Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Wellstone for introducing this important amendment to the homeland security bill. Our international tax code currently has a loophole that allows U.S. corporations to open shell companies in tax haven countries while enjoying all of the benefits of conducting business in the United States without paying taxes. The Finance Committee has reported out a bill that temporarily addresses this very issue. I hope that in the coming weeks we will debate and pass the Finance Committee bill. The amendment currently before us prohibits the new homeland security agency from contracting with any corporate expatriate. I commend my colleague for introducing this fair and very simple amendment. What this amendment says is that if you are incorporated outside of the United States and do not have substantial business activities in the foreign country you are incorporated in, and if at least 50 percent of the stock of the entity is held by former shareholders of the domestic corporation or by former partners of the domestic partnership, you will not be allowed to contract with the new homeland security agency. Also, unlike previous discussions on this issue, Senator Wellstone's amendment includes all inverted companies, so that there is no difference between companies who have just inverted or have been inverted for 6 months or 6 years. This is plain and simple, and more importantly, this is fair. The U.S. government should not be in the business of contracting with U.S. based corporations that are avoiding their tax responsibilities by incorporating in offshore tax havens. Corporations have a right to determine where they should incorporate and what is best for their business, just like we have a right to determine how hard earned U.S. tax dollars should be spent. I strongly believe that U.S. tax dollars should not be spent in government contracts to companies that have expatriated in order to avoid paying taxes. Companies who are or will be affected by this amendment must understand that there are benefits and costs to the decisions they make. This amendment, if adopted, will force corporations to include in their calculus the fact that they may no longer be able to enjoy the earnings that are brought to them through Government contracts if they incorporate off shore to avoid U.S. taxes. That may or may not alter management's decision to move--management may decide that it does not matter that the company will not be able to contract with the government. If this is the decision, so be it. But we should not perpetuate a system that puts companies that do pay U.S. taxes at a competitive disadvantage because their counterparts have less of a tax burden. I represent the State where Stanley Works is located. Stanley Works has a wonderful history and tradition in Connecticut, and so it was a great disappointment to many of us when they took steps towards inverting their company to Bermuda. Obviously Stanley Works executives weighed the benefits and costs to inverting the company and found that the costs outweighed the benefits, and so I can speak on behalf of Connecticut when I say, that we are pleased that Stanley Works dropped its plan to reincorporate to Bermuda. In FY 2001, Stanley Works had a total of $5.2 million of defense and homeland security related Government contracts. Now that they are going to stay incorporated in the U.S., they would be put at an unfair disadvantage if they have to compete with companies who also weighed the cost and benefit, but decided that they are better off leaving the U.S. or remaining incorporated outside of the U.S. The amendment currently before us takes away this unfair advantage. And so if companies like Ingersoll-Rand, Cooper Industries, and others are interested in continuing to contract with the Federal Government, then all they have to do is come back. To continue to contract with companies that have inverted, to continue to allow companies to engage in tax saving techniques not available to most individual taxpayers and yet still be eligible for important and profitable government contracts, would in the words of the Treasury Department, ``reduce confidence in the fairness of the tax system.'' U.S. companies that have decided to move offshore currently hold at least $2 billion worth of contracts with the Federal Government. We have a responsibility to ensure that these offshore shell companies are not rewarded for turning their backs on America. And that is exactly what this Amendment does. At a time when confidence in U.S. business practices is at an all time low, when the country is engaged in foreign policy challenges, and when CBO is projecting lasting deficits until 2006 we cannot continue to condone this practice, and we surely cannot allow the Government to continue to allow this unfair loophole to continue. Offshore tax havens are a massive $200 billion loss of U.S. tax revenue that should stay in the U.S. The 2002 U.S. deficit is expected to be at $157 billion--a deficit that would be closed were these offshore companies to pay their fair share of taxes. I think that we can agree that we must address the problems in our flawed international tax code which is obviously in need of reform. There are problems with the fact that the tax code is currently putting American companies at a competitive disadvantage by taxing income from their overseas operations while other nations do not tax income earned abroad. But what we need to do is work together to change the law and not just abandon ship and reincorporate. And so while we work on making changes to the tax code, it is important that we do not disadvantage those companies who remain in the U.S. by also awarding contracts to those who have left. That is why I am pleased that this amendment passed the Senate today.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Student Bill of Rights. This bill is critical to ensuring that every child in America receives the educational opportunity that is the foundation of America's promise of equal opportunity for all. This bill would hold States accountable for providing the fundamentals of education--including highly qualified teachers, principals, and academic support personnel, challenging curricula, small classes, current textbooks, quality libraries, up-to-date facilities and technology, and capable guidance counselors to students at all schools in the State. Current law requires that schools within the same district provide comparable educational services. This bill would extend that basic protection to the State level by requiring comparability across school districts. And, this bill would help ensure that states comply with State or Federal court orders concerning the fairness of their public school systems. I want to thank Senators Kennedy, Wellstone, and Reed for joining me in introducing this bill and for their longstanding commitment to this issue. I also want to thank Representative Chaka Fattah, of Philadelphia. Representative Fattah is a leader in the fight for educational opportunity for all. He and I have worked together closely on this issue, and he is introducing a similar Student Bill of Rights in the other body today. Nearly 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education, our educational system remains largely separate and unequal. Whether an American child is taught by a high quality teacher in a small class, has access to the best courses and instructional materials, goes to school in a new, modern building, and otherwise benefits from educational resources that have been shown to be essential to a quality education, still depends on where the child's family can afford to live. In fact, the United States ranks last among developed countries in the difference in the quality of schools available to wealthy and low-income children. This is simply unacceptable, and it is why the Student Bill of Rights is so important to our children's ability to achieve academically, to gain the skills they need to be responsible, participating citizens in our diverse democracy, and to compete and succeed in the global economy. Last year, Democrats and Republicans worked closely with President Bush to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, to hold schools accountable for closing the achievement gap for low-income students, minority students, limited-English proficient students, and students with disabilities and to hold them accountable for all students performing at a high level. I commend the President for his interest in education. Holding schools to high standards of student achievement is critical. But, it's not the same as reaching those standards. If we don't make sure that every school has the tools it needs, we will be like parents with two children telling them that they expect both children to work hard and do well in school, but that they will only help one of them with their homework, will only allow one of them to use the family's encyclopedia or computer, and will only allow one of them to study in their warm room, while the other must study in the unheated basement. I know that States have made some progress over the years in leveling the playing field, and that they are facing terrific budgetary pressures. And, I know that the Federal Government is facing budget deficits instead of surpluses, but providing enough resources for education shouldn't be a choice. We don't, and we shouldn't, say that ``We'd like to do more about national security, but times are tough.'' We can't accept that argument for education, either. This bill does not represent a radical notion. This Congress and last, 42 Senators and 183 Representatives voted for similar legislation that Mr. Fattah and I offered. A radical notion is the idea that a country founded on the principal of equal opportunity for all can continue to accept an educational system that provides real educational opportunity for just a select few. That's not to say that only states have to do better. The No Child Left Behind Act rightly requires school districts and schools to do more, and we need to do much, much more in Washington to fulfill our role in this process. More than 90 percent of America's children rely upon public schools, yet less than 2 percent of our entire federal budget is spent on helping our grade schools and high schools. That's only about 7 percent of all education spending. When he signed the No Child Left Behind Act this January, President Bush promised that the Federal Government would make sure schools have the resources necessary to meet the new law's requirements. But, in February, with the ink on the new law not yet dry, the President sent his education budget to Congress and the resources were not there. In fact, the President took an enormous step backward by proposing to cut Federal support for the No Child Left Behind Act. For example, more than ten million low-income children attend schools in areas that are eligible for Federal assistance to hire and train teachers and buy textbooks, computers, and other school necessities. The President's education budget would provide only 40 percent of the assistance that these schools need, leaving more than six million children behind. The President's budget also fails to even come close to fully funding the Federal Government's commitment to special education, leaving families and local communities struggling to make up the difference. We will never close the achievement gap as long as our Nation's most disadvantaged students in the neediest schools are forced to make do with far less than other students. At the same time, the President wants to take nearly $4 billion away from these students and these schools to fund private school vouchers. Private schools provide many children with a good education, but for America to continue to succeed as a Nation, our public schools must also succeed. And, the way to help them succeed is not to drain resources from them in the vain hope that the answer lies elsewhere, but by making sure that every public school has the resources to provide our children with the education they need and deserve, through measures such as the Student Bill of Rights, fully funding Title I and special education, and others. In the end, this is about the simple fact that the quality of a child's education shouldn't be determined by the digits of their zip code. This measure corrects that inequity by ensuring that each and every child's school has the resources to provide them with a decent education, and in turn, an equal opportunity for a successful future. And so, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Student Bill of Rights. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Student Bill of Rights. This bill is critical to ensuring that every child in America receives the educational opportunity that is the foundation of America's promise of equal opportunity for all. This bill would hold States accountable for providing the fundamentals of education--including highly qualified teachers, principals, and academic support personnel, challenging curricula, small classes, current textbooks, quality libraries, up-to-date facilities and technology, and capable guidance counselors to students at all schools in the State. Current law requires that schools within the same district provide comparable educational services. This bill would extend that basic protection to the State level by requiring comparability across school districts. And, this bill would help ensure that states comply with State or Federal court orders concerning the fairness of their public school systems. I want to thank Senators Kennedy, Wellstone, and Reed for joining me in introducing this bill and for their longstanding commitment to this issue. I also want to thank Representative Chaka Fattah, of Philadelphia. Representative Fattah is a leader in the fight for educational opportunity for all. He and I have worked together closely on this issue, and he is introducing a similar Student Bill of Rights in the other body today. Nearly 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education, our educational system remains largely separate and unequal. Whether an American child is taught by a high quality teacher in a small class, has access to the best courses and instructional materials, goes to school in a new, modern building, and otherwise benefits from educational resources that have been shown to be essential to a quality education, still depends on where the child's family can afford to live. In fact, the United States ranks last among developed countries in the difference in the quality of schools available to wealthy and low-income children. This is simply unacceptable, and it is why the Student Bill of Rights is so important to our children's ability to achieve academically, to gain the skills they need to be responsible, participating citizens in our diverse democracy, and to compete and succeed in the global economy. Last year, Democrats and Republicans worked closely with President Bush to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, to hold schools accountable for closing the achievement gap for low-income students, minority students, limited-English proficient students, and students with disabilities and to hold them accountable for all students performing at a high level. I commend the President for his interest in education. Holding schools to high standards of student achievement is critical. But, it's not the same as reaching those standards. If we don't make sure that every school has the tools it needs, we will be like parents with two children telling them that they expect both children to work hard and do well in school, but that they will only help one of them with their homework, will only allow one of them to use the family's encyclopedia or computer, and will only allow one of them to study in their warm room, while the other must study in the unheated basement. I know that States have made some progress over the years in leveling the playing field, and that they are facing terrific budgetary pressures. And, I know that the Federal Government is facing budget deficits instead of surpluses, but providing enough resources for education shouldn't be a choice. We don't, and we shouldn't, say that ``We'd like to do more about national security, but times are tough.'' We can't accept that argument for education, either. This bill does not represent a radical notion. This Congress and last, 42 Senators and 183 Representatives voted for similar legislation that Mr. Fattah and I offered. A radical notion is the idea that a country founded on the principal of equal opportunity for all can continue to accept an educational system that provides real educational opportunity for just a select few. That's not to say that only states have to do better. The No Child Left Behind Act rightly requires school districts and schools to do more, and we need to do much, much more in Washington to fulfill our role in this process. More than 90 percent of America's children rely upon public schools, yet less than 2 percent of our entire federal budget is spent on helping our grade schools and high schools. That's only about 7 percent of all education spending. When he signed the No Child Left Behind Act this January, President Bush promised that the Federal Government would make sure schools have the resources necessary to meet the new law's requirements. But, in February, with the ink on the new law not yet dry, the President sent his education budget to Congress and the resources were not there. In fact, the President took an enormous step backward by proposing to cut Federal support for the No Child Left Behind Act. For example, more than ten million low-income children attend schools in areas that are eligible for Federal assistance to hire and train teachers and buy textbooks, computers, and other school necessities. The President's education budget would provide only 40 percent of the assistance that these schools need, leaving more than six million children behind. The President's budget also fails to even come close to fully funding the Federal Government's commitment to special education, leaving families and local communities struggling to make up the difference. We will never close the achievement gap as long as our Nation's most disadvantaged students in the neediest schools are forced to make do with far less than other students. At the same time, the President wants to take nearly $4 billion away from these students and these schools to fund private school vouchers. Private schools provide many children with a good education, but for America to continue to succeed as a Nation, our public schools must also succeed. And, the way to help them succeed is not to drain resources from them in the vain hope that the answer lies elsewhere, but by making sure that every public school has the resources to provide our children with the education they need and deserve, through measures such as the Student Bill of Rights, fully funding Title I and special education, and others. In the end, this is about the simple fact that the quality of a child's education shouldn't be determined by the digits of their zip code. This measure corrects that inequity by ensuring that each and every child's school has the resources to provide them with a decent education, and in turn, an equal opportunity for a successful future. And so, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Student Bill of Rights. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, Senator Mike DeWine, to introduce legislation to protect the most vulnerable members of our society: newborn infants. About 2 months ago, many families across the country celebrated Father's Day. As a first-time dad of a 10-month-old baby girl, I now know the joy of being able to experience that holiday and every other pleasure that comes along with being a father. What I also now share with parents everywhere is a constant sense of worry about whether our kids are doing well, are feeling well, and are safe. Nothing is of greater importance than the health and well-being of our children. Thanks to incredible advances in medical technology, it is now possible to test newborns for at least 30 genetic and metabolic disorders. Many of these disorders, if undetected, would lead to severe disability or death. However, babies that are properly diagnosed and treated can go on to live healthy lives. In the most direct sense, newborn screening saves lives. Frighteningly, the disorders that newborn screening tests for can come without warning. For most of these disorders, there is no medical history of the condition in the family, no way to predict the health of a baby based on the health of the parents. Although the disorders that are tested for are quite rate, there is a chance that any one newborn will be affected. In that sense, this is an issue that has a direct impact on the lives of every family. Fortunately, screening has become common practice in every state. Each year, over four million infants have blood taken from their heel to detect these disorders that could threaten their life and long-term health. As a result, about one in 4,000 babies is diagnosed with one of these disorders. That means that newborn screening could save approximately 1,000 lives each year. That is 1,000 tragedies that can possibly be averted--families left with the joy of a new infant rather than absolute heartbreak. That is the good news. However, there is so much more to be done. More than 2,000 babies born are estimated to be born every year in the United States with potentially detectable disorders that go undetected because they are not screened. These infants and their families face the prospect of disability or death from a preventable disorder. Let me repeat that--disability or death from a preventable disorder. The survival of a newborn may very well come down to the state in which it is born. Only two states, including my home state of Connecticut thanks to recent legislation, will test for all 30 disorders. The vast majority test for eight or fewer. I recently chaired a hearing on this issue during which I related a story that illustrates the impact of newborn screening, or the lack of newborn screening, in a very personal sense. Jonathan Sweeney is a three-year-old from Brookfield, CT. At the time of his birth, the state only tested for eight disorders. He was considered a healthy baby, although he was a poor sleeper and needed to be fed quite frequently. One morning in December of 2000, Jonathan's mother, Pamela, found Jonathan with his eyes wide open but completely unresponsive. He was not breathing and appeared to be having a seizure. Jonathan was rushed to the hospital where, fortunately, his life was saved. He was later diagnosed with L-CHAD, a disorder that prevents Jonathan's body from turning fat into energy. Despite this harrowing tale, Jonathan and his family are extremely fortunate. Jonathan is alive, and his disorder can be treated with a special diet. He has experienced developmental delays that most likely could have been avoided had he been tested and treated for L-CHAD at birth. This raises a question. Why was he not tested? Why do 47 states still not test for L-CHAD? The primary reason for this unfortunate reality is the lack of consensus on the federal level about what should be screened for, and how a screening program should be developed. Twenty of the thirty disorders can only be detected using a costly piece of equipment called a tandem mass spectrometer. Currently, only nine states have this resource. Many health care professionals are unaware of the possibility of screening for disorders beyond what their state requires. Parents, and I include myself, are even less well-informed. My daughter Grace was born in Virginia, where they screen for nine disorders. I was extremely relieved when all of those tests came out negative. However, at that time I did not know that this screening was not as complete as it could have been. My ignorance had nothing to do with my love for my daughter or my capability as a parent. The fact is that the majority of parents do not realize that this screening occurs at all, nor are they familiar with the disorders that are being screened for. For that reason, one of the most important first steps that we can take to protect our children is to educate parents and health care professionals. In the Children's Health Act of 2000, I supported the creation of an advisory committee on newborn screening within the Department of Health and Human Services. The purpose of this committee would be to develop national recommendations on screening, hopefully eliminating the disparities between states that currently exist. The Children's Health Act also included a provision to provide funding to states to expand their technological resources for newborn screening. Unfortunately, funds were not appropriated for either of these provisions. We are told that $25 million in appropriations is needed for this crucial initiative and we need to fight for these dollars as we develop the FY03 budget. The legislation that we are introducing today, the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2002, seeks to address the shocking lack of information available to health care professionals and parents about newborn screening. Every parent should have the knowledge necessary to protect their child. The tragedy of a newborn's death is only compounded by the frustration of learning that the death was preventable. This bill authorizes $10 million in fiscal year 2003 and such sums as are necessary through fiscal year 2007 to HRSA for grants to provide education and training to health care professionals, state laboratory personnel, families and consumer advocates. Our legislation will also provide states with the resources to develop programs of follow-up care for those children diagnosed by a disorder detected through newborn screening. While these families are the fortunate ones, in many cases they are still faced with the prospect of extended and complex treatment or major lifestyle changes. We need to remember that care does not stop at diagnosis. For that reason, this bill authorizes $5 million in fiscal year 2003 and such sums as are necessary through FY 2007 to HRSA for grants to develop a coordinated system of follow-up care for newborns and their families after screening and diagnosis. Finally, the bill directs HRSA to assess existing resources for education, training, and follow-up care in the states, ensure coordination, and minimize duplication; and also directs the Secretary to provide an evaluation report to Congress two and a half years after the grants are first awarded and then after five years to assess impact and effectiveness and make recommendations about future efforts. I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative and look forward to working together to accomplish its passage.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. We will continue to examine the contracting process at the NIH to ensure that it works effectively, in conjunction with the rule, so that there is no delay or bottleneck in conducting the studies and securing this information for children.

Mr. DODD. Also, as the Senator will remember, last year's Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act BPCA, established a mechanism by which drugs that companies did not voluntarily study would automatically be referred to the National Institute of Health, HIH, to be contracted out for study. Is it not Congress's intention that this tool along with the rule should be used to secure safety and efficacy information for kids as quickly as possible?

Mr. DODD. Does the Senator agree that with the exception of the agreed-to amendment to allow a manufacturer to voluntarily study an already-marketed drug before the rule is invoked, the legislation we passed tracks the existing language and policy of the rule, and ensures that FDA and HHS will not weaken or undermine current protections for children on drug safety and labeling?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, Senator Mike DeWine, to introduce legislation to protect the most vulnerable members of our society: newborn infants. About 2 months ago, many families across the country celebrated Father's Day. As a first-time dad of a 10-month-old baby girl, I now know the joy of being able to experience that holiday and every other pleasure that comes along with being a father. What I also now share with parents everywhere is a constant sense of worry about whether our kids are doing well, are feeling well, and are safe. Nothing is of greater importance than the health and well-being of our children. Thanks to incredible advances in medical technology, it is now possible to test newborns for at least 30 genetic and metabolic disorders. Many of these disorders, if undetected, would lead to severe disability or death. However, babies that are properly diagnosed and treated can go on to live healthy lives. In the most direct sense, newborn screening saves lives. Frighteningly, the disorders that newborn screening tests for can come without warning. For most of these disorders, there is no medical history of the condition in the family, no way to predict the health of a baby based on the health of the parents. Although the disorders that are tested for are quite rate, there is a chance that any one newborn will be affected. In that sense, this is an issue that has a direct impact on the lives of every family. Fortunately, screening has become common practice in every state. Each year, over four million infants have blood taken from their heel to detect these disorders that could threaten their life and long-term health. As a result, about one in 4,000 babies is diagnosed with one of these disorders. That means that newborn screening could save approximately 1,000 lives each year. That is 1,000 tragedies that can possibly be averted--families left with the joy of a new infant rather than absolute heartbreak. That is the good news. However, there is so much more to be done. More than 2,000 babies born are estimated to be born every year in the United States with potentially detectable disorders that go undetected because they are not screened. These infants and their families face the prospect of disability or death from a preventable disorder. Let me repeat that--disability or death from a preventable disorder. The survival of a newborn may very well come down to the state in which it is born. Only two states, including my home state of Connecticut thanks to recent legislation, will test for all 30 disorders. The vast majority test for eight or fewer. I recently chaired a hearing on this issue during which I related a story that illustrates the impact of newborn screening, or the lack of newborn screening, in a very personal sense. Jonathan Sweeney is a three-year-old from Brookfield, CT. At the time of his birth, the state only tested for eight disorders. He was considered a healthy baby, although he was a poor sleeper and needed to be fed quite frequently. One morning in December of 2000, Jonathan's mother, Pamela, found Jonathan with his eyes wide open but completely unresponsive. He was not breathing and appeared to be having a seizure. Jonathan was rushed to the hospital where, fortunately, his life was saved. He was later diagnosed with L-CHAD, a disorder that prevents Jonathan's body from turning fat into energy. Despite this harrowing tale, Jonathan and his family are extremely fortunate. Jonathan is alive, and his disorder can be treated with a special diet. He has experienced developmental delays that most likely could have been avoided had he been tested and treated for L-CHAD at birth. This raises a question. Why was he not tested? Why do 47 states still not test for L-CHAD? The primary reason for this unfortunate reality is the lack of consensus on the federal level about what should be screened for, and how a screening program should be developed. Twenty of the thirty disorders can only be detected using a costly piece of equipment called a tandem mass spectrometer. Currently, only nine states have this resource. Many health care professionals are unaware of the possibility of screening for disorders beyond what their state requires. Parents, and I include myself, are even less well-informed. My daughter Grace was born in Virginia, where they screen for nine disorders. I was extremely relieved when all of those tests came out negative. However, at that time I did not know that this screening was not as complete as it could have been. My ignorance had nothing to do with my love for my daughter or my capability as a parent. The fact is that the majority of parents do not realize that this screening occurs at all, nor are they familiar with the disorders that are being screened for. For that reason, one of the most important first steps that we can take to protect our children is to educate parents and health care professionals. In the Children's Health Act of 2000, I supported the creation of an advisory committee on newborn screening within the Department of Health and Human Services. The purpose of this committee would be to develop national recommendations on screening, hopefully eliminating the disparities between states that currently exist. The Children's Health Act also included a provision to provide funding to states to expand their technological resources for newborn screening. Unfortunately, funds were not appropriated for either of these provisions. We are told that $25 million in appropriations is needed for this crucial initiative and we need to fight for these dollars as we develop the FY03 budget. The legislation that we are introducing today, the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2002, seeks to address the shocking lack of information available to health care professionals and parents about newborn screening. Every parent should have the knowledge necessary to protect their child. The tragedy of a newborn's death is only compounded by the frustration of learning that the death was preventable. This bill authorizes $10 million in fiscal year 2003 and such sums as are necessary through fiscal year 2007 to HRSA for grants to provide education and training to health care professionals, state laboratory personnel, families and consumer advocates. Our legislation will also provide states with the resources to develop programs of follow-up care for those children diagnosed by a disorder detected through newborn screening. While these families are the fortunate ones, in many cases they are still faced with the prospect of extended and complex treatment or major lifestyle changes. We need to remember that care does not stop at diagnosis. For that reason, this bill authorizes $5 million in fiscal year 2003 and such sums as are necessary through FY 2007 to HRSA for grants to develop a coordinated system of follow-up care for newborns and their families after screening and diagnosis. Finally, the bill directs HRSA to assess existing resources for education, training, and follow-up care in the states, ensure coordination, and minimize duplication; and also directs the Secretary to provide an evaluation report to Congress two and a half years after the grants are first awarded and then after five years to assess impact and effectiveness and make recommendations about future efforts. I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative and look forward to working together to accomplish its passage.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Indiana and thank him and our former colleague, Senator Nunn, whom he has mentioned on several occasions during his remarks this evening. These two individuals have made a significant contribution to the improved environment in which the world finds itself today, with all of its problems. Had it not been for the efforts of Senator Nunn and Senator Lugar over the years, we would not find ourselves in the position we are today to significantly reduce the kinds of threats the Senator from Indiana just highlighted in his remarks. I am confident this amendment will be overwhelmingly supported. It should be. My cosponsorship is not a gratuitous act, but I want to be identified with the substance of his remarks and, more importantly, the substance of this amendment. We had some testimony this morning, in fact, before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in talking about Iraq. These are very fine hearings that the chairman of the committee, Senator Biden, and Senator Lugar have cosponsored to give us a wonderful opportunity to consider what options we have with regard to Iraq. I do not want to dwell on that except to point out that Ambassador Butler this morning, when talking about various options and what we ought to consider and specifically talking about the issue of containment and whether we have exhausted the containment approach, questioned himself as to whether we had. But he said one thing we need to do, if anything at all, is to work more closely with Russia because they could play a very important role. What the Senator from Indiana is doing, not only with this amendment in the short term, is creating at least the possibility of that cooperation which may be essential in the months and years ahead. It is a staggering statistic. I do not know if my colleagues were listening carefully. Over the next 6 years, I presume working 5 or 6 days a week, 10- or 12-hour days--that is how long it will take to eliminate this incredible risk. The idea that we would be prohibited from doing so because we deny the President waiver authority because of an existing parliamentary situation or treaties that require some prior action I think would be a great missed opportunity. I commend the Senator from Indiana immensely for his efforts in this regard, and I thank Senator Nunn as well for his previous work here and his continuing work. I wish to associate myself in this effort. This may be one of the most important things we will do in this bill, and I commend the Senator for offering the amendment.

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield for a second?

Mr. DODD. I thank our colleague from Minnesota. A lot of people are talking about Stanley Works. I represent the State where that company was located, with a wonderful history and tradition for many years of the Stanley Works Company, with the contribution of employment in my State. It is a source of great disappointment to many of us that they have taken this position of setting up a shell operation, in this case in Bermuda, with no people there at all--nothing--to avoid taxes. That is deeply disturbing to people in my State. And we are embarrassed, in a sense, that this has become the poster child, if you will, on this issue. But the Senator from Minnesota has raised a very important point, one that all of us here, in a time such as this, over the last 10 months, after 9/11 understand taxes may be too high. We need to work at that. We need to improve the situation. But to have people stand up in a company and say that, right now, we are going to have profits trump patriotism, that we are going to worry about our pocketbook before we worry about what is best for America, is something over which all of us ought to be outraged. So I thank the Senator for raising this issue. We are going to have a vote shortly. I believe it is going to carry overwhelmingly, and it should. The other body has voted similarly on a different bill. Nonetheless, I suspect they may on this as well. We need to send a united message that this kind of behavior we do not like to see in individual citizens, who would trade their citizenship, and we do not want to see it in corporations either. I thank the Senator for the amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the amendment of the distinguished Senator.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. First, I commend my colleague from Hawaii for his fine leadership on the pending matter before the Senate dealing with the Defense appropriations bill. The matter that I wish to address regards the nation of Haiti, a tragedy that is unfolding a short distance from our own shores, literally only 90 or 100 miles away from the coast of the United States. As yesterday's New York Times article entitled ``Eight Years After Invasion, Haiti's Squalor Worsens,'' written by David Gonzalez, makes abundantly clear, the people of Haiti in that article, as we know, are on the verge of despair. I ask unanimous consent that the article written by David Gonzalez in the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I share with my colleagues briefly the situation in Haiti. This is one of the most desperate countries in the world, a few miles from our shore. There has been pending over the last 2 years a $500 million request through the Inter-American Development Bank. The United States of America, and several of its allies, are holding up the disbursement of these funds to one of the poorest countries in the world. Seven million people in that country are suffering incredibly. It is being held up over a question of whether or not institutions in that nation are as strong as they ought to be, whether or not there is corruption, and whether or not the elections that occurred in 2000 were fair, open, and honest. I am not going to argue about any of that. There is corruption. The agencies, administration, and structures are very weak. The elections in 2000 had major flaws in them. I am not arguing about that, either. But for the strongest, wealthiest nation in the world, that stands 90 to 100 miles away from one of the poorest nations in the world, and to have us deny Inter-American Development Bank funds, through our power and influence, to reach these desperately poor, dying people, where life expectancy is age 53, where there are problems with malaria, diarrhea, and tremendous hardship--polio has reemerged on this island-- I think is terribly wrong. This article, written by David Gonzalez, points out how desperate the situation is in Haiti. I will not read all of the article but he talks about shanties, he talks about the former prison at Fort Dimanche, a prison in Port-Au-Prince where now 2,000 people live without any water, schooling, or electricity. These are fellow human beings who are in great despair, living under the worst possible of circumstances. In rural areas as well, local clinics have shut down and one clinic, according to David Gonzalez's article, in the Central Plateau town of Cange, doctors with the Lasante Clinic dealt with 120,000 patients who came to them in recent years. The clinic's patients tripled to 120,000, patients sometimes walking 5 hours for care. As I mentioned, tuberculosis, malaria, and now even polio, once thought to be eradicated, is emerging. I am hopeful that the IDB, the Inter-American Development Bank, would listen to those who have been supportive of this Bank. I have been supportive, as many of my colleagues have, over the years. For the IDB to hold back on these funds any longer is wrong. Haiti is sinking deeper and deeper into irreversible poverty. The extent of the heartache now being endured by the Haitian people is simply unspeakable. Their suffering is devastating and it is far reaching. In some places there is no potable water, there are no sewers, there are no basic medicines on hand to treat disease, no medical infrastructure in place to ward off otherwise easily preventable diseases. Haiti ranks as one of the lowest on the U.N. survey of living conditions. As I mentioned, life expectancy is age 53. Of course, the despair and hopelessness which prey upon the victims of such suffering cannot be quantified. It is the people of Haiti, in my view, who should be our concern today, not the flaws of their political institutions. I am deeply saddened and incensed in many ways that we are planning electoral negotiations over the clear, tangible plight of a people. Ironically, it is the United States that has taken the lead in preventing Haiti from receiving assistance from the International Development Bank, the institution that is supposed to be the premier regional development agency. Proponents of withholding crucial IDB funding point to Haiti's weak institutions, to the need for drastic and timely economic and administrative reforms, as a prerequisite for restarting assistance. It is true, Haiti is an impoverished nation with weak institutions. It is true there is corruption at high levels. I do not deny that. And, yes, there is a serious need for reform in these areas. It is also very true that poor countries breed weak institutions and seek to strengthen themselves and help their people with the assistance of international humanitarian aid, but that is not the real reason that assistance is being withheld. The real reason funds are being withheld is political-- -- namely, as leverage in an ongoing Organization of American States negotiations to resolve issues related to the May 2000 elections of that country. The Secretary-General of the OAS has endeavored over the last 2 years to resolve the political stalemate in Haiti and the disputed 2000 parliamentary elections. He has put on the negotiating table a balanced and credible proposal for resolving the election dispute and is working to ensure the security and other matters of concern to the Haitian society that are being seriously considered by the Haitian Government. I believe they are. That said, Haiti has flawed elections. Absolutely. We are talking about a country without a long historial tradition of democracy. While this worsens, and public faith in government is reduced to zero, what remains of the fragile democracy is eroded further. Even in the United States, with our proud history, peaceful transition of power, orderly elections, and representative governments, we have had significant troubles with our own elections. Merely look at what happened in the year 2000 in this country with our elections. No one is perfect. In one of the most desperately poor nations in the world, it should not be a great surprise that institutions and electoral processes are not what we would like them to be. By not providing basic help, by the United States blocking the assistance reaching the desperately poor people, we are not strengthening the institutions but making it worse and harder for the Nation to get back on its feet. I have always strongly opposed linkage between ongoing political dialog and the Haitian access to resources of the Inter-American Development Bank. These moneys have been held hostage for too long. The damage to the Haitian economy is devastating. The good-faith efforts of the Government in responding to the OAS initiative should be more than enough justification for beginning the process of loan disbursements from the Inter-American Development Bank. Although the state of despair in Haiti is all the justification that should be needed for an institution whose primary obligation, as the IDB, is to promote economic and social development in this hemisphere, and they are doing anything but that. Shame on the Inter-American Development Bank for being used in this manner. It does not speak well for an institution that for the most part has a good reputation. Shame on the Government of the United States for pressuring the IDB to do so. Seven million people are desperately in need of help. We have gone on now for years denying this basic assistance. It is time to put a stop to playing politics with Haitian lives, and it is time to respond to the unfolding crisis in Haiti. I urge the administration to withhold, to lift the embargo, on the dollars. For those who have supported the IDB year in and year out, it has been terribly disappointing to me that they have continued to acquiesce in the demands of the Bush administration to deny the disbursements of these dollars. I hope they will take the action of saying they have waited long enough and they will provide the assistance needed to the Haitian people. We are about to leave for a month and the situation is growing worse. I ask my colleague to take a look at the David Gonzalez article in the New York Times yesterday. This is a snapshot of what is going on in the country and what desperately poor people are suffering as a result of the lack of support. They would suffer anyway. I am not suggesting this will solve all their problems. It is hard to believe we are holding up the funds--seeing how these people live, how these children are being raised, only a few miles off our shore, when we could make a little bit of a difference. We could also strengthen the very institutions we are complaining so strongly about if we provided that kind of help.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have learned after more than 20 years that if you want the minority to give you a little more time, start complementing them. It is amazing. Egos are alive and well in the Senate. I am going to miss him. He is not done. We have more work, obviously, in the remaining weeks, but this may be one of the last major bills the Banking Committee considers. I don't know what life holds for him down the road, but the good Lord is not done with him yet. I look forward to your vibrancy, your ideas, and your passion in whatever role you decide to assume in the next part of your life, and thank you for the tremendous work you have given to the committee and this body through your service. I thank again the chairman and other members of the committee for contributing to what may be one of the most important pieces of legislation this body will consider in the 107th Congress and one of the most important in the area of financial services in many, many decades. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Hang on. I am commending him. He is going to give me more time.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, when we opened the conference on this legislation a week or so ago, I said my hope was the passage of this bill would be quick, decisive, and unanimous. Two out of three is not bad. We got quick and decisive and almost unanimous. Our colleague from Texas, and our friend, was unable to support the final product for reasons he has already explained. I thought we did an excellent job in moving as quickly as we did. I believe passage of the legislation and the quick and decisive manner and nearly unanimous way we achieved the result and overwhelming support of the Senate and the House fulfill a responsibility of Congress to protect investors. There is more work to be done, but we have begun a significant part of the journey. In fact, we traveled a great distance down the road in fulfilling a congressional responsibility in responding to the events that began to unfold, at least to the public's awareness, last October. And the story is not yet complete. We do not know the final results. I have a few minutes in which to share some thoughts. I am going to move quickly to share comments. I begin by commending my colleague from Maryland, the chairman of the Banking Committee, for the tremendous job he has done. I said yesterday, any students of the Congress of the United States who want to seek out good examples of how a legislative product can be developed, nurtured, analyzed, discussed, debated, and finally passed, this is about as good an example as I have seen in recent years of how one ought to proceed. Certainly the hearings we held in the Banking Committee I don't recall attracting much attention. I don't recall a single one of the 12 hearings we held appearing on the nightly news or being lead stories on some of the 24-hour news stations. I recall a great many hearings where people sat there, raised their right hand, and took the fifth amendment. That got a lot of attention. The 12 hearings held in the Banking Committee of the Senate, where we went through the deliberate, slow, ponderous process of actually listening to people who had something to say about what ought to be done to clean up this mess, never made it on the nightly news that I am aware of. I commend again my friend and colleague with whom I have enjoyed my service in the Congress of the United States for more than a quarter of a century. We have sat next to each other for a good part of that time in both the House and in this Chamber. I sit next to him on the Foreign Affairs Committee and on the Banking Committee. If I could make the choice and it would not be determined by seniority, I would make him my choice for seatmate. I have great respect for him and admire him immensely. He has proven the value of having Paul Sarbanes as a Member of this body. I also point out the Presiding Officer, one of the most junior Members of this Chamber, who provided an incredible, invaluable support and source of ideas, guidance. Rarely does a new Member play such an important role on such an important piece of legislation. Of any Member who was involved in this process, Mike Enzi of Wyoming and others all would agree, in any history written of the development of the bill, the role of a freshman Senator from the State of New Jersey named Jon Corzine needs to be talked about. He played a very important role. We would not be here without him. I tip my hat to him and to Mike Enzi, the only Member of this Chamber who actually knew something at a practical level about what it was to be an accountant and what life was like in the trenches. For the staff and others who worked on this legislation, this was not the most popular idea in the world. Had it not been for unfolding events, I am not sure we would have developed that kind of support. I will love to one day tell my daughter, who is only an infant, that it was the power of our persuasion which convinced a majority here to go along. Not many understood the value, the substantive value, of this bill. Mike Enzi did, a number of others did, there were many in the House who did, but an awful lot of people, even as late as a week ago, were suggesting maybe this bill was a bad idea, and that it would not go anywhere, and it shouldn't go anywhere; we ought to spend another couple of months thinking about it. Those notices were not a month old, or 2 months old; that was 5 or 6 day ago. I understand it was the public's demand that we respond to this that had an awful lot to do with the support we garnered. That is all right. I never argue about how you get support around here as long as you get it in the end. We got it in the end, and that is the important news. The fact is, we are about to vote overwhelmingly to support a very critical piece of legislation. I am confident, as he has already indicated, that the President will sign this bill into law. We are already seeing markets respond, not entirely because of this, but certainly in no small measure because of the events that have unfolded and the parts Congress played. The chairman of the committee has talked about part of the bill. There are very important pieces, including the auditor independence. The board will be revolutionary in how it operates. Someone pointed out today, a lot of what the regulators do will determine the value of what we have written legislatively. I am confident that will be the case. Having FASB now be compensated for and paid for from public money and not relying on the largess and generosity of the accounting industry to receive compensation will make a significant difference in establishing accounting rules and procedures. Certainly having prohibitions against those going from the industry, working for the clients for whom they have done audits, will have a beneficial effect on slowing down this not only appearance of conflict, but certainly the conflicts of interest that have occurred too often. There are many other parts of the bill, including corporate penalties, that were crafted by our colleague from Vermont and other Members of the Judiciary Committee, that deserve a great deal of credit for their contribution to this process. The leadership, Senator Daschle, certainly for insisting we move as rapidly as we did to get the product done in committee and get it on the floor of the Senate, understanding how important this issue would be to the shareholder interests and pensioners and to others who depend upon a solid, strong economy for their well-being--certainly their contribution is extremely important as well. We have seen the economy begin to do a bit better. I don't think our work is done, despite the accomplishments in this legislation. My hope would be that before this Senate adjourns in a week and a half from now, we might deal with the pension issue. I don't know if that will be possible. I know there are a lot of other issues that need to be considered. My hope is if we are not able to do that in the next week and a half, we will come back soon after we reconvene in September. I sit on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee with the presiding officer who is interested in that committee. My hope is that we can deal with the pension reform matters that are necessary, as well, for adoption by this Congress before the 107th Congress adjourns. Again, I commend all those involved. I thank Alex Sternhill of my office, Steve Harris, Marty Gruenberg, all the Members who worked with the chairman's committee and the full committee of the Senate Banking Committee, and those on the minority side, as well, who played an extremely important role. While he disagreed with the final outcome of the bill, the Senator from Texas and I have had a great relationship over these many years we have served together. I have always enjoyed being on his side. He is a tough opponent, but when we worked together we have done some pretty good work around here and passed some pretty good bills. He is leaving and I believe the Senate will be less vibrant an institution because of his absence. It is important that this place be a place of ideas for debate to occur, and the Senator from Texas has always made that kind of contribution.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise to comment briefly about Title II, the American Service Members Protection Act of H.R. 4775 in order to clarify the Senate''s intent in insisting on the retention of Sec. 2015 of that Title which was added during Senate consideration of the supplemental. I read with interest the remarks of Chairman Henry Hyde during House consideration of the conference report on July 23. I am certainly not in any position to dispute his comments concerning the first 14 sections of Title II relating to the American Service Members Protection Act, ASPA, as I was not a party to those discussions. I leave it to the administration and to others involved in those discussions to make that judgment. I do, however, know something about the intent behind Sec. 2015 as I was the author of the amendment that was ultimately included in the Senate passed version of ASPA. A review of the Senate debate makes clear that I was offering the second degree amendment because of my concern with respect to the complexity of the House passed language which was offered as a first degree amendment by Senator Warner. As written, I was concerned that it unduly restricted the ability of the President to cooperate with international efforts to bring to foreign nationals accused of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity to justice if he chose to do so. Sec. 2015 makes clear that regardless of the other sections contained in Title II, the President is not prohibited from rendering assistance to any such international efforts, including to the International Criminal Court. An amendment to exclude cooperation with the ICC was proposed during the conference on H.R. 4775, but was rejected by the conferees. Therefore, as the language now stands the President has the discretion to cooperate with any and all international efforts to bring such criminals to justice. I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to clarify an important addition to the House version of ASPA.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that is important to Federal law enforcement officers and the people they protect across America. I am joined today by Senator Warner, Senator Lieberman, Senator Schumer, Senator Biden, Senator Torricelli, Senator Grassley, Senator Dayton, Senator Durbin, and Senator Clinton. The legislation that we are offering will amend the Federal Law Enforcement Pay Reform Act of 1990 to ensure that the government treats Federal law enforcement officers fairly. This bill will partially increase the locality pay adjustments paid to Federal agents in certain high cost areas. These areas have pay disparities so high they are negatively affecting our Federal law enforcement officers, since locality pay adjustments have either not been increased since 1990, or have been increased negligibly. All over America, Federal law enforcement personnel are enduring tremendous stress associated with our Nation's effort to protect citizens from the threat of terrorism. Unfortunately, that stress has been compounded by ongoing pressing concerns among many such personnel about their pay. I have heard from officers who have described long commutes, high personal debts, and in some cases, almost all-consuming concerns about financial insecurity. Many of these problems occur when agents or officers are transferred from low-cost parts of the country to high-cost areas. I have been told that some federal officers are forced to separate from their families and rent rooms in the cities to which they have been transferred because they cannot afford to rent or buy homes large enough for a family. An agent in the San Francisco area recently wrote to me to explain how hard it is to live on the wages currently paid to federal officers in that area. This agent, a military veteran who continues to serve the public, wrote: ``I have been with the federal government for 15 years now and never thought that I would be forced to live in a trailer park.'' This agent further explained that she and her husband, who is still in the military, cannot afford to buy even a small condominium on their government salaries. They can only barely afford to pay the mortgage on the trailer they purchased for $255,000. Unfortunately, the raise in the cost of living in many cities across America has outstripped our Federal pay system. I recognize that this is a problem for other Federal employees and I am prepared to work with my colleagues to address this larger issue. The cost of living has also had a very negative impact on non-federal employees as well and I have consistently worked to ensure that all working Americans enjoy a truly livable wage. The legislation that we are introducing today in no way suggests that the needs of other workers should be ignored, but it acknowledges that as we continue to ask federal law enforcement personnel to put in long hours and remain on heightened alert, we must provide them with a salary sufficient to allow them to focus on their vital work without nagging worries about how to provide their families with the essentials of food, clothing, and shelter. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, representing more than 19,000 Federal agents, along with the Fraternal Order of Police, National Association of Police Organizations, National Troopers Coalition, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, International Brotherhood of Police Organization, and the Police Executive Research Forum have endorsed this legislative proposal. The proposed legislation will increase the pay of federal law enforcement personnel in the following metropolitan areas by the following percentages: Percentage San Francisco--Oakland--San Jose..................................14.02 San Diego, CA......................................................9.58 Houston--Galveston--Brazoria......................................12.94 Miami--Ft. Lauderdale..............................................9.34 LA--Riverside--Orange Cty.........................................11.14 Cincinnati--NO KY--IN..............................................8.76 NYC--NO NJ--SO CT.................................................10.44 Seattle--Tacoma--Bremerton.........................................8.90 Chicago--Gary--Kenosha............................................10.76 Philadelphia--Wilmington--SO NJ....................................9.03 Detroit--Ann Arbor--Flint.........................................10.57 Portland--Salem....................................................9.26 Hartford, CT.......................................................9.67 Minneapolis--St. Paul..............................................8.65 Boston (MA-NJ-ME-CT-RI)............................................8.43 Sacramento--Yolo...................................................8.42 Denver--Boulder--Greeley...........................................9.74 Washington--Baltimore..............................................8.53 In these difficult time we must remain committed to recruiting, hiring, and retaining law enforcement officers of the highest caliber. However, we must also recognize that the federal government is in competition with State and local police departments that often pay more and provide better standards of living. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in this effort. I hope that we can quickly pass this important legislation because it will improve the lives of the men and women who are dedicated to protecting and in so doing it will improve the nation's domestic security.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that is important to Federal law enforcement officers and the people they protect across America. I am joined today by Senator Warner, Senator Lieberman, Senator Schumer, Senator Biden, Senator Torricelli, Senator Grassley, Senator Dayton, Senator Durbin, and Senator Clinton. The legislation that we are offering will amend the Federal Law Enforcement Pay Reform Act of 1990 to ensure that the government treats Federal law enforcement officers fairly. This bill will partially increase the locality pay adjustments paid to Federal agents in certain high cost areas. These areas have pay disparities so high they are negatively affecting our Federal law enforcement officers, since locality pay adjustments have either not been increased since 1990, or have been increased negligibly. All over America, Federal law enforcement personnel are enduring tremendous stress associated with our Nation's effort to protect citizens from the threat of terrorism. Unfortunately, that stress has been compounded by ongoing pressing concerns among many such personnel about their pay. I have heard from officers who have described long commutes, high personal debts, and in some cases, almost all-consuming concerns about financial insecurity. Many of these problems occur when agents or officers are transferred from low-cost parts of the country to high-cost areas. I have been told that some federal officers are forced to separate from their families and rent rooms in the cities to which they have been transferred because they cannot afford to rent or buy homes large enough for a family. An agent in the San Francisco area recently wrote to me to explain how hard it is to live on the wages currently paid to federal officers in that area. This agent, a military veteran who continues to serve the public, wrote: ``I have been with the federal government for 15 years now and never thought that I would be forced to live in a trailer park.'' This agent further explained that she and her husband, who is still in the military, cannot afford to buy even a small condominium on their government salaries. They can only barely afford to pay the mortgage on the trailer they purchased for $255,000. Unfortunately, the raise in the cost of living in many cities across America has outstripped our Federal pay system. I recognize that this is a problem for other Federal employees and I am prepared to work with my colleagues to address this larger issue. The cost of living has also had a very negative impact on non-federal employees as well and I have consistently worked to ensure that all working Americans enjoy a truly livable wage. The legislation that we are introducing today in no way suggests that the needs of other workers should be ignored, but it acknowledges that as we continue to ask federal law enforcement personnel to put in long hours and remain on heightened alert, we must provide them with a salary sufficient to allow them to focus on their vital work without nagging worries about how to provide their families with the essentials of food, clothing, and shelter. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, representing more than 19,000 Federal agents, along with the Fraternal Order of Police, National Association of Police Organizations, National Troopers Coalition, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, International Brotherhood of Police Organization, and the Police Executive Research Forum have endorsed this legislative proposal. The proposed legislation will increase the pay of federal law enforcement personnel in the following metropolitan areas by the following percentages: Percentage San Francisco--Oakland--San Jose..................................14.02 San Diego, CA......................................................9.58 Houston--Galveston--Brazoria......................................12.94 Miami--Ft. Lauderdale..............................................9.34 LA--Riverside--Orange Cty.........................................11.14 Cincinnati--NO KY--IN..............................................8.76 NYC--NO NJ--SO CT.................................................10.44 Seattle--Tacoma--Bremerton.........................................8.90 Chicago--Gary--Kenosha............................................10.76 Philadelphia--Wilmington--SO NJ....................................9.03 Detroit--Ann Arbor--Flint.........................................10.57 Portland--Salem....................................................9.26 Hartford, CT.......................................................9.67 Minneapolis--St. Paul..............................................8.65 Boston (MA-NJ-ME-CT-RI)............................................8.43 Sacramento--Yolo...................................................8.42 Denver--Boulder--Greeley...........................................9.74 Washington--Baltimore..............................................8.53 In these difficult time we must remain committed to recruiting, hiring, and retaining law enforcement officers of the highest caliber. However, we must also recognize that the federal government is in competition with State and local police departments that often pay more and provide better standards of living. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in this effort. I hope that we can quickly pass this important legislation because it will improve the lives of the men and women who are dedicated to protecting and in so doing it will improve the nation's domestic security.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Senator Snowe, Senator Jeffords, Senator Reed, Senator Bingaman, Senator Clinton, Senator Murray, and Senator Edwards today in introducing the new Access to High Quality Child Care Act. On April 11, I introduced, S. 2117, which represented a bipartisan partnership with the Senate Finance Committee and Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, Committee to both improve the quality of child care and expand the availability of child care. The bill that we are introducing today further strengthens and improves that legislation. Compared to S. 2117, the new legislation we are introducing today: further strengthens the coordination among agencies and outreach about the availability of child care assistance, so that the child care agency and TANF agency coordinate in providing information to eligible parents about the availability of child care assistance; includes a new section to improve parent access to the process of obtaining child care subsidies; strengthens accountability for the use of quality funds by requiring States to set State child care quality goals, set quantifiable measures for each goal; and requires States to describe their progress in meeting each goal in an annual report; strengthens provisions to improve the quality and availability of child care for infants and toddlers, child care for disabled children, and child care for children who need care during nontraditional hours; allows States to operate an At Home Infant Care program to improve the quality of care for infants, currently successful in Montana and Minnesota; consolidates the general quality setaside and the child care workforce development setaside under S. 2117 into one 10 percent quality setaside to be used by States to improve the quality of care that children receive, regardless of setting; consolidates data collection under current law to make data collection and reporting requirements easier for States while retaining useful information for policymakers; deletes the section on school readiness incentive grants under S. 2117, instead, replacing these grants with the text of S. 2566, the Early Care and Education Act authorized separately under Title III of this new legislation; shifts the text of the Child Care Centers in Federal Facilities Act and the Technical and Financial Assistance Grants Act under S. 2117 to Title II of the new bill as separate authorizations; adds the text of the Book Stamps Act to Title II as a separate authorization; and, authorizes $1 billion in FY2003 and such sums as necessary in the out years 2004-2007. In short, the Access to High Quality Child Care Act is about putting ``Development'' back into the Child Care and Development Block Grant. The fact is that 78 percent of school-age parents are working today; 65 percent of parents with children under 6 are working today; and, over half of mothers with infants are in the workforce today. That means about 14 million children, including 6 million infants and toddlers, under the age of 5 are in some type of child care arrangement. Many of them are in child care every week for many hours. While their parents work, children are being cared for in a variety of settings. Some of them are very good, but sadly, some of them are not. What we know is that 46 percent of kindergarten teachers report that half or more of their students enter kindergarten not ready to learn. This new legislation that we are introducing today further strengthens our efforts to improve the quality of care to promote school readiness while expanding child care assistance to more working poor families. We filed this legislation yesterday in the HELP Committee and will proceed to markup next Wednesday, July 24th. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation that so many working families with children need. I ask unanimous consent that summary of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Senator Snowe, Senator Jeffords, Senator Reed, Senator Bingaman, Senator Clinton, Senator Murray, and Senator Edwards today in introducing the new Access to High Quality Child Care Act. On April 11, I introduced, S. 2117, which represented a bipartisan partnership with the Senate Finance Committee and Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, Committee to both improve the quality of child care and expand the availability of child care. The bill that we are introducing today further strengthens and improves that legislation. Compared to S. 2117, the new legislation we are introducing today: further strengthens the coordination among agencies and outreach about the availability of child care assistance, so that the child care agency and TANF agency coordinate in providing information to eligible parents about the availability of child care assistance; includes a new section to improve parent access to the process of obtaining child care subsidies; strengthens accountability for the use of quality funds by requiring States to set State child care quality goals, set quantifiable measures for each goal; and requires States to describe their progress in meeting each goal in an annual report; strengthens provisions to improve the quality and availability of child care for infants and toddlers, child care for disabled children, and child care for children who need care during nontraditional hours; allows States to operate an At Home Infant Care program to improve the quality of care for infants, currently successful in Montana and Minnesota; consolidates the general quality setaside and the child care workforce development setaside under S. 2117 into one 10 percent quality setaside to be used by States to improve the quality of care that children receive, regardless of setting; consolidates data collection under current law to make data collection and reporting requirements easier for States while retaining useful information for policymakers; deletes the section on school readiness incentive grants under S. 2117, instead, replacing these grants with the text of S. 2566, the Early Care and Education Act authorized separately under Title III of this new legislation; shifts the text of the Child Care Centers in Federal Facilities Act and the Technical and Financial Assistance Grants Act under S. 2117 to Title II of the new bill as separate authorizations; adds the text of the Book Stamps Act to Title II as a separate authorization; and, authorizes $1 billion in FY2003 and such sums as necessary in the out years 2004-2007. In short, the Access to High Quality Child Care Act is about putting ``Development'' back into the Child Care and Development Block Grant. The fact is that 78 percent of school-age parents are working today; 65 percent of parents with children under 6 are working today; and, over half of mothers with infants are in the workforce today. That means about 14 million children, including 6 million infants and toddlers, under the age of 5 are in some type of child care arrangement. Many of them are in child care every week for many hours. While their parents work, children are being cared for in a variety of settings. Some of them are very good, but sadly, some of them are not. What we know is that 46 percent of kindergarten teachers report that half or more of their students enter kindergarten not ready to learn. This new legislation that we are introducing today further strengthens our efforts to improve the quality of care to promote school readiness while expanding child care assistance to more working poor families. We filed this legislation yesterday in the HELP Committee and will proceed to markup next Wednesday, July 24th. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation that so many working families with children need. I ask unanimous consent that summary of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to mark the 100th anniversary of the modern air conditioner, which was invented by Dr. Willis H. Carrier in 1902. I join with my colleague Senator Lieberman to submit a Resolution honoring this achievement. It was 100 years ago today that a 25 year old engineer named Willis Carrier, while trying to address a printing problem caused by heat and humidity at the Sackett-Williams Lithographing and Publishing Company of Brooklyn, developed a cooling solution which ended up revolutionalizing the world we live in. Dr. Carrier had grown up an only child, surrounded by a large extended family on a farm in Angola, NY. He worked three jobs during his college years at Cornell to pay for his room and board, and showed a work ethic and tirelessness that carried over into his career as a mechanical engineer. His first job after graduation was with the Buffalo Forge Company planning heating mechanisms for the drying of coffee and lumber. It was soon after a promotion to head of the Forge Company's department of experimental engineering that he made his breakthrough with the control of heat and humidity for the Sackett- Williams Company that led to modern air conditioning. Several years later, he and six friends formed their own company in Syracuse, NY, Carrier, that now has current annual revenues of $9 billion and clients in 170 countries. Indeed, not only has this company grown over the past century, but the expanding role and impact of modern air conditioning has been nothing short of tremendous. Air conditioning has afforded us such a dramatic improvement in quality of life that it is difficult now to conceive of its absence. It has increased our economic productivity and output, our comfort and our mood, and in some cases, our general health and welfare. Some have suggested that air conditioning is even responsible for keeping Washington as our Nation's capital, when long, unbearable summer months not only shortened the legislative session, but threatened to send politicians looking for a more climatically hospitable city to conduct their business in. Dr. Carrier brought air-conditioning to the House Chamber in 1928 and the Senate Chamber in 1929. Indeed, on a 93 degree day such as today, I think we all see the special value of Dr. Carrier's life's work, and I ask my colleagues to join me remembering him today, and giving our thanks for modern air conditioner.