Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Under the circumstances the Senator from Utah has described, this will not detract from the time?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to share with my colleagues a few thoughts on the subject of Iraq, if I may. I begin by thanking the President for speaking to the Nation on September 7. President Bush, my colleagues will recall, addressed the American people about the subject of Iraq. He happens to be one of the very few members of his own administration to begin to tell the American people the facts of life about our involvement in Iraq: That it is going to be very difficult for our troops and civilian personnel to be successful in standing up a democratic government out of the ashes of a crushed and totally discredited dictatorship, and it is going to be very expensive as well, the President pointed out--very expensive. In the President's own words, this undertaking is going to be ``difficult and costly.'' President Bush also explained in simple terms U.S. policy objectives. He said in that speech that our objectives are to destroy terrorists, enlist the support of other nations for a free Iraq, and help Iraqis assume responsibility. He was far less clear on how he intends to achieve those objectives or to mitigate the cost to the American public--the cost in dollar terms and also in terms of human lives. Our military has, I think all of us would agree, done an exemplary job in winning the military conflict in Iraq. All of us extend our highest commendations to the men and women in uniform for the job they have achieved. But they also need help winning the peace, and I think all of us understand that as well. Our forces are stretched thin. Our troops are very tired. There are questions as to whether they have been adequately equipped for the circumstances that they now confront. I believe they are involved in a guerrilla war. There is no other way to describe it. Their lives, as we all know, painfully, are in great danger from hostile irregular forces, if you want to call them that, and from a very hostile environment growing worse every day by growing civil dissent in the country. Tragically, more than 280 American soldiers have now died in Iraq, and more than 1,200 are wounded; 159 of those deaths have occurred since the President declared the end of major military action on May 1 of this year. Every single day since then almost 10 Americans have been officially declared wounded in action. Our troops are not the only ones at risk. Hanging in limbo is, of course, the future of the Iraqi people. Millions of innocent civilians suffered for decades under the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein. When our forces entered Iraq, we took on the mission of providing peace and security for all Iraqis. But during the past several weeks we have witnessed a surge of attacks with many Iraqis themselves victims, subject to the attacks of these hostile forces within Iraq. Car bombings have claimed the lives of more than 120 people over the last number of weeks. The U.N.'s Iraqi headquarters were bombed and their top envoy, Sergio Vieira de Mello, was killed, as we all know. An attack at the mosque at Najaf killed more than 80 people, including a prominent moderate Shiite leader. Only a week ago, a track bomb killed an Iraqi police officer and wounded 27 others, including Baghdad's chief of police. On Monday, the chief of police of another community was gunned down in his automobile. This goes on every single day. What does the situation tell us? I believe it tells us that the Iraqi people are far from secure. If they are not secure, it is a safe bet our forces will continue to remain in danger and our own security and the security we are trying to achieve as a result of a rise in terrorism is also at risk. I listened last week as well to Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld, our Secretary of Defense, go over the old ground of defending the administration's justification for going to war in Iraq. And with all due respect to Secretary Powell, I do not believe his most recent remarks to the effect that the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein in 1988 explains why this administration decided in the year 2003, some 15 years later, that Saddam Hussein had to go. Frankly, I believe the administration should spend far less time trying to justify past decisions or explain away errors of judgment and far more time should be spent figuring out what to do next about this difficult and costly challenge our troops are facing every day, day in and day out, in Iraq. I hope the recent rhetoric is simply a diversion, because the administration doesn't have a plan, in my view, for restoring security--a comprehensive strategic plan for the eventual drawdown of U.S. forces, a comprehensive strategic plan for turning political control of the country of Iraq over to the Iraqi people where it belongs. We need a strong strategic plan, a concrete plan and a timetable for these events. We need a comprehensive strategic plan and timetable for establishment of an Iraqi government and for the preparation of a constitution for the holding of free elections. We need to stick to that plan so the Iraqi people can have a sense of confidence that the end goal remains an independent Iraq governed by Iraqis. The Congress of the United States, of course, supported President Bush last year when he sought authority to use all necessary means to secure Iraq's compliance with United Nations resolutions. I was one who voted for Senate Resolution 1441 which empowered the President to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein from power. And I would do so again, because I believe Saddam Hussein posed a threat to our security and to the security of our allies in the region. At the time I voted for that resolution, I expressed concern that the administration may not have adequately prepared for winning the peace once military options had deposed Saddam Hussein. I think the concern I expressed, as well as many others, clearly has been well placed. The time has come for our President and his top advisors to listen to the Congress and, more importantly, to the American people, when we say our current policy is off course. If they don't heed the concerns being expressed by Democrats and Republicans in both this body and in the other, then they risk an even more costly and far more difficult engagement in Iraq, and they risk the administration losing the support of the American people for this policy which is absolutely critical for the long-term success. The $87 billion emergency appropriations request the President will soon transmit to the Congress of the United States presents a very important opportunity for us to consider a midcourse correction on our Iraqi policy. It will require all of us in this Chamber and the administration and others to work very hard to effectuate that kind of change. I will say here and now I am prepared to support all of the funds the President has requested to equip and protect our military troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. So long as they are in harm's way, they need whatever military commanders deem necessary to get the job done as safely as possible. The resources ought not be the subject of our corrections. However, I do not believe we can or should continue to give the administration a blank check with respect to the reconstruction money. This is a ripe opportunity now for us to work together in common purpose and common cause to offer some new ideas and new direction to get this policy on track. We simply cannot afford to continue the road we are following. Even before the administration's supplemental request, the Congressional Budget Office calculated the annual budget deficit would reach some $480 billion--the largest in our history. Over the past 3 years, 3.2 million Americans have lost their jobs--44,000 alone in the month of July. I don't need to remind my colleagues of these statistics. They know them in their own States. We are facing a tremendous problem in our own country. Layoffs are continuing as Americans lose their jobs. And they are losing something equally important--the ability to provide for their families. Neither are the schools receiving the funds necessary to ensure our children receive the education they deserve. Many are cutting back on the school week and on critical services and programs. Thus far, U.S. funds have been expended to open and equip Iraq's 12,000 primary and secondary schools, to return 240,000 telecommunications lines to operation, and to begin the process of vetting and training some 30,000 Iraqi police officers. The job is far from done. Baghdad's International Airport remains closed to commercial traffic. Many key bridges and roads are in desperate need of major repairs. That nation's rail system will need significant capital infusions to make it operational again. The American people, in my view, are facing their own difficulties here at home, and those kind of pressures in the absence of a clear policy are going to create the kind of pressure-cooker environment which will place the policy in Iraq in jeopardy, our soldiers' lives in jeopardy, and the Iraqi people's security in jeopardy. The great effort that was undertaken to change a brutal dictatorship and bring peace and democracy to those people is clearly in further jeopardy. In the midst of all of this, we need to come together and change the course of directions. I remember the administration's mantra some months ago that ``Iraq is a rich country'' and its oil revenues would be available to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. Just weeks ago, Ambassador Bremer amended that statement to say that ``tens of billions of dollars'' in additional financial assistance will be needed to accomplish that task. It now appears that oil revenues once thought to be more than sufficient or of sufficient magnitude that they could finance the rebuilding of the country of Iraq are now expected to barely cover the operating costs of Iraq's government ministries and the expenses of the Interim Council. What more evidence do any of us need to be convinced that the time has come for other governments to be welcomed as participants in rebuilding Iraq and to reach out and to ask them to join in that effort? I strongly believe it is time for the Congress to weigh in and to require the administration to address two basic questions: How do administration officials plan to minimize American death and casualties? How do they intend to minimize the expenditures of American tax dollars that will have to be diverted to this cause at the expense of other critically important programs in our own Nation, such as to assist first responders in keeping us secure at home, programs to provide for prescription drugs for our seniors, and programs to improve our schools so no child is truly left behind? If history is any guide, the only way the administration will feel compelled to come up with answers is if we in the Congress--the coequal legislative branch of Government--place some conditions on the $20 billion in reconstruction moneys. To me it seems pretty straightforward what needs to be done to lower the risks and costs of current participation in Iraq. It is called the United Nations. It is called the international community. We need to invite them to be a part of this effort. That is why I believe the Congress should link the provision of reconstruction moneys to the passage of a United Nations resolution that places responsibility for rebuilding Iraq where it belongs--on us and the international community as a whole. To get such a resolution, obviously the administration must approach other member states with a credible proposal, one that gives the United Nations some measure of authority over the civilian administration of the country while also charging it with mobilizing more resources from member states. Clearly, the United States should retain command of any ongoing military operations in Iraq. But on political, economic, and civic reconstruction, we better involve other nations fairly quickly. We cannot do this alone. The American people will not support this over the long term. If we don't invite them to participate and to help us, we are going to find it very difficult with each passing day to find anyone who will join us in this effort. I don't understand the reluctance on the part of the administration to turn over the civilian administration of the country to an international body. There is certainly ample precedent for doing so. Not only would it lower the profile of our presence in that country, but it would also likely unleash additional resources and cooperation both regionally and internationally, bring Iraq around to the kind of nation we would like to see, and truly deal with the problems of terrorism globally. The Congress has to do it unless the administration decides on its own to change course. If we don't speak up in these coming days, if we just provide a blank check and a vote for $87 billion with nothing further to be said, we will not have anyone to blame but ourselves in the coming days if this present policy continues to collapse. And I believe it will. It is time for us to stop sitting on the sidelines. Under the able leadership of Senator Lugar, the Foreign Relations Committee has been carrying out careful oversight in Iraq. The Foreign Relations Committee now has the responsibility to develop some legislative proposals-- perhaps along the lines I have outlined for people to bring to the table--in order to influence the contents of the legislative package we will be asked to vote on in the coming days. I look forward to working with my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--because I know very deeply the concerns I am expressing publicly are shared by many in this Chamber regardless of party, regardless of ideology, and regardless of which States we represent. There is a growing concern that we have this wrong and that we have to get it right soon. Here is an opportunity that may not come again to us for many months to try to set this on a different course. We are at a very special and historic moment. We cannot and must not sit idly by when we know multilateralizing the reconstruction and democratization of Iraq is the right thing to do. It is the right thing for Iraq. It is the right thing for the United States of America. But it is time we in the legislative branch, the coequal branch, step up and act in the interests of our people and other like-minded people around the globe. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I express my cooperation, sense of solidarity with my colleague from California, Mrs. Boxer, and others under very unusual procedural circumstances. In my almost 24 years in the Senate, I cannot recall ever rising to speak on a motion to disagree with a House amendment on a Senate bill and request a conference. As all of my colleagues know, these motions are rarely if ever debated. They are routinely adopted. And while this particular motion may well be adopted today or tomorrow there is nothing routine about it, because what we're discussing is one of the most divisive issues this country has ever faced--the issue of abortion, and specifically, the issue of whether or not the decision reached in Roe v. Wade should be the prevailing law of the land. When this legislation was initially before the Senate, Senators Harkin and Boxer introduced a simple sense of the Senate amendment that stated Roe v. Wade was a fair and balanced affirmation of a woman's constitutional right to privacy and self-determination. Of course, as Senator Boxer has pointed out, a woman's right to choose is not unlimited. As Roe v. Wade held, once a fetus becomes viable from a medical point of view, abortions may be regulated, although States must allow abortions when necessary to preserve a woman's life or health. Perhaps that's why a majority of Americans continue to support Roe v. Wade. Most Americans believe that this most difficult of decisions is, as an initial matter, best made in private by a woman and those with whom she chooses to share in the making of her decision--her doctor, her family, and her loved ones. Most Americans believe that politicians are ill-equipped to understand the unique, complex, and often wrenching factors that so often bear on whether or not a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy. And most Americans believe that abortion should be as it has consistently been for the past 30 years--safe, legal, and rare. There are those among my colleagues in the House and Senate who do not support the Harkin-Boxer language because they do not support Roe v. Wade. That is certainly their right, and they are entitled to the views they hold. In this Senator's view, however, eroding Roe v. Wade or repealing it outright would be a mistake of historic proportions, with devastating consequences for American women. The history of our Nation is one of securing and protecting freedoms and inalienable rights that we are all entitled to as American citizens. Eviscerating the rights annunciated by Roe v. Wade would run counter to this historic trend in our Nation's life. I look back on history and think about other times when attempts were made to repeal civil and privacy rights our citizens possessed. Obviously, prohibition comes to mind. We all know it was a social failure that resulted in the unregulated production of distilled spirits and other alcoholic substances that jeopardized the health of countless Americans. I think of the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, when tens of thousands of citizens were taken forcibly from their homes and livelihoods, and stripped of nearly all their possessions simply because of their ethnicity. And, of course, I think of our country in the aftermath of the Civil War, when the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution--promising the full blessings of equality to all Americans regardless of race--were followed by a century of Jim Crow laws designed to deny those blessings to tens of millions of Americans. Surely, eroding or repealing Roe v. Wade would be considered a step of equal gravity and error because it would deprive half our population of a right that, while not unlimited, is fundamental to being an American. What would the implications of denying this right be? One need not look further than when abortions were deemed illegal in this country-- before Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Women were forced to seek abortions in back alleys and basements. Women were forced to seek abortion by many people wholly unqualified to perform the procedure. And we all know the results were disastrous to women in this country-- untold numbers of whom suffered sickness, permanent disability, and death. Surely, this not the kind of America we want for the women of our country, nor is it the kind of America we want for men who have wives, daughters, sisters, and nieces. Therefore, as this bill moves forward, I hope a majority of our colleagues will continue to support the constitutional protections given to women under Roe v. Wade.

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 rise to speak in memory of C. Francis Driscoll, of New London, CT, who passed away on August 8 at the age of 68. Although Frank Driscoll was born in New York, he would become one of New London's most influential and devoted public servants, committing his time and energy, for over 30 years, to making life better for the people of that city. Frank Driscoll's first work on behalf of New London came from 1961 to 1967, when he was the executive director of the Redevelopment Agency, and a driving force in New London's urban renewal. But after 2 years working in Washington at the Department of Housing and Urban Development he returned to New London to take the job that he would hold for the next 23 years, the position of city manager--the top executive post in the city. As city manager, Frank Driscoll became known as a man who was very careful with how he spent city funds. A child of the Great Depression, he understood that these were the hard-earned tax dollars of working men and women, and he was always careful to spend those dollars wisely. At the same time, he was also tireless in his efforts to obtain Federal funds to improve the quality of life in New London. In fact, during the 1970s, New London won more money in Federal aid than it raised in local property taxes. These critical funds helped New London improve and renovate its schools, revitalize its business district, and ensure the integrity of its water supply. Frank Driscoll was a skilled, dedicated, and effective leader. But those who knew him or worked with him will probably remember him even more as a deeply caring and compassionate individual. He treated every city employee as part of an extended family. And when it came to his own family, Frank Driscoll's devotion was second to none. He was also a man of faith who was a vital member of his community. At St. Joseph's Parish in New London, he was a member of the parish council as well as the church choir. Frank was a man whose faith helped shape every aspect of his life, both public and private. I know that everyone who has lived in New London since the 1960s feels fortunate that they had Frank Driscoll working on their behalf. And I feel privileged to have had him as a friend. I offer my most heartfelt condolences to Frank's wife Caroline, to their eight children, nine grandchildren, and to everyone else who knew Frank Driscoll. He will be deeply missed.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Arkansas for his eloquent comments and his support in this effort. He brings a special knowledge and awareness to this issue, as we heard, as a result of his experience as attorney general in Arkansas. Like his colleagues, attorneys general around the country have grappled with this issue. As he points out, almost 30 years ago, when I first arrived as a new Member of Congress with my colleague from Vermont--President Gerald Ford initiated the idea of the Education of All Children Act--which included, of course, special education. He did this to see to it that far more than 20 percent of special needs children receiving services at the time would have an opportunity to receive an education. Less than 20 percent of special needs children were being educated 30 years ago. As a result of the efforts of people such as Senator Pryor as attorney general in his State, and now as a Member of this body, and others over the years, we have increased the funding for special education, and almost 6 million children across the country today who are special needs children are getting help. Several hundred thousand infants are getting help, and several hundred thousand preschoolers are getting help, giving them a chance to maximize their potential. Just this past Monday, I was at the Buttonball School in Glastonbury, CT. I wish all of my colleagues could have been there with me to see what this remarkable school is doing. They have consolidated the special education children and the services that they need and mainstream them each day in their respective classes so they have an opportunity to learn to the maximum extent possible. The affection and the dedication of the teachers and assistants who work one on one, in many cases, to see to it that these children have an opportunity to grow and prosper is marvelous to see. I know it goes on in every State. As I have said before, almost 30 years ago, we committed to provide, at the Federal level, 40 percent of special education funding. To date, we have only gotten up to about 17 percent of that funding. As a result of the amendment I am offering today on behalf of myself, Senator Jeffords, Senator Hagel, Senator Kerry, Senator Collins, Senator Murray, Senator Coleman, Senator Bingaman, Senator Dorgan, Senator Mikulski, Senator Pryor, from whom we just heard, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Stabenow, Senator Leahy, Senator Johnson, Senator Clinton, and Senator Warner, we are able to offer a $1.2 billion increase in special education funding bringing us from a little more than 17 percent of total cost to in excess of 21 percent. We are still 19 percent short of where we need to be, but certainly this amendment is a major step in the right direction. If we increase our grants now with the money that is in the amendment, plus what we are already offering, to the tune of $2.2 billion a year, as we promised, by the way, in the 2004 fiscal year budget resolution, then over the next 7 years, we will meet our 40 percent commitment, and we ought to do so. My hope is that we do not have to go through this every year; that we will have these numbers included in the budget process. I am anxious to hear--and I know he is going to address us in a moment--from the Senator from New Hampshire about our ability to hold this in conference. Obviously, we have to deal with the other body. Previously, this body adopted language to increase funding for special education, and the other body rejected it. My hope is that this year will be different. I will be anxious to hear the level of commitment we have to adopt this amendment, have it supported by the House of Representatives and have it supported by the White House. No other issue I can think of engenders as much support as this one does at the local level. I don't care what State you are from, talk to a county supervisor, talk to a mayor, a first select person, a city council member, they will tell you that in the area of education they need help. That is why Senator Jeffords has fought so hard over the years, Senator Harkin, Senator Hagel--they have been the champions on this issue to try and increase the level of funding for special education to give these kids a chance. I am delighted to hear my colleagues are going to accept the amendment we have offered for the $1.2 billion increase, in addition to what is in the bill. This is going to make a difference. This is the way this body ought to be operating. We need not have to go through these huge battles each year to bring these amendments up in order to convince people that this is deserving of our collective support. With the adoption of this amendment, we are going to make a huge difference for an awful lot of people in the country. While there are a lot of other programs I would have liked to have seen in this bill, all of us can take some pride in the fact that we have done a good job on behalf of special needs children, their families, and the communities that wrestle every day to provide the resources to see to it they have an opportunity to achieve. A special thanks goes to Senator Jeffords of Vermont who has been a champion in this area, and Senator Harkin who has been the leader over many years on special needs children and special education efforts. Senator Hagel has been tremendously helpful. Senator Collins, Senator Coleman, as well as other colleagues over the years, have been tremendous champions. Senator Murray from the State of Washington has been a tremendous fighter on behalf of these children. Senator Mikulski, Senator Bingaman, of course, Senator Dorgan, and many others as well, I thank them for their efforts. We are serving 5.4 million children, 200,000 infants, and 600,000 preschool children. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of all 50 States, with the additional amounts of money that will become available to them as a result of this amendment being adopted, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that in addition to the listed cosponsors, Senator John Warner be added as a cosponsor as well.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1572.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send a modification of an amendment of mine to the desk. I believe I have a right to do that.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I will now turn to my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, for up to 5 minutes for him to discuss the subject of the professional education amendment that is before us.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I did not intend to have this become a partisan discussion at all. Going back, as a member of the Budget Committee, I offered I think the first such amendment in the Budget Committee, along with Senator Lott. We lost on a tie vote back in the Budget Committee in the early 1980s on special education, trying to get the dollars up. I am very grateful. The only reason we are getting this support now is that obviously we have some key Republicans who are willing to help us on this--Senator Hagel, principally, who has been a champion on this issue for a number of years. Senator Collins, Senator Coleman, and Senator Warner have been very helpful. Let there be no illusions. We tried to get this. We can argue about offsets and so forth, but the fact is, had I not been able to get some Republican support, this amendment would have gone down. I do not make that case because I think it takes both of us working together here. But the reason we are back at this is that, back in the beginning of 2001, Senator Harkin, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Hagel offered language to increase dollars for special education--in fact, they ended up getting 100 votes here. The other body, led by the Republican leadership, just wouldn't allow a vote to occur on this issue and the President never had anything to say about it. If we took the increases in the underlying bill, we would never get near the 40 percent figure at which special education would become fully funded. The fact is, we have fought this battle especially hard over the last 2 years. We have gotten zero help from the White House and zero help from the leadership in the other body. As a result, we are back again this year making our case again. I am very grateful for the bipartisan support we have on this. That is the way we get these things done. We are prepared to vote on this, accept a voice vote. They don't want a rollcall vote. They only want a voice vote. I was born at night, Madam President, but not last night. I know what that usually means--it is so no one has to be on record here. We are just going to have a vote and go along with this. It makes it a little easier for the other body to reject it because we have not had a recorded vote on it. I accept that because I think if you can get something done, get it done, whether it is by voice vote or recorded vote. If we are going to get this done, let's get it done. Let's hope it stays in conference so the real winners of this will be the children and the families and the communities that need the help--not one party over another but people who desperately need our help and support, children who are, unfortunately, suffering from special education needs who will get some help from their Federal Government. Most of special education funding comes from local property tax payers. We are just fulfilling an obligation we promised we would meet 30 years ago and we are coming only halfway there as a result of this amendment. I am grateful, again, for the support we have received. It is unfortunate it has taken us this long. Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota offered a full funding amendment, which I supported, that would get us there right away. Obviously, that did not make it. This is a partial step in that direction. But Senator Dayton deserves a great deal of credit for telling us all how important this issue is and how quickly we ought to meet that obligation. With that, I yield the remainder of my time. If we are going to have a voice vote on it, let's have that voice vote and move on to other business.

Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, the Dodd-Hagel-Jeffords amendment and the money in the bill--$2.2 billion--raises considerably the amount of money that will be available in each of the States as a result of our efforts. I thank them for their efforts, and each Senator ought to know there are going to be a lot more children, families, and communities who are going to get needed help. My hope is, of course, that we will keep this language in conference. We tried over the years to do that. We now need Members of the other body to stand up and say to their mayors, Governors, county supervisors, and others: You have our support, and we are going to try and do it each and every year between now and the year 2009 to complete the obligation we made some three decades ago. Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. I see my colleague from New Hampshire who may want to address this issue. I don't know if he does. If he does, maybe we can vote on this and move on to other matters.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, very simply, as my colleague pointed out, I would be delighted if the administration was going to change its policy. I wish they would do it across the board, just back this up all together. The fact is, if you do a simple recategorization of what these people do as either being professional, administrative, or executive, then you are covered under this rule. I don't know what the various heads of these organizations are saying, but that is what the regulation that has been proposed by the administration says. Within the 250 employment categories, police and firefighters are included, if they are recategorized. If you do not recategorize them, they are going to be fine. But you leave that up to the whim of whether you want to move them to those different levels of pay. That is how they get covered.

Mr. DODD. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I thank the distinguished Democrat leader for his comments and others for their comments. I was going to ask him a question myself, but I think our leader has already been standing on the floor for about an hour, so I will spare him that. I commend him for his eloquence on this issue and for his passion about it. This is an issue that is befuddling, to put it mildly, to many of us. I have several amendments pending on the education bill. I would very much like to raise them on Head Start and on special education. We can't get there apparently because we can't get a vote on this simple proposition. Not only are we not going to be able to vote on overtime this afternoon, but we can't even vote on whether or not we ought to do more on special education. We can't do something more on Head Start, title I, Pell grants. Here we are, coming in the midst of September, the waning days of the Session, with huge issues before us, and it is now the midpart of Tuesday--this started last week some time--and it would take, I suspect--and the Senator from Iowa is here, our leader; he can correct me--maybe another 15 minutes of debate and we could have a rollcall vote on this and move on. I will take a few minutes to express my views, which are very similar to those expressed by the distinguished minority leader, as well as Senator Kennedy, Senator Durbin, Senator Harkin, Senator Boxer, and others, on this matter. But I think it is a great tragedy. I thank the leader for taking the time to express to the American public his great concern about this issue and the wonderment he expresses about why we can't even have a vote on this proposal. I thank him and I know he has a busy afternoon. I want to share with my colleagues my own thoughts on this issue as well. I think it is remarkable. This is yet one additional bad decision after another when it comes to the economy. We have seen what has happened regarding tax cut policy. I note an article written by Mike Allen and Jonathan Weisman in the Washington Post appearing this past Saturday, page A6, titled ``Tax Cut Claims Gain Criticism As Employers Shed More Jobs.'' I won't read the whole article, but let me quote from it, if I may: Before the latest tax cut plan passed, White House economists had predicted it would add 1.4 million new jobs through the year 2004, on top of 4.1 million jobs that a growing economy would have generated anyway, a rate of 344,000 jobs created a month. By its own accounting, the Bush administration has fallen 437,000 jobs short of its own projections in August, a shortfall not lost on the President's critics. We have seen already tremendous job losses in this country. The minority leader mentioned a job loss of 3.2 million jobs; 2.5 million of those job losses have occurred in the manufacturing sector of our economy; 93,000 jobs lost in America in the month of August, up sharply from the 43,000 jobs lost in July. For the seventh consecutive month, companies have slashed payrolls. So the economy, when it comes to joblessness, is cratering. The tax cuts that the administration jammed through the Congress only a few short months ago are already demonstrating what a hardship they pose to the recovery and to putting Americans back to work. As I mentioned, 93,000 jobs were lost in the month of August; 44,000 of those jobs in the manufacturing sector. Just over 2.5 million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last 32 months. African Americans and Hispanics bear the brunt of the economic downturn. The unemployment rate among African Americans is now hovering around 11 percent, almost twice the national average. The unemployment rate among Hispanics is almost 8 percent. Long-term unemployment is on the rise. In August, almost 2 million people had been unemployed for over 6 months, triple the number at the beginning of the Bush administration. A surge in discouraged workers masks the true impact of the economic downturn. Currently, 1.7 million people are marginally attached to the labor force. About 503,000 of these workers have stopped looking for work altogether because they believe that no work is available for them. That is an increase of 125,000 over the past year. A new study suggests that job losses since 2001 are gone for good. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has concluded that the vast majority of job losses since the beginning of the 2001 recession were the result of permanent changes in the U.S. economy and are not coming back. This means the labor market will not regain strength until new positions are created in new economic sectors. Manufacturing is the area that is suffering the largest brunt of this decision. An additional 1.3 million people are in poverty nationwide. The number of Americans living below the poverty line has increased by more than 1.3 million in the last year, even though the economy technically edged out of a recession during the same period. The number of families living in poverty went up by more than 300,000 in 2002, and the number of children in poverty rose by more than 600,000 in the same period. We are heading in the wrong direction. On top of all that, we now have a decision being made by the administration to eliminate overtime pay. People in more than 250 white-collar occupations will lose their right to overtime. I won't list them all, but they include the critical areas of nursing, firefighting, police forces, emergency medical services, health technicians, clerical workers, surveyors, chefs, TV technicians, and reporters. Overtime pay will be eliminated. I don't understand--in light of the news we are getting about the unemployment picture in this country and the hardships being faced, the rising level of poverty, the more difficult time families are having to make ends meet--why the administration persists in pursuing a policy of denying overtime pay. There was a very close vote in the House of Representatives. At least they voted. I am told the vote was 210 to 213 against blocking the President's proposed rule, so it was narrowly defeated by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. I want to know whether or not this body wants to confirm what the House and the President said they want to do. And should not the American public have the right to know what the answer of this body would be? In 250 occupations, they want to know whether or not they are going to be able to get overtime pay. Overtime pay makes a huge difference for them economically. It can amount to as much as 25 percent of a worker's annual income. Denying 25 percent of someone's income at a time of already economic uncertainty is wrongheaded. It is dangerous for us to be pursuing that path. I regret deeply that we will not have a chance to vote this afternoon on the administration's overtime proposal. We are faced with one more bad economic idea after another. We have the largest annual deficits in the Nation's history, one of the largest percentages of the gross domestic product, because they include, obviously, Social Security moneys in their calculations. We have lost more than 3 million jobs in the last 32 months. Instead of working towards creating new jobs and helping working families and individuals, the administration has proposed a regulation to deny overtime protection to millions of people. These workers would have their jobs reclassified as professional, administrative or executive, even if their job duties do not change, thus losing the benefit of overtime pay. As I mentioned, more than 250 white-collar occupations could be impacted. Employees could be forced to work longer hours without the benefit of overtime pay. I was speaking with a group of nurses in Connecticut. They were saying to me: We don't have the choice of not working additional hours in hospitals. If an emergency occurs, or there are problems with patients, you are always asked to stay on a few more hours and help out. And they do it. The idea that we would be asking these people to continue to provide the valuable services they do to sick individuals in our Nation's hospitals and not provide them compensation for doing so is truly outrageous. The same goes for our firefighters and police officers. Senator Boxer had it right when she said earlier: You can well imagine in the next 48 hours or so the kinds of images we are going to have, a replay of the tremendous outpouring of gratitude being expressed to the police officers and firefighters in New York and Connecticut, New Jersey, and others who gathered to fight for the lives at the World Trade Center almost 2 years ago. Yet what expression of gratitude do we provide them 2 years later? We tell them: Sorry, but your overtime pay no longer exists. What kind of a message is that to these people? Asking employees to work longer hours and not providing overtime pay is significant because overtime pay can provide as much as 25 percent of a person's annual income. This is not the type of balance between work and family that the distinguished Democratic leader pointed out when we adopted unanimously a resolution offered last week. I was pleased to cosponsor S. Res. 210, a bipartisan resolution supporting striking a balance between work and personal lives as being in the best interest of worker productivity. I find it terribly disheartening that at a time when this body is asking the President to designate October as National Work and Family Month, the administration is working to finalize a regulation to strip overtime pay for millions of people. The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act has been the backbone of worker protection. Never in its 65-year history have such sweeping overtime changes been proposed. Hard-working individuals are deeply concerned about these changes and many of us here stand shoulder to shoulder with them in expressing our outrage. It is unfortunate that we are not going to be able to have a vote today in this body on whether or not we can overturn that decision. I also find it ironic that the President suggested he would veto the underlying appropriations bill on education and health services if this amendment is accepted. In fact, an August poll of nearly 900 adults found that 74 percent--cutting across all regional and political lines--oppose the Bush administration's proposal to eliminate overtime protection. Almost 75 percent of those polled said don't do it. Further, in 2001, the Department of Labor commissioned its own study that concluded that the current narrow overtime exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act are still relevant today. Why then did the Bush administration unveil these proposals last March? One can only conclude that whatever the reasons, they do not include supporting the ability of working people to earn a decent pay for a day's work.

Mr. DODD. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me respond to my friend. The National Association of Police Officers and the International Union of Police Associations oppose the regulations. We have correspondence from them. There is obviously some disagreement.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me regain my time and respond. I appreciate my colleague raising these questions. I ask unanimous consent that letters from the International Union of Police Associations and the National Association of Police Organizations, expressing their opposition to the regulation, be printed in the Record. International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO Alexandria, VA July 25, 2003. U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator: In the very near future, either an amendment, or a stand-alone bill, will be brought forward in the Senate which will seek to restrict the Department of Labor (DOL) from implementing any regulatory rules changes in the Fair Labor Standards Act that would remove workers' overtime rights. It would not interfere with the Secretary's ability to expand overtime protections for low income workers. On behalf of the International Union of Police Associations (IUPA), representing more than 100,000 active duty, rank and file law enforcement officers from across the country, I urge you to support this effort. On March 31, 2003, the DOL's proposed rule changes were first published under the guise of expanding overtime rights to lower paid employees. These rule changes, if implemented, would dramatically alter the classification of workers who could be exempted from the provisions of the FLSA and the 40- hour work week. These changes would reduce the compensation for our nation's police officers and EMS personnel, just as we are routinely calling on them to do more and more in the interest of national security. The alterations would also provide a strong disincentive for agencies and municipalities to hire additional first responders, as they seek ways to operate under the growing constraints of historic financial burdens. The implementation of these rules would mark a critical step backwards for our public safety officers, just when we need to be moving ahead. IUPA has been closely following the events surrounding these changes. We consider this legislation to be the most important single issue we face. Its critical impact on rank- and-file law enforcement officers throughout the country makes it a true litmus test, when it is time for us to decide who truly supports the men and women who form the thin blue line. We intend to carefully note and announce to our membership those who are willing to stand with our nation's police and firefighters with their votes. Whatever form this struggle takes, I hope we can count on your support. If you or your staff desires any additional information from IUPA, I hope you will feel free to call upon us. Very Respectfully, Dennis Slocumb, International Executive Vice President.

Mr. DODD. I hope so, yes.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will address both points my colleague has raised. If my colleagues on the other side are so concerned about first responders, why not just oppose the regulation altogether because this is the major group about which we are talking. For example, let me point out what I am suggesting. Police sergeants and lower-level police supervisors are likely to lose their overtime through the executive exemption. Let me explain why. The fact that a sergeant performs nonmanual work such as walking the beat during 90 percent of his work hours does not matter if he also has a primary duty of supervising two officers or performing nonexempt administrative work. Highly compensated police officers will not even have to have a primary duty of performing exempt work. If they perform any ``office or nonmanual work'' and perform any one exempt duty of an executive, administrative, or professional duty--no matter how little of their time is spent doing it--they lose the right to overtime. How much imagination does it take to move people into those categories to be exempt from overtime compensation? Police departments have been prevented from exempting police officers who teach in police academies because the instructors did not exercise sufficient independent judgment and discretion in how they taught their courses. The proposed rule eliminates the requirement for independent judgment and discretion. Under the current law, an exempt executive is an employee ``who customarily and regularly exercises discretionary powers; and who does not devote more than 20 percent . . . of his hours of work in the workweek to activities which are not directly and closely related to the performance of [exempt] work. . . . Under the proposal by the President, those current law requirements are eliminated. Let me address the nurse issue. Nurses, skilled health technicians, and technologists could lose their overtime protection under the proposed regulations because of the changes to the educational requirement. Registered nurses who do not hold a bachelor's degree are currently eligible for overtime protections, unless they hold administrative or managerial positions. Under the Bush proposal, these RNs would lose their overtime protection if they have a few years of work experience. Nonmanagerial licensed practical nurses--LPNs--have a right to overtime protection under current law. Under the administration's proposal, LPNs with a few years of work experience would also lose their right to overtime compensation. Let me read current law and then read the regulation proposed by President Bush. The current law: Employees are exempt if they do ``work requiring knowledge of an advance type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study, as distinguished from a general academic education and from an apprenticeship, and from training in the performance of routine mental, manual, or physical processes.'' Under the President's proposal: Employees qualify for exemption as a learned professional if they have a primary duty of performing office or nonmanual work requiring advanced knowledge in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of intellectual instruction, but which may also be acquired by an equivalent combination of intellectual instruction and work experience. That is very broad, very general language. Obviously, one can drive a Mack truck through it. That is why the nurses of this country, the RNs and LPNs, are vehemently opposed to this proposed regulation, because they know exactly what is going to happen, just as police officers do. That is why so many of us feel so strongly about this and why we would like to vote on it. If a majority wants to uphold the President and vote for this stuff, then so be it; the Administration can go forward and it will become the law of the land. But I would like to know where 100 Senators stand. America would, too. As I mentioned, nearly seventy-five percent of the people polled in a recent survey said they are opposed to the administration's proposed rule. Let's find out where this body is. I think the proposed rule to eliminate overtime pay is wrong and I support the Harkin amendment. I hope that we will have a vote soon and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I was just informed of a different proposal than I was operating under when I had the discussion with the distinguished minority whip and the ranking member of the chair of the committee. If you will give me 2 minutes to resolve the conflict, which of these matters should be dealt with tonight or tomorrow, we could come right back to this. I am sure we will get an agreement. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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