Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the late King David Holmes, Sr., a life-long resident and civil rights leader from the city of Waterbury, CT. ``King David,'' as he was affectionately known, was born and raised in Waterbury. After graduating from Crosby High School in 1940, he served in the Army during World War II. Returning to Waterbury after his tour of duty, King David worked at Scoville Manufacturing for 30 years, retiring as a shop foreman. He also spent 11 years working for the former Connecticut Department of Human Resources, now known as the Department of Social Services. As the civil rights movement came to its own in the late 1950s and early 1960s, King David quickly became a local leader in advocating the needs of Waterbury's African-American community. He organized marches and protests against businesses and schools in the city practicing discrimination. He also founded the Waterbury Black Democratic Club and chaired New Opportunities for Waterbury, Inc., which successfully financed the construction of new housing for low-income individuals and families in North Square. As a member of the Waterbury Democratic Town Committee, King David sought to organize the city's African-American community politically. He strongly promoted local and State African-American political leaders and worked on the Senatorial campaigns of Abraham Ribicoff and my father, Thomas Dodd, both of whom fully supported equal rights. In this regard, I am pleased to say that my family has greatly cherished the friendship and support of this fine man and his family. King David was known for his open mind and willingness to work with all people for a better Waterbury and a better America. He will be sadly missed. But his social and political contributions will have a lasting impact for many years to come. King David was predeceased by his daughter, Muriel. He is survived by three children, Patricia, Maria, and King David, Jr., by Erlynde Holmes DePina, and by ten grandchildren.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with colleagues Senator Kennedy and Senator Dayton to introduce the Leave No Child Behind Act of 2003, legislation that provides a comprehensive blueprint for addressing the needs of our Nation's children. When Representative George Miller and I introduced the Act to Leave No Child Behind in the last Congress, in May of 2001, this Nation was looking at an unprecedented Federal budget surplus of some $5.6 trillion that Federal budget experts forecasted for the years 2002- 2011. But, just 2 years later, that projected surplus is gone. Instead, Federal budget experts now predict a deficit of more than $2 trillion for those years, the worst fiscal reversal in our history. Where did the money go? Obviously, the current economic slowdown has had an impact insofar as it has caused a drop in Federal receipts. However, much of the surplus was lost to an enormous tax bill that contained mostly tax breaks for the largest companies and most affluent individuals, which was enacted during the spring of 2001. And now, to make matters worse, the President is calling for more tax breaks, again, mostly to be enjoyed by the wealthy, which Federal budget experts estimate will cost $1.5 trillion over the next decade. At the same time, the President has proposed to severely weaken our Nation's efforts on behalf of families and children, particularly poor families with children. I listened to the President call for a more compassionate America in his State of the Union Address. Little did I expect that he was calling for others to be compassionate so that he would not have to be. The budget that we received from the President earlier this month is the worst I have seen for families with children in decades. Despite the fact that millions of parents struggle with the cost of child care, that the majority of States have long waiting lists, and that we vastly need to improve the quality of care, the President proposes to freeze child care assistance in each of the next five years. At the same time, the President proposes to increase the number of hours that parents on welfare are required to work and increase the overall number of parents on welfare who are required to work. All of this is without a dime more for child care. Who is going to watch these children? It is an undeniable fact that additional work requirements will cause an increase in the amount of child care parents need. And, additional hours of child care cost money. The risk is that States will rob Peter to pay Paul. They will shift child care assistance from the working poor, many of whom might be former welfare recipients, to help those on welfare meet their child care costs. This makes no sense. For Head Start, the President proposes a modest increase, barely enough to cover inflation despite the fact that Head Start reaches only 60 percent of eligible 3- and 4-year-old children and only 3 percent of eligible infants and toddlers. In lieu of a real expansion in the program, the President proposes giving current Head Start funds used by community programs to States. This would mean that after 38 years of success, Head Start would no longer be a national program, with national performance standards, offering comprehensive services to our Nation's poorest children--those most likely to be struggling once in school. Head Start works. Study after study shows the gains Head Start children make. Since Head Start graduates make up only 8 percent of incoming kindergarten students, it makes no sense to raid the Head Start money to reach the other 92 percent of children who are not in Head Start. And yet, that could very well be the result of the President's proposal. What we know in our country is that many of our young people need a safe place to go after school, particularly at-risk youth who would otherwise be likely to go home alone, where in the absence of adult supervision, they are more likely to smoke, drink, have sex, or engage in crime. And yet, the President proposes to cut the 21st Century after-school program by $400 million. That cut would cause some 570,000 children to be discharged next year from after-school programs across America. The President proposes deep cuts in Federal housing assistance, allowing States to receive foster care as a block grant instead of individual payments based on children actually in foster care, and potentially eliminating health insurance for millions of children through a block grant of Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. At the same time, according to the National Governor's Association, State economies are on the whole in the worst shape since World War II. States are operating with billions of dollars in the red with State constitutional requirements to balance their budgets. It is clear what is going on here. Instead of providing more resources to help States during these tough times, the President is raiding poverty programs for children and using that money to help pay for tax benefits for those who are at the very top of the income scale. This reckless policy only worsens the budget shortfalls facing so many States. Children are one-quarter of our population. But, they are 100 percent of our future. It makes no sense to shortchange our investment in children. America's children today are living under some staggering challenges. Nearly 12 million children live in poverty; over 9 million children have no health coverage; about 7 million children go home alone each week after school; and, nearly 1 million children are abused and neglected. We can do better for our children. We should do better for children. We don't need another tax break for America's wealthiest citizens. What we need is a sound investment in our Nation's children. The legislation we are introducing today is called, ``An Act to Leave No Child Behind.'' We are committed to this one principle beyond all others. Not just a slogan, but as a means to define an urgent national priority. We need to make sure that we not only talk about leaving no child behind, but that we actually take steps to do so. Introducing this bill is the first such step. Every word on every page is focused on the same purpose--lifting our children up, giving each child an opportunity, helping each child to have a safe and rewarding life. Under the Act to Leave No Child Behind, every child in America would have health coverage. No child in America would go to bed at night aching from hunger. We would use our tax code to lift millions of children out of poverty--not provide more hand-outs for the most wealthy in this country. It's time to ensure that every American child has an opportunity to attend Head Start, Pre-K, or quality child care to begin a lifetime of learning. It's time to ensure that every American child can read by 4th grade, and read at grade level. And, it's time to take dramatic new steps to address the needs of children who are abused and neglected every year. Budget experts predict that the President's tax plan will give millionaires an average tax break of $88,800 each. For that same amount of money, we could fully fund Head Start and provide health insurance to every one of the 9 million uninsured children. We have the resources. If we can afford to give $88,800 on average to every millionaire, then the question is really about priorities and political will--not resources. If we join together, we can transform this Nation and give each and every child his God-given right to grow and flourish to all he can be, to his or her fullest potential so that all children can realize their dreams. I ask unanimous consent to have a summary of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with colleagues Senator Kennedy and Senator Dayton to introduce the Leave No Child Behind Act of 2003, legislation that provides a comprehensive blueprint for addressing the needs of our Nation's children. When Representative George Miller and I introduced the Act to Leave No Child Behind in the last Congress, in May of 2001, this Nation was looking at an unprecedented Federal budget surplus of some $5.6 trillion that Federal budget experts forecasted for the years 2002- 2011. But, just 2 years later, that projected surplus is gone. Instead, Federal budget experts now predict a deficit of more than $2 trillion for those years, the worst fiscal reversal in our history. Where did the money go? Obviously, the current economic slowdown has had an impact insofar as it has caused a drop in Federal receipts. However, much of the surplus was lost to an enormous tax bill that contained mostly tax breaks for the largest companies and most affluent individuals, which was enacted during the spring of 2001. And now, to make matters worse, the President is calling for more tax breaks, again, mostly to be enjoyed by the wealthy, which Federal budget experts estimate will cost $1.5 trillion over the next decade. At the same time, the President has proposed to severely weaken our Nation's efforts on behalf of families and children, particularly poor families with children. I listened to the President call for a more compassionate America in his State of the Union Address. Little did I expect that he was calling for others to be compassionate so that he would not have to be. The budget that we received from the President earlier this month is the worst I have seen for families with children in decades. Despite the fact that millions of parents struggle with the cost of child care, that the majority of States have long waiting lists, and that we vastly need to improve the quality of care, the President proposes to freeze child care assistance in each of the next five years. At the same time, the President proposes to increase the number of hours that parents on welfare are required to work and increase the overall number of parents on welfare who are required to work. All of this is without a dime more for child care. Who is going to watch these children? It is an undeniable fact that additional work requirements will cause an increase in the amount of child care parents need. And, additional hours of child care cost money. The risk is that States will rob Peter to pay Paul. They will shift child care assistance from the working poor, many of whom might be former welfare recipients, to help those on welfare meet their child care costs. This makes no sense. For Head Start, the President proposes a modest increase, barely enough to cover inflation despite the fact that Head Start reaches only 60 percent of eligible 3- and 4-year-old children and only 3 percent of eligible infants and toddlers. In lieu of a real expansion in the program, the President proposes giving current Head Start funds used by community programs to States. This would mean that after 38 years of success, Head Start would no longer be a national program, with national performance standards, offering comprehensive services to our Nation's poorest children--those most likely to be struggling once in school. Head Start works. Study after study shows the gains Head Start children make. Since Head Start graduates make up only 8 percent of incoming kindergarten students, it makes no sense to raid the Head Start money to reach the other 92 percent of children who are not in Head Start. And yet, that could very well be the result of the President's proposal. What we know in our country is that many of our young people need a safe place to go after school, particularly at-risk youth who would otherwise be likely to go home alone, where in the absence of adult supervision, they are more likely to smoke, drink, have sex, or engage in crime. And yet, the President proposes to cut the 21st Century after-school program by $400 million. That cut would cause some 570,000 children to be discharged next year from after-school programs across America. The President proposes deep cuts in Federal housing assistance, allowing States to receive foster care as a block grant instead of individual payments based on children actually in foster care, and potentially eliminating health insurance for millions of children through a block grant of Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. At the same time, according to the National Governor's Association, State economies are on the whole in the worst shape since World War II. States are operating with billions of dollars in the red with State constitutional requirements to balance their budgets. It is clear what is going on here. Instead of providing more resources to help States during these tough times, the President is raiding poverty programs for children and using that money to help pay for tax benefits for those who are at the very top of the income scale. This reckless policy only worsens the budget shortfalls facing so many States. Children are one-quarter of our population. But, they are 100 percent of our future. It makes no sense to shortchange our investment in children. America's children today are living under some staggering challenges. Nearly 12 million children live in poverty; over 9 million children have no health coverage; about 7 million children go home alone each week after school; and, nearly 1 million children are abused and neglected. We can do better for our children. We should do better for children. We don't need another tax break for America's wealthiest citizens. What we need is a sound investment in our Nation's children. The legislation we are introducing today is called, ``An Act to Leave No Child Behind.'' We are committed to this one principle beyond all others. Not just a slogan, but as a means to define an urgent national priority. We need to make sure that we not only talk about leaving no child behind, but that we actually take steps to do so. Introducing this bill is the first such step. Every word on every page is focused on the same purpose--lifting our children up, giving each child an opportunity, helping each child to have a safe and rewarding life. Under the Act to Leave No Child Behind, every child in America would have health coverage. No child in America would go to bed at night aching from hunger. We would use our tax code to lift millions of children out of poverty--not provide more hand-outs for the most wealthy in this country. It's time to ensure that every American child has an opportunity to attend Head Start, Pre-K, or quality child care to begin a lifetime of learning. It's time to ensure that every American child can read by 4th grade, and read at grade level. And, it's time to take dramatic new steps to address the needs of children who are abused and neglected every year. Budget experts predict that the President's tax plan will give millionaires an average tax break of $88,800 each. For that same amount of money, we could fully fund Head Start and provide health insurance to every one of the 9 million uninsured children. We have the resources. If we can afford to give $88,800 on average to every millionaire, then the question is really about priorities and political will--not resources. If we join together, we can transform this Nation and give each and every child his God-given right to grow and flourish to all he can be, to his or her fullest potential so that all children can realize their dreams. I ask unanimous consent to have a summary of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise with our colleague Senator Lieberman today to reintroduce two pieces of legislation intended to improve the process by which the Federal Government acknowledges the sovereign rights of American Indians and their tribal governments. The first bill is called the Tribal Recognition and Indian Bureau Enhancement Act, or the TRIBE Act. The second bill I am introducing is a bill to provide assistance grants to financially needy tribal groups and municipalities so that those groups and towns can more fully and fairly participate in certain decision-making processes at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I offer these bills with a renewed sense of hope, knowing that they will contribute to the larger national conversation about how the Federal Government can best fulfill its obligations to America's native peoples. Senator Campbell and Senator Inouye have provided invaluable leadership on this issue. The bills I am reintroducing were the subject of a hearing before the Indian Affairs Committee last fall. While neither bill was reported out of Committee before the end of the last Congress, I hope that the Indian Affairs Committee will continue its work on these and related bills--including Senator Campbell's recently introduced tribal recognition bill--and will see fit to address the problems that currently plague the recognition process. Currently, there are some 200 petitions pending at the Bureau of Indian Affairs by groups from throughout our Nation seeking Federal recognition as Indian tribes. Nine of these are in the State of Connecticut. These are in addition to the two tribes already recognized in our State: the Mashantucket Pequot tribe and the Mohegan Tribal Nation. I want to emphasize that as a State, Connecticut has embraced its two established and federally recognized tribes--the Mashantucket Pequot tribe and the Mohegan Tribe. They have generated thousands of jobs for Connecticut residents--primarily in the gaming industry. In fact, Foxwoods Casino, owned by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, is the largest gambling casino in the world. Both tribes have delivered hundreds of millions of dollars into the treasuries of our State and towns dollars that have been used to help meet needs in housing, health care, education, and transportation for people throughout the State. Like any large enterprise, these casinos have placed significant demands on the roadways, water systems, and police and fire departments. By some estimates, an average of 20,000 to 40,000 people visit these two casinos every day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Clearly, Federal recognition is an important legal status that can profoundly change both Indian and non-Indian communities. Our experience in Connecticut has taught us that Federal recognition is too important to be treated lightly. I would not be back before the Senate to address this issue if I did not believe that there are serious defects in the process for tribal recognition. This is a significant issue for Connecticut, but it is also a matter of concern for the entire country. The tribal recognition process is broken. And the process is harming communities and tribes across the country. The problems with the current recognition process have been well documented and I do not intend to restate all that has been said and written about the subject in recent years. Suffice it to say that it is widely recognized that the process is failing both tribal groups and other interested parties. The General Accounting Office, in a highly- critical study released in November 2001, summarized the problem when it concluded that ``because of weaknesses in the recognition process, the basis for BIA's tribal recognition decisions is not always clear and the length of time involved can be substantial.'' Senator Campbell, Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, has eloquently pointed out the irony that descendants of native peoples who have lived in North America for thousands of years are the only Americans that must be ``documented'' to prove their status. How much more bitter that irony has become now that a process established to be fair and considerate toward native peoples is, in many ways, working against them. Let me share with our colleagues some compelling facts, which I have referenced here on the floor of the Senate before. Decisions on tribal petitions do not take months to make. They typically take years--and sometimes decades, thanks to understaffing and the demands of complying with FOIA requests and litigation. At its current pace, it will take well over 100 years for BIA to clear just its existing backlog of tribal recognition petitions. Can you imagine any group of Americans having to wait years or decades to have their legal rights vindicated? We would not and do not tolerate those kinds of delays in other areas of federal administrative law. Yet they are commonplace with respect to groups seeking Federal tribal status. Tribes, towns, and other interested parties have often had their evidentiary submissions ignored. During consideration of two recent petitions, the BIA decided it would no longer accept evidence submitted on the petitions--but the agency failed to tell interested parties for eleven months. In the meantime, neighboring parties and other interested parties had spent large sums of time and money to submit voluminous additional evidence bearing on whether or not the petitions should have been granted. In some cases, the seven mandatory criteria for recognition have been selectively ignored by BIA. In the case of the Eastern Pequot and Paucatuck Eastern Pequot petitions, two of the seven criteria for recognition were waived by the then-Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. According to published reports, he effectively ignored the recommendations of the historians and genealogists on his staff who had found that those criteria had not been met. In another case, there was a 70-year period during which a petitioner could produce no evidence that it continuously existed as a distinct community exhibiting political authority. The BIA's technical staff concluded that a 70-year gap was too long to support a finding of continuous existence. Despite the lack of evidence, the Assistant Secretary decided that continuous existence could be presumed, and so he went on to deem this criterion to be met and to recognize the tribe. Again, the bottom line is that the recognition process is broken. Last year, one of our colleagues--a long-time champion for American Indian causes--called the current recognition process a ``scandal.'' I agree and I think it's bad public policy to allow Federal agencies to continue to make decisions when their decision-making procedures are so flawed. The current process is arcane, burdensome, time consuming, difficult to understand, and too easily manipulated for political purposes. The evidence is overwhelming that the rules of recognition are being applied strictly for some and bent or ignored altogether for others. That's wrong. That's unfair. The Chairwoman of the Duwamish Tribe of Washington State has said she and her people ``have known and felt the effects of 20 years of administrative inaccuracies, delays and the blase approach in . . . handling and . . . processing the Duwamish petitions.'' Because the process is so complicated and so different from other, more familiar, administrative procedures, it is hard for people to have confidence in the BIA's decisions--especially when the BIA appears to be applying the rules differently in different cases. The reforms proposed by the TRIBE Act are modest. The TRIBE Act will permit any Indian group in the continental United States that desires to be acknowledged as an Indian Tribe to file a petition with the BIA. If the group can satisfy the mandatory criteria for federal acknowledgment, then the group would be recognized. The legislation simply requires better notice to Indians and non- Indian groups. It provides for better fact-finding and it requires the Secretary to publish a complete explanation of final decisions regarding documented petitions. The bill improves the recognition process in the following specific ways: first, it would authorize $10 million per year to better enable the Bureau of Indian Affairs to consider petitions in a thorough, fair, and timely manner. Second, it would provide for improved notice of a petition to key persons who may have an interest in a petition, including: the governor and attorney general of the state where a tribe seeks recognition; other tribes; and elected leaders of towns in the vicinity of a tribe seeking recognition, third, it would require that a petitioner meets each of the seven mandatory criteria for federal recognition spelled out in the current Code of Federal Regulations, and fourth, it would require that a decision on a petition be published in the Federal Register, which would include a detailed explanation of the findings of fact and of law with respect to each of the seven mandatory criteria for recognition. I want to emphasize what this legislation would not do. It would not revoke or in any way alter the status of tribes whose petitions for federal recognition have already been granted. It would not restrict in any way the existing prerogatives and privileges of such tribes. Tribes will retain their right to self-determination consistent with their sovereign status. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the TRIBE Act will not dictate outcomes or micro-manage the agency. As I have often said, I believe that every tribal Government that is entitled to recognition should be recognized and should be recognized in an appropriately speedy process. But I also think we have to make sure that the BIA's conclusions are accurate so there won't be endless questions and disputes over the Bureau's decisions. Every recognition decision carries with it a legal significance that should endure forever. Each recognition decision made by the BIA is a foundation upon which relationships between tribes and States, tribes and towns, Indians and non-Indians will be built for generations to come. We need to make sure that the foundation upon which these lasting decisions are built is sound and will withstand the test of time. We as a Nation cannot afford to build relationships between sovereigns on the shifting sands of a broken bureaucratic procedure. Let me close with a word about the second bill I am introducing. This bill will provide grants to allow poor tribes and municipalities an opportunity to effectively participate in important decision-making processes. When the Federal Government, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, makes decisions that will change communities, it is only right that the government should provide a meaningful opportunity for those communities, whether tribal or non-tribal, to be heard. As we consider how best to reform the process for tribal recognition, we ought to be guided by the firm principles embedded in the bills I am offering here today: fairness, openness, respect, and a common interest in bettering the quality of life for all Americans. I look forward to discussing these and other ideas with Chairman Campbell, Senator Inouye, and my colleagues here in the Senate, tribal leaders, and others who believe the time for reform has come.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise with our colleague Senator Lieberman today to reintroduce two pieces of legislation intended to improve the process by which the Federal Government acknowledges the sovereign rights of American Indians and their tribal governments. The first bill is called the Tribal Recognition and Indian Bureau Enhancement Act, or the TRIBE Act. The second bill I am introducing is a bill to provide assistance grants to financially needy tribal groups and municipalities so that those groups and towns can more fully and fairly participate in certain decision-making processes at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I offer these bills with a renewed sense of hope, knowing that they will contribute to the larger national conversation about how the Federal Government can best fulfill its obligations to America's native peoples. Senator Campbell and Senator Inouye have provided invaluable leadership on this issue. The bills I am reintroducing were the subject of a hearing before the Indian Affairs Committee last fall. While neither bill was reported out of Committee before the end of the last Congress, I hope that the Indian Affairs Committee will continue its work on these and related bills--including Senator Campbell's recently introduced tribal recognition bill--and will see fit to address the problems that currently plague the recognition process. Currently, there are some 200 petitions pending at the Bureau of Indian Affairs by groups from throughout our Nation seeking Federal recognition as Indian tribes. Nine of these are in the State of Connecticut. These are in addition to the two tribes already recognized in our State: the Mashantucket Pequot tribe and the Mohegan Tribal Nation. I want to emphasize that as a State, Connecticut has embraced its two established and federally recognized tribes--the Mashantucket Pequot tribe and the Mohegan Tribe. They have generated thousands of jobs for Connecticut residents--primarily in the gaming industry. In fact, Foxwoods Casino, owned by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, is the largest gambling casino in the world. Both tribes have delivered hundreds of millions of dollars into the treasuries of our State and towns dollars that have been used to help meet needs in housing, health care, education, and transportation for people throughout the State. Like any large enterprise, these casinos have placed significant demands on the roadways, water systems, and police and fire departments. By some estimates, an average of 20,000 to 40,000 people visit these two casinos every day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Clearly, Federal recognition is an important legal status that can profoundly change both Indian and non-Indian communities. Our experience in Connecticut has taught us that Federal recognition is too important to be treated lightly. I would not be back before the Senate to address this issue if I did not believe that there are serious defects in the process for tribal recognition. This is a significant issue for Connecticut, but it is also a matter of concern for the entire country. The tribal recognition process is broken. And the process is harming communities and tribes across the country. The problems with the current recognition process have been well documented and I do not intend to restate all that has been said and written about the subject in recent years. Suffice it to say that it is widely recognized that the process is failing both tribal groups and other interested parties. The General Accounting Office, in a highly- critical study released in November 2001, summarized the problem when it concluded that ``because of weaknesses in the recognition process, the basis for BIA's tribal recognition decisions is not always clear and the length of time involved can be substantial.'' Senator Campbell, Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, has eloquently pointed out the irony that descendants of native peoples who have lived in North America for thousands of years are the only Americans that must be ``documented'' to prove their status. How much more bitter that irony has become now that a process established to be fair and considerate toward native peoples is, in many ways, working against them. Let me share with our colleagues some compelling facts, which I have referenced here on the floor of the Senate before. Decisions on tribal petitions do not take months to make. They typically take years--and sometimes decades, thanks to understaffing and the demands of complying with FOIA requests and litigation. At its current pace, it will take well over 100 years for BIA to clear just its existing backlog of tribal recognition petitions. Can you imagine any group of Americans having to wait years or decades to have their legal rights vindicated? We would not and do not tolerate those kinds of delays in other areas of federal administrative law. Yet they are commonplace with respect to groups seeking Federal tribal status. Tribes, towns, and other interested parties have often had their evidentiary submissions ignored. During consideration of two recent petitions, the BIA decided it would no longer accept evidence submitted on the petitions--but the agency failed to tell interested parties for eleven months. In the meantime, neighboring parties and other interested parties had spent large sums of time and money to submit voluminous additional evidence bearing on whether or not the petitions should have been granted. In some cases, the seven mandatory criteria for recognition have been selectively ignored by BIA. In the case of the Eastern Pequot and Paucatuck Eastern Pequot petitions, two of the seven criteria for recognition were waived by the then-Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. According to published reports, he effectively ignored the recommendations of the historians and genealogists on his staff who had found that those criteria had not been met. In another case, there was a 70-year period during which a petitioner could produce no evidence that it continuously existed as a distinct community exhibiting political authority. The BIA's technical staff concluded that a 70-year gap was too long to support a finding of continuous existence. Despite the lack of evidence, the Assistant Secretary decided that continuous existence could be presumed, and so he went on to deem this criterion to be met and to recognize the tribe. Again, the bottom line is that the recognition process is broken. Last year, one of our colleagues--a long-time champion for American Indian causes--called the current recognition process a ``scandal.'' I agree and I think it's bad public policy to allow Federal agencies to continue to make decisions when their decision-making procedures are so flawed. The current process is arcane, burdensome, time consuming, difficult to understand, and too easily manipulated for political purposes. The evidence is overwhelming that the rules of recognition are being applied strictly for some and bent or ignored altogether for others. That's wrong. That's unfair. The Chairwoman of the Duwamish Tribe of Washington State has said she and her people ``have known and felt the effects of 20 years of administrative inaccuracies, delays and the blase approach in . . . handling and . . . processing the Duwamish petitions.'' Because the process is so complicated and so different from other, more familiar, administrative procedures, it is hard for people to have confidence in the BIA's decisions--especially when the BIA appears to be applying the rules differently in different cases. The reforms proposed by the TRIBE Act are modest. The TRIBE Act will permit any Indian group in the continental United States that desires to be acknowledged as an Indian Tribe to file a petition with the BIA. If the group can satisfy the mandatory criteria for federal acknowledgment, then the group would be recognized. The legislation simply requires better notice to Indians and non- Indian groups. It provides for better fact-finding and it requires the Secretary to publish a complete explanation of final decisions regarding documented petitions. The bill improves the recognition process in the following specific ways: first, it would authorize $10 million per year to better enable the Bureau of Indian Affairs to consider petitions in a thorough, fair, and timely manner. Second, it would provide for improved notice of a petition to key persons who may have an interest in a petition, including: the governor and attorney general of the state where a tribe seeks recognition; other tribes; and elected leaders of towns in the vicinity of a tribe seeking recognition, third, it would require that a petitioner meets each of the seven mandatory criteria for federal recognition spelled out in the current Code of Federal Regulations, and fourth, it would require that a decision on a petition be published in the Federal Register, which would include a detailed explanation of the findings of fact and of law with respect to each of the seven mandatory criteria for recognition. I want to emphasize what this legislation would not do. It would not revoke or in any way alter the status of tribes whose petitions for federal recognition have already been granted. It would not restrict in any way the existing prerogatives and privileges of such tribes. Tribes will retain their right to self-determination consistent with their sovereign status. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the TRIBE Act will not dictate outcomes or micro-manage the agency. As I have often said, I believe that every tribal Government that is entitled to recognition should be recognized and should be recognized in an appropriately speedy process. But I also think we have to make sure that the BIA's conclusions are accurate so there won't be endless questions and disputes over the Bureau's decisions. Every recognition decision carries with it a legal significance that should endure forever. Each recognition decision made by the BIA is a foundation upon which relationships between tribes and States, tribes and towns, Indians and non-Indians will be built for generations to come. We need to make sure that the foundation upon which these lasting decisions are built is sound and will withstand the test of time. We as a Nation cannot afford to build relationships between sovereigns on the shifting sands of a broken bureaucratic procedure. Let me close with a word about the second bill I am introducing. This bill will provide grants to allow poor tribes and municipalities an opportunity to effectively participate in important decision-making processes. When the Federal Government, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, makes decisions that will change communities, it is only right that the government should provide a meaningful opportunity for those communities, whether tribal or non-tribal, to be heard. As we consider how best to reform the process for tribal recognition, we ought to be guided by the firm principles embedded in the bills I am offering here today: fairness, openness, respect, and a common interest in bettering the quality of life for all Americans. I look forward to discussing these and other ideas with Chairman Campbell, Senator Inouye, and my colleagues here in the Senate, tribal leaders, and others who believe the time for reform has come.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to address the issue of our fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations conference report. Let me begin by, first of all, commending Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd. Conferencing these bills is no easy task. Each of us has pieces of these bills that we care about deeply. And the Chair and Ranking Member have the awesome responsibility of trying to pull all of this together. Although I am disappointed by many parts of the conference report, I also want to begin by paying tribute to the chairman and the ranking member and their staffs for the tremendous effort they put into this bill and to try to accommodate the many requests they received and the tremendous demands made of them. Certainly, in many respects this bill is an improvement over the budget that was submitted to us by the President. Unfortunately, that is not a very high standard, by this Senator's calculation. The standard that we must meet in each year's appropriations is to address the needs of the American people. Unfortunately, this bill neither reflects the priorities of the American people, nor does it do nearly enough to address our national needs. I will begin by discussing education. There are many other parts to this bill, but education is a particular priority and source of debate and contention for the American public. Regardless of where you live, any constituency will tell you that one of their major concerns is the quality of our public education at the elementary, secondary, and higher education levels. It is critically important when you consider how significant this is to the American public that this bill should reflect to the greatest extent possible the interests of the American people in improving the quality of education. I thank the committee for something they did in the bill on education, instead of just sounding like a critic on everything. We exempted under this bill, thanks to the leadership of Senator Stevens and others, Head Start from the across-the-board cuts. I am grateful to them for that. That is going to make a difference to a lot of kids in the country who count on Head Start. I thank him and his staff for doing that for these young people. That would have lost somewhere around 12- to 22,000 kids, had we applied the across-the-board cut to the existing funds on Head Start. We serve thousands more than that, about 800,000, but 22,000 kids being dropped off the rolls of Head Start would have been a great tragedy. I thank them for that. Again, I thank my colleague from Alaska on special education. He managed to work out a way with me, at least coming out of this Chamber, to put an additional $1.5 billion into special education, which would have been a major step forward. It would not have gotten us to the 40 percent that ultimately we will have to reach, but it would have taken us a substantial part of the way down that road. The Senator from Alaska can't win every battle, but I would be remiss if I did not report to my colleagues that in this conference report, instead of coming back with that $1.5 billion, we are coming back with $400 million. We lost $1.1 billion when the House and the conferees from this body met to work out the differences. This is such a priority. I don't care where you go in the country. For every county, every community, this is a major issue. It is a major fiscal responsibility. Local governments don't get to do the things we do at the national level or the State level. They have to meet these responsibilities. We have mandated it; we have required it. So whether you live in the great State of Colorado, as the Presiding Officer does, or the State of Connecticut, I will guarantee you, if you were to ask local people what are some of the priorities you have, this is one that would always come up. I am very disappointed, despite the efforts of Senator Stevens and others, that apparently the House leadership did not see the wisdom of maintaining the $1.5 billion. They cut it by $1.1 billion so we get a $400 million increase over the President's budget. You could argue that is certainly an improvement but still far short of what I had hoped we would be able to do. I wish to address the issue of title I. That was a source of lengthy debate in this Chamber during consideration of the legislation. Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts offered an amendment to try to make up the shortfall between what the President's budget submitted on title I funding and what would have been needed in order to meet the promise the President and the Congress made last year when the President signed the No Child Left Behind Act. How many times have you heard people talk about this bill, the importance of title I, getting resources to these children and their families, those who are in the poorest conditions in both rural and urban communities? We all signed on to the bill, which, by the way, if you are troubled by special education because of a mandate from the Federal Government, brace yourselves because the No Child Left Behind Act has significant mandates in it. We require localities to do many things under title I. It is going to be costly to do them, including mandatory testing. But instead of providing the resources in the first year of this new Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the President actually came back and sought to reduce the funding dedicated to meet those commitments. The difference in the conference report between the promise and the reality is $4.25 billion rather than $4.65 billion. So coming back from conference the disparity is not quite as bad as it was, but the fact is, $4.3 billion was still missing for title I. I am terribly saddened by that. I know how hard the conferees have to work, but you can't mandate things on local governments and not be willing to come up with the resources. If you are going to vote as we did overwhelmingly for the No Child Left Behind Act and then within the same calendar year refuse to provide funding for it, well, you get some sense of why there is so much outrage at the local level. You are seeing it in special education. Now you will see it in title I. That is regrettable. But, again, I thank the Members for their efforts and what they have done in this area. Lastly, on higher education, when the bill left the Senate, it had increased Pell grants by $100 a student. Since the purchasing power of Pell grants has been cut in half since 1975 and in most cases the average student loan indebtedness has tripled since 1987, I didn't think that was nearly enough. Our Republican colleagues defeated an amendment to increase the grant by $400, but we sent over at least $100. Now it is coming back with an increase of $50. I don't need to tell you wherever you go, whether it is special education, title I, or college education, the idea that a $50 increase in a Pell grant is going to make much of a difference for these low-to-moderate income families who are trying to meet the cost of higher education, just doesn't make sense. Again, I understand that conferees must establish priorities. But I am deeply saddened that we couldn't do better and hold at least to the $100 that we had in the Senate bill and try to at least relieve a small amount of that additional burden that these families are going to face. Just to put this all in perspective, I know there is divided opinion on these issues, but these are about priorities. The President has placed a very high priority obviously on the $674 billion tax cut; $320 billion of which will go to the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans. Think of that. Here you have a tax cut for the top 5 percent that is going to be some 75 times larger than the cost of meeting the promise to low-income schools, and apparently the President values that tax cut about 230 times more than increasing Pell grants for low-income students by $400. Those are choices. I understand people make them. But the American public has a right to know that when the choice came to doing something about Pell grants for struggling families, working families, doing something about special education needs for our local communities, or doing something about title I funds which are critically important to improve the quality of education at the elementary school level, we made the choice to provide tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. I represent the most affluent State in te country. I probably have a larger percentage of constituents who would benefit from this tax cut proposal than most other States. Yet I can tell you, there are very few who believe these kinds of priorities are their priorities. Most of them, in fact, based on what I have heard from them, believe we should be making these critical investments in the quality of education in our country--special education, title I funding, and Pell grants. I am glad the conference report retained the language from my amendment approved on the Senate floor to exempt Head Start from any across the board cut contained in the bill. Head Start reaches only 60 percent of eligible 3- and 4-year-olds and only 3 percent of eligible infants and toddlers. The conference report provides a modest increase for Head Start that will barely cover inflation. While it is good that Head Start was not subject to an across the board cut and was allowed a modest increase, we should be fully funding the program. If we truly want to leave no child behind, then we need to ensure that every child starts school ready to learn. This would have been a good opportunity to expand Head Start, but instead, we are just holding it harmless. That's not good enough. And, while the omnibus legislation continues to provide funding for a range of programs critical to the public health of our Nation, it falls far short of meeting the true healthcare needs of American citizens. When this bill was before the Senate, I was pleased to support amendments offered by Senator Murray and Mikulski that were adopted and will support care for the uninsured and nurse training. I am pleased that the conference agreement supports lifesaving research conducted by the National Institutes of Health and removes a scheduled reimbursement reduction for physicians that treat elderly Medicare beneficiaries. However, I am disappointed that this agreement fails to sufficiently broaden further many of the health provisions contained within the original bill. Amendments regrettably rejected by the Senate during consideration of this measure include an amendment offered by Senator Kennedy that would have provided more than $500 million to public health programs that serve minority communities and an amendment offered by Senator Clinton that would have bolstered funding to Medicare providers service elderly Americans by more than $4 billion. Because more than 130 million Americans continue to breathe unhealthy air, I believe the President's proposal to eliminate protections that control pollution from powerplants and other industries is unwise. I supported Senator Edwards' amendment during Senate debate called for an independent, scientific analysis of the regulations before they go into effect. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated. Language was added in conference to allow more logging for commercial purposes and prevent legal challenges to the 1997 Tongass forest management plan. Further, at a time when energy markets are so volatile, when heating oil inventories in the Northeast are 35 percent below the 10-year average, when crude oil is at $35 per barrel, and when the Northeast is experiencing an unusually cold winter, this bill cuts funding for the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve from $8 million to $6 million. Under the cuts imposed by the administration and the majority here in Congress, the Department of Housing and Urban Development will provide housing services to fewer families and communities will suffer. These cuts come on top of HUD's recently announced plans to cut its operating support for public housing authorities by as much as 30 percent. In letters to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, I have urged the administration to work with Congress to meet the Nation's housing priorities. Unfortunately, this appropriations bill is simply not adequate. I am also disappointed that this legislation cuts funding for the Federal FIRE grant initiative from $900 million in the previously approved Senate bill to $750 million in this final bill. FIRE grants provide local firefighters with absolutely essential equipment and training. I firmly believe the FIRE grant program should have been fully funded. Now more than ever, the Federal Government should be striving to be an effective partner with cities and towns across the country. Unfortunately, this final bill reduced funding not only for the FIRE grants, but for a myriad of other homeland security activities. In total, this final omnibus bill cuts nearly $4.5 billion in homeland security spending from the fiscal year 2003 bills written by the Senate Appropriations Committee last year. Homeland security spending was cut in order to stay within the President's spending limits--limits that were imposed not because domestic spending is out of control, but because we have cut tax revenue irresponsibly. At a time when the Federal Government is running record deficits, we are being asked to economize on the safety of local law enforcement, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, and the public. This bill also fails to provide adequate funding to help state and local governments improve their election and balloting systems. The conference report provides $1.5 billion for election and balloting modernization. This is a significant first step, but it is substantially below the amount authorized in the Help America Vote Act. I am concerned that state and local governments will not have the resources they need to prepare for the upcoming election and ensure that we do not have a repeat of the 2000 Presidential election fiasco. I am hopeful that we will find the additional resources necessary to make sure that every vote is accurately counted. I hope we will find the additional resources at the earliest opportunity. In the end, I believe this bill reflects a very troubling attitude that seems to be taking hold here in Washington, which is to talk about helping working families, improving healthcare and education, keeping our homeland safe, and other priorities, but not to do enough follow- through. The American people deserve better than that. Again, I thank my colleague from Alaska. He fought hard on some of these issues. Unfortunately, we were not able to prevail as successfully as I hoped we could. But, I thank him publicly for his efforts, and I regret deeply we could not have held onto the Senate provisions during the conference negotiations. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding public servant, and a wonderful friend, former New Haven Mayor Richard Lee, who passed away last week at the age of 86. My most heartfelt condolences go out to his wife, Ellen Griffin Lee, their three children, Sarah, Tara, and David, and the entire Lee family. I share the grief of so many from my state of Connecticut, and from around the country, who knew Dick Lee as the heart and soul of New Haven, and as a visionary leader who transformed urban politics nationwide. Mayor Lee will be best remembered as the man whose innovative urban renewal initiatives in the 1950's and 1960's engendered the rebirth of the city of New Haven. His pioneering efforts not only improved the lives of the people of Connecticut, they served as a model for city revitalization projects across America. Generations of Americans have benefitted from the keen mind and passionate public service of Dick Lee. Born and raised in the working-class Newhallville section of New Haven, Dick Lee never went to college. Nonetheless, he moved swiftly through the ranks of New Haven city government. In 1954, at the age of 37, he became the youngest mayor in New Haven's 365-year history. Despite his youth and lack of formal education, Dick Lee quickly became nationally known as one of the most savvy and sophisticated politicians of his time. He is now remembered as one of the most effective mayors in American history. Under Mayor Lee's stewardship, New Haven became the recipient of more Federal aid per capita than any other city in the country. He used this influx of Federal resources to create a national blueprint for America's war on poverty, and to showcase innovative urban renewal initiatives, which were desperately needed in hundreds of cities nationwide. In the early 1960s, Dick Lee launched Head Start, and dozens of equal opportunity and anti-poverty programs in New Haven, long before other cities across America began thinking of ways to combat urban blight and improve the lives of inner-city residents. John Lindsay, Mayor of New York City, who called Dick Lee the ``dean of mayors in this country,'' once said, ``Sometimes my biggest problem is to develop something in New York that Dick Lee hasn't thought of first. None of us will ever lose sight of that side of Dick Lee--the tireless visionary, extraordinarily effective leader, and dedicated public servant. But many of us also had the great good fortune to call Dick Lee a personal friend. And he was truly a wonderful friend. My father Thomas Dodd, myself, and the entire Dodd family have known the Lee family for generations. We will always treasure our many memories. Mr. President, Dick Lee could have done many things with his life--he could have run for governor of Connecticut; he could have run for Congress; he could have taken a Cabinet position. He chose to stay home--he chose to stay in New Haven. That's because Dick Lee embraced his city of new Haven as a beloved family member whom he could never leave. I speak for many when I say it is nearly impossible to imagine the Elm City without Dick Lee. Dick Lee ultimately served 16 years as mayor of New Haven, 1954 through 1970, making him the longest serving mayor in the city's history. Through those years, he never lost sight of his working-class roots; even after emerging as a towering figure in urban politics, he continued to live for many years in his home neighborhood of Newhallville. And he never lost sight of what he believed to be his calling in politics: improving the lives of others. His greatest passion was always reserved for helping the most underprivileged among us. Dick Lee was often credited with turning new Haven into a ``model city.'' He would never accept that term. He once said, ``I resent the term `model city' . . . We're not a `model city' if there is a single man who is unemployed, if there is a single slum home.'' It has been said that the purpose of politics is to generate hope. Dick Lee followed that credo every day, and millions have so benefitted. There weren't many leaders like Dick Lee back in the 1950's and 1960's, and there aren't many today. He helped improve the lives of so many people and will be greatly missed by so many more. I would like to submit for the Record an extraordinary tribute to Mayor Lee, written by Mark Zaretszky in the New Haven Register, dated February 3, 2003. The tribute follows. Former Mayor Richard C. Lee Remembered Fondly New Haven.--Former Mayor Richard C. Lee, the longest- serving chief executive in the city's 365-year-history, will be remembered by the city he loved as the man who remade New Haven and, until his own health faltered, never missed a wake. Lee--friend and adviser to presidents, pioneer of the urban renewal era, outspoken early critic of the Vietnam War and proud Irish American--died Sunday morning after a long bout with heart disease and diabetes. He was 86. Lee, New Haven's 44th mayor, served a record eight terms from 1954 to 1969. He is survived by his wife, Ellen Griffin Lee, his children Sarah ``Sally'' A. Lee, David Lee and Tara Lee Croke and their families, including grandchildren Stacy, Lindsey and Elliott Lee. ``My youth has fled, but it was a really good life,'' Lee said a week before his death as he lay in bed Jan. 26 at the Whitney Center in Hamden surrounded by family and close friends. ``The memories never disappear . . . No one can take them away from me.'' Mayor Lee had a particularly good day the previous Saturday, according to Ellen Lee, spinning stories and laughing with family and other friends for hours and staying up until 10 p.m. For part of the day last Sunday he wore a Boston Red Sox cap given to him by the late ``Smokey Joe'' Wood, the New Haven-born star pitcher who was his favorite Red Sox player and Lee's neighbor for many years. a passionate man ``Dick was a passionate man,'' said Mayor John DeStefano Jr., who visited him several times during his last days. ``He governed passionately, his likes and his dislikes were passionate and I think what animated his personality was his ability to feel emotion.'' DeStefano, the city's 49th mayor, said Lee, who had been an adviser and confidante in DeStefano's nine years as mayor, frequently called him at night to talk about the city's goings-on, give advice when needed and pump him for gossip. ``It's a series of late-night phone calls I'll miss,'' DeStefano said. What came through even in DeStefano's last visit to Lee ``was this positive attitude,'' he said. ``He was like some Runyonesque character who was a real bookmark of a time and a place in the city.'' ``Every day I go to work and I sit at his desk--the very desk that Dick Lee sat at--and I feel blessed . . . ,'' DeStefano said. ``He wasn't perfect. He failed at some things like all of us do. but you don't fail unless you're trying--and Dick was always trying. New Haven is just a blessed place for his service,'' DeStefano said. youngest mayor Mayor Lee, who took office on New Year's Day 1954 as the youngest mayor in the city's history, recast New Haven in broad strokes in the 1950s and 1960s--for better and, in the minds of some New Haveners, for worse. Lee, a World War II Army veteran, defeated Republican incumbent Mayor William Celentano in 1953 to begin a half- century unbroken chain of Democratic rule in New Haven that continues to this day. He brought in the best planners and social service professionals of the time, listened to what they came up with, dreamed big and made New Haven a ``model city'' watched across the nation. And while some of the huge changes he brought to the city have not stood the test of time, he was respected--and, more often than not, genuinely liked--even by his critics. Some have called him the most significant New Haven mayor since its first, Roger Sherman. ``Dick Lee was a tireless visionary, a wonderful friend, and one of the greatest mayors in American history,'' said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn. ``He loved New Haven and made it a much better city than it would have been without him.'' Lee ``was a mentor and inspiration to me in the early years of my career, and I learned from him that politics means having a vision, building coalitions to get things done, and remembering to enjoy yourself in the process.'' Lieberman, whose house in New Haven for years was just two or three blocks from Lee's, was the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee. He is now a candidate for president in 2004. ``I'll never forget our first meeting, when in my capacity as Yale Daily News editor, I interviewed him at the Jewish Center health club, and quickly ended up riding around town with him to see the fruits of his successful urban renewal campaign,'' Lieberman said. ``That was the beginning of a lifelong friendship, and I will miss him tremendously,'' he said. ``Dick Lee is a legend in urban America,'' said U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. on the occasion of Mayor Lee's last big testimonial dinner in 1998. The senator has known Lee since John F. Kennedy was president and Robert F. Kennedy as attorney general. During the 1960 presidential campaign, Lee was one of the first U.S. mayors to declare his support for JFK, and was a friend of the Kennedy family for years. ``He's one of the all-time great American mayors, and his eloquent leadership in tackling the challenge of our cities became an inspiration to Congress and the country,'' Kennedy said. newhallville roots Lee grew up on Shelton Avenue in the city's working class Newhallville section at a time when it was lit by gaslights, and he continued to live there for several years after he became mayor. He later moved to McKinley Avenue in the Westville section and stayed there until 2000, when his health forced him to sell his Tudor house and move with his wife to an assisted living apartment complex at Whitney Center. Lee was a beloved figure to many New Haven, even to some of those who berated him for knocking down their neighborhoods. By the time Lee became mayor, he had been an alderman and had worked as a reporter for the Journal-Courier, the morning paper owned by the Jackson family that also ran the New Haven Register; for the Chamber of Commerce and as director of the Yale News Bureau. While Lee never went to college, he was always proud of the fact that Yale University in 1961 gave him an honorary master's degree. He was the first American mayor since New York's Fiorello LaGuardia to receive one and the first New Haven mayor since 1842 to be so honored. In later years he was one of the Proprietors of the Green and a trustee at Albertus Magnus College. He also worked for the United Way, served as vice president and assistant to the chairman of Union Trust bank and had affiliations with the University of Connecticut and Quinnipiac University. Julia M. McNamara, the president of Albertus, said Lee's affiliation with the college begun October 1925 when he was one of two altar boys at the opening ceremony of the Dominican facility. He was a trustee at Albertus for 17 years and was trustee emeritus at the time of his death. ``He brought with him all his wonderful experience and background and a tremendous spirit of faith. He was a man of great integrity who really, for us, was an inspiration,'' said McNamara, who became a close personal friend of Lee. Longtime friend and New Haven Register Editor Emeritus Robert J. Leeney said Lee was totally dedicated to New Haven. ``After a long life of achievement, the significant fact about Dick Lee has been his lasting focus on the New Haven community into which he was born,'' said Leeney, who directed the newspaper's coverage for much of the time Lee was in office. ``His affection and concern for hometown people and places never waned despite his political sophistication and his administrative skills.'' Throughout his career, ``he never worked more than a block or two from the central Green . . .'' Leeney said. ``The rhythm of this city was the rhythm of his life . . . His constant public service and warm personality have made Dick Lee's civic legacy a model of past energy and of future inspiration for the city he loved.'' Lee's wake will take place Tuesday from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. at Sisk Brothers Funeral Home, 3105 Whitney Ave. in Hamden. A Mass of Christian burial will be celebrated at 10:30 a.m. Wednesday in St. Mary's Church on Hillhouse Avenue. a new blueprint Under Mayor Lee, New Haven became a blueprint upon which much of the national war on poverty was modeled. Lee's New Haven was the recipient of more federal money per capita than any other city in the country during the presidencies of JFK and Lyndon B. Johnson, when a total of $180 million was sent to Elm City. It was in Dick Lee's New Haven that Head Start, legal assistance and various equal opportunity and anti-poverty were born, beginning was back in 1962, before the rest of the nation knew what those things were. New Haven was one of six cities to initiate ``human renewal'' programs using Ford Foundation grants that fostered programs that were precursors to the national ``Model Cities'' legislation. Lee and his administration, led early on by Development Administrator Edward Logue, also were responsible for huge chunks of the city's modern landscape: the Chapel Square Mall, the Coliseum and the Knights of Columbus building, Dixwell Plaza and the Dixwell Community ``Q'' House, schools, fire houses, a revived Wooster Square and the Long Wharf commercial strip. But ``I think to focus on the urban renewal projects would be to miss the point of Dick Lee's time as mayor,'' said DeStefano. ``His terms in office spanned a period of time in which the character of America changed.'' ``With the suburbanization of America in the 50s and the dramatic social change of the 60s . . . the war, civil rights and the disturbances . . . in the city . . . I think the measure of his mayoralty (was) that Dick Lee kept the city together,'' he said. ``Together in terms of sharing a direction, sharing a vision, creating hope, and from that hope, helping people lead complete lives.'' As a new mayor, Lee assembled New Haven's first ``professional'' government. He listened to the talented people he hired and made New Haven one of the ``model cities'' of the time. Then, as Lee's time in the mayor's office approached its end amid the tumultuous events of the 1960s, he saw the city's image tarnished when racial unrest erupted in 1967, something that took him by surprise. As viewed today, Lee's eight terms in office, spanning 16 years from 1954 to 1969, were punctuated by such ironies. They also long ago were inscribed in 20th century political science and urban planning textbooks. Douglas Rae, a professor of political science at Yale, who has just finished a book critical of some of Lee's legacy, offered no such criticism of Lee the man. ``He is New Haven's finest political creation of the 20th century--a man whose vision and humanity tower above other mayors and other public figures in that long period,'' Rae said. ``The guy was absolutely remarkable.''

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Gregg, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Alexander in introducing the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003. The bill we are introducing today would strengthen efforts to prevent child abuse and neglect, promote increased sharing of information and partnerships between child protective services and education, health, and juvenile justice systems, and encourage a variety of new training programs to improve child protection, particularly cross-training in recognizing domestic violence and substance abuse in addition to child abuse detection and protection training. The Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 renews grants to States to improve child protection systems and increases to $200 million the authorization for child abuse investigations, training of child protection service, CPS, workers, and community child abuse prevention programs. For States to receive funding, they must meet several new requirements: have triage procedures to provide appropriate referrals of a child ``not at risk of imminent harm'' to a community organization or for voluntary preventive services; have policies in place to address the needs of infants who are born and identified as having been physically affected by prenatal exposure to illegal drugs, which must include a safe plan of care for the child; have policies for improved training, retention, and supervision of caseworkers; and require criminal background record checks for prospective foster and adoptive parents and all other adults living in the household, not later than 2 years after the law's enactment. Child abuse and neglect continue to be significant problems in the United States. About 3 million referrals concerning the welfare of about 5 million children were made to Child Protection Services, CPS, agencies throughout the Nation in 2000. Of these referrals, about two-thirds, 62 percent, were ``screened-in'' for further assessment and investigation. Professionals, including teachers, law enforcement officers, social service workers, and physicians made more than half, 56 percent, of the screened-in reports. About 879,000 children were found to be victims of child maltreatment. About two-thirds, 63 percent, suffered neglect, including medical neglect; 19 percent were physically abused; 10 percent were sexually abused; and 8 percent were emotionally maltreated. Many of these children fail to receive adequate protection and services. Nearly half, 45 percent, of these children failed to receive services. The most tragic consequence of child maltreatment is death. The April maltreatment summary data released by the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, shows that about 1,200 children died of abuse and neglect in 2000. Children younger than six years of age accounted for 85 percent of child fatalities and children younger than one year of age accounted for 44 percent of child fatalities. Child abuse is not a new phenomenon. For more than a decade, numerous reports have called attention to the tragic abuse and neglect of children and the inadequacy of our Child Protection Services, CPS, systems to protect our children. In 1990, the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect concluded that ``child abuse and neglect is a national emergency.'' In 1995, the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect reported that ``State and local CPS caseworkers are often overextended and cannot adequately function under their current caseloads.'' The report also stated that, ``in many jurisdictions, caseloads are so high that CPS response is limited to taking the complaint call, making a single visit to the home, and deciding whether or not the complaint is valid, often without any subsequent monitoring of the family.'' A 1997 General Accounting Office, GAO, report found, ``the CPS system is in crisis, plagued by difficult problems, such as growing caseloads, increasingly complex social problems and underlying child maltreatment, and ongoing systemic weaknesses in day-to-day operations.'' According to GAO, CPS weaknesses include ``difficulty in maintaining a skilled workforce; the inability to consistently follow key policies and procedures designed to protect children; developing useful case data and record-keeping systems, such as automated case management; and establishing good working relationships with the courts.'' According to the May 2001 ``Report from the Child Welfare Workforce Survey: State and County Data and Findings'' conducted by the American Public Human Services Association, APHSA, the Child Welfare League of America, CWLA, and the Alliance for Children and Families, annual staff turnover is high and morale is low among CPS workers. The report found that CPS workers had an annual turnover rate of 22 percent, 76 percent higher than the turnover rate for total agency staff. The ``preventable'' turnover rate was 67 percent, or two-thirds higher than the rate for all other direct service workers and total agency staff. In some States, 75 percent or more of staff turnovers were preventable. States rated a number of retention issues as highly problematic. In descending order they are: workloads that are too high and/or demanding; caseloads that are too high; too much worker time spent on travel, paperwork, courts, and meetings; workers not feeling valued by the agency; low salaries; supervision problems; and insufficient resources for families and children. To prevent turnover and retain quality CPS staff, some States have begun to increase in-service training, increase education opportunities, increase supervisory training, increase or improve orientation, increase worker safety, and offer flex-time or changes in office hours. Most States, however, continue to grapple with staff turnover and training issues. Continued public criticism of CPS efforts, continued frustration by CPS staff and child welfare workers, and continued abuse and neglect, and death, of our nation's children, served as the backdrop as we put together the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, CAPTA, reauthorization bill this year. The Child Protection System mission must focus on the safety of children. To ensure that the system works as intended, CPS needs to be appropriately staffed. The staff need to receive appropriate training and cross-training to better recognize substance abuse and domestic violence problems. The bill we are introducing today encourages triage approaches and differential response systems so that those reports where children are most at-risk of imminent harm can be prioritized. The bill specifically emphasizes collaborations in communities between CPS, health agencies, including mental health agencies, schools, and community-based groups to help strengthen families and provide better protection for children. The bill provides grants for prevention programs and activities to prevent child abuse and neglect for families at-risk to improve the likelihood that a child will grow up in a home without violence, abuse, or neglect. Beyond the CAPTA title of this legislation, our bill reauthorizes the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, including new efforts to address the needs of children who witness domestic violence, the Adoption Opportunities Act, and the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act. Child protection ought not be a partisan issue. This bill will help ensure that it is not. I want to commend and thank my co-authors-- Chairman Gregg, Senator Kennedy and Senator Alexander--for their efforts to craft a bipartisan initiative that can help to prevent and alleviate suffering among our Nation's children. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill and to strengthen child protection laws early this year.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. So there is precedent for this. I do not want to dwell on that point because we ought to avoid that at least when we get nominees who are more forthcoming when questions are asked. I will wrap this up because I see my colleague from New Jersey is in the Chamber and wants to speak on this matter. The Senator from Vermont, who knows far more about this than this Senator does, is also present. Since the matter was raised by my friend and colleague from Utah earlier in his remarks, I thought it was appropriate to address and respond to the issue of whether or not documents from the Solicitor General's Office had, in fact, been provided to the Judiciary Committee in the past. Of course, there is ample evidence that they have been. I do not blame Mr. Estrada for this, by the way. These are not his documents. These documents are the documents of the Solicitor General's Office, and therefore the allegation that Mr. Estrada is unwilling to provide these documents is not fair. It is the Department of Justice that has made that decision. I am disappointed that Mr. Estrada has not been willing to respond to Senators' questions about judicial philosophy and temperament but, rather, refused to answer any questions. That is a separate matter, but I thought it was important for our colleagues to make the distinction. It is unfortunate this has come to be seen as a partisan debate. This should not be the case. This ought to be a matter of concern to every single Member. If this is the way we conduct these judicial nominations in the future and this becomes the precedent, then I think this institution suffers terribly in terms of fulfilling its article II, section 2, requirements of the advice and consent when the President submits nominations. Of course, for lifetime appointees, this matter becomes even that much more serious. I will not take more of the Senate's time on my feelings on this. I do not speak on all of these matters. I pointed out earlier that this Member has, in the overwhelming majority of cases, voted to confirm nominees from all these administrations over the years where the nominations have been for a limited duration. I pointed out I voted for John Tower and John Ashcroft. I believe Presidents ought to have their teams. I recall very vividly, with great warmth, voting for the Presiding Officer when he was considered as a nominee before this body. When someone gets elected President, they ought to have their team. The public ought to understand that when the President appoints someone to a high office, a Cabinet office or an ambassador, that certainly requires the advice and consent of the Senate. But for a lifetime appointee, particularly a young man of 40 years of age, who could be on that bench for 40 or 50 years, far beyond the tenure of this President's term of office, far beyond the tenure of probably every single Member who would vote on his nomination, that rises to a different level, with all due respect, to the other nominees who come before this institution. The advice and consent function on a lifetime appointment requires a heightened degree of responsibility, in my view, and when nominees will not answer questions about judicial temperament and demeanor, it is deeply troubling to me. Conservatives and liberals ought to join together in saying: I am sorry, but, Mr. President, if you send us nominees and instruct them to do this, then all of us will join together against that. Regardless of whether it is a Democrat or Republican in the White House, as Senators, as Members of a coequal branch of Government, we cannot fulfill our constitutional responsibility if that is the way in which the President conducts his business. This goes beyond Miguel Estrada. I regret he has been caught in this. He has, for whatever reason, decided to be used in this way. That is terribly unfortunate for him but far more unfortunate for this institution and the future of judicial nominations if, in fact, this becomes the platelet on how you get confirmed for a lifetime appointment: Don't answer any questions; don't respond to issues about constitutionality of various provisions. I repeat: I have on numerous occasions voted for judicial nominees with whom I have disagreed. But because they have been forthcoming, they have been honest about their views, because they have convinced me they would be impartial and fair sitting on a bench, I have never used the litmus test whether I ideologically disagree with a judicial nominee. But when you do not answer my questions or the questions of my colleagues on whom I rely under our committee system, that troubles this Senator deeply. Whether this nominee was made by a Democratic President or a Republican President, I would stand here and make the same case, that this institution and its Members have an obligation in this historic hour to say to the President, this is not the way to do business around here. You cannot send up nominees in this manner and expect this body to rubber stamp a nomination and to send the nominee off for the many years he may serve, making decisions without any knowledge of whether or not he will conduct his affairs as a judge in a way that will bring credit to himself and to the federal courts, let alone the institution which is responsible for ultimately voting to confirm this nominee. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the letter to Senator Biden from Thomas Boyd dated May 10, 1988, requesting these materials back from the Senate Judiciary Committee also be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. DODD. I would like to finish my statement rather than engage in a debate on this particular point.

Mr. DODD. I yield for one question.

Mr. DODD. I was not going to dwell on the point.

Mr. DODD. Let me finish my statement, and I will come back because I am going to put in the Record a large number of documents that make that case.

Mr. DODD. Then I will go over and over it. In the past documents were submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mr. DODD. I don't blame the good Senator from Utah for making the requests.

Mr. DODD. This is not about the amount of time. The Senate wishes to be heard on this matter. I object.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I am not a member of the Judiciary Committee. I was in the other body some years ago when I served there. But like many of my colleagues here who have served in this institution for some time and have been involved in any number of judicial nominations, going back now over the past two decades, this is a unique moment. My friend and colleague from Utah has called this a moment of historic significance. I agree with him about that. This is an important moment historically. It is an important moment for this institution. I enjoy carrying every day with me in my pocket a copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution given to me some years ago by my seatmate, Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, a rather tattered looking copy now. I carry it with me and refer to it quite frequently as a reminder to myself of what a wonderful privilege it is to serve in this institution and the sacred obligation we bear, each and every one of us, when we are sworn in as Members of this body to uphold and defend this Constitution. There are two important relevant points during the next few moments as I share my thoughts on the matter of this nomination. The first begins with article III of the Constitution written more than 200 years ago by our Founding Fathers. It says: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good Behaviour . . . [in a sense for life]. It is a unique office in the judicial branch in this country. Unlike article II on the Presidency, in article III, judicial nominations serve, during good behavior, for the rest of their lives. This nominee is in his early forties, I am told. God willing, Miguel Estrada may have as many as 40 or 50 years to serve on the judicial branch of this country, either at the circuit court level, or possibly the Supreme Court level, having listened to my friend from Utah about the possibility of being on a short list. So in assessing this nomination and the process, it is critically important that my colleagues and others be mindful of this article III, section 1 provision, that judges are nominated by the President and serve, if confirmed, for life. These are unique positions in the entire constellation of offices that could be held in the Federal Government-- for life, during good behavior. The second provision that is important to take note of as you engage in this discussion is in article II, section 2. I will quote it. Article II, section 2, in part, reads, in the second paragraph: He [the President] shall have, Power by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two- thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States. . . . By and with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. Those two provisions are critically important to keep in mind as you listen to this debate and discussion about this particular nomination. The debate and discussion, I suggest, goes far beyond the individual attributes, qualifications of Miguel Estrada. For those reasons, I totally agree with my colleague from Utah that this is a historic moment in terms of how we consider this process, which has survived for more than 200 years. It has never been changed. Over the history of this institution, Senates have taken the role of advice and consent to varying degrees with more or less seriousness. There have been times when there was hardly any advice and consent, and matters went through here rather routinely. I think most historians look back on those periods and would define those moments as being less than stellar periods of this institution's history. When this institution, a coequal branch of Government with the article I and article III branches of government, has taken its advise and consent role seriously--particularly with lifetime appointments--then I think we have lived up to the Founding Fathers' ambitions for this body. I have voted for almost every Presidential nominee to serve in a cabinet or ambassadorial post. I received significant criticism when I voted for John Tower more than a decade ago during the administration of the first President Bush. I voted for John Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the United States and received substantial criticism, and still do, to this day from people in my own party. I did so not because I agreed with John Ashcroft or with John Tower, but I happen to believe that, when it comes to cabinet officers or ambassadors for periods of limited duration, Presidents ought to be able to have their counsel and official team to advance the ideas and values they articulated during their campaigns and which the American public supported through the election process. That is not to say I would vote for every single nominee of whatever kind, because I take the advice and consent role seriously. I have always felt when it comes to judicial nominations, because of that article III, section 1 language that gives them the right to serve for life, far beyond the tenure of the President who appoints them or the Congress that confirms them, far beyond any tenure of anyone who serves in any office in the Federal Government, there is a heightened degree of responsibility to fulfill the article II, section 2 provisions of the Constitution to provide our advice and consent. So it is with that background I come to this nomination, not because I want to necessarily become embroiled in the conditions or qualifications of Miguel Estrada, but because I am deeply concerned we are getting away from fulfilling the Senate's historic responsibilities of fulfilling its article II, section 2 functions and responsibilities. So I rise to express my opposition to this confirmation and to vote, when the matter occurs, against this nomination, for one simple reason: The administration and Mr. Estrada have failed to provide this Member and this institution and its Members with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Estrada would fairly and objectively decide cases that will come before the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. I have no doubt in my mind, nor should anyone, that Mr. Estrada was not chosen in some sort of a blind lottery. His name wasn't just picked out of the blue because we thought we would like to have a Hispanic on the bench--he has a Hispanic heritage; therefore, we will take Mr. Estrada. I promise you there were people who questioned Mr. Estrada about his views before his nomination was made by the President of the United States. Let there be no doubts or illusions about that. The question remains, then, if the President is satisfied this nominee is qualified to sit on the District's Circuit Court of Appeals, why should those of us who have to vote on this nomination not also be entitled to the same opportunity to be full informed about his views? Not about particular cases that may or could come before the court. I have always felt we have no business inquiring of a judicial nominee what his or her views might be about a pending matter that might come before them. But on general questions about their judicial philosophy, their demeanor, how a nominee would conduct him or herself as a judge, those are entirely legitimate issues. In fact, we bear a responsibility to see that those questions are raised--certainly, just as the President or his appointees have questioned Mr. Estrada on those matters. Before they sent his name up here, I promise you they did that. Certainly those of us who have the responsibility under the Constitution to provide our advice and consent, and ultimately our votes, should be entitled to the same opportunity. We have been denied that opportunity. But whatever reasons and motivations there may be this is a process issue that should not be tolerated. To suggest a nomination can be made by the President and sent to this body, and that this body should confirm such a nominee without having a meaningful opportunity to solicit information from the nominee is a precedent I don't think we ought to make. That is why I agree with my colleague from Utah that this is a historic moment. We should not walk away from our responsibility simply because Mr. Estrada is Hispanic and, apparently, of good background. I am not arguing about all of the good things I've heard about Mr. Estrada. What concerns me is the President and the nominees, or the appointees at the Justice Department, have had an opportunity to inquire of Mr. Estrada about his views, and that this body--a coequal branch--the Constitution requires we who exercise our advice and consent function are being denied that same opportunity. So no one that I know of--maybe there are some, but certainly not this Member--is questioning the accomplishments of Mr. Estrada. What many in the Chamber have questioned, however, is whether Mr. Estrada is likely to be a fair and unbiased appeals court judge for life. This is an extremely important nomination for the reasons I have just tried to articulate. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is an important court that has exclusive jurisdiction to review many Federal administrative law questions. In a sense, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is the Nation's second highest court, because its decisions can profoundly impact how the Federal Government conducts the people's business. The decisions made by the court of appeals affect all of us across the country. This is not a debate, as I said a moment ago, about whether Mr. Estrada should be appointed to serve as a trial judge where he might gain some judicial experience, although were he to go through the process and refuse to respond to the questions, I would have the same concerns, even for a district court nominee. I think the precedent is dangerous. When the President nominates someone to serve as an appellate court judge and we allow the nonanswers to stand, the matter is even that much more serious because it is an appellate court. Rather, this is a debate about whether Mr. Estrada, who has never served as a judge anywhere before, should be appointed as a judge who will judge judges and issue final decisions on a wide-ranging set of legal questions that will have national impact. My colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, as well as others who are members of the Judiciary Committee, has pointed out Mr. Estrada is a young man, as I mentioned earlier. He is in his early forties. If confirmed, he may spend the next half century making decisions that will affect our children, our grandchildren, and generations to come. This is a lifetime appointment. Again, I emphasize that point under article III, section 1. There is no going back if we find out Mr. Estrada is not a good judge. This vote is final, and if we confirm Mr. Estrada, we are all going to have to live with that decision the rest of our lives. We are being asked to confirm Mr. Estrada even though we have been provided with virtually no information about his judicial philosophy or judicial competency. We have been offered some evidence that Mr. Estrada is a good lawyer, but good lawyers do not necessarily make good judges and, in my view, Mr. Estrada, like all judicial nominees, has an obligation to show the Senate he can be a good judge. He showed the President he can be a good judge, obviously. He showed the staff at the Justice Department he could be a good judge. But he has not shown the Members of this body, nor has the American public had the opportunity, through us, to draw that same conclusion. We are not hiring a lawyer, we are confirming a judicial nomination. One of the fundamental differences between lawyers and judges is that lawyers are supposed to zealously represent the interests of their clients, but judges are supposed to be balanced, of even temperament, fair, impartial. We want lawyers to be passionate in advocating the causes of their clients, defending those who deserve to be defended and prosecuting those who deserve to be prosecuted. We have an entirely different expectation of judges in terms of demeanor and behavior. Again, the fact that Mr. Estrada is a very good lawyer, a passionate advocate on behalf of his clients, is certainly a good recommendation, but not necessarily a recommendation that he bears the temperament to sit as a judge on the circuit court of appeals. That may be the case, but when we are denied the opportunity to inquire of him about his judicial temperament, about his philosophy, then, in my view, we really don't know. And if we confirm a nomination when we really don't know we are setting a precedent that I think is dangerous indeed. Mr. Estrada, apparently on the advice of the administration, has chosen not to respond to the Senate's questions, refusing to answer questions on what he thinks about legal issues. He was asked by Senator Schumer, I am told, in the committee to name one Supreme Court decision over the last 40 or 50 years with which he disagreed. I do not know of a person in this Chamber who could not answer that question in about 2 minutes, particularly those who are members of the bar, attorneys by profession. Certainly, we all know of cases, maybe even cases we learned when we were in law school that we thought were wrong. If Mr. Estrada, this terrific lawyer, a graduate of Harvard Law School, Phi Beta Kappa, cannot name one Supreme Court case with which he disagrees, then we are getting a message: I am not going to answer your questions about these matters, period. I think it is dangerous to allow nominees to refuse to respond. My colleague from Utah, the chairman of the committee, Senator Hatch, once noted that when it comes to judicial nominations: The Senate has a duty not to be a rubberstamp. I could not agree more with my friend and colleague from Utah on that point. This is not a trivial matter to be taken lightly. I believe it would be irresponsible to vote to confirm a judicial nominee without knowing something about his or her judicial temperament. Not every judicial nominee comes to the Senate with years of experience on the bench, but when a nominee, such as Miguel Estrada, has no judicial experience, we bear a responsibility to look for other evidence of his demeanor and his ability to put aside rancor in favor of balanced judicial reasoning. I would like to add that when nominees with similar backgrounds as Mr. Estrada have provided us with evidence, they have been confirmed by the Senate regardless of their ideologies. It was a few months ago the Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate voted unanimously to confirm Professor Michael McConnell as a judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Despite his impressive credentials as a lawyer and scholar, he had never been a judge before and, as we all know, a number of groups were concerned that his clearly conservative ideologies would influence his decisions on the bench. However, after Professor McConnell openly and extensively discussed his opinions on issues, such as federalism and Roe v. Wade, in his hearing before the Judiciary Committee, then the full Senate, Democrats as well as Republicans, agreed that he would fulfill his duties as a judge impartially regardless of his personal views. That is a recent example of a nominee unanimously confirmed by this body. But Professor McConnell had the courage of his convictions. He was not ashamed to stand up and say what he believed and why he believed it. As a result of that kind of forthrightness, this body unanimously confirmed him to be a circuit court judge. He had no judicial experience, but he was not ashamed of who he was or in what he believed. I do not know Mr. Estrada, and I presume he is not ashamed of his views, but the reluctance to share those views with the membership of the Senate, with the members of the Judiciary Committee, is troubling, to put it mildly. When a nominee will not answer questions, when they cannot name a single Supreme Court case with which they disagree, then we begin to get concerned that this is a stonewalling operation. During a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Estrada refused to answer a long list of questions about his positions on important legal matters. Mr. Estrada refused to explain whether he is inclined to support the interests of business, States rights, the rights of workers, consumers, or children. He refused to comment on whether he would approve the administration's environmental rollbacks. He even declined to give his opinion on a wide range of constitutional issues--the merits of Roe v. Wade, the constitutionality of affirmative action programs, the death penalty, employment discrimination against homosexuals, the balance between environmental protection and property rights, the public's right to know about health and safety standards versus a litigant's right to privacy in product liability cases. Is there any doubt that the President or his appointees or staff at the Justice Department have a good idea of how Mr. Estrada feels about those questions? Does anyone believe for a second they would send his nomination to the Senate without having some idea of where he stood on these questions? And do not I as a Member of this body, in a coequal branch of Government, have a right, before I cast my vote, to at least have the opportunity to raise these questions and get some answers to them? I think I do. If we set the precedent of saying you can be nominated by a President of any party, that your appointed staff at the Justice Department can ask these questions and know the answers, but Members of the Senate, Democrats or Republicans, have no right to solicit or find out this information, that is dangerous. That is precedent setting. That is troubling, indeed. Regardless of who the nominee is, regardless of who the President is who sends a nominee to this Chamber, if we set the precedent that people can go through the confirmation process and not share with us their general views--not their views on how they would rule on individual pending cases; I would strenuously object to questions like that--but to get some sense of the nominee's demeanor, judicial philosophy and ideas. Much to the great credit of Professor McConnell, with whom I would disagree on many matters, I believe, I admire the fact he had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say: This is what I believe. As a result of that, the full support of the Senate. But I am deeply troubled with the idea that a person can stonewall, not answer these questions, and then be confirmed by this body. This issue goes far beyond Miguel Estrada. Our failure to understand that, I think, is dangerous. When asked about each and every one of the issues I've discussed, Mr. Estrada refused to articulate an opinion to the members of the Judiciary Committee. It ought to be troubling to every one of us, regardless of our views, to set that precedent. It is troubling, to say the least, that a prospective appellate court judge and one who clearly, should a vacancy arise in the Supreme Court, according to my friend from Utah--and I believe he is correct--will be on the short list to be on the Supreme Court--that he would have no opinions on any of these matters. If Mr. Estrada does indeed have opinions on these issues, it is even more troubling that he refuses to make those opinions known, not just to me or members of the committee but to the American public who have sent us to the Senate to represent them. They have a right to know how this individual would at least view some of these basic fundamental constitutional questions. Instead of honestly and openly answering questions about his judicial philosophy, Mr. Estrada decided to keep quiet, to take his chances, and roll the dice on the floor of the Senate, hoping that the dice would be loaded in his favor and that there would be no way to stop this nomination from going forward. Senator Schumer once again pointed out that if we confirm Miguel Estrada, we are ratifying a don't-ask-don't-tell policy for judicial nominees. Tragically, I think that characterization is correct. Mr. Estrada sat before the Judiciary Committee and said nothing, believing if he did not say a word, the majority of the Senate would rubberstamp his nomination. And in turn, the administration has willingly participated in this conspiracy of silence to deny the Senate and the American people access to information by refusing to release copies of Mr. Estrada's legal memoranda from his time in the Solicitor General's Office. I listened to my colleague from Utah go on at some length about this point. There is no legal requirement that memoranda from the Solicitor General's Office be withheld from the Senate. It is true that previous Solicitors General have said they would prefer that these documents not be forwarded to the Senate for the reason that this might make it difficult in future years to get the kind of candid assessments by Justice Department lawyers. I am somewhat sympathetic to that argument forwarded by my colleague from Utah, but in the absence of any other information it is more necessary to see documents. Certainly, if a person is forthcoming in sharing their views and thoughts, then the necessity to go and solicit documents from the Justice Department where a nominee may have worked before ought to be avoided, but the issue arises when a nominee refuses to answer any questions. Where there are no other papers, no documents, very few written materials that the nominee has produced, the value of these legal memoranda is heightened. So that in the absence of being forthcoming when the questions are asked, where does one go? What do I rely on? Do I say to my constituents back home that I am sorry he would not say anything and, by the way, there is no legal requirement but the Solicitor General's Office won't share information either? Now, based on some research that has been done, there is precedent for the Solicitor General sharing information, that is really true, and I will leave it to my friend and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, to comment specifically on that. Going back a number of years ago, the Judiciary Committee sought and received a number of documents, I believe during the Bork nomination and several others. I think Judge Trott was another case. There were two or three others who had worked in the Solicitor General's Office or other offices at the Department of Justice, and they shared with the Senate Judiciary Committee the work product of those employees. Those documents were used by the Judiciary Committee during the confirmation process. I do not disagree with the Senator from Utah that there are some concerns about going that route for the reasons I have stated, but there is precedent where that information has been made available to the Senate Judiciary Committee when considering nominations for the Federal judiciary.

Mr. DODD. I object.

Mr. DODD. I object.

Mr. DODD. To try to limit debate on this matter, I tell my good friend from Utah, that any effort to limit debate will be objected to.

Mr. DODD. There are four pages of list here that go on. They sent us a long list.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the good Senator, my friend from Utah, can add as many hours as he would like, but the Senate wants to be heard on this matter. There will be objections noted on every request for additional time.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Gregg, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Alexander in introducing the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003. The bill we are introducing today would strengthen efforts to prevent child abuse and neglect, promote increased sharing of information and partnerships between child protective services and education, health, and juvenile justice systems, and encourage a variety of new training programs to improve child protection, particularly cross-training in recognizing domestic violence and substance abuse in addition to child abuse detection and protection training. The Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 renews grants to States to improve child protection systems and increases to $200 million the authorization for child abuse investigations, training of child protection service, CPS, workers, and community child abuse prevention programs. For States to receive funding, they must meet several new requirements: have triage procedures to provide appropriate referrals of a child ``not at risk of imminent harm'' to a community organization or for voluntary preventive services; have policies in place to address the needs of infants who are born and identified as having been physically affected by prenatal exposure to illegal drugs, which must include a safe plan of care for the child; have policies for improved training, retention, and supervision of caseworkers; and require criminal background record checks for prospective foster and adoptive parents and all other adults living in the household, not later than 2 years after the law's enactment. Child abuse and neglect continue to be significant problems in the United States. About 3 million referrals concerning the welfare of about 5 million children were made to Child Protection Services, CPS, agencies throughout the Nation in 2000. Of these referrals, about two-thirds, 62 percent, were ``screened-in'' for further assessment and investigation. Professionals, including teachers, law enforcement officers, social service workers, and physicians made more than half, 56 percent, of the screened-in reports. About 879,000 children were found to be victims of child maltreatment. About two-thirds, 63 percent, suffered neglect, including medical neglect; 19 percent were physically abused; 10 percent were sexually abused; and 8 percent were emotionally maltreated. Many of these children fail to receive adequate protection and services. Nearly half, 45 percent, of these children failed to receive services. The most tragic consequence of child maltreatment is death. The April maltreatment summary data released by the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, shows that about 1,200 children died of abuse and neglect in 2000. Children younger than six years of age accounted for 85 percent of child fatalities and children younger than one year of age accounted for 44 percent of child fatalities. Child abuse is not a new phenomenon. For more than a decade, numerous reports have called attention to the tragic abuse and neglect of children and the inadequacy of our Child Protection Services, CPS, systems to protect our children. In 1990, the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect concluded that ``child abuse and neglect is a national emergency.'' In 1995, the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect reported that ``State and local CPS caseworkers are often overextended and cannot adequately function under their current caseloads.'' The report also stated that, ``in many jurisdictions, caseloads are so high that CPS response is limited to taking the complaint call, making a single visit to the home, and deciding whether or not the complaint is valid, often without any subsequent monitoring of the family.'' A 1997 General Accounting Office, GAO, report found, ``the CPS system is in crisis, plagued by difficult problems, such as growing caseloads, increasingly complex social problems and underlying child maltreatment, and ongoing systemic weaknesses in day-to-day operations.'' According to GAO, CPS weaknesses include ``difficulty in maintaining a skilled workforce; the inability to consistently follow key policies and procedures designed to protect children; developing useful case data and record-keeping systems, such as automated case management; and establishing good working relationships with the courts.'' According to the May 2001 ``Report from the Child Welfare Workforce Survey: State and County Data and Findings'' conducted by the American Public Human Services Association, APHSA, the Child Welfare League of America, CWLA, and the Alliance for Children and Families, annual staff turnover is high and morale is low among CPS workers. The report found that CPS workers had an annual turnover rate of 22 percent, 76 percent higher than the turnover rate for total agency staff. The ``preventable'' turnover rate was 67 percent, or two-thirds higher than the rate for all other direct service workers and total agency staff. In some States, 75 percent or more of staff turnovers were preventable. States rated a number of retention issues as highly problematic. In descending order they are: workloads that are too high and/or demanding; caseloads that are too high; too much worker time spent on travel, paperwork, courts, and meetings; workers not feeling valued by the agency; low salaries; supervision problems; and insufficient resources for families and children. To prevent turnover and retain quality CPS staff, some States have begun to increase in-service training, increase education opportunities, increase supervisory training, increase or improve orientation, increase worker safety, and offer flex-time or changes in office hours. Most States, however, continue to grapple with staff turnover and training issues. Continued public criticism of CPS efforts, continued frustration by CPS staff and child welfare workers, and continued abuse and neglect, and death, of our nation's children, served as the backdrop as we put together the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, CAPTA, reauthorization bill this year. The Child Protection System mission must focus on the safety of children. To ensure that the system works as intended, CPS needs to be appropriately staffed. The staff need to receive appropriate training and cross-training to better recognize substance abuse and domestic violence problems. The bill we are introducing today encourages triage approaches and differential response systems so that those reports where children are most at-risk of imminent harm can be prioritized. The bill specifically emphasizes collaborations in communities between CPS, health agencies, including mental health agencies, schools, and community-based groups to help strengthen families and provide better protection for children. The bill provides grants for prevention programs and activities to prevent child abuse and neglect for families at-risk to improve the likelihood that a child will grow up in a home without violence, abuse, or neglect. Beyond the CAPTA title of this legislation, our bill reauthorizes the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, including new efforts to address the needs of children who witness domestic violence, the Adoption Opportunities Act, and the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act. Child protection ought not be a partisan issue. This bill will help ensure that it is not. I want to commend and thank my co-authors-- Chairman Gregg, Senator Kennedy and Senator Alexander--for their efforts to craft a bipartisan initiative that can help to prevent and alleviate suffering among our Nation's children. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill and to strengthen child protection laws early this year.