose that industrial base in critical technologies. This provision of offset contracts has no relevancy in today's world, particularly with the European community. It did maybe 50, 60, or 70 years ago, but not today. I am being told I cannot offer the amendment because I am dealing with a proposal on trade, but if I do not do it here, where do I do it? I have to wait until some trade bill comes along? Normally, a Senator cannot offer amendments on trade bills. So when do I do it and where do I do it, if I want to make a point? Maybe the proposal will get defeated, but at least I would like to raise the awareness of my colleagues. If there are provisions that do not make sense, let somebody bring up a better idea, but I think it is wrong to continue a situation where 10,000 American jobs get lost because we are sitting around with an archaic idea that has no value and no relevancy. The manufacturers will tell us that and labor tells us that. They do not like doing it. It is like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act where we were told over and over we have no choice, but our firms in the United States do not like having to do this. They are being forced to do it in order to win these contracts. We need to have some ability to negotiate the elimination of these deals, and when they cannot get rid of them, at least to consider it as an unfair trade practice so we can try to work it out so we do not have to rely on them any longer. That is really what the amendment would do. Again, this whole Defense Production Act goes out of existence tonight, I am told. As I said earlier, I wanted to offer this amendment in the committee, but I was told not to do it there, to wait until we go to the floor. Now I am on the floor and I am being told do not do it here. So I am sort of stuck in a way. I do not want to tie up a bill. I think defense production is important, but to have to wait 5 more years to come back with this idea is something I do not want to do, either. So I am using this time to encourage people who may have a better idea on how we can resolve this to make some suggestions so we can avoid holding up this legislation. I do not need to remind my colleagues, I would just say at the end of all of this, that since 2001 we have lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs in the United States. In Connecticut, we have lost more than 14 out of every 100 manufacturing jobs in the past 3 years. I have 5,400 small manufacturers in my State of over 240,000 people. A lot of them are what we call mom and pop, with 5, 6, 8, 10 people. Some of them are second and third generation. I see my colleague from New Hampshire, as well as my colleague from Ohio. They have similar situations with small firms in their own States. Many of them provide critical technologies to our major defense contractors. If I thought the offset agreements had some great relevancy today, I would be the first to say we have to live with this; it is an unfortunate reality. But taking an idea we used at the end of World War II to help our allies get on their feet and to still perpetuate it in the year 2003 I think is wrong. We better say something about it soon and try to do something about it before we just continue the way we are going and seeing a further loss of jobs and a loss of a manufacturing base in critical technologies which I think we will regret deeply in the years to come. When this bill comes up, if it does come up, I would like to offer the amendment or have someone work out something so we might address this issue in some way that would not delay the enactment of the Defense Production Act but would give me some sense of hope that we could resolve this kind of problem. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee for all his efforts to bring the reauthorization of the Defense Production Act to the floor. It is excellent legislation, and I support it wholeheartedly. I particularly want to express my appreciation for the agreement that was reached to reconsider this piece of legislation in 1 year. That will allow the Defense Production Act to continue uninterrupted, while also providing us with the opportunity to address the very grave concerns that are shared by many Senators about the issue of foreign offset arrangements over the next year. According to the General Accounting Office and Department of Commerce, these arrangements serve no positive purpose. And yet, offsets are displacing 9,500 American workers annually. In 2000, the Commerce Department reports that out of $5.6 billion exported by the U.S. aerospace and defense industries, $5.1 billion was ``offset'' by these arrangements. In other words, offset arrangements imposed on contracts with American firms amounted to nearly 90 percent of their export value. And in the years 2002 and 2003, the total value of offsets are projected to be close to 100 percent of the value of those contracts--virtually eliminating any gains from U.S. exports of these goods. Once again, I appreciate the willingness of the chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee for agreeing to work with me on this issue as we assess additional reauthorization legislation for the Defense Production Act in the coming months.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am confident my colleague from North Dakota will probably want to use 5 minutes of that 6 minutes. He probably has not exhausted every thought on the subject matter. I will be happy to yield back some of my time to him. I wish to add my voice and thanks to the managers of this proposal and to commend the other body for their efforts in acting as quickly as they have on the subject matter. I am familiar enough with it because I introduced legislation about 2 years ago in this area. Connecticut was one of the early States--I know there have been a number of States that have adopted a do not call list--to adopt a do not call list in the year 2000. In December 2001, I introduced a bill very similar to the one Connecticut has produced. Either since then or before then, other States--including Alabama, Alaska, the home of the distinguished Senator Murkowski, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, and others--have also enacted legislation. This is a very positive outcome. Clearly, what has happened is, as we are talking about the use of the telephone, the telemarketing idea, America has phoned in and said to please give them some relief. We just would like a few minutes of privacy and quiet. It is hard enough to get a family together with all the pressures on them today. When you might just be able to get them to sit down for a meal, that phone starts ringing. What they are saying is: Give me the choice of saying I don't want to be bothered and buy this. They ought to have that right. The obvious problem with this bill--I say it is a problem, but I am confident we can correct it; it is the difference between the bill I introduced several years ago and the one before us today--is the loophole that allows any prior business relationship to be an exception to the otherwise clear prohibition supported by this legislation. As was pointed out in one news account in the last day or so, there has been a tremendous surge of telemarketing in the last number of weeks by businesses trying to establish a ``prior business relationship'' with a customer base in this country which would then allow them to become part of the exception even under this legislation. The point I am making is, even though we will pass this bill--and I am very glad we are doing so; again, I commend the authors for moving as rapidly as they are on this legislation--we have not heard the end of this issue. There are going to be people coming back, once they discover that any prior business relationship pretty much will allow the exception to occur, which means you will have that phone continue to ring. And I presume they are going to be asking us to come back and even close the loophole down further. Much as we have in Connecticut and as other States are doing this. As I've said, Connecticut has enacted legislation and the bill I introduced mirrors my State's efforts in that regard. Justice Brandeis said it so eloquently years and years ago, as he always could, this wonderful, brilliant mind of a Supreme Court Justice. He always had the ability of taking a difficult concept and simplifying it in terms that were so understandable by everyone. He said: Privacy is nothing more than the simple right to be left alone. That is what we are really talking about. He couldn't have imagined, when he said that, the technology that would make it possible for telemarketing to occur. But the right to be left alone is really at the heart of what we are talking about--the right to say to someone: You don't have the right to call me anytime you want. I should have some ability to control that intrusive invasion in the privacy of my family's life. I am glad the Federal Trade Commission acted. It certainly made a difference. But clearly we need to respond to the court's decision in this matter, and we are doing that by adopting this legislation. I am pleased to add my name as a cosponsor. I implore my colleagues in their respective committees to take a look at the bill I have introduced. I know others have introduced legislation, but take a look at this bill. Let's monitor what happens over the coming months to see if we are achieving the desired results that this legislation is designed to achieve. If not, we may have to go a bit further along the lines I have suggested. I am sure others have as well. With that, I am pleased to be a part of this effort and congratulate the authors of it. I yield back the remainder of the time.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent from the Senate earlier this week and missed rollcall votes Nos. 358 through 363. There were two reasons for my absence. First, I hosted a ceremony at the University of Connecticut honoring Bertie Ahern, Taoiseach of Ireland, and Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Great Britain. Second, I attended memorial services yesterday and today for Jack Bailey, the former Connecticut Chief State's Attorney and a close friend to both me and my family. Had I been present, I would have cast my votes as follows: on rollcall vote 358: aye; on rollcall vote 359: nay; on rollcall vote 360: nay; on rollcall vote 361: aye; on rollcall vote 362: aye; and on rollcall vote 363: aye.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, the Democratic leader and the Democratic whip, Senator Reid, for their comments, and Senator Leahy for his comments as well. As I said a few minutes ago, I voted to give the President the authority to use force. Others didn't. I respected that decision but reached a different conclusion. I am just concerned when I hear the debate shift, as it has this morning, from what we need to be doing in Iraq to get this right, to those who take a different position or question the motivations that led us to this particular point. By the way, going back looking historically, the comments Senator Kennedy made--whether you agree or disagree with them, and I don't think they ought to be the subject of the debate; the debate ought to be about Iraq--go back to January 19, 2002, and Karl Rove, Chief of Staff of the White House addressing the Republican National Committee. I quote him while speaking to that group. According to the Washington Post story, his top political advisor said this: . . . Republicans will make the President's handling of the war on terrorism the centerpiece of their strategy to win back the Senate and keep control of the House in this year's midterm elections. We can go to the country on this issue because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America. He goes on to say: The second place we should go to the country is on protecting the homeland. We can go to the country confidently on this issue because Americans trust the Republican party to do a better job of keeping our communities and families safe. That is the top political advisor to the President in January of 2002 suggesting that in fact we can make this a partisan issue. You may not like the statements of Senator Kennedy, but there is a genesis here that could draw a conclusion that there have been political motivations. My view is simply, look, to spend this morning debating what one of our colleagues said on an interview someplace detracts from what ought to be the subject of debate: how do we get it right in Iraq? That ought to be the common challenge. We have a major request of $87 billion in front of us and there are legitimate questions being raised about how to do this, how to get this right. We ought to be spending our energy and time and that of our staffs on organizing and debating and discussing how we can get this right as a coequal branch of Government, constitutionally charged with the conduct of foreign policy. This body deserves--in fact, its history and the country demand that we do a much better job of focusing on the foreign policy matter before the Nation and the world, getting about the reconstruction, and getting the political and economic questions right in Iraq, and taking our time to debate what one Senator says seems to be, quite transparently, an effort to divert the attention of the country and the media to one of our colleagues rather than the far larger issue, and that is whether we are going to go further into debt without paying for these additional moneys that are deserved for our military, certainly, and questionably on the reconstruction effort. My hope is we can move away from the debate of what one colleague says and start talking about what needs to be done to get this situation in Iraq on the right track. Certainly, if you go back and look at the history, as I said earlier, the suspicions that the administration was motivated in part by politics are rooted in the fact that the top political advisers of this administration have made the case to their own party faithful that in fact part of their motivations are to look at gaining political favor. It was a great disappointment then because there was a sense of unity in the country about fighting terrorism together, getting homeland security right together, and certainly getting Iraq right together is what we ought to talk about. There are legitimate issues. Why are we not getting the international support? Where will the money come from? Are we going to get ourselves further into debt? How are our needs at home going to be addressed? How are we going to get the Iraqis back in control of their country? These are the questions we ought to be working on--not whether some colleague made a statement you disagree with and that we organize ourselves in a structured response to that, rather than take the time we ought to in order to get a situation that the American public wanted to know more about, which is a deep problem that is getting worse. The longer we fail to address it and try to divert attention to other matters, it does a great disservice to our men and women in uniform and to the American taxpayers. Mr. President, I hope any further debate about what one colleague says would be confined to how we can get the Iraq situation on the right track and how we are going to spend the bulk or a good part of the $87 billion on the reconstruction phase of Iraq. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I yield myself 2 minutes. I wish to quickly respond to my colleagues and friends on the other side. I supported the President's request for authority in Iraq. I believed at the time that was the right vote to cast. But it is important to focus on the war issue and what is going on in Iraq in the construction period, the economic and political efforts there. There is growing concern, both here and abroad, that this is not going well. We can spend all day debating about what our colleagues said or didn't say, what their motives or intentions were, but that diverts attention from what the debate ought to be; that is, we have a request before us for $87 billion. We will have to vote on that in the coming days. The American people want to know where we stand on that. How is the money going to be spent? Where is it going? Why are we losing a soldier a day it seems, or 10 are being wounded every day? Why isn't the rest of the world joining us? What efforts are being made? The President may be giving a speech right now at the United Nations. Spending our time in this great deliberative body arguing over what one of our colleagues said over the weekend in an interview detracts from what ought to be the real debate, and that is whether we are on the right track or the wrong track when it comes to rebuilding Iraq, getting the government turned over to the Iraqi people, getting international support for the efforts and how the taxpayer money is going to be used. Spending our time talking about what Senator Kennedy said--I think his spirit reflects where many Americans are. You may not agree with every word. That is not the point. We rarely agree around here on speeches we give, but we ought to be debating how we get it right in Iraq instead of spending time this morning arguing about whether or not we agree or disagree with what our colleague said in an interview in his home State. The American public wants to know what is happening in Iraq, not what is happening in Massachusetts--not what one said but what is the policy of this Government and what is the Senate saying about it. That ought to be the debate. Mr. President, I don't know if any of my colleagues want to be yielded some time.