Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

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

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Senator Kennedy, Senator Inouye, Senator Akaka, Senator Corzine, Senator Murray, and Senator Mikulski, to introduce the Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act. Today marks the 10th anniversary of the enactment of the Family and Medical Leave Act. This landmark legislation was nearly a decade in the making, but today, a decade after enactment, more than 35 million Americans have taken leave under FMLA. Despite the many Americans the Family and Medical Leave Act has helped, too many continue to be left behind. Too many continue to have to choose between job and family. The facts are clear: millions of Americans remain uncovered by the Family and Medical Leave Act. And, too many who are eligible for the Family and Medical Leave Act cannot afford to take unpaid leave from work. The ``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act'', which we are introducing today addresses both these problems. The ``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act'' would expand the scope and coverage of FMLA. It would fund pilot programs at the State level to offer partial or full wage replacement programs to ensure that employees do not have to choose between job and family. Times have changed over the years. More and more mothers are working. While only 27 percent of mothers with infants were in the labor force in 1960, by 1999 that percentage rose to nearly 60 percent. Even as employment rates within this group rises, family responsibilities remain constant, a reality that lies at the core of the FMLA. According to an employee survey by the Department of Labor, about one fifth of US workers have a need for some form of leave covered under the FMLA, and about 40 percent of all employees think they will need FMLA-covered leave within the next five years. According to a Department of Labor study in 2000, leave to care for one's own health or for the health of a seriously ill child, spouse or parent, together account for almost 80 percent of all FMLA leave. Approximately 52 percent of the leave taken is due to employees' own serious health problems, while 26 percent of the leave is taken by young parents caring for their children at birth or adoption. The FMLA requires that all public sector employers and private employers of 50 or more employees provide up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave for medical and family care reasons for eligible employees. About 77 percent of employees, in the private and public sector, currently work in FMLA-covered sites, although only 62 percent of employees are actually eligible for leave. However, only 11 percent of private sector work sites are covered under FMLA. Individuals working for small private employers deserve the same work protections afforded to other employees. As a step toward expanding protection to all hard-working Americans, this bill would extend FMLA coverage to all private sector worksites with 25 or more employees within a 75-mile radius. This would mean that an additional 13 million Americans would be eligible for leave under the Act, roughly 240,000 in my own State of Connecticut. Mothers and fathers, sons and daughters have the same family responsibilities and personal health problems, regardless of whether they work for the government, a large private enterprise, or a small private business. Expanding the FMLA to businesses with 25 or more employees is a crucial acknowledgment of this reality. The bill recognizes the enormous physical and emotional toll domestic violence takes on victims. The bill expands the scope of FMLA to include leave for individuals to care for themselves or to care for a daughter, son, or parent suffering from domestic violence. Expanding the scope and coverage of FMLA is a positive step for many Americans. But, alone, it is not enough. According to a Department of Labor study, 3.5 million covered Americans needed leave but, without wage replacement, could not afford to take leave. Over four-fifths of those who needed leave but did not take it said they could not afford unpaid leave. Others cut their leave short, with the average duration of FMLA leave being 10 days. Of those individuals taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, nearly three-quarters had incomes above $30,000. While the financial sacrifice is often enormous, the need for leave can be even more so. Every year, many Americans bite the bullet and accept unpaid leave. As a result, nine percent of leave takers go on public assistance to cover their lost wages. Almost twelve percent of female leave takers use public assistance for this reason. These individuals are far from being unwilling to work. Instead, they are trying to balance work with family, often during a crisis, too often with inadequate means to get by. Other major industrialized nations have implemented policies far more family-friendly to promote early childhood development and family caregiving. At least 128 countries provide paid and job-protected maternity leave, with sixteen weeks the average basic paid leave. In 1992, before we enacted the Family and Medical Leave Act, the European Union mandated a paid fourteen week maternity leave as a health and safety measure. Among the 29 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, countries, the average childbirth-related leave is 44 weeks, while the average duration of paid leave is 36 weeks. Compared to these other developed nations, the United States is far behind in efforts to promote worker welfare and productivity. The ``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act'' builds on current law to provide pilot programs for States and the Federal Government to provide for partial or full wage replacement for 6 weeks. At a minimum, this will ensure that parents can continue to make ends meet while taking family and medical leave. When we talk about a more compassionate America, no where is that more evident than in our caregiving leave policies. No one should have to choose between work and family. Women and men deserve to take leave when family or health conditions require it without fear of losing their job or livelihood. We must not simply pay lip service to family integrity and the promotion of a healthy workplace. Instead, we must actively work to reduce workplace barriers. We talk often of our need to strengthen family values. We cite studies about the importance of the first few months of a newborn's life. This is our chance to offer more parents the opportunity to spend more time with their families, to help fulfill the call to provide a more compassionate America. I urge my colleagues to support the ``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act'' to promote our family values and ensure the welfare and health of hard-working Americans. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the summary of the Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act be printed in the Record. The Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act Brief Summary Background: Since enactment in 1993, more than 35 million employees have taken leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Under current law, an employee is eligible for 12 weeks of unpaid leave if she or he has worked for an employer for at least 12 months; has worked for 1,250 hours over the 12 months before leave is needed; and works at a location with 50 or more employees within 75 miles. About 11 percent of private sector businesses are covered under FMLA; 77 percent of employees work in these covered businesses (although about 62 percent of employees are eligible for FMLA). According to the most recent data, 52 percent of leave- takers have taken time off to care for their own serious illness; 26 percent of leave-takers have taken time off to care for a new child or for maternity disability reasons; 13 percent have taken time off to care for a seriously ill parent; 12 percent have taken time off to care for a seriously ill child; and 6 percent have taken time off to care for a seriously ill spouse. About 42 percent of leave takers are men; about 58 percent of leave-takers are women. The median length of leave is 10 days; 80% of leaves are for 40 days or fewer. About 73 percent of leave-takers earn $30,000 or more. The Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act would expand the scope and coverage of FMLA to ensure that even more American workers do not have to choose between job and family. Too many eligible individuals simply cannot afford unpaid leave. Many forgo leave or take the shortest amount of time possible because the current FMLA law requires only unpaid leave. The Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act would: Establish a pilot program to allocate grants to states to provide paid leave for 6 weeks to eligible employees responding to caregiving needs resulting from the birth or adoption of a child or family illness. States may provide for wage replacement directly or through an insurance program, such as a state temporary disability program or a state unemployment compensation program, or other mechanism. Such paid leave shall count toward an eligible employee's 12 weeks of leave under FMLA. Expand the number of individuals eligible for FMLA by covering employers with 25 or more employees (to enable 13 million more Americans to take FMLA). Expand the reasons for leave to include eligible employees addressing domestic violence and its effects, which make the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee or, to care for the son, daughter, or parent of the employee, if such individual is addressing domestic violence and its effects. Establish a pilot program within the federal government for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to administer a partial or full wage replacement for 6 weeks to eligible employees responding to caregiving needs resulting from the birth or adoption of a child or other family caregiving needs. Such paid leave shall count toward an eligible employee's 12 weeks of leave under FMLA. Allows employees to use a total of 24 hours during any 12 month period to participate in a school activity of a son or daughter, such as parent-teacher conference, or to participate in literacy training under a family literacy program.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Senator Kennedy, Senator Inouye, Senator Akaka, Senator Corzine, Senator Murray, and Senator Mikulski, to introduce the Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act. Today marks the 10th anniversary of the enactment of the Family and Medical Leave Act. This landmark legislation was nearly a decade in the making, but today, a decade after enactment, more than 35 million Americans have taken leave under FMLA. Despite the many Americans the Family and Medical Leave Act has helped, too many continue to be left behind. Too many continue to have to choose between job and family. The facts are clear: millions of Americans remain uncovered by the Family and Medical Leave Act. And, too many who are eligible for the Family and Medical Leave Act cannot afford to take unpaid leave from work. The ``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act'', which we are introducing today addresses both these problems. The ``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act'' would expand the scope and coverage of FMLA. It would fund pilot programs at the State level to offer partial or full wage replacement programs to ensure that employees do not have to choose between job and family. Times have changed over the years. More and more mothers are working. While only 27 percent of mothers with infants were in the labor force in 1960, by 1999 that percentage rose to nearly 60 percent. Even as employment rates within this group rises, family responsibilities remain constant, a reality that lies at the core of the FMLA. According to an employee survey by the Department of Labor, about one fifth of US workers have a need for some form of leave covered under the FMLA, and about 40 percent of all employees think they will need FMLA-covered leave within the next five years. According to a Department of Labor study in 2000, leave to care for one's own health or for the health of a seriously ill child, spouse or parent, together account for almost 80 percent of all FMLA leave. Approximately 52 percent of the leave taken is due to employees' own serious health problems, while 26 percent of the leave is taken by young parents caring for their children at birth or adoption. The FMLA requires that all public sector employers and private employers of 50 or more employees provide up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave for medical and family care reasons for eligible employees. About 77 percent of employees, in the private and public sector, currently work in FMLA-covered sites, although only 62 percent of employees are actually eligible for leave. However, only 11 percent of private sector work sites are covered under FMLA. Individuals working for small private employers deserve the same work protections afforded to other employees. As a step toward expanding protection to all hard-working Americans, this bill would extend FMLA coverage to all private sector worksites with 25 or more employees within a 75-mile radius. This would mean that an additional 13 million Americans would be eligible for leave under the Act, roughly 240,000 in my own State of Connecticut. Mothers and fathers, sons and daughters have the same family responsibilities and personal health problems, regardless of whether they work for the government, a large private enterprise, or a small private business. Expanding the FMLA to businesses with 25 or more employees is a crucial acknowledgment of this reality. The bill recognizes the enormous physical and emotional toll domestic violence takes on victims. The bill expands the scope of FMLA to include leave for individuals to care for themselves or to care for a daughter, son, or parent suffering from domestic violence. Expanding the scope and coverage of FMLA is a positive step for many Americans. But, alone, it is not enough. According to a Department of Labor study, 3.5 million covered Americans needed leave but, without wage replacement, could not afford to take leave. Over four-fifths of those who needed leave but did not take it said they could not afford unpaid leave. Others cut their leave short, with the average duration of FMLA leave being 10 days. Of those individuals taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, nearly three-quarters had incomes above $30,000. While the financial sacrifice is often enormous, the need for leave can be even more so. Every year, many Americans bite the bullet and accept unpaid leave. As a result, nine percent of leave takers go on public assistance to cover their lost wages. Almost twelve percent of female leave takers use public assistance for this reason. These individuals are far from being unwilling to work. Instead, they are trying to balance work with family, often during a crisis, too often with inadequate means to get by. Other major industrialized nations have implemented policies far more family-friendly to promote early childhood development and family caregiving. At least 128 countries provide paid and job-protected maternity leave, with sixteen weeks the average basic paid leave. In 1992, before we enacted the Family and Medical Leave Act, the European Union mandated a paid fourteen week maternity leave as a health and safety measure. Among the 29 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, countries, the average childbirth-related leave is 44 weeks, while the average duration of paid leave is 36 weeks. Compared to these other developed nations, the United States is far behind in efforts to promote worker welfare and productivity. The ``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act'' builds on current law to provide pilot programs for States and the Federal Government to provide for partial or full wage replacement for 6 weeks. At a minimum, this will ensure that parents can continue to make ends meet while taking family and medical leave. When we talk about a more compassionate America, no where is that more evident than in our caregiving leave policies. No one should have to choose between work and family. Women and men deserve to take leave when family or health conditions require it without fear of losing their job or livelihood. We must not simply pay lip service to family integrity and the promotion of a healthy workplace. Instead, we must actively work to reduce workplace barriers. We talk often of our need to strengthen family values. We cite studies about the importance of the first few months of a newborn's life. This is our chance to offer more parents the opportunity to spend more time with their families, to help fulfill the call to provide a more compassionate America. I urge my colleagues to support the ``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act'' to promote our family values and ensure the welfare and health of hard-working Americans. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the summary of the Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act be printed in the Record. The Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act Brief Summary Background: Since enactment in 1993, more than 35 million employees have taken leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Under current law, an employee is eligible for 12 weeks of unpaid leave if she or he has worked for an employer for at least 12 months; has worked for 1,250 hours over the 12 months before leave is needed; and works at a location with 50 or more employees within 75 miles. About 11 percent of private sector businesses are covered under FMLA; 77 percent of employees work in these covered businesses (although about 62 percent of employees are eligible for FMLA). According to the most recent data, 52 percent of leave- takers have taken time off to care for their own serious illness; 26 percent of leave-takers have taken time off to care for a new child or for maternity disability reasons; 13 percent have taken time off to care for a seriously ill parent; 12 percent have taken time off to care for a seriously ill child; and 6 percent have taken time off to care for a seriously ill spouse. About 42 percent of leave takers are men; about 58 percent of leave-takers are women. The median length of leave is 10 days; 80% of leaves are for 40 days or fewer. About 73 percent of leave-takers earn $30,000 or more. The Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act would expand the scope and coverage of FMLA to ensure that even more American workers do not have to choose between job and family. Too many eligible individuals simply cannot afford unpaid leave. Many forgo leave or take the shortest amount of time possible because the current FMLA law requires only unpaid leave. The Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act would: Establish a pilot program to allocate grants to states to provide paid leave for 6 weeks to eligible employees responding to caregiving needs resulting from the birth or adoption of a child or family illness. States may provide for wage replacement directly or through an insurance program, such as a state temporary disability program or a state unemployment compensation program, or other mechanism. Such paid leave shall count toward an eligible employee's 12 weeks of leave under FMLA. Expand the number of individuals eligible for FMLA by covering employers with 25 or more employees (to enable 13 million more Americans to take FMLA). Expand the reasons for leave to include eligible employees addressing domestic violence and its effects, which make the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee or, to care for the son, daughter, or parent of the employee, if such individual is addressing domestic violence and its effects. Establish a pilot program within the federal government for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to administer a partial or full wage replacement for 6 weeks to eligible employees responding to caregiving needs resulting from the birth or adoption of a child or other family caregiving needs. Such paid leave shall count toward an eligible employee's 12 weeks of leave under FMLA. Allows employees to use a total of 24 hours during any 12 month period to participate in a school activity of a son or daughter, such as parent-teacher conference, or to participate in literacy training under a family literacy program.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join the Nation in grieving the tragic loss of the crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia, which went down during its return to Earth after 16 days in space. My heart especially goes out to the families of the seven astronauts on board the Columbia; Rick Husband, the mission commander, William McCool, the shuttle pilot, and the five crew-members, David Brown, Michael Anderson, Laurel Clark, Kalpana Chawla, and Ilan Ramon. Ever since President Kennedy announced, on May 25, 1961, that the United States land an American safely on the Moon by the end of the 1960s, our Nation has been committed to reaching for the stars. President Kennedy said, ``We choose to go to the moon . . . not because [it is] easy, but because [it is] hard.'' Thus begun America's space program, a program which has compelled some our Nation's brightest and bravest souls to risk their lives in the name of progress; to travel into the frontiers of space in order to advance human life here on Earth. The space program has seen its share of tragedy. In the prespace travel days of 1950s, daredevil pilots, such as form Senator John Glenn, risked it all to help us develop jet engine and rocket propulsion technologies, and to learn about the outer-reachers of our stratosphere. Dozens died in the process. They sacrificed their lives to make the space program possible. Many of us are old enough to remember January 27, 1967, the day Apollo 1 exploded during a launch-pad test, killing all three astronauts on board, Virgil Grissom, Edward White, and Roger Chaffee. I personally remember the numbness I felt when hearing the news, and later watching the tragedy replayed on television. But the space program went forward; 18 months later, on July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin took man's first steps on the Moon. All of a sudden, our boundaries seemed limitless. In 1982, the space shuttle program became operational, and trips to space began seeming commonplace. But once again, on January 28, 1986, our Nation mourned the loss of shuttle astronauts Michael Smith, Dick Scobee, Judith Resnik, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Gregory Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe, who were lost the Challenger shuttle exploded during take-off. President Reagan's words spoke for an entire Nation when he said: ``We've grown used to the idea space, and perhaps we forget that we've only just begun. We are still pioneers.'' With those words, the space shuttle program went forward, and there have been dozens of shuttle launches over the past 15 years, reaping untold rewards for humanity in terms of increasing our understanding of physics, biology, and of the physical universe in which we live. Now we are in the shadow of another tragedy. Some are questioning whether or not manned space flights ought to continue. Some say risks to the lives of the astronauts outweigh the gains we can make in terms of scientific progress. I say we listen to the families of those lost on Space Shuttle Columbia. They are united in their feelings that their loved ones died doing what they loved most, that these heroes understood the risks, but were undeterred because they also understood the potential for gain. These families are united in their belief that the space program must go on. I believe that if it does not, than the lives of these seven astronauts would have been lost in vain. Tragedies like these are a direct result of America's restless desire for progress, to go further, fly faster, learn more, and advance. Robert Kennedy once said: ``It is from acts of courage that human history is shaped.'' These seven brave astronauts knew the risks. They were not deterred. They were emboldened. They gave their lives that humanity could take yet another leap forward into the vast unknown of future knowledge. They are, and always will be, national heroes. Reading through articles from Sunday's New York Times, I could not help but be struck by the diversity of the crew. Once upon a time, all NASA astronauts were white men from the military. But over the past few decades, NASA has been recruiting astronauts based on their skills, their excellence, and of course, their courage and commitment. That has meant a more diverse astronaut pool. The crew of the Columbia were a wonderful example of this diversity, men and women, black and white, immigrant and native-born, as well as a crew-member from Israel, Ilan Ramon. The crew of the Columbia offer us a reminder that there are not boundaries in space, and that humans are one race. Together, we will overcome this tragedy. And together, we will continue to look toward the stars and beyond. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record seven articles from Sunday's New York Times, each of which offers insights into the lives and personal accomplishments of each of the astronauts lost in Saturday's tragedy.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for her answer. She is absolutely correct. It would be a unique and historic tragedy if we were the first generation to not fulfill its obligations to the coming generation. I said the Homestead Act. It was the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 that was an example of a country in crisis that still found time to invest in its educational needs. I don't know if my colleague from Vermont wanted to comment on that as well. It was Senator Morrill from Vermont who created the land grant colleges. The University of Connecticut was one of the beneficiaries of that idea. Right in the middle of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln and the Congress said: We ought to be investing in the educational needs of the Nation, and authored that legislation. I know my colleague from Vermont has spoken eloquently for and fought for higher education. I thought he might want to comment on those decisions.

Mr. DODD. I want to address a question to our colleague from New York and also my colleague from Vermont. What I am about to say is also something he has talked about in the past. We are often told we are now in a period of international crisis and that resources cannot really be allocated as much as we would like for education given these other demands. Certainly my colleagues are aware, historically, some of the most significant investments we have made as a nation in terms of education have occurred right in the midst of some of our most significant crises as a country. In 1787, shortly after the American Revolution, at a time when there was great demand for resources, we insisted that land be set aside in new territories, specifically the Federal Government did, for institutions of higher learning. Right in the middle of the Civil War, there was the Morrill Act, authored by a Senator from Vermont, that created the land grant colleges. Here we were in the greatest crisis in the history of the United States, and yet the Congress and the President in the midst of all of that believed we ought to be doing everything we could to establish land grant colleges. Then, of course, prior to the end of World War II, the GI bill is another example. Here is a nation at war and demand for resources are great; our Nation is in peril, although it was toward the end of the war. Yet the Congress and the President thought it was so critically important that we allocated resources for furthering the advancement of higher education. I don't know if my colleagues would like to briefly respond to that point.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Who are the Buccaneers?

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield on that point?

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, I asked someone once to define or describe affirmative action. They said: Senator, affirmative action is when someone tells you they can't find somebody, try again. If they still can't, try again. What my colleague from Rhode Island is saying, when we talk about the success and the wisdom of affirmative action, it has been because of places such as West Point Academy and other of our military academies, where they have tried again to identify and find qualified students and consider them as enrollees to these universities where, in fact, they may have looked into a lot of issues other than just the simple criteria that you might apply to everyone else. As a result of that, they have been able to bring people into our academies. It is not a determining factor, but a factor, in considering the admissions to these academies. Is that not true?

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank our colleagues from Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island who are here to talk about this issue. In just a few short hours from now we are going to hear the President address the Nation on the State of the Union. If you were to ask the question, what is the state of the union, to the average person, if the question were to be asked, I suppose, of the average family, you may get this sort of analysis: How secure is my family economically? Personally? What does our future look like? That is not a bad question, when you ask how are you doing. When it comes to the issue of education, I think the answer has to be: Worried about how I see the future for my family and our children. I am relying on the Federal Government to be a supporter of basic needs in education. You have to be able to listen to the rhetoric. You will hear a speech tonight. I presume it will be a good one. Presidents normally give pretty good speeches on the State of the Union. But I also think, as my colleagues pointed out, matching up the rhetoric, the language, with the action is critically important. It is the same as we would ask of anyone else. It is nice to hear words about diversity of higher education, nice to hear about making college more affordable, and leaving no child behind. But then you quickly have to ask, Now, what have you done to increase the diversity of our populations in higher education? What have you done or what are you doing to make higher education more affordable? And what, in fact, are you doing to see to it that no child is left behind in our elementary and secondary public school education system? If you look at those three issues alone--as our colleagues already pointed out here, but it deserves being repeated--in the area of diversity, of course, we find the President attacking the affirmative action programs in the country. My friend from Rhode Island is maybe in a unique position to talk about the United States military, the United States military academies, and what a remarkable job they have done. He is a graduate of West Point and was a distinguished officer in the United States Army for many years, as a professor at West Point. Certainly our military academies have demonstrated how having affirmative action perhaps has contributed significantly to the strength and well-being and diversity of our officer corps in the United States. In fact, I would argue that the affirmative action programs in our military academies are exactly the affirmative action programs the President has attacked at the University of Michigan and elsewhere. Second, I ask my colleagues from Rhode Island, New York, or Massachusetts, what has happened to make college more affordable? We have asked that Pell grants be supported. Yet the administration has said already--maybe they will change their mind tonight; I hope they do. Nothing would please me more than to have the President announce in the State of the Union tonight that he is supporting the full funding of the Pell grant program. I hope this evening he will talk about that. Third, of course, our colleagues have already spoken out about the Leave No Child Behind legislation, with special education, where we are abysmally short. The White House did not stand up last year in support of special education and still continues to oppose the $4.6 billion necessary to meet the goals. But my colleague may want to comment on the diversity issue, since he is a graduate of the West Point Academy and knows how important those programs have been to strengthening the United States military. I ask him whether or not that is the case.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and Senator Gregg, and, of course, my colleagues Senator Mikulski and others who spoke eloquently on this subject matter a few days ago regarding special education funding. I say to my colleague from Alaska that he has been a great help. This $1.5 billion for special education is going to make a huge difference for schools and communities during the 2003-2004 school year. This is 1-year funding--it is not fully funding special education as we have promised, but it is a great step. As I look at the Presiding Officer, a former mayor, I know that Governors all across this country, as well as mayors, consistently put special education funding at or near the top of their list of priorities. And, it is especially important to note that unlike some other amendments that the Senate has adopted the past few days, this funding will not come through across the board cuts that include such critical programs as Head Start, WIC, and others that I have talked about. This is the way for us to address our priorities. I am very grateful to my colleagues for supporting this. I will not take a lot of time this evening to go into it. Obviously, it makes a huge difference to our States, our communities, and, of course, families and children who will be the direct beneficiaries of these efforts. Our colleague from Alabama spoke the other day about the importance of reform in this area. I agree that we need to review these programs to make sure the dollars are reaching the families who need them. And we will be reauthorizing IDEA in this Congress as we have in the past. But in the midst of a lot of pressure, I say to the Senator from Alaska, the chairman of the committee, that this is a special moment. While it is late evening, and there will be no other recorded votes tonight, I want to thank him immensely for working out a solution to this. This may not be perfect. I know that some are a little bit disgruntled over how we managed to get this done. But this will truly make a difference in the lives of children and families. It is a special moment as we begin this 108th Congress. So, again, I thank the Senator from Alaska, and his staff, for working this out with us. And, I thank my colleagues who have been stalwart. Senators Harkin, Jeffords, and Hagel, among others, who have done, and I know will continue to do, a tremendous amount of work in this area. Finally, I hope and expect that this amendment, which includes not only myself and the many other Democrats I listed as co-sponsors, but also Senator Stevens, the chair of the Appropriations Committee, and Senator Gregg, the chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, will be maintained in conference. I urge the conferees to oppose any effort to strip this provision that is so critical to our children and families.

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

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

Mr. DODD. I would like 3 or 4 minutes to explain what the amendment will achieve.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I inquire, if I may have 1 minute.

Mr. DODD. I think we ought to do that first.

Mr. DODD. I believe so. Amendments Nos. 71 And 78 Withdrawn

Mr. DODD. I believe the unanimous consent request needs to be made to withdraw both the Dodd and the Gregg amendments and then I will offer what will be a substitute for those two amendments. I think it needs to proceed in that order, if I am not mistaken.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for adding me as a cosponsor. I commend my colleague from Illinois for taking the leadership on this effort. I also commend our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for endorsing and supporting this proposal. Over the last number of days, there have been rare occasions when we have found some common ground. At this late hour on Wednesday night, it is refreshing to know that on this matter, and I think eventually on the matter raised by Senator Nelson of Florida earlier, the issue of starvation and hunger, we will eventually find some common ground as well. The leadership of Senator Durbin is something that ought to make all of us proud as Members of this body that the United States can step up to the forefront and try to do everything we possibly can to alleviate the hardships caused by this scourge. I commend him for his efforts. I thank others who have joined Senator Durbin as a cosponsor and thank Senator Stevens for his willingness to accept this amendment and to endorse it.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will take 1 additional minute. I repeat what I said earlier, this is not the America of which people think. We are blessed with great resources. We ought to have the common sense to find a balance, to see to it we meet our obligations when we make them; that we try to help those who are least able to help themselves and their families. I underscore the point the Senator from Maryland made a few moments ago. Families of children with special needs face incredible pressures, especially those making $25,000, $30,000, $35,000, $40,000, $45,000, $60,000. There are incredible pressures within that family. Why is it we cannot find the resources to help our States, our Governors, our county executives to do more to help these children? Reforming the process, I am all for that. But the only way we can help is to go after the WIC Program, the Head Start Program, food safety programs, and the like? That I do not understand, and I defy my colleagues to ask an average American to explain it as well. They do not understand it when they hear that argument or we are going to wait another 33 years to meet the obligations under this program. I feel passionately about this issue; I care deeply about this issue because it is the role that Government ought to play. When I look at families in my State and across the country--and I know the pressures they are feeling and what a small amount it is to offer some relief-- just some relief--to the families feeling this heat and pressure, the anxiety it causes--I do not understand that we cannot step up and meet the obligation because we cannot touch a tax cut that goes to the most affluent citizens of this country. I do not understand that situation. I hope my colleagues do not either. When the vote occurs tomorrow, I hope we will support the amendment that provides assistance but does not do so off the backs of people who can least afford it in the country. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to express some thoughts. I thank my colleagues for, once again, reconfirming support for the special education program. That is heartening. As the Senator from Maryland pointed out, of course, if we follow the plan of the present occupant of the White House, we will be talking about three decades more--we will have to wait a longer time than we have waited to complete the 40- percent requirement that we have already endured. So if you are a mayor or a county executive or a Governor, you can take real heart in the fact that for about the next three decades we will be at this debate on getting full funding--if we rely on the administration's plans. I will remind my colleagues once again that this body and the previous Congress voted unanimously for a full funding program over the next 6 years for special education. It was the administration--the present administration--and the leadership of the other body--the Republican leadership--that killed the proposal the Senate unanimously supported. That is where we are. Those are the facts as we find them today. We can go back and revisit history if you want, but the fact is that the Governors and mayors out there may find a history lesson interesting, but they want to know what we are going to do. What is this administration going to do? What has this administration done? What is the Republican leadership in the Senate and House going to have to do if we are going to meet the obligations we talk about? So what we have here--as the Senator from New Hampshire suggests he will support--is the $1.5 billion. He is going to do so by adding further to the across-the-board cuts in domestic spending--adding to the impact of the already 2.9 percent across-the-board cuts. I will share with my colleagues what this means. Now, $1.5 billion is not a huge amount as a percentage--whatever it is, four-tenths of 1 percent. Add that, if you will, to the 2.9. The WIC Program will be cut by $137 million as a result of the 2.9-percent cut. The Food Safety Inspection Service will be cut by $22 million. The Food and Drug Administration will be cut by $40 million under these proposals. State-Justice-Commerce will be cut by $113 million in spending. Go down to Head Start. This analysis shows what the 2.9-percent cut means in energy and water issues--there it is, a $239 million cut; environmental management, $203 million. There is a whole list of programs, including the Bureau of Reclamation and the Mississippi River Tributaries Program. If you look at Head Start, $63 million will be cut. Air traffic control--that ought to be good news for those who worry about domestic terrorism; transportation security, Coast Guard will be cut by $72 million. The VA-HUD--veterans take note--has $903 million in cuts; VA medical care, $692 million in cuts. So go ahead and add four-tenths of 1 percent to the already 2.9. I don't hear anybody talking about a slight cut in the $670 billion tax cut in all we are proposing here. Then my colleagues say we will take your $1.5 billion, but we are going to give a ``haircut'' to every other domestic spending program except the tax cut, which goes to the top 1 or 2 percent of income earners. I represent a State that has probably a greater percentage of those income earners than almost any other State in the country. I can say with certainty that my constituents--those included, by the way--who would be the beneficiaries of this tax cut would tell you that at this particular juncture that kind of a tax cut, given the fiscal needs of this country, is unwise. When my colleagues say we are going to make everybody pay a price, we are going to make that haircut of 2.9 percent, including the budget cuts I have suggested, and add this to it, just make sure you understand what we are talking about. We are not talking about a tax cut which taxes revenues over the table--I am not suggesting there isn't room for a tax cut. But how about including that in the proposal? Why is that particular area always left out and all we talk about are the domestic programs that affect families so strongly? I guarantee you, by the way, as you start looking at Head Start, the WIC Program, food safety programs, while you are providing $1.5 billion in special education needs and simultaneously cutting back on these other programs, it is not uncommon for the same family and the same child to be the recipient on one hand of the 1.5, and simultaneously getting food in the WIC Program, food safety programs, and the Head Start programs. Again, I don't know how you can sit here and look at a child who has autism or is suffering from juvenile diabetes, Down's Syndrome, or other special education needs and say: I am sorry we cannot touch the tax cuts, but you are going to have to take this cut in other areas. When my colleagues offer their side-by-side amendment and suggest yet further cuts, I think that is cruel. I think it is unnecessary. I think there are ways of doing this without going after some of these very issues that are so critically important to the well-being of our Nation. They have a lot to do with the economic security of our country as well. We need to have a balanced approach. So, Mr. President, we will have a debate further along in this year on full funding again. I only hope the administration changes its view from the last Congress. I will reiterate what I said earlier. Governors and mayors list this as their top priority. Mr. Governor or Mr. Mayor, when the first amendment is voted on and we are telling you, by the way, we are going to help you out in special education, hold your breath because we are simultaneously reaching into your other pocket and causing you to raise taxes or cut other vital spending needs you may have because we are reaching in to rob you of the necessary resources you need as well to run your States and your communities. It is a cruel hoax, in a way, we are laying out before people. I am not opposed to looking at reform efforts. We had a fine effort in 1997--some of my colleagues have forgotten this already--to look at the special education programs. Again, with the reauthorization, I presume we will look at them again. I certainly welcome that. Anytime we have a program such as IDEA, close examination of how well it is working, whether or not the intended beneficiaries are receiving the resources they need, is something we ought to do. It is the only responsible thing to do. Let's not simultaneously suggest that we are going to have to wait for examination before we provide the resources to the States and communities. They do not have a chance of waiting. They have to provide for these children under existing law. Congress mandated it 28 years ago, and we have only gotten to 15, 16 percent of that 40-percent commitment. The $1.5 billion in this amendment gets us a little closer to the 40- percent commitment. It raises and provides the resources to these communities for the fiscal year we are in already. We will come back again later in this Congress to see if we can get full funding set up in a way which we did a year and a half ago. When the vote occurs on this amendment, there are two options: One, to provide the $1.5 billion while going after domestic spending programs, along the lines I mentioned already or, second, we can say we can do it and find the means of doing it, and one of the means is to reduce by a small amount the tax cut the President intends to provide for people in the country. The point being that most of the recipients of this tax cut are people who have incomes in excess of $250,000. Tell that to a family with an autistic child. Tell that to a family with a child who has Down syndrome or serious learning disabilities: Sorry, we would like to provide that kind of help you need, but, you see, we have an obligation to provide a tax break to someone making $300,000, $400,000 a year. We cannot just quite meet the obligation to you. I know we made a promise to do it. We said 28 years ago we would do it. We are up to 15 percent of that obligation. By the way, if you wait another 33 years, we will complete that obligation, 60 years after we made the promise. Then we will get you your resources because we cannot afford to give you the help you need without cutting everything else in the domestic area. Of course, we cannot touch the tax cut for the most affluent Americans. I do not know of anyone outside the people in this town who believe in the logic of that argument. Nonetheless, watch and see what happens when we vote on this amendment. That is exactly what will happen. Go home and explain why we have to cut into these other areas to serve needy kids in this country.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will take 10 minutes. Will the Senator notify me when that is up?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains under the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut?