Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am happy to yield whatever time the Senator from Maryland needs.

Mr. DODD. That is fine. We have a couple of other Members, I have just been informed, who would like to speak on the special education amendment. They are not here yet because of the conditions outside. In order to accommodate our colleague from Rhode Island, who is here--and Senator Dayton from Minnesota is on his way--we could work up a proposal and come back later in the afternoon when the other Members are here and finish up the debate on that and allow these other amendments to be debated, since those Senators are here.

Mr. DODD. If the minority whip will yield, my intention was to make a few additional comments, but I have spoken on the amendment. I would like some idea of when we might do this. I know the Senator from Rhode Island has an amendment.

Mr. DODD. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. DODD. There are other Members who want to be heard on this issue. As we begin this debate in this Congress, this is one area on which we ought to find common ground. We will have our differences on other issues but every one of our States, Governors, mayors, and families with children with disabilities are asking us to step up and do what we can for them. As we start out in the year 2003, this modest amendment could make such a difference to people across this country and is something we ought to be able to join forces together on and adopt. Exhibit 1 National Governors Association, Washington, DC, January 16, 2003. Hon. Bill Frist, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, the Capitol, Washington, DC. Hon. Tom Daschle, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, the Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Frist and Senator Daschle: On behalf of the nation's Governors, we are writing to express our support for several key provisions of the (FY) 2003 omnibus appropriations bill affecting state programs. First, we appreciate that the bill would maintain the FY 2003 highway program investment level at $31.8 billion. With a sluggish economy and many states facing budgetary difficulties, now is not the time to cut federal highway investment. In addition, Governors strongly support the $1.5 billion provided in the bill to implement the new election reform law. We also appreciate that the bill includes an extension of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant and related programs through September 30, 2003. It is critical that states have reliability of funds in order to continue operating their welfare reform programs while Congress considers TANF reauthorization. We would also like to express our support for the following amendments: Dodd Amendment. The Governors support Senator Dodd's amendment calling for a $1.5 billion increase in state grants for special education. We are committed to continuously improving the academic performance of all students, including students with disabilities. The nation's Governors support this amendment and urge Congress to continue to work toward enacting legislation that makes the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding a mandatory expenditure with incremental increases towards meeting the 40 percent federal requirement. Murray amendment. The Governors support providing the necessary funding for Amtrak to support the continuation of a national passenger rail system as proposed by Senator Murray. Amtrak must be provided a sufficient level of funding to guarantee there will be no break or threat of a break in service. We must be certain that Amtrak will not encounter the rolling financial crises it experienced during the past year. Chafee-Rockefeller amendment. The nation's Governors urge your support for quick action on a bipartisan compromise to protect resources in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP). Preserving the S-CHIP funds that have reverted to the federal treasury would keep $1.2 billion of the FY 1998 and FY 1999 allocations within the program until 2004. Harkin amendment. The Governors urge support for restoring current funding levels to the Edward Byrne block grant program for state and local law enforcement activities. Finally, while Governors appreciate the inclusion of $2 billion for first responder grants, we urge support for the President's original request of providing $3.5 billion coordinated through the states. Just as Congress and the President have responded by acting on a far-reaching reorganization and consolidation of federal agencies, so too the President recognized the critical role of states--the first line of defense and the first line of coordination of response to any attack. Thus, this should be meaningful, new resources that respect the diversity, responsibilities, and capabilities of states and the immediate need for resources for national defense. Therefore, we encourage you to add an additional $1.5 billion in first responder grant funds to the $2 billion, so that we meet the President's recognition of the need to be prepared to respond to and recover from any terrorist attacks. We greatly appreciate your consideration of our views. Sincerely, Governor Paul E. Patton, Chairman. Governor Dirk Kempthorne, Vice Chairman.

Mr. DODD. I am not asking for full funding with this amendment. I am asking for the $1.5 billion in this omnibus appropriations bill. I am confident every one of these organizations would support this amendment, even though it is not full funding, but rather the additional amounts this year when we consider the pressures on our States. Lastly, in looking at the differences in our States--the top State on the list is that of the Presiding Officer--the difference right away where there is a gap between what I am offering and the omnibus bill, it is a little less than $30 million in the State of Alabama, and this amendment would make up the difference. Going down further, in my own State of Connecticut, the difference would be about $18 million. In the State of Vermont, the difference would be about $3 million. In the State of Rhode Island, the difference would be about $5 million in this amendment. What a difference it would make. I saw my colleague from Missouri in the Chamber recently. In the State of Missouri, the difference would be about $30 million. I have all 50 States listed and the difference that this $1.5 billion could make. That may not sound like much when a State is facing billions of dollars in deficits, but the fact that we might step up to the plate in Nevada--I apologize to my friend of Nevada, who is sitting right in front of me, but I did not see him--it is about $10 million in his State. I ask unanimous consent to have this list printed in the Record at the end of my statement. It is printed on both sides of one sheet of paper. Members can then have an idea of what the benefit of this small amendment could mean to them and their States.

Mr. DODD. There are a whole list of organizations that support full funding for IDEA. I ask unanimous consent to have that list printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, this amendment will add $1.5 billion to the appropriations omnibus bill for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, commonly known as IDEA. This is a matter with which all of my colleagues are very familiar. We have debated this matter on numerous occasions over the years. A brief history about the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act may be in order. It has been almost 30 years--28 years--since Congress passed this legislation in 1975. The promise made in 1975 was that we would provide the States with 40 percent of the funding to educate children with special education needs. We started out with a far lower commitment, and over the years the States have assumed the lion's share of this responsibility. But over the years, we have failed to meet the commitment we made to the States almost 30 years ago. As a result of efforts by this body in the previous Congress, we came very close to achieving the full funding promise that was made many years ago. In fact, our distinguished colleagues and friends, Senator Jeffords, Senator Hagel, and Senator Harkin, offered an amendment in the previous Congress, which enjoyed unanimous support, to increase the funding over a series of years, that would reach the full funding level as required by the agreement reached in 1975. Unfortunately, the President and the Republican leadership of the other body refused to agree to the Senate unanimous vote on full funding for special education. As a result of that opposition by the President and by the leadership of the other body, the bipartisan efforts of the Senate and the good work of Senator Hagel, Senator Jeffords, Senator Harkin, and many of us who have worked on this issue over the years failed. In fact, I recall some 15 years ago when I was a member of the Budget Committee and offered in the committee the language which required full funding of special education needs. My friend and colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, was on that committee that year. I remember because he cast a vote with me in the Budget Committee, but we failed on a tie vote in the Budget Committee to get the increased funding. Over the years, we have had good bipartisan support to do everything we could to fully fund IDEA, and every year, for one reason or another, Congress finds a way to avoid its responsibility. I do not lay that on the shoulders of the Senate because recently we have met the promise we made. My colleagues here understand and know well how strongly the Governors, mayors, and county executives across this country feel about this issue. This is one of their major issues. When we ask them what are the important areas in which we can assist them, inevitably over the years they have listed special education as one of the most important areas in which we can assist them by meeting our obligations we made some 30 years ago. When Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1975, it promised to help States meet their constitutional obligation to provide children with disabilities a free appropriate education by paying for 40 percent of those costs. The States came to us in 1975 and said: We need your help on this issue. As I said, some 30 years ago, we said we would step in and help, just as we have done with title I for children who have different kinds of needs. Those needs are economic because of the levels of poverty across the country. We said this also is an area where we think the Federal Government ought to step up and provide help to the States. The cost of special education--and again, I am preaching to the choir when I talk to my colleagues about this issue because they know these issues as well as, if not better than, I do. Talk to any mayor, county executive, Governor, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, and they will tell you that the cost of special education is very high. In fact, in some small towns--I know in my State and I am confident in the State of the Presiding Officer and the States of my good friends from Vermont or Rhode Island--two or three children with special education needs can so distort a local budget with the tremendous increase in cost that it becomes almost prohibitive for those smaller communities to meet the obligations. That is why we have heard so many loud voices over so many years calling on us to step up and meet our obligation. We made a promise. In 1975, we said: As representatives of the Federal Government, we will come up with 40 percent of the cost of this program. That is our obligation. We will do that. Here we are almost 30 years later, and we have reached a 15-percent level. We are still short by some 25 percent of the costs of special education. We have made great strides in going from zero to 15 percent, particularly in the last 4 or 5 years, but we are still way short. The amendment I offer this afternoon provides for an additional $1.5 billion in this omnibus appropriations bill for an additional 1 year. This is not a full-funding amendment. I am not asking in this amendment for full funding over the next several years. Since this bill only deals with 1 fiscal year, I am merely trying to add these additional dollars which will get us closer to the obligations. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of 31 Members of this body introduced S. 466 to direct the appropriations of funds, to fully fund IDEA by 2007. That bill was the foundation of the Harkin-Hagel amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act. The amendment passed by the Senate on a unanimous vote would have increased Federal support for special education by $2.5 billion per year until we reach full funding. Unfortunately, as I mentioned a few moments ago, because of strong opposition from the President of the United States and the Republican House leadership, the provision adopted unanimously by this body was not included in the final No Child Left Behind Act. It made an oxymoron of the title of that bill, No Child Left Behind, when, in fact, we excluded the kids with special education needs from the legislation. So it was No Child Left Behind unless you have special education needs and disabilities. Today's amendment will enable us once again as a bipartisan Senate to take the first step that we recommitted ourselves to in 2001 by increasing the funding for special education by $2.5 billion for fiscal year 2002 to 2003. We are calling upon our colleagues to do just that. In my State of Connecticut, in spite of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to fund special education programs, our school districts--as is true in almost every other State in the country--are struggling to meet the needs of their students with disabilities. The costs borne by local communities and school districts are rising dramatically. From 1992 through 1997, for example, special education costs in Connecticut rose half again as much as did regular education costs. Our schools need our help, and this amendment is an opportunity, as we begin this 108th Congress, to do just that. Of course, no one in my State--or any other State, for that matter, in our great Nation--questions the value of making sure the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which is both a landmark education law and a landmark civil rights law, be fully implemented. The only question is how best to do that, and a large part of the answer lies in this amendment. This amendment will demonstrate that we intend to match our commitment to universal access to education with a commitment to do everything we can to help our States and schools provide that access. This amendment, further, will help not only our children in schools, but it will also help entire communities by easing their tax burden. Our failure to fully fund IDEA does not make the issue go away. When we do not meet our obligation, then a mayor or county executive at the local level has no alternative; they have to, under their constitutions, meet these responsibilities. So when we duck our responsibility, we only increase the burdens locally. They can slash their budgets locally in other vitally needed areas or they can increase taxes. As all of us know, there are not many options left at the local level. At the local level, that is where the rubber hits the road, where people need and require that certain obligations be met. Unfortunately, when we do not step to the plate and fulfill our promises on the national level, then we only increase tremendously the burden on our Governors, mayors, and county executives all across this great country. Homeowners and businesspeople end up paying higher taxes or watch services they depend upon be slashed, not only in my own State, but all around this country, because so much of education is paid for through local property taxes. Again, I do not need to recite to my colleagues the tremendous burdens that are being felt by local and State budgets all across this country. The estimates are now that deficits running at the State level may hover around $100 billion this year and only get worse next year and the year after. In my State alone, it is about half a billion this year. My Governor tells me it is going to be about $1.3 billion next year. I do not know what it is in the State of Alabama, but I presume it might be like what Connecticut is. I think California is around $34 billion. I heard some of my colleagues say the other day, in Michigan it is $4 billion or $5 billion. I think someone said in Minnesota it was like $4 billion or $5 billion. We have these mounting deficits at the State and local level. There is a need in special education. There was a promise made some 30 years ago by the Federal Government. What I am asking for in this amendment on the omnibus bill is that we take out the $1.5 billion, if we could, and see if we cannot step in and provide some real relief for our States and localities in their hour of need and the need of families who have a child with special needs. The President recently proposed another plan to cut taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars for some of the wealthiest Americans. I represent one of the most affluent States in the country. I probably have a higher percentage of my population who would benefit very directly as a result of the President's tax proposals. Without equivocation or hesitation, the overwhelming majority of the people in my State, including the most affluent, honestly believe the best use of resources is things such as special education. While they, as everyone else, would love to have a tax cut--there is nothing new about that-- when asked to balance the priorities and needs of a nation, they understand providing tax relief for people in the top 1, 2 or 3 percent of income earners in the country at a moment such as this is not a wise or prudent use of the resources of this Nation when there are so many other demands that must be met. I understand the Federal Government faces the same budget challenges in today's slumping economy as do our States and towns, but we cannot accept the argument that because our economy is faltering we cannot provide our children and their families with critical educational resources and otherwise help average Americans. We would and should not accept that argument if our homeland security or national defense were at stake, and we certainly cannot afford to do it here, either. Investment in education is no less important now than it was when our economy was more healthy. It is essential to our long-term national economic security. So I ask my colleagues to seize this opportunity and choose to help our schools but, more importantly, our families and young children who need these resources in order to maximize their potential. I do not know of anyone, regardless of to which party they belong, Conservative, Liberal or moderate, whatever label one wants to put on themselves politically, that when they look in the eyes of a child who has special needs, can say, I am sorry right now but we cannot provide the resources to their town, county, local, or our State government because we have these other priorities that are making too many demands on us. That is not my America. My America says, when there is a child with disabilities in need we step to the plate and provide them the kind of help they ought to have so they have a chance to become independent and maximize their potential to see to it that they can be productive citizens and add to the great strength and wealth of our Nation. I can go down the list of the various States and what they will lose or gain. At the end of my statement, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter written on January 16, 2003, to the majority leader, Senator Frist, and the minority leader, Senator Daschle, in which they specifically go down and list the importance of this amendment and the funding I am asking for, the $1.5 billion, as one of their top priorities. In fact, they list it as the top priority.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senators Kennedy, Mikulski, Jeffords, Murray, Edwards, Dayton, Corzine, and Kerry, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I note the presence of several of my colleagues. I will not take long. I commend our friend and colleague from Massachusetts for offering this amendment. He mentioned at the close of his remarks how this body in the previous Congress had voted some $16 billion in authorization moneys for title I. That amendment was offered by myself and my colleague from the State of Maine, Senator Collins. We received 79 votes on that amendment, a recorded vote, supporting the $16 billion figure to authorize the title I funds. What we are doing here today with this amendment is merely trying to confirm once again the Senate's commitment in the previous Congress to that dollar amount. My colleague from Massachusetts has laid out the substantive arguments--in fact, even gone back and reminded us of the history of our efforts to try and get additional funding for the critical area of elementary and secondary education. I rise to support this effort and hope once again for the same spirit that imbued this body only a Congress ago, when 79 of us thought this was so important we ought to support the authorization figure of $16 billion. You now have an opportunity, albeit a bit late, but nonetheless an opportunity to reconfirm the commitment made by most of us to that dollar amount. We have all heard the language and the rhetoric over the last several years about leaving no child behind. Nothing could be more important to the well-being of this country than to see to it that we make the necessary investments our children will absolutely need if they are going to have the quality of education necessary to maximize their potential in the 21st century. I can't think of a better way to begin that effort than by providing the resources necessary. We have already seen the budget cuts, some $4.6 billion short of the promise made when the President signed into law the $16 billion authorization level. Yet hardly before the ink was dry on that commitment we saw the cuts come in. How many of us remember the President traveling around the country, celebrating this major first initiative of his administration, proud of the fact he had built bipartisan support for dealing with the educational needs of America's children. What a great irony to find ourselves back here in this Congress arguing with the administration about restoring some funds to a program that was so highly celebrated by them. This is an issue that should not divide Americans by ideology or party or partisanship. I do not know of a single citizen who believes we can continue to prosper and grow as a people while simultaneously depriving the youngest of our citizens the opportunity to acquire the skills necessary to do what will have to be done to make us a strong and prosperous Nation in the 21st century. We all know how painfully difficult it is to provide that opportunity of education today at the local level, with property taxes being the major source of funding for educational needs, and in some areas State budgets also contribute. It is incredible to me that we contribute less than 2 percent of the entire Federal budget to the elementary and secondary educational needs of our students. About 6 cents on the education dollar comes from the national Government, and the overwhelming burden falls on local property taxpayers. We have been debating the issue of affirmative action and the President's decision yesterday to oppose the plan at the University of Michigan. I will find another moment and time to address that issue head on. But let me suggest to the President and others, if you want to know why there is a need for affirmative action, you merely have to look at how we spend money when it comes to elementary and secondary education and on title I. If you are wondering why a child entering college may need some further consideration when it comes to accepting them or rejecting them to a higher educational opportunity, consider what we do at the earliest stages of their educational development. In most States in this country, if you go to the inner city urban schools, you will find that 35 or 36 percent of the teachers are not certified to teach the course the children are taking; whereas Statewide, in the more affluent communities, those numbers are dramatically lower. We should be doing everything we can. If you want to eliminate affirmative action, then you better begin here with the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, to make it possible for every child to have an equal opportunity to learn. Today, given the disparities in our communities based on the wealth, the poverty, or affluence of those communities increases the likelihood of an educational opportunity. It should not be a question of where you were born as to whether you will have a right or an opportunity to succeed. We ought to be doing everything we can to see to it that every child, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, will have an opportunity to achieve to their maximum potential. We bear no responsibility to guarantee success. We bear every responsibility to see to it that there is an opportunity to succeed or fail. That is all we are trying to do in this one area of title I and Pell grants which the Senator rightly has added to the amendment. I can't recall a prouder day in the last Congress than when we stood here, 79 of us, and Senator Collins and I offered that amendment. Many thought we could not pass it. But 79 of us here said we ought to do this on title I. I hope the Members who cast the vote that day, as they walk into this Chamber in the coming hour or 2, will recall how they felt when they actually voted to see to it that we maximize the dollars necessary to support this critically important program and cast a ballot again today in this Congress to see that we have full funding for title I and the necessary dollars to support the Pell Grant Program, which will make it possible for children of modest means to achieve a higher education which, in the absence of this amendment, would be difficult to do. This is important to children at both the elementary and secondary school levels. It is important to the security of America. Our security is directly linked to the wellness and ability of our children to acquire the educational skills they will need. This is a national security issue, not just an education issue. I look forward to supporting this amendment when the vote occurs. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise, and am joined by my colleagues Senator Mikulski, Senator Jeffords, Senator Murray, Senator Landrieu and Senator Dayton, to introduce legislation to amend the Higher Education Act to improve access to higher education for low- and middle-income students by doubling the authorized maximum Pell Grant within six years. This bill has the strong support of the Student Aid Alliance, whose 60 organizations represent students, colleges, parents, and others who care about higher education. Pell Grants were established in the early 1970s by our former colleague, Claiborne Pell, of Rhode Island. They are the largest source of federal grant aid for college students. For millions of low- and middle-income students they are the difference between attending or not attending college. But, unfortunately, they don't make as much of a difference as they used to. In 1975, the maximum appropriated Pell Grant covered all of the average student's tuition, fees, room, and board at community colleges. It covered about 80 percent of those costs at public universities and about 40 percent at private universities. Today, Pell Grant's purchasing power has dropped by more than 30 percent at community colleges and been more than cut in half at universities. It covers only 38 percent of the costs at public universities and 15 percent at private universities. That's not just a drop, it's a free-fall. For students from the lowest income families, college is getting farther and farther out of reach. Since 1975, as a percentage of the family income of the poorest 20 percent of families, the cost of public universities has increased by half and the cost of private universities has doubled. For middle-income families, the cost of college also has increased significantly as a percentage of income. As a result of all this, low- and middle-income students who want to attend college are forced to finance their education with an ever- increasing percentage of loans as opposed to grants, which effectively increases their cost of attendance even more and in many cases, keeps them from going to college at all. Of course, the President's budget would have frozen the maximum Pell Grant. So, on top of leaving millions of children behind by failing to meet the bipartisan promises of the No Child Left Behind Act, the President's budget would leave even more children behind who work hard and do well in school and want to go on to college. We can't kid ourselves, if we're serious about leaving no child behind, if we're serious about having a society where equal opportunity for all is more than just rhetoric, then we need to reinvigorate the Pell program. The Student Aid Alliance put it very well, in talking about students, when they said that ``investing in their future is investing in our nation's future.'' We can start investing in our Nation's future by supporting the amendment that will be offered to the Omnibus appropriations bill today to increase the maximum appropriated Pell Grant to $4,500. That won't bring Pell Grant's purchasing power back to where it was in 1975, but it is a critical first step, and I intend to continue the effort through this bill and other measures as we reauthorize the Higher Education Act this Congress. I hope that my colleagues will join me. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise, and am joined by my colleagues Senator Mikulski, Senator Jeffords, Senator Murray, Senator Landrieu and Senator Dayton, to introduce legislation to amend the Higher Education Act to improve access to higher education for low- and middle-income students by doubling the authorized maximum Pell Grant within six years. This bill has the strong support of the Student Aid Alliance, whose 60 organizations represent students, colleges, parents, and others who care about higher education. Pell Grants were established in the early 1970s by our former colleague, Claiborne Pell, of Rhode Island. They are the largest source of federal grant aid for college students. For millions of low- and middle-income students they are the difference between attending or not attending college. But, unfortunately, they don't make as much of a difference as they used to. In 1975, the maximum appropriated Pell Grant covered all of the average student's tuition, fees, room, and board at community colleges. It covered about 80 percent of those costs at public universities and about 40 percent at private universities. Today, Pell Grant's purchasing power has dropped by more than 30 percent at community colleges and been more than cut in half at universities. It covers only 38 percent of the costs at public universities and 15 percent at private universities. That's not just a drop, it's a free-fall. For students from the lowest income families, college is getting farther and farther out of reach. Since 1975, as a percentage of the family income of the poorest 20 percent of families, the cost of public universities has increased by half and the cost of private universities has doubled. For middle-income families, the cost of college also has increased significantly as a percentage of income. As a result of all this, low- and middle-income students who want to attend college are forced to finance their education with an ever- increasing percentage of loans as opposed to grants, which effectively increases their cost of attendance even more and in many cases, keeps them from going to college at all. Of course, the President's budget would have frozen the maximum Pell Grant. So, on top of leaving millions of children behind by failing to meet the bipartisan promises of the No Child Left Behind Act, the President's budget would leave even more children behind who work hard and do well in school and want to go on to college. We can't kid ourselves, if we're serious about leaving no child behind, if we're serious about having a society where equal opportunity for all is more than just rhetoric, then we need to reinvigorate the Pell program. The Student Aid Alliance put it very well, in talking about students, when they said that ``investing in their future is investing in our nation's future.'' We can start investing in our Nation's future by supporting the amendment that will be offered to the Omnibus appropriations bill today to increase the maximum appropriated Pell Grant to $4,500. That won't bring Pell Grant's purchasing power back to where it was in 1975, but it is a critical first step, and I intend to continue the effort through this bill and other measures as we reauthorize the Higher Education Act this Congress. I hope that my colleagues will join me. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Janet Adams Viggiani--a native of Connecticut. I have known the Viggiani family for many years as residents of our native State, as neighbors in East Haddam, and as friends. Janet became a strong advocate for the public interest, an accomplished attorney, and an educator, who dedicated her professional life to helping young people and to making our Nation a more just and equitable land. Born in Middletown, CT, Janet spent her early years in the Nutmeg State. After graduating summa cum laude from Smith College, she began what would become a lifetime of work motivated by a deep desire to serve others, particularly those who struggled mightily to overcome enormous adversity in their lives--such as illness, criminal abuse, and discrimination. She worked for the Nine To Five Organization for Women Workers in Boston and for Brigham and Women's Hospital. She cofounded the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, which has done so much to protect the rights and interests of working families. She also cofounded the New England Sexual Assault Network, which provided support for victims of some of society's most heinous crimes. Janet became assistant director of Radcliffe College's Career Services Center, where she provided guidance to students searching for meaningful careers. While working for her doctorate at the Harvard School of Education, Janet was named an assistant dean at Harvard College in 1988. She spent 3 years advising the college administration on sexual harassment, sexual assault, tutor training, and gender equality issues in the classroom. In 1996, Janet obtained a law degree from Harvard. After working on a variety of employment discrimination cases in the private sector, Janet was able to combine her love of law and education by taking a position at Simmons College, where she served as a legal counsel to the president. In this capacity, Janet dealt with a variety of legal issues, including employment, gender and racial discrimination, intellectual property, and other student affairs. Janet was taken from us too soon, but she touched the lives of many people throughout her life. Her dedication to making our world a better place inspired many people and serves as an example for all of us to follow. My thoughts and prayers are with Janet's friends and family, particularly with her parents, Carl and Jane of East Haddam, CT, her sister Frances, and her brother Carl. She will be deeply missed by all who knew her. Mr. President, I would like to submit for the Record an article written about Janet that appeared several days ago in the Middletown Press.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will take a minute or two to explain the purpose in offering this resolution. I think it is rather self- explanatory. I want to thank Senator Daschle and Senator Lott, our respective leaders, along with both the Members of the minority and the majority, for their support of this resolution recognizing former President Jimmy Carter for many things, not the least of which is the recognition by the Nobel Committee in awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize. Over the past 25 years, few have been as dedicated to improving our country and our world than Jimmy Carter. Throughout his life, former President Carter has tirelessly devoted himself to promoting human rights, relieving human suffering, and promoting peaceful resolutions to a wide array of international conflicts. Jimmy Carter's herculean efforts for peace during his term as President culminated with the signing of the Camp David accords, and indeed, his leadership and determination played a vital role in helping to achieve what once was considered impossible peace between Israel and Egypt. Although his efforts and dedication to peace did not earn him a nomination for the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize, which was subsequently awarded to then President of Egypt Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, former President Carter's indispensable role in this lasting peace is and will always be a matter of historical record. Although many public servants retire from the public eye after their terms are completed, since leaving public office, President Carter has used his status and abundant talents honorably and effectively for the benefit of humanity. In 1982, he founded the Carter Center, a highly- respected research organization that seeks to cultivate peace, democracy, and human rights, and helps fight famine and disease. In 1984, he began his affiliation with Habitat for Humanity by leading efforts to restore a residential building in New York, and his annual participation with Habitat ever since further demonstrates his strong commitment to all manners of public service and to the betterment of society. He has been an inspiration to all who want to find ways to serve this country and humanity generally. In 1999, Jimmy Carter was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest award a United States civilian can receive. In 2002, at the invitation of Fidel Castro, he made a historic visit to Cuba in order to encourage the free exchange of ideas between Americans and Cubans. I believe his visit, the first by an American President since 1928, will help to encourage democracy and build bridges between our citizens and our nations. Indeed, whether he is working to promote strategic arms reduction or helping resolve inner-city social problems, whether he is brokering a peace between warring factions in Ethiopia or promoting peace, democracy and human rights in countries such as North Korea, East Timor, and Haiti, whether he is negotiating a cease-fire in Bosnia or working to ensure free and fair elections in countries throughout the world, Jimmy Carter is one of the pre-eminent figures of the last 50 years and a wonderful embodiment of the best of American ideals. Prior to this year, Jimmy Carter had been nominated 10 times for the Nobel Peace Prize. I am extremely pleased that in October of this year he finally received this well-deserved and long-overdue tribute to his lifelong efforts. There is nobody more deserving of this highest of honors. I salute the decision of the Nobel Committee. I again express my gratitude to all of our colleagues in the closing hours of this 107th Congress. This resolution recognizes the contributions of Jimmy Carter, and I join with others in congratulating him on this well-deserved, long overdue honor of the Nobel Peace Prize. Our congratulations to his beloved wife Rosalynn and his family for all they have contributed to the well-being of our Nation and to the world in which we live. I inquire of the Chair as to whether or not the fourth whereas clause on page 2 has been stricken?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have had this Senate resolution cleared with the majority and the minority sides. It is a resolution commending former President Carter on his upcoming receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 360 submitted earlier today by myself and others.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will take a minute or two to explain the purpose in offering this resolution. I think it is rather self- explanatory. I want to thank Senator Daschle and Senator Lott, our respective leaders, along with both the Members of the minority and the majority, for their support of this resolution recognizing former President Jimmy Carter for many things, not the least of which is the recognition by the Nobel Committee in awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize. Over the past 25 years, few have been as dedicated to improving our country and our world than Jimmy Carter. Throughout his life, former President Carter has tirelessly devoted himself to promoting human rights, relieving human suffering, and promoting peaceful resolutions to a wide array of international conflicts. Jimmy Carter's herculean efforts for peace during his term as President culminated with the signing of the Camp David accords, and indeed, his leadership and determination played a vital role in helping to achieve what once was considered impossible peace between Israel and Egypt. Although his efforts and dedication to peace did not earn him a nomination for the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize, which was subsequently awarded to then President of Egypt Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, former President Carter's indispensable role in this lasting peace is and will always be a matter of historical record. Although many public servants retire from the public eye after their terms are completed, since leaving public office, President Carter has used his status and abundant talents honorably and effectively for the benefit of humanity. In 1982, he founded the Carter Center, a highly- respected research organization that seeks to cultivate peace, democracy, and human rights, and helps fight famine and disease. In 1984, he began his affiliation with Habitat for Humanity by leading efforts to restore a residential building in New York, and his annual participation with Habitat ever since further demonstrates his strong commitment to all manners of public service and to the betterment of society. He has been an inspiration to all who want to find ways to serve this country and humanity generally. In 1999, Jimmy Carter was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest award a United States civilian can receive. In 2002, at the invitation of Fidel Castro, he made a historic visit to Cuba in order to encourage the free exchange of ideas between Americans and Cubans. I believe his visit, the first by an American President since 1928, will help to encourage democracy and build bridges between our citizens and our nations. Indeed, whether he is working to promote strategic arms reduction or helping resolve inner-city social problems, whether he is brokering a peace between warring factions in Ethiopia or promoting peace, democracy and human rights in countries such as North Korea, East Timor, and Haiti, whether he is negotiating a cease-fire in Bosnia or working to ensure free and fair elections in countries throughout the world, Jimmy Carter is one of the pre-eminent figures of the last 50 years and a wonderful embodiment of the best of American ideals. Prior to this year, Jimmy Carter had been nominated 10 times for the Nobel Peace Prize. I am extremely pleased that in October of this year he finally received this well-deserved and long-overdue tribute to his lifelong efforts. There is nobody more deserving of this highest of honors. I salute the decision of the Nobel Committee. I again express my gratitude to all of our colleagues in the closing hours of this 107th Congress. This resolution recognizes the contributions of Jimmy Carter, and I join with others in congratulating him on this well-deserved, long overdue honor of the Nobel Peace Prize. Our congratulations to his beloved wife Rosalynn and his family for all they have contributed to the well-being of our Nation and to the world in which we live. I inquire of the Chair as to whether or not the fourth whereas clause on page 2 has been stricken?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have had this Senate resolution cleared with the majority and the minority sides. It is a resolution commending former President Carter on his upcoming receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 360 submitted earlier today by myself and others.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?