Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague, Senator Byrd. I was not able to speak in support of this amendment when it was being debated because I was in a meeting with the distinguished Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair. This was an important amendment, and I am pleased that it was adopted earlier today. This amendment calls upon the Bush administration to tell the Congress and the American people ``up front'' in its annual budget submissions, what it plans to spend on foreign military operations, particularly those in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also asks the administration to identify the specific Department of Defense accounts that will be tapped to pay for those activities. Greater fiscal accountability is clearly needed, especially in light of an explosion in the size of the Federal deficit that has occurred since the Bush administration took office. Increased defense spending has undoubtedly played a role in that growing deficit. This year's fiscal deficit will reach $455 billion--the largest Federal deficit in the history of this Nation. Just five short months ago, the Bush administration estimated that the fiscal year 2003 deficit would be $305 billion--no small amount. But more than $150 billion short of what it now estimates will be the fiscal gap. Obviously, this is more than simply a question of a rounding-off error on the part of the administration's budget experts. I for one am skeptical that the administration really believed that its original estimates were on target. What is not debatable is that our Nation's fiscal house is in disarray. We urgently need to get a handle on Federal spending. A first step in getting that handle is for the administration to come clean with the Congress and with the American people about what our commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan will mean in monetary terms. Up until now, the administration has consistently ``low balled'' the cost of our military operations in these countries. They have skirted cost questions by being intentionally vague about their plans. We now know that the military phase of the Iraq operation--the period from January thru April--cost approximately $4.1 billion per month. Beginning in May, we were told that the cost of the pacification phase of the operations would be much lower--closer to $2 billion per month. That turned out to be untrue. This past Sunday, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld admitted what has become evident--that these costs were running closer to $4 billion per month. The costs of operations in Afghanistan add an additional $1 billion per month to Department of Defense military expenditures. At current rates of spending we will have spent more than $70 billion dollars for military operations in Iraq by the end of the year. On the non-military side in Iraq, $7 billion--$2.4 billion in U.S. appropriated funds--will have been spent by the end of the year on humanitarian and reconstruction efforts. And that is just the beginning. The total bill for nation building in Iraq could go as high as $100 billion when all is said and done. The Byrd amendment attempts to address a larger concern that simply the dollars and cents of our commitment in Iraq; it really goes to the overall conduct of our policy there. Let me say very clearly that I am in no way critical of what our brave men and women serving in our armed forces have been doing in Iraq, or elsewhere. We are all very proud of our U.S. Service members-- those who have served or are now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. We pray for the speedy recovery of those injured in the service of their country, and our hearts go out to the families who have lost loved ones. Nor do I mourn the removal of Saddam Hussein--the world is far better place now that he is no longer the dictator of his people. The bottom line is the U.S. military has done and is doing a tremendous job--under very difficult conditions. Having said that, it is increasingly apparent that the Bush administration was ill prepared for what is now confronting on the ground in Iraq--both in terms of the extent of hostilities and the costs of the operations. Last year when the Congress debated the resolution authorizing the President to use force in Iraq, many of us were concerned that the administration had not done sufficient thinking or planning for what we could expect in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. Such concerns were dismissed by administration officials. I do not like to say the following, but I must. There has been a level of arrogance on the part of some in the administration when it comes to foreign policy generally and most especially Iraq. That arrogance has caused senior policymakers in the administration to be closed to advice from career government military and foreign policy experts and dismissive of congressional concerns about the challenges that we might confront in post-Saddam Iraq. I supported the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force last year. And, I would do so again today. But I firmly believe that the concerns I expressed during consideration of that resolution--about the importance of getting broad international support for whatever we wanted to do in Iraq--take on even more significance today. We will never know whether more patience would have gained us the U.N. Security Council endorsement for our efforts to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein. I for one believed that it would have been worthwhile to give that U.N. process a little more time to get that endorsement. I did not believe at the time that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States, although I never doubted that he possessed, or at the very least sought to possess some quantity of weapons of mass destruction. Clearly, nothing found in Iraq thus far has caused me to change my assessment about the level of threat Iraq posed to the United States. There is no doubt that had we gotten a U.N. endorsement for our campaign, we would be in a far stronger position today to convince other governments to participate in ongoing peacekeeping efforts and to share the costs of Iraq relief and reconstruction. It is also very clear that the administration got it wrong with respect to the mix of combat forces and military police that would be required for the post war phase of the operations. If there had been more of a police presence at the outset, it might have served as a deterrent against the vigilantism that is now occurring. The Bush administration has consistently asserted that we are not along in Iraq--that there is a ``coalition'' of governments helping us restore security and build a democratic Iraq. That really isn't the case. There are currently 148,000 American troops in Iraq. The non-American component of the military coalition is only 13,000 strong. The administration states that there will be an additional 17,000 foreign military deployed to Iraq later this summer. Should that come to pass, U.S. troops will still represent roughly 75 percent of the forces on the ground in Iraq. Moreover, if current levels of violence continue, more troops are going to be needed to stem the American casualties that are now being sustained--some experts estimate that double the current number of troops there may be needed. Where are those additional troops going to come from? I strongly urge the administration to turn to the U.N. and to NATO for that assistance. It is in our national security and foreign policy interests for the U.N. and NATO to become partners in rebuilding Iraq. However, if we are unable to persuade our friends and allies to help in this effort, the deployment of addition U.S. troops may be needed to protect those already deployed. This could include American Reservists and members of the National Guard. And, while I agreed in principle with what my colleague, Senator Byrd, was seeking to do on Tuesday with an earlier amendment, namely to prevent unlimited deployments of reservists and members of the Guard to Iraq and Afghanistan, I was also concerned about the safety of our troops. Unfortunately, the fluidity of the situation in Iraq may require the deployment of these forces for an unspecified time. That is why I reluctantly opposed that amendment. Why is there such uncertainty surrounding Iraq? Because I believe that U.S. policy is adrift. The administration has not been able to get its arms around what is going on there. One day the administration says it wants to put Iraqis in charge of their own country as quickly as possible. Another day it announces that the Coalition Provisional Authority, headed by retired U.S. Ambassador Paul Bremer, is the Government of Iraq. One day the administration tells us that Iraq's oil revenues will be sufficient to rebuild Iraq's economy. Another day it calls for the convening of an international donors conference to raise billions of additional dollars it says are needed to restore Iraq's economy. As this policy drifts, increasingly the Iraqi people blame America for the ongoing chaos in their country. And who is the face of America on the streets of Iraq? Americans in uniform. They have become the targets. Growing hostility has already cost 82 American lives since May. Every day we pick up the newspaper and read about another two or three American service members being attacked or killed by unknown assailants. Yet the administration continues to tell us that all is going as planned. And the need for administration officials to be up front with the American people about Iraq goes beyond simply telling them how much it is going to cost or how many troops will be necessary. It also goes to the matter of the administration's credibility--its credibility about what it has told the American people concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. There are mounting questions as to whether some in the administration manipulated or distorted intelligence in order to justify what they wanted to do for other reasons. President Bush has hurt U.S. credibility by overstating the case about the dangers of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction--particularly with respect to its nuclear weapons capacity. Attempts to construct a ``coalition of the willing'' within our own intelligence community, in order to tilt intelligence was also dangerous, divisive, and unnecessary. We all accepted that Saddam had a clear track record with respect to WMD--they didn't have to ``gild the lily'' with information which we now know was false. And more seriously, which some administration officials knew at the time to be false. Even more serious is the willingness of these officials to pressure career intelligence analysts to sign up to conclusions about Iraq's WMD program that they didn't believe to be accurate. This calls into question the integrity of our entire intelligence community. This issue does not seem to be going away. The administration has yet to give an acceptable explanation for what really happened or to identify who was responsible. We need to get to the bottom of this and put in place safeguards to prevent future manipulation of intelligence. It is extremely unlikely at this juncture that closed congressional hearings dominated by one party are going to allay the American people's concerns. I recognize that the Byrd amendment does not attempt to address the intelligence issue I have just mentioned. I raise it in the context of the debate on this amendment because it is part of an administration pattern with respect to all matters related to Iraq--a pattern of secrecy, stonewalling, and obfuscation. With the adoption of this amendment, the Congress has sent a modest signal to the administration that, at least on the spending side of our engagement with Iraq, we expect more transparency from our government.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me, first of all, thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, the President pro tempore, and the ranking member, Senator Inouye, for their cooperation on this amendment. As I understand it, this amendment has been accepted by both sides. I will briefly describe the amendment. My intention is not to ask for a recorded vote so we will move the process along. I will enter into a brief colloquy perhaps with the ranking member about the prospects of this being held on in conference. Briefly, as all of my colleagues, I am deeply troubled by the state of our economy. I spent last week--part of it--in my State, as I am sure many colleagues did over the July 4th break, talking to manufacturers, labor unions, and others. As most of my colleagues know, my State is heavily dependent on defense contract work--if not the most dependent on a per capita basis, certainly one of the top States on a per capita base. We have been very proud of this tradition over the years. It dates back to the Revolutionary War when Connecticut was known as the Provision State. In addition to its nomenclature of being the Constitution State, it is the Provision State as well. As a result of the cooperation of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee over the years, Connecticut's contribution has continued to grow in a variety of areas. Like everything else, there are areas for improvement in how we can help sustain this quality of work that is being done by some of the finest technicians, some of the finest workers the world has ever seen, producing the most sophisticated equipment and hardware that has ever been produced by any nation. Yet we are also seeing, as a result of the realities of the world, more and more people are losing their jobs in the technology area. The industrial base is eroding. In fact, we are told in one article, which I placed on this chart, that roughly 27,000 technology jobs moved overseas in the year 2000, and this research organization predicts the number will mushroom to 472,000 by the year 2015 if companies continue to farm out as much of our technology work at today's frenzied pace. The jobless issue is important. More than 9 million Americans are out of work, and nearly 400,000 jobs have been lost just since January of this year. Job losses continue to mount in the manufacturing sector, even in the defense industry, I might add. Manufacturing is the engine that drives our economy, sustaining the industrial base. I note to all of my colleagues that this is critically important. This is what made America a leader over the years. It is what made us the great industrial and military power we are today. Manufacturers produce $1 out of every $6 of our economy's gross domestic product. During the last decade, U.S. manufacturing has been responsible for 21 percent of the total economic growth and one-third of productivity growth in the United States. In my State, Connecticut, manufacturers are also a critical part of our local economy. More than 5,600 individual manufacturing companies in the State of Connecticut employ more than 240,000 people who are paid over $10 billion a year in salaries and income. These manufacturers create more than $27 billion in added value and generate $45 billion in annual sales. Yet despite the importance of this manufacturing sector, manufacturers across the country are struggling today to survive. In an economy where 9.4 million Americans are out of work, it is particularly upsetting to learn that the U.S. defense contractors are continuing at a rapid pace to outsource a considerable number of manufacturing positions overseas. This is being done under the so-called offset contracts. Under these arrangements, foreign governments buy major weapons programs from American companies only if the manufacturer contracts out a significant portion of that work in that country. For example, when Poland agreed to buy several Lockheed Martin F-16 aircraft, United States contractors agreed to outsource over 40 components of this work to Polish companies, amounting to hundreds of United States job losses to foreign workers. No one disputes there is an important role for these offset agreements, and this amendment does not eliminate them at all. Quite the contrary. The jobs that may be lost may be offset by other gains from better commercial and defense relations in foreign countries. The issue is whether or not the trend that these arrangements are following is headed in the wrong direction. U.S. companies are outsourcing more and more, and I am worried this could result in a loss of sensitive technology overseas, a loss of segments of the national industrial base, and a loss of jobs during this economic downturn. As I mentioned, there were 40 different contracts in 1 particular job and 1 particular country. When American companies enter into future contracts with the U.S. Government, it means that our taxpayer dollars will now go to work in another country rather than to support our own economic needs. With certain components being built in other countries, offset arrangements may actually undermine existing ``buy American'' laws that require specific military machinery--everything from naval circuit breakers to machine tools and ball bearings--to be manufactured by workers in the United States. For these reasons, I am offering this amendment this morning that will add a measure of accountability to these offset contracts. The amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to review these arrangements and report to the Congress on, among other things, the effect on the industry's industrial base and what actions have been taken to minimize damage to American defense industries, what financial impact these arrangements might have on U.S. manufacturing, the implications of technology transfer arising from these arrangements, and, lastly, how consistent some of the business arrangements, resulting from these offset arrangements, are with existing ``buy American'' laws that pertain specifically to defense policy. Armed with this information, we will be better able to ensure that when American companies enter into foreign contracts, the U.S. industrial base will be preserved and the general interests of the American people will be protected. This amendment also allows the Secretary discretion to modify existing memoranda of understanding with other countries affecting offset agreements if he or she finds it necessary upon reviewing this information. He may also submit to the President any recommendations he thinks might be necessary to strengthen ``buy American'' laws. This added protection is particularly important to all of us at a time when people all over the Nation are experiencing the highest unemployment rate in 9 years, most recently measuring 6.4 percent. I appreciate the consideration of this amendment by the chairman and the ranking member of the committee. This is not a radical approach. As I said, it does not in any way eliminate these offset arrangements but merely requires a greater accountability so we can watch carefully what is happening, so we do not end up with more jobs being lost, particularly in these critical technologies that are so vital not only to our economic success and well-being but also to preserving the industrial base for our national security needs in the 21st century. I ask that the amendment be agreed to. If I may say to my colleague from Hawaii, I am not going to ask for a recorded vote. I appreciate their review of the amendment and their acceptance of it. I hope steps will be taken to try to preserve this amendment in conference if that is possible.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry. What is the pending business?

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Hawaii very much for his continued support. I have no further need for additional time. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank the distinguished Senator. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in commending the distinguished Prime Minister for his eloquent remarks in which I think he captured the essence of what all of us would like to see in the coming weeks and months and years; that is, a joint coalition of peaceful, liberty- loving nations to address the scourge of terrorism. I think he properly described what needs to be done by leaders of this Nation and others around the globe if we are going to succeed in that effort. It was also wonderful to hear the English language spoken with such eloquence. It was refreshing not to see a teleprompter, I might add, and to hear a political leader with a sense of humor, a sense of commitment and passion, and a deep sense of understanding of the values that our two nations have shared--and, as he properly described, not Western values but human values of freedom-loving peoples everywhere. I join my colleague from Alaska, and others, in thanking the Prime Minister for his eloquence, for his commitment, for his friendship, and for his loyalty. I look forward to a continuing relationship with this remarkable leader.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Goodspeed Musicals of East Haddam, CT, which is celebrating its 40th anniversary on July 16, 2003. Goodspeed has come a long way in 40 years. It was originally formed in 1959 to save the historic Goodspeed Opera House from destruction. Not only did Goodspeed Musicals succeed in that effort, it restored the 19th century landmark to its former glory, and reopened it in 1963 as a professional theatre. In the four decades since, Goodspeed Musicals has played a vital role in perpetuating and promoting the art of musical theatre--not only in the State of Connecticut but nationally and even internationally. From its modest beginnings, Goodspeed has gone on to produce over 186 musicals, including 43 world premiere productions and 16 that went on to Broadway. In addition to performances at the Goodspeed Opera House, Goodspeed Musicals now also stages shows in the Norma Terris Theatre in Chester. Its growth is a testament to the hard work of so many Goodspeed employees, volunteers, members, and supporters, and to the enjoyment and wonder that musical theatre can instill in so many people. Over the years, Goodspeed has showcased classics by composers such as Gilbert and Sullivan and Cole Porter. But it has also been a palace where emerging artists have been able to develop their work and present it to audiences for the first time. It has produced more than 63 new shows--the largest number of new musicals for any theatre in America. Productions such as Annie, Man of La Mancha, and Shenandoah had their world premieres at Goodspeed. And countless actors, musicians, choreographers, directors, and other members of the theatre community have had their careers advanced and enriched by working at Goodspeed. Goodspeed productions that have made it to Broadway have earned over a dozen Tony awards. And for its contributions to American musical theatre, Goodspeed Musicals has earned two Tony awards of its own. In addition to producing musical theatre, Goodspeed Musicals has also devoted itself to promoting understanding the art form. At Goodspeed's Max Showalter Center for Musical Theatre Education, students--both professional and amateur--gain a greater appreciation of all aspects of musical theatre and also participate in training and development programs that help them put their knowledge into practice. Goodspeed has become an integral part of a rich and vibrant arts culture in the State of Connecticut. Along with the Shubert and Long Wharf Theatres in New Haven, the Bushnell and the Hartford State in our State's capital, and numerous other theatres, production companies, and musical groups, Goodspeed provides an environment where musical theatre and the performing arts can, and will, continue to thrive and flourish. On a personal note, as a resident of East Haddam and a member of Goodspeed's Board of Directors, I have enjoyed many a magical evening at the Goodspeed Opera House. And it is my fervent hope that Goodspeed Musicals will continue to inspire and entertain for many years to come. I offer my warmest congratulations to Michael Price, the remarkably talented Executive Director of Goodspeed Musicals, and to everyone who has been a part of Goodspeed over the past 40 years. I wish them and Goodspeed Musicals nothing but continued success in the future.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a distinguished public servant and friend, M. Adela Eads, who passed away on July 8 at the age of 83. For years, Dell Eads was an indispensable member of the Connecticut General Assembly. She served for 4 years in the State House of Representatives, and then for 20 years in the Senate, including 2 years as President Pro Tempore--the first woman ever to be elected to that office for a full term. If a casual observer walked onto the Senate floor in Hartford while Dell Eads was there, he might have been surprised to learn that the diminutive lady in the smart-looking suit and high heels was one of the chamber's most influential members. But for those 20 years, Dell Eads was indeed an imposing figure in Connecticut. She served her constituents, and her State, with commitment, distinction, and honor. Dell Eads' life was devoted to working for the public good. Nowhere was that more evident than in her commitment to Connecticut's children. Before becoming a legislator, she chaired the Kent Board of Education for 26 years. She later served on the Connecticut Board of Education as well. Many of her landmark legislative achievements were also devoted to helping children. Dell Eads was a chief architect of legislation which created our State's Office of the Child Advocate. Today, thanks to her efforts, there's an office in Connecticut's government where people fight for children who aren't able to fight for themselves. She also was integral in the passage of the Education Enhancement Act, which raised the pay of Connecticut's public school teachers. Dell Eads recognized that if we want our best and brightest to commit themselves to teaching our children, we need to commit ourselves to paying them fairly. Dell Eads always seemed to find the right balance of toughness and tact. In the political arena, where it's often hard to figure our exactly what people are saying, Dell Eads wasn't one to mince words. If she had something on her mind, you were going to hear it. But when she spoke, she did so with the courtesy, class, and congeniality that earned her the admiration and friendship of her colleagues. Though a Republican, she was respected by both Democrats and Republicans alike. She was loyal to her party--yet Dell Eads would never hesitate to reach across the aisle if there was work to be done. No one could question Dell Eads' commitment to the people of Connecticut. After all, this was a woman who, at the age of 76, slipped and broke her collarbone--and reported to work at the State Capitol the very next day. And she continued to serve in the State Senate until she retired three years ago at the age of 80. Dell Eads was slight in stature, but she was great in spirit. Her service was an inspiration not only to her colleagues in the Connecticut General Assembly, but to all the people of Connecticut. Our state has truly lost a great citizen, and a remarkable person. I offer my most heartfelt sympathies to Dell Eads' two sons, Manuel and Gregory Eads, to her brother Manuel Diaz, to her five grandsons, and her entire family.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this amendment reflects the language and my discussion with the chairman of the committee which adds the word ``substantial'' to the first paragraph of the first (i) clause--the substantial loss of U.S. jobs. And the rest of the amendment will read as it is presently printed. Let me, first of all, thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member for allowing me to offer this amendment and for accepting it. This language conforms to existing law with the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Export-Import Bank, and other foreign aid programs and takes into consideration job loss on environmental issues. I think it fits into the Millennium Account category. I am a strong supporter of the Millennium Account. I thank the chairman and others who have been involved. I think it will be a wonderful opportunity for us to provide education and needed assistance to others around the world. This amendment would add a proviso to Division C of the bill-- Millennium Challenge Assistance--to ensure that Millennium Challenge monies authorized in this legislation do no inadvertently fund projects that result in the loss of American jobs, or the transfer of U.S. production facilities abroad, or pose a threat to public health or the environment. Why is this amendment necessary? Aren't U.S. foreign assistance laws already on the books that prevent U.S. foreign aid monies from being used in ways that can hurt American families or damage the environment? The answer is yes such laws exist but the bill before us today would exempt the Millennium Challenge Corporation set up in Division C of this bill from this and other restrictions currently in law. The Millennium Challenge Account has been provided with substantial resources in this bill--more than $8 billion over three years with virtually no legislative strings attached. Clearly there was a rationale for giving the corporation flexibility to try a new approach to helping countries help themselves climb the development ladder. I am certainly willing to give this ``experiment'' a chance to see if it produces better results than our normal foreign assistance programs. Having said that, none of us in this body would support the use of American taxpayer dollars being used to displace American jobs or U.S. production or to pose an environmental or health hazard. There is also ample legislative history to suggest that restrictions of this kind are not unduly burdensome. USAID programs are already subject to somewhat similar restrictions as are U.S. Export/Import Bank and OPIC programs. None of these organizations have alleged that these restrictions impair their ability to carry out their activities. Opponents of this amendment suggest that this provision is unnecessarily restrictive and difficult to implement. I find that rather hard to accept. We clearly know that there are a number of sectors in this country that are particularly sensitive to foreign competition--steel, textiles to name a few. Over the last three years more than 2.3 million American manufacturing jobs have been lost. We must not unknowingly make matters worse by providing ill conceived subsidies to foreign competitors. My colleagues I am sure know that there is a U.S. government entity-- the International Trade Commission--which is charged with monitoring the impact that foreign production is having on U.S. industries and jobs in this country. Clearly there are enormous U.S. resources and information that will be readily available to the corporation to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars aren't being used to, in effective, subsidize the export of American jobs and production. So I don't accept the argument that this amendment is too difficult or draconian for the corporation to implement. Is this amendment more difficult to implement than a provision already in this bill which requires the corporation to make the judgement that a particular government is ``committed to just and democratic governance'' in order for it to be eligible for assistance from the Millennium Challenge Account? I don't believe it is. There is no reason to believe that the corporation should find this restriction any more burdensome. Frankly, I would think that the Administration would welcome this amendment because it will sensitize officials of the corporation that they must always be mindful that nothing that the corporation undertakes or supports should be injurious to American workers--the folks footing the bill for this experimental approach to helping poor countries lift themselves out of poverty. Some may argue that this provision is unnecessary, that the members of the corporation will be too smart to ever do anything to hurt U.S. workers or production. I would say to my colleagues that the conditions that currently exist in law with respect to this matter came about because U.S. agencies frankly weren't paying attention to the domestic effects because that wasn't in their ``job descriptions''. Moreover, the surest way for support to be eroded for the MCA is for it to become known that in its zeal to help MCA eligible countries, it has ignored the negative implications that ill conceived projects could have on American workers and production facilities. With this statutory red flag, it is less likely that such mistakes will be made. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Let me lastly say, aside from this particular amendment, how deeply proud I am of the chairman and the ranking member. When I was a member of committee, I think I had a full head of black hair the last time we had a State Department authorization bill on the floor of the Senate. This is not an accident. The last time we were on the floor and it was brought up, the Senator from Indiana was chairing the committee. I am proud to be a member of this committee and proud to be affiliated and associated with the two distinguished Senators, the chairman and the ranking member. They do a fabulous job on this committee. I hope we get this bill finished. This is important, not only for what it includes but also the statement it makes about how important we consider the role of the State Department, the aid programs which we administer, and the assistance provided to people all over the globe. My compliments to the chairman and the ranking member for a job tremendously well done.

Mr. DODD. I thank the chairman. Amendment No. 1190 To Amendment No. 1136

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I think we have to ask unanimous consent that the Dodd amendment be accepted.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to my colleague and dear friend, Senator Strom Thurmond, who passed away last night at the age of 100. A few months ago, as he was about to retire from the United States Senate, I said on this floor that I could not even begin to imagine the Senate without Senator Thurmond. And since he left this Chamber, I can't tell you how many times, during a vote, when the clerk would reach the lower half of the alphabet, I've looked up from wherever I was on the floor--expecting to see the man who was, for so long, South Carolina's senior Senator. He was truly an institution within this Chamber--a ranking Member, a committee chairman, a President pro tempore, and the first ever President pro tempore emeritus. He cast over 15,000 votes. His service spanned the terms of 10 U.S. Presidents. And he was directly involved in the confirmation hearings of all nine current Supreme Court Justices. Strom Thurmond's life was one devoted to public service. He was a teacher, a school superintendent, a State Senator, a judge, a war hero, Governor, and, of course, a Senator for nearly 50 years. At each step in his life, Strom Thurmond was searching for ways to serve his country. As a circuit judge in South Carolina, he took a leave of absence to volunteer to parachute behind enemy lines during the D-Day invasion at Normandy. For his valor in World War II, he received the Purple Heart, five Battle Stars for Bravery and numerous other decorations. And shortly after the war ended, he was elected Governor of South Carolina, an office he held for 4 years. But there is no doubt that when his constituents remember Strom Thurmond, their thoughts will immediately turn to his years as their Senator. He served them in this body for over one-fifth of our Nation's history. For many South Carolinians, when he retired earlier this year, he was the only senior Senator they had ever known. Strom Thurmond did not merely serve in the Senate; he did so, even during his final years, with unparalleled vigor. His commitment to the people of South Carolina was legendary--whether it was helping an elderly constituent get a Social Security check, or ensuring that the widow of a law enforcement officer could keep her husband's badge, Strom Thurmond never forgot the people who sent him to Washington. And the dozens of schools, buildings, parks, and streets in South Carolina that bear his name today show that they never forgot him either. I served with Strom Thurmond for 22 years in the Senate, and my father served with him for 12--that's 34 years in which a Dodd served in this body with Senator Thurmond. Both of us certainly had our share of disagreements with him. But those disagreements always came in the spirit of respect, thoughtfulness, and collegiality that are hallmarks of the Senate. And Strom Thurmond truly embodied those qualities. To the Dodd family, though, Strom Thurmond was more than just a colleague--he was a true and loyal friend. We will never forget the loyalty and friendship he showed us even during some trying and difficult times. It is impossible to look back at the years of Strom Thurmond's life without being amazed. He lived through the invention of the Model T Ford and the creation of the Internet. As a child, he read newspaper accounts of battles that were fought with bayonets in the trenches of Europe. And in his later years, he watched satellite television reports of conflicts won with smart bombs and laser technology. He experienced the Great Depression of the 1930s and the technology bubble of the 1990s. And as America matured and changed during his lifetime, Strom Thurmond grew, as well. Senator Thurmond didn't just live through a century of history. He was intimately involved in it. In each step that America took, Strom Thurmond was there. In that respect, and in so many others, Strom Thurmond was a truly unique and rare individual. I offer my condolences to the entire family of Strom Thurmond. We will miss him very much.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of S. 1, the Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003. However, I do so with great trepidation. While I intend to vote for the bill that is presently before the Senate, I believe that drastic changes are still necessary to make the benefit created by this legislation one that meets the needs of our senior citizens. I am also deeply concerned that Members on the other side of the aisle--as well as those in the House of Representatives, and the administration--will attempt to move this bill in a destructive direction during conference. Let me reiterate what I said in an earlier statement on this issue: we must not approve any Medicare reform measure that would force seniors to join private plans in order to receive a more generous prescription drug benefit. Such a measure would signal an end to the Medicare Program as we know it and should be rejected out of hand. I urge my colleagues to protect the Medicare that our seniors have come to rely on, and I urge the President not to sign any bill that privatizes Medicare. If such changes are made, I will not hesitate to oppose the conference report. Given these concerns, it is reasonable to ask why I am supporting this bill. The answer is quite simple--seniors in my home State of Connecticut and across the country have been waiting far too long for a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. And it is time that we in Congress heard them. Over the past month I had the opportunity to convene a series of forums on senior health care in Connecticut in an attempt to frame the scope of this debate. At these forums I heard from my constituents on many matters regarding their health care. But the present lack of coverage for prescription drugs under the Medicare program was by far the issue raised most often. At these forums I heard from seniors who literally could not afford to fill prescriptions called for by their doctors. I heard from elderly Medicare beneficiaries forced to choose between purchasing groceries or filling their prescriptions. I heard from seniors who were forced to skip dosages of their medicines in an attempt to stretch their limited supplies of needed medicines. I heard from Medicare beneficiaries requiring more than 10 prescribed medicines a day unable to afford even half of these prescriptions. Clearly, what I heard from hundreds of Connecticut's more than 500,000 Medicare beneficiaries is their grave concern over the present lack of a prescription drug benefit under the Medicare Program. I believe that the legislation about to be approved by this body offers an answer to those concerns. It is not the most complete answer, but it is a start--based on which we can improve in the future. It is a start because it will make so many seniors better off than they are today. And that should be our ultimate goal as legislators--to make people's lives better. Often this must be done incrementally, in steps. This bill is a positive first step. What do I mean when I say that it will make people better off? In Connecticut, one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries have incomes below 160 percent of poverty. For many of these seniors, drug costs can be crippling. They are forced to choose between putting food on the table, and buying the medicines that they need to live healthy lives. With the passage of this bill, these seniors will no longer have to make this choice. The new Medicare prescription drug benefit will cover most, if not all, of their drug costs. I congratulate Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, and other members of the Senate Finance Committee for including in this bill such a generous benefit for those low-income seniors. This legislation is not as clear cut for those seniors who have incomes above 160 percent of poverty. However, I believe that the majority will be helped by passage of this bill. The break even for this benefit--the point where an individual is better off with the benefit rather than just paying for all prescription drugs our of their own pocket--is about $1,100 in total annual drug costs. The average Medicare beneficiary spends approximately $2,300 on prescription medicines today. That number will undoubtedly be higher when this new benefit goes into effect in 2006. With the benefit created by this bill, that average beneficiary will realize nearly $600 in savings. The savings will be even greater for the 11 percent of beneficiaries who spend more than $5,000 per year on prescription drugs. These are the seniors facing the most sever health problems, and most in need of financial assistance. That is what this bill provides--even if it is not to the extent that many of us would have liked. I am voting for this bill because so many seniors in Connecticut and throughout the country stand to benefit. However, no bill is perfect and S. 1 clearly still leaves much room for improvement even as it moves toward final Senate passage. I am particularly disheartened that, despite numerous attempts over the past 2 weeks, we have failed to address concerns over the present bill's lack of adequate provisions to ensure that those companies presently providing their retirees with prescription drug coverage receive adequate Federal support for their laudable efforts. While the creation of a prescription drug benefit under the Medicare program is laudable, it should not come at the price of displacing the employer-based benefits that so many seniors have come to rely on. Additionally, I remain concerned that the gap in coverage in the present bill, the so-called donut hole, will leave many Medicare beneficiaries facing high prescription drug costs with no assistance at the very time when it is most needed. Over the past 2 weeks, I have both offered and supported amendments designed to provide assistance to those with prescription drug costs within the hole, especially those with lower incomes who can least afford any gap in coverage, that have failed to win support by the Senate. Failure to close this gap, in my view, constitutes a glaring failure, one that I hope can be reversed as this bill moves into conference. I also am concerned that S. 1 fails to adequately protect Medicare beneficiaries form the very understandable confusion and uncertainty that may surround them just as they begin to navigate the intricacies of a brand-new program. Specifically, if enacted the underlying bill will require Medicare beneficiaries choosing a prescription drug plan to stay with that plan for a minimum of 1 year. With the enactment of such broad and weeping changes to the Medicare program, I am fearful that many Medicare beneficiaries will face great uncertainty trying to find the best plan to meet their particular needs. For this reason, I offered an amendment to S. 1 that would have simply granted Medicare beneficiaries navigating this new benefit for the very first time the ability to switch plans as they seek to determine which plan fits their particular health care needs in the first 2 years of the bill's benefit. Unfortunately, this amendment was not agreed to and I remain concerned that without its protections, senior Medicare beneficiaries will be unfairly locked into plans that do not meet their needs. Mr. President, I am pleased that S. 1 represents a significant departure from previous plans supported by the administration that would have required Medicare beneficiaries to leave the traditional fee-for-service Medicare Program in order to receive coverage for their prescribed medicines. Such a move would be unconscionable as 89 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries today are in the traditional program. To force these beneficiaries to leave their present system of coverage, and most likely the doctor that they have come to know and trust, would not only create great disruption, it would also for the first time since the program's inception create a tiered benefit system under Medicare that would more greatly reward those who choose to join a private preferred provider organization, PPO, or health maintenance organization, HMO. And while I am pleased that the bill before us soundly rejects a tiered benefit system, I am deeply concerned that the plan presently taking shape in the House of Representatives appears to rely on such a flawed plan. As I said earlier, such a measure should be soundly rejected. So it is with great caution that we come to the final moments of debate on this important issue. Medicare's nearly 41 million beneficiaries clearly need assistance in affording their needed medicines. The result of our efforts over the past 2 weeks, and more important, the result of the coming conference committee on this legislation will greatly determine to what extent we assist our Nation's Medicare beneficiaries to afford their needed medicines. Clearly, a great opportunity is presently before us. As the underlying bill moves to conference committee. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that we seize this opportunity by strengthening the underlying bill. With passage of the bill presently before us, we now face a choice. We can insist on the good start that we have made here with passage of S. 1, and work to strengthen its provisions. Or, conversely, we can accede to the House legislation that in my view unfairly jeopardizes the traditional Medicare Program by tilting the system in favor of risky privatization schemes and against seniors. I ask my colleagues to join with me in working to ensure that any Medicare prescription drug legislation passed by this Congress is at least as strong as the bill we are about to vote on. A tilt toward the House-drafted language would signify not a strengthening of Medicare, but rather a weakening of this vital program's foundation and must be avoided at all costs. Nearly 38 years ago on July 9, 1965, this body passed the legislation creating the Federal Medicare Program sending it to a conference committee with the House. On that day, President Lyndon Baines Johnson remarked, ``This is a great day for older Americans. And it is a great day for America. For we have proved, once again, that the vitality of our democracy can shape the oldest of our values to the needs and obligations of today.'' Nearly four decades later, we are on the cusp of a similar challenge. Let us move Medicare toward the future without threatening its proven ability to provide for the health and well being of this Nation's senior citizens.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. There are two amendments. Amendment No. 998?

Mr. DODD. I thank the chairman. He has been very gracious. This is my last amendment. I have tried vainly over here in the last couple of days with some amendments--I don't know what the implications are; I appreciate his candor, in terms of not knowing the cost of this amendment--that would fill in the hole, to go from 160 to 250, for people in that category. The reason I offered it is it occurred to me if you are paying that much in prescription drugs, somewhere around $5,000 a year for prescription drugs, and you are making $30,000 as a couple or $22,000 as an individual, you probably have a pretty serious illness if you are paying about $5,000 in prescription drug costs. It occurs to me that during that hole, we might try to do a little more. We have done that, as the chairman says, very graciously for the desperately poor in this country. For those reasons, I urge the adoption of the amendment. I will let the chairman proceed. The first amendment, I guess, we will do in that order.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will read a pertinent passage because this is really the heart of this issue. I mentioned earlier, one-third of all retirees get coverage under the private employer-based plans. If CBO is right, almost 40 percent of retirees will lose their coverage under this bill, and employers would start dropping them because they do not get the subsidies, then I think we have to understand what the implications mean for a lot of people. I do not believe my colleagues intend this to be the case, but this is what is going to happen if we are not careful. The letter reads in part: If the Medicare drug bill before the Senate, S. 1, becomes law, 37 percent of retirees who now have employer-sponsored health benefits will lose that coverage. That is according to CBO. That's 4.4 million retirees that will be made worse off if S. 1, as drafted, is enacted into law. Such an act will represent an enormous and irreversible blow to the employer- based system that is the backbone of our nation's health care system. The letter goes on: . . . any provision that encourages employers to drop their retiree benefits will only end up costing the federal government more--and hurt millions of seniors in the process. . . . We urge you to support the [Dodd] amendment aimed at encouraging both public and private employers to continue providing retiree health benefits. Congress must enact a drug benefit that supports, not threatens, our fragile employer- based system of health coverage. That is what my amendment is designed to do: to provide that subsidy if the retiree takes the option of continuing in the employer-based plan as the primary provider for health care coverage. If that is the case, then I think we ought to provide that encouragement and inducement. They make a huge difference in people's lives. If CBO is right and we do not adopt this amendment, and 4.5 million people have a worse plan as a result of our action, we have taken a step back rather than a step forward for that many seniors in our country. I don't know of anyone in this Chamber who would like to be a party to that. For those reasons, I hope my colleagues could support the man from Connecticut on his amendment.

Mr. DODD. Let me briefly explain this amendment. I commend the committee. This bill does an awful lot for people who are really hurting. I want the chairman to know I strongly support his efforts. Those who are really hurting get real help with this bill. I commend the committee for focusing on that. I commend him for it. What this amendment does is a little different. We have all been talking about donut holes. People watching this debate may wonder what we are talking about, but the donut hole is in the plan when you reach a certain level of your costs of prescription drugs. Even though you keep paying the premiums of $35 a month, if your costs run somewhere around $4,500 to $5,800, during that period you are in the eye of the hurricane, and you do not get any help during that period. That is not true if you are below 160 percent of poverty. If you are below 160 percent of poverty, we will provide help to you even while you are in the donut hole. My amendment effects those in the donut hole who are between 160 and 250 percent of poverty. That is an individual who makes $22,000 a year or a couple earning $30,000 a year. These are people who are really hurting out there as well. They are not as desperately poor as those at 160 percent of poverty, but they are not much better off. But just in the donut hole, could we say that those people might get a 50/50 deal in the donut hole, between 160 and 250 percent of poverty? In that one set of circumstances where the costs are running from $4,500 to $5,800, you get a 50/50 deal if you are making $22,500, or a couple, $30,000, that is what the amendment does. I know the chairman is going to say these are great ideas and there is a cost associated, and there is. But we ought to provide some help to people in those earnings groups--$22,000 if you are single or $30,000 as a couple. These are probably cancer patients or patients with serious medical costs. If you are paying somewhere around $4,500 a year, up to $5,800 a year, you have a serious health care problem. If you are making $22,000 or $30,000, as an individual or a married couple, then to provide 50 percent of the cost of those prescription drugs while you are in that donut hole I do not think is asking too much of us. We should add just a little bit to accommodate these not even middle- income people. It would be an unfair description to say these are middle-income people. There is nothing magic about 250 percent. I just tried to reach out a bit to that constituency here that will continue paying the $35 a month. They have to do that. They do not get anything. If we could just reach a little further to that constituency, beyond the 160 percent, between $4,500 and $5,800 in total spending. We try to provide an additional bit of help for you, 50 percent of that cost. We can't pick up all of it, that would probably be too expensive. I don't know what the CBO numbers would be, but we will put you in the 50/50 bracket up to 250 percent of poverty just while you are in that situation. That is what the amendment does. It is no more complicated than that. Again, I compliment the chairman. They have done a very good job taking care of the very desperately poor in the country. But for people who are not quite desperately poor--although I suggest some may tell you that living on $22,000 a year as a single person or a couple over the age of 65 with $30,000 worth of income, they are not out partying. These people probably make choices between food and rent and medicines, particularly if you are paying $4,500 a year or up to $5,800 a year for prescription drugs. That comes off the $22,000 or your $30,000. You do not have to do the math to know where you are living, what circumstances you are under. So this is designed to provide some additional relief for people in that category, moving it up just a little bit, up to that 250 percent from 160 percent while you are in the donut hole, only there, to get a 50/50 break. You still pay 50 percent of the cost. You don't get 100 percent relief, but 50 percent of the cost, and that is what the second amendment is designed to do. I apologize for racing, but I am trying to get this in in the 5 minutes. This is obviously complicated stuff. I am trying to accommodate my colleagues who I know have other engagements this evening to explain what the amendments do. The time does not justify the context, as to how important this would be to a lot of people in this country. I don't know the numbers of the people in this income category, but I have to believe before we get done with this, to provide some additional help for people in that category ought not to be too much of a stretch when you consider that $22,450 for an individual and $30,000 for a couple is going to put a lot of burden, a lot of pressure on you if you are already paying somewhere between $4,500 and $5,800 in prescription drug costs. This amendment would help those people. I hope the man from Connecticut might impress the chairman on this one with his support. Hope springs eternal. I keep knocking on the door, seeing if I can't get some help.

Mr. DODD. I will take 1 minute on this amendment and move to my second amendment. This is an optional choice. We are not requiring employers to retain an employer-based plan. We are saying we know already, based on CBO's analysis, that close to 40 percent of people under the employer-based plans will be dropped. We know that. Our primary responsibility in this bill is to provide a good prescription drug benefit for people. We do not want to be in a situation of actually causing people to have a worse plan than they have. My point is not to increase spending but to say, if you are going to provide prescription drug coverage as an employer--and I want you to continue doing this; and we are being told 37 percent of the people will be dropped--we will increase the subsidy. To encourage employers to continue doing it seems to me to be in our interest. That is why I offer this amendment and why it is so strongly supported by labor unions who believe this will be a major blow to almost 4.5 million retirees in the country. I urge adoption of this amendment. Amendment No. 970 The second amendment I call up is amendment No. 970, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Meghan Taira, a fellow on Senator Daschle's staff, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of S. 1.