Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Thursday, August 2, 2001, at 9 a.m., in SR-301, Russell Senate Office Building, to consider the following legislation: S. 565, the ``Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001''; an original resolution providing for members on the part of the Senate of the Joint Committee on Printing and the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library; S.J. Res. 19 and 20, providing for the reappointment of Anne d'Harnoncourt and the appointment of Roger W. Sant, respectively, as Smithsonian Institution citizen regents; S. 829, the ``National Museum of African American History and Culture Act of 2001''; and other legislative and administrative matters ready for consideration at the time of the markup. For further information regarding this markup, please contact Kennie Gill at the Rules Committee on 224-6352. subcommittee production and price competitiveness

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise today to bring to my colleague's attention a terribly distressing, and I am afraid, all too familiar situation; the arrest and detention of American citizens and permanent residents traveling in China. I specifically want to comment on the case of Mr. Liu Yaping. Mr. Liu is a resident of my home State of Connecticut and is married to a United States citizen. He has an American son and has been granted permanent residency in this country. Nevertheless, on a trip to his home country of China this past spring, he was abruptly detained and arrested on charges of tax evasion. More than four months after his initial arrest, the evidence against him for this alleged crime has yet to be produced by the Chinese authorities, and he has not been officially charged with a crime. In the meantime, he is being detained indefinitely. Liu Yaping has been held in near isolation in Inner Mongolia, and we suspect that he may have been mistreated during his time in prison. He has been unable to contact his family, and because he is a permanent resident of the U.S., and not a citizen, he has been denied the right to consult with United States diplomats while in detention. He has been granted only very limited access to his attorneys, and has been unable to answer the charges against him. The most troubling part of this story is that we have learned that Mr. Liu is ill and may die at any moment. It has been reported that he is suffering from a cerebral aneurysm, possibly caused by torture or beatings, for which he has gone largely untreated. Without immediate and appropriate medical attention, the aneurysm will continue to leak, and the danger is very real that he will die. His family has asked to review his medical records, but thus far this request has been denied. Instead, they receive only bills for medical services performed, without documentation or description. Mr. Liu's family has asked that he be transferred to a hospital in Beijing, but this request has been rejected by the Chinese government. I cannot begin to imagine the toll that this ordeal has taken on Mr. Liu's wife, and 15 year-old son. Knowing their loved one is alone and in danger, they wait anxiously for any notice from the Chinese authorities indicating that his situation has improved. Mrs. Liu has been in steady contact with my office and grows increasingly distraught with each day that passes with no news of her husband. The U.S. embassy in China, despite their best efforts, has not been able to make inroads in this case, and due to Mr. Liu's grave medical condition, time has become an important factor when considering his case. We cannot allow gross human rights violations to continue on our watch. It is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that our citizens and permanent residents receive just and equal treatment at home and abroad. As my colleagues know, in the past year, several American citizens and permanent residents have been detained in China. Gao Zhan, an American University researcher, was sentenced to 10 years on July 24, after a lengthy detention and a brief trial, during which not a single witness was called. She was arrested on espionage charges and linked to recently convicted business Professor Li Shaomin, who was recently ordered deported. Mrs. Gao was recently granted medical parole, due to a worsening heart condition and, as a precedent exists for this type of parole, it is my hope that Mr. Liu will be granted a similar clemency. Until such time, though, we must do all we can to fight for the safety, basic human rights, and release of Mr. Liu. As you may know, the Senate has not stayed quiet on this matter. Along with several of my colleagues, I have signed on as a cosponsor to Senate Resolution 128, urging the release of Liu Yaping and other American permanent residents and U.S. citizens. However, despite the efforts of Congress, I believe that this is an issue best dealt with at higher diplomatic levels. As you know, this Saturday, Colin Powell will be arriving in China. Secretary Powell has expressed his frustration with the situation of Mr. Liu, and I hope that he will raise the issue of Liu Yaping's incarceration with the Chinese authorities. Although the Chinese government has indicated that it wishes to focus on the larger issues of trade and economic cooperation between our two countries, I feel that a frank discussion on human rights is an equal priority. I hope that such a discussion would lead to a better understanding of American concerns in this case specifically, and the eventual release of all prisoners wrongfully detained in China. I feel strongly that the Chinese government must understand that detaining our citizens without due process will only exacerbate the diplomatic tensions between our two nations. By creating a climate of fear for those Chinese-American citizens who would otherwise seek to bring their expertise and knowledge back to their homeland, China is discouraging the flow of intellectual capital back into its countryside, and compromising any confidence on the part of the United States regarding pledged improvements in human rights. I wish Secretary Powell well on his trip, and urge the Chinese government to release Mr. Liu. I have asked Secretary Powell to bring this case up specifically while in China. It is my sincere hope that this action will bear fruit, and this matter will soon be resolved. Hopefully, Mr. Liu will soon be at home again in Connecticut, safe, and in the company and care of his family.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to spend a couple minutes talking about an issue that has received some notoriety in recent months and some specific attention over the last few weeks. That is the issue of the island of Vieques in Puerto Rico and the incarceration of a number of people who went down to express their opposition to the continued use of Vieques as a bombing site. First of all, I say to those who have demonstrated there and have been sentenced to 30 days--in one case, I think 60 days--I think all of these people involved certainly were aware that when you engage in civil disobedience, there will be a price to be paid for that civil disobedience. I will address the underlying issue of Vieques, but my hope is that the authorities will recognize that there is some sense of balance in all of this and that 30 days and 60 days may be a bit excessive, to put it mildly, in light of some of the sentences we see meted out on crimes that are far more serious in our society. I take particular note of my friend Bobby Kennedy from the State of New York and his wife Mary who are wonderful parents. During this period of incarceration, a new son was born to them. Bobby Kennedy, obviously, could not be there for the birth of his son because of his incarceration in Puerto Rico. I know how difficult and painful this was for him and his family. I want them to know that they have my strong sympathies and expressions of support. My hope would have been that Bobby Kennedy might have been able to be with his family during that important moment, despite the fact that he would be the first one to tell us that he understood fully the implications to the action he would take to express what were not only his views but the views of thousands of others within Puerto Rico and beyond the island over the issue of whether or not Vieques ought to be used as a continued site for targeting practice by the U.S. military. I express my sympathies for Bobby Kennedy, Dennis Rivera, and others who are in prison at this moment for those actions. There has been a long history here of divergence of interest with respect to the people of Puerto Rico and the Navy's interest in maintaining the capability for important live training exercises on the island of Vieques. Over the years, efforts have been made to reconcile these different interests. During the Clinton administration, in fact, an agreement was reached with the then-Governor of Puerto Rico, Pedro Rossello, that called for the holding of a referendum in November of the year 2001 to allow the residents of Puerto Rico to choose whether to end the military's use of Vieques by 2003 or to indefinitely permit military exercises to continue after that date. That seemed at the moment to reduce the tensions over this matter and to provide a way for the people of Puerto Rico to express their views. On the idea of a referendum, I was thinking to myself, living in Connecticut, along Long Island Sound where there are small islands off the coast of Connecticut, that if one of our islands were being used as a target by the military, how long we would allow it to persist if the people of my State felt strongly about it. I see the Presiding Officer from the State of Florida with a huge coastline. In many cases, of course, people have tolerated and supported it in their jurisdictions or States. This is a matter which has provoked tremendous interest on the island of Puerto Rico, a part of the United States, of course. Since the inauguration of Sila Maria Calderon, the new Governor of Puerto Rico, in January of this year, the efforts by President Clinton and Pedro Rossello, it has become clear that the resolution calling for the referendum in November of 2001 has been sort of put aside, that the plan did not resolve these tensions, despite the good efforts of those involved in crafting that particular solution. On June 14, in response to continued tensions, President Bush, in consultation with the U.S. Navy, announced that all military exercises in Vieques would cease by May 1, 2003. That provoked serious voices of dissent within this Chamber. In fact, there were those who were very disappointed by President Bush's decision. I happen to think he made the right decision. I know it was not an easy one to make, but he did listen to the various sides of this story and decided that, given all the information and facts, this was the right decision to make. Naval training on the island was to proceed between then and May of 2003. In addition, in accordance with the earlier agreement, the Navy returned more than a third of its Vieques holdings to the island on May 1, 2001. Notwithstanding the Bush announcement, a number of issues have led to increasingly vocal opposition to the continued use of Vieques by the Navy in the interim period. Puerto Rican critics of the Navy cite the loss of economic development opportunities on the island because access to most of the island's land is restricted. They also mention the failure of the Navy to live up to pledges to compensate for these lost economic opportunities. Damage to the environment and ecology have also been mentioned. Most worrisome, concerns have been raised about the impact the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility has had on the health and safety of the people on the island of Vieques. Were we to put ourselves in the shoes of the mothers and fathers of the children on the island of Vieques, we might better understand to some degree why there is increasing impatience and concern about having to wait 3 years before a potential danger to their loved ones will cease. The relationship between the Navy and the people of Vieques has been a rocky one, to put it mildly, over the years. More recently the situation has grown from bad to worse. Visits by prominent Members of Congress and other well-known public figures, including the wife of Jesse Jackson and Robert Kennedy Jr., have served to educate Americans writ large about the Vieques issue. Overly harsh treatment of these protesters by the court has only served to make, in my view, the matter even worse. It seems to me that the time has passed for the relationship between the Navy and the people of Vieques to ever be mended in a satisfactory manner that would allow both to coexist on this little island. The matter is going to get even more heated, in my view, as the July 29 referendum called for by the Governor of Puerto Rico draws near. It seems fairly obvious what the results of the referendum will be. And while I appreciate President Bush's decision to end the use of Vieques by the year 2003, at this juncture I believe that is not going to be satisfactory. Those are the realities, Mr. President. Many wish it would be otherwise, but I don't think it is going to be so. As a practical matter, continued civil disobedience is going to make the Navy's use of its facilities impossible. We need to accept it and move on, in my view. Certainly, we need to find a way for our military to conduct training exercises. That is extremely important, and I don't, in any way, minimize the significance of that particular issue. The question is whether or not there are alternatives to this particular venue which is provoking so much dissent and so many problems for both the Navy and the people of the island of Puerto Rico. A Department of Defense panel has already recommended that the Navy work toward ceasing all training activities on Vieques within 5 years. In light of recent events, that timeframe will clearly have to be accelerated. I find it hard to believe that some interim locations can't be found where much of the necessary training that the Navy needs to conduct could take place. Search for alternative sights needs to be given a much higher priority than was anticipated. I don't fault those who tried to come up with a time line that would be satisfactory, but the realities are such that I don't think that is any longer possible. The steps I have outlined can begin the process for moving forward on this very difficult and contentious matter that undoubtedly has important implications for the people of Puerto Rico and for our national defense. Mr. President, again, I salute my friends who have gone down to express not only their views but the views of the overwhelming majority of the people on Vieques. My plea at this particular hour, after having these members serve two weeks in incarceration, is that the courts might find it possible for them to have expressed their obligations by incarcerating these people in light of their civil disobedience, but I think moving on is the best course of action. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, in introducing the Child Care Facilities Financing Act. We are also joined by Senator Snowe, Senator Kennedy, Senator Roberts, Senator Johnson, Senator Edwards, Senator Feinstein, Senator Collins, Senator Wellstone, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Murray as original cosponsors. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 13 million children under age 6 and 31 million children between the ages of 6 and 17 have both parents or their only parent in the work force. The demand for quality child care is exploding. But the supply of care has not kept pace, particularly in low-income communities where demand has been stimulated by a strong economy and employment requirements under welfare reform. Studies show that the supply of home-based and center-based child care is far more abundant in affluent areas than in low-income areas. Moreover, despite increased child care spending by states and the expansion of Head Start, physical space continues to remain scarce or unaffordable in low-income communities. Existing child care programs in too many low-income neighborhoods are crammed into inadequate, temporary quarters, leaky church basements, apartments, and other locations that were never designed for this purpose. Between the overall shortage of child care and inadequate existing facilities, parents have limited choices among inferior quality care, at times unsafe care for children. The United States has carried out the most extensive systematic, and rigorous research on investing in early education and child care programs. This research has shown that brain development is fastest during a child's earliest years. We know that quality child care can significantly assist in preparing children for school. The shortage in the supply of quality child care too often translates to inferior quality care for children. One of the contributing factors to the child care shortage is the difficulty that would-be providers face in financing child care facility development. Financial institutions often view child care providers as high risks for loans. In low-income neighborhoods, child care providers face severely restricted revenues and low real estate values. In urban areas, would- be child care providers must contend with buildings in poor physical condition and high property costs. In all areas, reimbursement rates for child care subsidies are generally too low to cover the recovery cost of purchasing or developing facilities, especially after allowing for the cost of running the program. In addition, new providers often have no business training, and may need to learn how to manage their finances and business. The Child Care Facilities Financing Act would provide grants to intermediary organizations, enabling them to provide financial and technical assistance to existing or new child care providers-- including both center-based and home-based child care. The financial assistance may be in the form of loans, grants, investments, or other assistance, allowing for flexibility depending on the situation of the child care provider. The assistance may be used for acquisition, construction, or renovation of child care facilities or equipment. It may also be used for improving child care management and business practices. Grant funds under our legislation are required to be matched 50-50, further enhancing local capacity by leveraging Federal funding and creating valuable public/private partnerships. The added benefit in providing this kind of assistance is that it will spur further community and economic development by building local partnerships. Reducing parental anxiety about child care means that parents can become more reliable and productive workers. An evaluation of California's welfare-to-work program found that mothers participating in the program were twice as likely to drop out during the first year if they expressed dissatisfaction with the child care provider or facility they were using. Let me share with you an example from my state of Connecticut. In the Hill neighborhood of New Haven, one of the most underserved areas of the city, there are more than 2,500 children under the age of five, but just 200 licensed child care spaces, including family care. LULAC Head Start has been serving the Hill neighborhood since 1983, operating a part-day, early childhood program out of a cramped and poorly lit church basement. This basement program could no longer be licensed by the state and recently closed. The 54 children being served were moved to another location which is overcrowded. Thanks to a collaboration between the Hill Development Corporation, LULAC Head Start and the New Haven Child Development Program, low- income families in the Hill community will have more access to affordable and high-quality child care services. A new facility, the Hill Parent Child Center, is under construction and will provide multicultural child care, school readiness, and Head Start services for 172 low-income children in New Haven. Fortunately for this Hill Community, Connecticut has a new child care financing program. Connecticut multi-Cities Local Initiatives Support Corporation and the National Child Care Initiative joined forces with the State of Connecticut to design a program to finance the development of child care facilities. Unfortunately, there are many more children in New Haven and other parts of Connecticut as well as across the Nation who sill need child care. Sadly, most States do not have a child care financing system in place. We should do all we can to ensure that safe, affordable, quality child care is available for more families, particularly low-income families, so that we can truly leave no child behind. When the economic situation of families improve, distressed communities become revitalized. Expanding the supply of quality child care is an important step in investing in the needs of families with young children. I hope that you will join with Senator DeWine and me in supporting this legislation to ensure that parents have as many choices as possible in selecting child care while they work. It is hard enough for low-income families to make ends meet without the additional anxiety of poor choices of care for their children. I ask unanimous consent that a brief summary of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, in introducing the Child Care Facilities Financing Act. We are also joined by Senator Snowe, Senator Kennedy, Senator Roberts, Senator Johnson, Senator Edwards, Senator Feinstein, Senator Collins, Senator Wellstone, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Murray as original cosponsors. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 13 million children under age 6 and 31 million children between the ages of 6 and 17 have both parents or their only parent in the work force. The demand for quality child care is exploding. But the supply of care has not kept pace, particularly in low-income communities where demand has been stimulated by a strong economy and employment requirements under welfare reform. Studies show that the supply of home-based and center-based child care is far more abundant in affluent areas than in low-income areas. Moreover, despite increased child care spending by states and the expansion of Head Start, physical space continues to remain scarce or unaffordable in low-income communities. Existing child care programs in too many low-income neighborhoods are crammed into inadequate, temporary quarters, leaky church basements, apartments, and other locations that were never designed for this purpose. Between the overall shortage of child care and inadequate existing facilities, parents have limited choices among inferior quality care, at times unsafe care for children. The United States has carried out the most extensive systematic, and rigorous research on investing in early education and child care programs. This research has shown that brain development is fastest during a child's earliest years. We know that quality child care can significantly assist in preparing children for school. The shortage in the supply of quality child care too often translates to inferior quality care for children. One of the contributing factors to the child care shortage is the difficulty that would-be providers face in financing child care facility development. Financial institutions often view child care providers as high risks for loans. In low-income neighborhoods, child care providers face severely restricted revenues and low real estate values. In urban areas, would- be child care providers must contend with buildings in poor physical condition and high property costs. In all areas, reimbursement rates for child care subsidies are generally too low to cover the recovery cost of purchasing or developing facilities, especially after allowing for the cost of running the program. In addition, new providers often have no business training, and may need to learn how to manage their finances and business. The Child Care Facilities Financing Act would provide grants to intermediary organizations, enabling them to provide financial and technical assistance to existing or new child care providers-- including both center-based and home-based child care. The financial assistance may be in the form of loans, grants, investments, or other assistance, allowing for flexibility depending on the situation of the child care provider. The assistance may be used for acquisition, construction, or renovation of child care facilities or equipment. It may also be used for improving child care management and business practices. Grant funds under our legislation are required to be matched 50-50, further enhancing local capacity by leveraging Federal funding and creating valuable public/private partnerships. The added benefit in providing this kind of assistance is that it will spur further community and economic development by building local partnerships. Reducing parental anxiety about child care means that parents can become more reliable and productive workers. An evaluation of California's welfare-to-work program found that mothers participating in the program were twice as likely to drop out during the first year if they expressed dissatisfaction with the child care provider or facility they were using. Let me share with you an example from my state of Connecticut. In the Hill neighborhood of New Haven, one of the most underserved areas of the city, there are more than 2,500 children under the age of five, but just 200 licensed child care spaces, including family care. LULAC Head Start has been serving the Hill neighborhood since 1983, operating a part-day, early childhood program out of a cramped and poorly lit church basement. This basement program could no longer be licensed by the state and recently closed. The 54 children being served were moved to another location which is overcrowded. Thanks to a collaboration between the Hill Development Corporation, LULAC Head Start and the New Haven Child Development Program, low- income families in the Hill community will have more access to affordable and high-quality child care services. A new facility, the Hill Parent Child Center, is under construction and will provide multicultural child care, school readiness, and Head Start services for 172 low-income children in New Haven. Fortunately for this Hill Community, Connecticut has a new child care financing program. Connecticut multi-Cities Local Initiatives Support Corporation and the National Child Care Initiative joined forces with the State of Connecticut to design a program to finance the development of child care facilities. Unfortunately, there are many more children in New Haven and other parts of Connecticut as well as across the Nation who sill need child care. Sadly, most States do not have a child care financing system in place. We should do all we can to ensure that safe, affordable, quality child care is available for more families, particularly low-income families, so that we can truly leave no child behind. When the economic situation of families improve, distressed communities become revitalized. Expanding the supply of quality child care is an important step in investing in the needs of families with young children. I hope that you will join with Senator DeWine and me in supporting this legislation to ensure that parents have as many choices as possible in selecting child care while they work. It is hard enough for low-income families to make ends meet without the additional anxiety of poor choices of care for their children. I ask unanimous consent that a brief summary of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will improve building safety in Latin America, increase the cost- effectiveness of our disaster relief assistance, and, most importantly, save lives. As many of us know, throughout the last decade, the people of Latin America have been the victims of numerous natural disasters that have resulted in death, property damage, and destruction. Indeed, in the last three years the continent has been ravaged by Hurricane Mitch, earthquakes in El Salvador and Peru, and horrendous rains and mudslides. These disasters have exacted a tremendous toll on the region, causing over 12,000 deaths, $40 billion in damage, and numerous injuries. The cost to rebuild following these disasters is prohibitive and places a tremendous burden on the already struggling emerging economies of Latin America. To mitigate this cost, the United States has frequently released disaster relief funds to help affected countries recover the injured, maintain order, and rebuild their infrastructure. For example, the combined assistance released by the United States following Hurricane Mitch and the recent earthquakes totals over $1.2 billion. I fully support these appropriations, and believe that we have a duty to assist our neighbors and allies when they are confronted with natural disasters. I do, however, believe that we can make this assistance more cost-effective in the long run, while saving lives. As I stated, I fully support offering U.S. monetary assistance to rebuild following natural disasters. However, because much of Latin America does not utilize modern, up-to-date building codes, much of this assistance goes to waste. For example, following the earthquakes in El Salvador in 1986, the United States provided $98 million dollars to rebuild that country. Most of the reconstruction was done by local Salvadoran contractors, and these structures were not built to code. Now, 15 years later, following the most recent earthquakes in El Salvador, the United States offered over $100 million dollars in aid. Had reconstruction in 1986 been done to code, undoubtedly the cost of the most recent earthquake would have been lower in both monetary value and lives. To remedy this problem, and encourage safe, modern building practices in countries that need them the most, I introduce today, with my colleagues Senator Lieberman and Senator Sessions, the Code and Safety for the Americas, CASA Act. The CASA Act would authorize the expenditure of $3 million over two years from general foreign aid funds to translate the International Code Council family of building codes, which are the standard for the United States, into Spanish. Furthermore, it would provide funding for the International Code Council's proposal to train architects and contractors in El Salvador and Ecuador in the proper use of the code. By educating builders and providing them the necessary code for their work in their own language, it is only a matter of time before we will begin to see safer buildings in the region, and a return on our investment. The United States spent over $10 million in body bags, temporary tent housing, and first aid alone following the recent earthquake in El Salvador. For a comparatively modest sum, $3 million, we can reduce the need for this type of aid by attacking the problem of shoddy building before it begins. In addition, after this program has been implemented in El Salvador and Ecuador, it could easily be replicated in other Latin American countries at low cost, requiring only funding for the training program. While we want to start this program on a small scale, I am confident that other countries will request similar training programs in the future. In fact, other countries have already asked to be considered for a future expansion of the program. The Inter-American Development Bank and UN have expressed interest in this idea, and are potential candidates to provide partial funding of any future expansion. Given this interest, it is highly likely that, in the future, a public- private partnership can be constructed to expand this program to Peru, Guatemala, and the rest of Spanish-speaking Latin America. Also, we cannot forget the valuable contributions that American volunteer organizations such as the International Executive Service Corps can make to this program in the long-run. This legislation is supported by architects, contractors, and public officials both in the United States and in Latin America. Students of architecture in Latin America want to be taught proper standards and code application, and local governments have requested the code in Spanish. So, this is not a case of the ``ugly'' America imposing its will on Latin America. We have been asked to share this lifesaving code with our Southern neighbors and, indeed, the number of requests from different countries has been staggering. In short, this legislation will save lives, lessen the damage caused by future disasters, and illustrate our good will toward our Latin American allies while proving to be cost-effective for the United States through decreased aid following future disasters. For a detailed analysis of the problem, and this solution, I wish to draw my colleagues attention to an article by Steven Forneris, an American architect living in Ecuador, that appeared in ``Building Standards'' magazine. In it, Mr. Forneris argues the value of this proposal from his position at the front lines in Ecuador. He clearly and eloquently outlines why Latin America needs building code reform, and why it is in the best interests of the United States to involve itself in this endeavor. The CASA Act is common-sense legislation that will dramatically improve the lives of citizens of our hemisphere, and represents a real chance for American leadership in the Hemisphere at very little cost. I hope that my colleagues will join me in this humanitarian effort. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Forneris' article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will improve building safety in Latin America, increase the cost- effectiveness of our disaster relief assistance, and, most importantly, save lives. As many of us know, throughout the last decade, the people of Latin America have been the victims of numerous natural disasters that have resulted in death, property damage, and destruction. Indeed, in the last three years the continent has been ravaged by Hurricane Mitch, earthquakes in El Salvador and Peru, and horrendous rains and mudslides. These disasters have exacted a tremendous toll on the region, causing over 12,000 deaths, $40 billion in damage, and numerous injuries. The cost to rebuild following these disasters is prohibitive and places a tremendous burden on the already struggling emerging economies of Latin America. To mitigate this cost, the United States has frequently released disaster relief funds to help affected countries recover the injured, maintain order, and rebuild their infrastructure. For example, the combined assistance released by the United States following Hurricane Mitch and the recent earthquakes totals over $1.2 billion. I fully support these appropriations, and believe that we have a duty to assist our neighbors and allies when they are confronted with natural disasters. I do, however, believe that we can make this assistance more cost-effective in the long run, while saving lives. As I stated, I fully support offering U.S. monetary assistance to rebuild following natural disasters. However, because much of Latin America does not utilize modern, up-to-date building codes, much of this assistance goes to waste. For example, following the earthquakes in El Salvador in 1986, the United States provided $98 million dollars to rebuild that country. Most of the reconstruction was done by local Salvadoran contractors, and these structures were not built to code. Now, 15 years later, following the most recent earthquakes in El Salvador, the United States offered over $100 million dollars in aid. Had reconstruction in 1986 been done to code, undoubtedly the cost of the most recent earthquake would have been lower in both monetary value and lives. To remedy this problem, and encourage safe, modern building practices in countries that need them the most, I introduce today, with my colleagues Senator Lieberman and Senator Sessions, the Code and Safety for the Americas, CASA Act. The CASA Act would authorize the expenditure of $3 million over two years from general foreign aid funds to translate the International Code Council family of building codes, which are the standard for the United States, into Spanish. Furthermore, it would provide funding for the International Code Council's proposal to train architects and contractors in El Salvador and Ecuador in the proper use of the code. By educating builders and providing them the necessary code for their work in their own language, it is only a matter of time before we will begin to see safer buildings in the region, and a return on our investment. The United States spent over $10 million in body bags, temporary tent housing, and first aid alone following the recent earthquake in El Salvador. For a comparatively modest sum, $3 million, we can reduce the need for this type of aid by attacking the problem of shoddy building before it begins. In addition, after this program has been implemented in El Salvador and Ecuador, it could easily be replicated in other Latin American countries at low cost, requiring only funding for the training program. While we want to start this program on a small scale, I am confident that other countries will request similar training programs in the future. In fact, other countries have already asked to be considered for a future expansion of the program. The Inter-American Development Bank and UN have expressed interest in this idea, and are potential candidates to provide partial funding of any future expansion. Given this interest, it is highly likely that, in the future, a public- private partnership can be constructed to expand this program to Peru, Guatemala, and the rest of Spanish-speaking Latin America. Also, we cannot forget the valuable contributions that American volunteer organizations such as the International Executive Service Corps can make to this program in the long-run. This legislation is supported by architects, contractors, and public officials both in the United States and in Latin America. Students of architecture in Latin America want to be taught proper standards and code application, and local governments have requested the code in Spanish. So, this is not a case of the ``ugly'' America imposing its will on Latin America. We have been asked to share this lifesaving code with our Southern neighbors and, indeed, the number of requests from different countries has been staggering. In short, this legislation will save lives, lessen the damage caused by future disasters, and illustrate our good will toward our Latin American allies while proving to be cost-effective for the United States through decreased aid following future disasters. For a detailed analysis of the problem, and this solution, I wish to draw my colleagues attention to an article by Steven Forneris, an American architect living in Ecuador, that appeared in ``Building Standards'' magazine. In it, Mr. Forneris argues the value of this proposal from his position at the front lines in Ecuador. He clearly and eloquently outlines why Latin America needs building code reform, and why it is in the best interests of the United States to involve itself in this endeavor. The CASA Act is common-sense legislation that will dramatically improve the lives of citizens of our hemisphere, and represents a real chance for American leadership in the Hemisphere at very little cost. I hope that my colleagues will join me in this humanitarian effort. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Forneris' article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Monday, July 23, 2001, at 9 a.m., in room 2306 of the Richard B. Russell Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 75 Spring Street, NW., Atlanta, GA. The purpose of this field hearing is to receive testimony on election reform issues. For further information, please contact Kennie Gill at the Rules Committee staff on 224-6352.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask what is the pending matter before the Senate?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may be allowed to address the Senate as in morning business for the next 5 minutes.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am going to come to the floor later with lengthier remarks, but there are two subject matters I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues that I am sure they have taken note of over the last several days. The first is the continuing reports about last year's elections in the United States. Obviously, there was particular focus on the State of Florida. But, Mr. President, as you know because of your deep interest in the subject as well, we believe this was not exclusively a Florida issue. Nor was it merely an issue involving the national election last year. Mr. President, we have a serious problem, based on a number of studies that have been conducted by Members of the other body as well as the Civil Rights Commission and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, whereby as many as 6 million people did not have their votes counted last year. That is in addition, I suppose, to the 3 million people we now know who actually tried to vote but were told they were not allowed to vote despite the fact they actually had the right. That is now 9 million people. I know of 10 million people who are blind in this country who did not vote last year. Only one State in the United States actually allows people who are blind to go in and vote on their own. In any other jurisdiction, if you are blind you must be accompanied by someone else. You never get to vote in private, in spite of the fact there is hardly an elevator in America built in the last 5 years where there is not Braille to assist you. You can operate an elevator alone but you cannot cast a ballot alone in the United States. So there is a growing sense of scandal, in my view, not because someone was involved in some criminal enterprise to deprive people of the right to vote or to manufacture or manipulate the outcome of the election. I use the word ``scandal'' to speak of a situation in which only one out of every two eligible Americans is casting his or her vote. And even those who do are not having their votes counted properly; that is of deep concern to me. Patrick Henry, one of the great voices that gave birth to this Nation, once said that the right to vote is the right upon which all other rights depend. I believe he was correct more than 230 years ago, and even now, as we enter into the 21st century. We lecture the world all the time on how to conduct free and democratic elections, yet there is a growing body of evidence that suggests we could do a much better job in America in how our elections are conducted, in what support we provide our local communities and precincts, and by setting some national standards so we never again idly sit and watch an election during which as many as 6 million votes went uncounted. These were people who exercised their civic responsibility and showed up on election day to cast a ballot and, because of faulty machinery or other shortcomings, their ballots were never counted--not to mention the people suffering a variety of physical disabilities who were denied that right as well. It is my hope that in the coming weeks, as we gather more information from across the country about how we could do a better job, we will put adequate resources into this. I say this as my seatmate, normally sitting to my right, is now sitting over here in a chair to the left-- the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I have not had a chance to speak with the chairman about this. I will not abuse a public forum to do so at this moment, but I know he cares about these issues as much as I do, and we might talk about how we might provide some resources to our States to ensure that the equipment is modernized, that we no longer have machinery that is a half century old in some cases, as it is, to be used by people who wish to cast their ballots. My hope is we can come up with some national standards, provide the resources to our States, and do a much better job, a much better job in seeing to it that people vote in this country and that their votes are then counted. I cannot begin adequately to express the sense of outrage I sense among people all across this country who were so terribly disappointed, to put it mildly, who went to vote and discovered their votes were not counted. Put aside your feelings about the outcome of the election. We have a President. His name is George W. Bush. I stood on the west front of the Capitol on January 20, and I certainly believe in the depths of my soul that this is the President of the United States. My concerns are not about the legitimacy of the person who sits in the White House. My concerns are about the legitimacy of a process that I think is in dire need of repair--the election process in this country. I don't know how much more evidence we need to have accumulated by independent studies based on last year's results, especially now that the New York Times, Miami Herald, other newspapers, as well as the organizations I have already mentioned, have looked at the elections of last year and have concluded by and large that there are serious problems with the present electoral process. I would like to address this issue at greater length later today, but I wanted to raise the matter here before we went into recess over the next hour or two. Finally, I would like to mention a matter that I think is tremendously important--and I should point out to my colleagues here that the Presiding Officer shares an equal passion about this issue as the Senator from Connecticut. I look forward very much, working with him as a member of the Judiciary Committee that has very specific jurisdiction over the Voting Rights Act of 1965, on how we can listen to people across this country, gather as much adequate information as we can and then propose to our colleagues some meaningful ideas, both resources and ideas, on how we can minimize the electoral problems that occurred not just last year but have been occurring over the last number of years.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. The second subject matter is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This morning the New York Times as well as others reported that there were serious reservations being expressed by superintendents of schools and educators across the country about this mandating of testing in the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. I certainly want to see young people tested. I think it is worthwhile to know how children are doing under the elementary and secondary educational system of the country, but I am getting concerned that we are merely taking the educational temperature of these children without really dealing with the problem that has caused the public to lose faith in our public school system. Every day the numbers indicate there is greater concern about the quality of public education. I think we can do a better job. But I do not necessarily believe that just testing kids every year, and at what cost, is necessarily going to improve the quality of education. So while I am not opposed to testing, I think we ought to think more about what we can do for those children who are failing, what ideas can we come up with and work on with our local communities and States to improve the quality of teachers, the quality of classrooms, the quality of educational materials, wiring schools to take advantage of the explosion in technology and information that is available. I always find it somewhat mortifying when the Federal Government lectures the country about the quality of education, where we lecture local school districts, States and school boards about what they ought to be doing. The Federal Government contributes less than one-half of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget dedicated to elementary and secondary education. I find that scandalous, to use the word I used when talking about the election process. The fact that the Federal Government in its resources only contributes one-half of 1 percent of its budget to the elementary and secondary educational needs of America's children; that of every dollar that gets spent on education the Federal Government's one-half of 1 percent amounts to about 6 cents. Mr. President, 94 cents of every education dollar comes mostly from local property taxes and some from the States. In my view, in the 21st century we ought to become an equal partner with local communities and States: one-third, one-third, one-third. That can reduce property taxes and provide more meaningful resources to communities that do not have the wealth, the support for the kinds of educational opportunities their students should have. No child in America ought to have the quality of their educational opportunity be determined solely by the wealth of the community in which they happen to have been born. That is just wrong. If you are born in America, you ought to have an equal opportunity for a good education. It seems to me that the Federal Government ought to do a better job of being supportive, particularly as we write bills that mandate testing, without putting the resources there to allow communities to pay for these additional burdens. For the last 35 years we did that on special education. We mandated a law that said you had to provide for the special education needs of children. Then we never came up with the money to pay for those costs. The bill we just passed in the Senate now mandates full funding of the 40-percent requirement of special education, but it has taken 35 years to do it. We have allowed for full funding of title I, but I would like to know when President Bush is going to tell us what sort of resources the Federal Government is going to commit to these elementary and secondary educational needs. The President talks about how he wants this done, but I am waiting yet to hear from the White House. How much money is the administration willing to commit to full funding of title I and to special education needs? They are telling us that they want to have mandatory testing. They want accountability, but they are unwilling to say whether or not they will commit the necessary resources to achieve those goals. I hope the administration, as they urge us to get ready to pass this bill in conference, will also heed their own advice and more quickly expedite the commitments made by the President as to what resources will be provided. It is now only a matter of a few weeks before children and their parents start to prepare to go back to school. We ought not wait much longer to get the job done. My point of these brief remarks is to urge the administration to step up to the plate and tell us what the resources are. If they are not going to make any at all, then we ought to rethink this bill. Do not tell me the administration will mandate costs on the local community and then not have the resources to pay for it. And do not tell me that Americans will have to watch property taxes go through the ceiling because Uncle Sam tested their children every year from the third to the eighth grade without providing the resources to help communities and parents meet those greater educational goals. Both on election reform, and on education, I hope we can get something done. I wish the President would support election reform. I hope he will speak up and tell us what sort of resource commitments he is willing to make to support the elementary and secondary education needs of America's children. I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair in listening to these brief remarks. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I understand the very difficult job the Appropriations Committee has faced in producing this supplemental appropriations bill and I commend the leadership of the committee for its work. However, it is very unfortunate that it was necessary to rescind $217 million in critical dislocated worker funding. I hope that this will be a short-lived reduction and that it will be possible to eliminate this cut in conference. Further, I urge the committee to also reject the administration's proposed further $600 million reduction in training programs in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations. In the 105th Congress the Workforce Investment Act was overwhelmingly supported on a bipartisan basis. Few issues that we debate in Congress are as important to the future of this country as the lifelong education and training of our workforce. We live in an era of a global economy, emerging industries and company downsizing. It is imperative that our delivery of services meet the employment and educational needs of the 21st century. We now are embarking on the creation of a streamlined and vitally necessary workforce development system. More authority is given to State and local representatives of government, business, labor, education, and youth activities. There is a true collaborative process between the state and local representatives to ensure that training and educational services provided will be held to high standards. Our global economy is creating wonderful opportunities for American workers, but also great stress and anxiety. Today, the knowledge and skills workers must have on the job changes very rapidly. Companies and even industry segments enter and leave our States and communities with unprecedented speed. Layoffs are announced throughout the country every week as a result of business consolidation, financial re-organization, a changing marketplace or a slowing economy. For many years, the Connecticut economy was dependent on defense-oriented industries. Training programs under the Workforce Investment Act ensure that employees who are adversely affected by military and other downsizing will have access to job training and supportive services in order to acquire the skills needed for employment in the technology driven economy of the 21st century. Last week, Challenger, Gray and Christmas reported that U.S. companies cut nearly 125,000 jobs in June. The Department of Labor reported that new claims for unemployment benefits increased by 7,000. On one day alone at the end of June three separate companies announced plans to eliminate 800 jobs in Connecticut. In the technology sector alone, almost 1,000 jobs cuts have been announced in Connecticut since the beginning of the year. I urge the committee to re-evaluate these cuts to the dislocated worker program. Now is not the time to be short-changing our workers or our communities.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Missouri. Mr. President, I want to take a couple minutes to speak. I know others have spoken at length about this underlying supplemental appropriations bill. I say to the Senator from Alaska, the Senator from Missouri yielded me her remaining time. I commend the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii. It is a hard job. It is not easy. We are talking 80 days. And those days are shrinking as long as we take to resolve this in the supplemental. There are a number of amendments that have been offered that under normal circumstances I would probably support. The LIHEAP amendment is a very important amendment for those of us who come from the Northeast. I find many down the list that are very appealing. I think our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee have done a good job. I do not suggest that my good friend from Arizona, and others, are not making a good case that additional resources may be necessary to help our service men and women to improve equipment, but it seems to me that we are just a few days away from dealing with a larger issue, the budget issue, in which these matters could be addressed. So when it comes to the pending amendment, I am going to reject the additional spending that is being proposed and support the committee's desire to adopt this supplemental, if we can. I notice, as well, there are arguments being made that some of these funds have been unexpended. I appreciate that. That is true. That is the case, but it is also the case that we are not yet at the end of the fiscal year. One of the things I want to see us discourage is agencies rushing out to spend dollars so that they will not face the kind of arguments they get here, where we are a few months away from the end of the fiscal year and we start demanding that agencies spend money quickly because an amendment may be offered to take any unexpended funds. That is irresponsible spending, it seems to me. So there are a number of areas here that are being targeted as resources to pay for some of these amendments that I hope my colleagues will take some note of. Worker training is one. Again, all of us understand the benefits of worker training. We have just heard news in the last few days that there has been a loss of some 125,000 jobs in the month of June alone in the United States. I do not need to tell anyone in this Chamber how job training and worker training programs can make a difference for those people. Those people getting new jobs, getting the skill levels, also contribute to the strength of America. Certainly, the job access program is another one that has been tremendously helpful to so many millions of Americans across the country. So while all the money has not yet been expended in job access or job training programs, we are still several months away from the end of the fiscal year. In light of some of the new unemployment figures, those dollars may be very necessary before the end of the fiscal year. So again, my compliments to those on this committee crafting this supplemental appropriations bill. It is not perfect. They have not argued it is perfection. But I think it has done a good job in providing additional resources for our military needs. And, in the weeks to come, we will be given the opportunity to debate the authorization bill and the appropriations bill for the coming fiscal year, at which point we can best address the matters raised in this debate. So my hope would be that my colleagues would applaud the work of the Appropriations Committee here and adopt this supplemental bill. The temptation to support a number of these amendments is strong. But I think we ought to resist that temptation and support the work of this committee, and then get about the business of dealing with the various appropriations bills as they come to this Chamber. If there is any time left, I will be glad to yield it to those who may want to debate this amendment further. But if not, I would yield back whatever time may remain.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. I see my good friend from Texas. He and I have worked over the years on litigation matters and have authored litigation reform bills and a variety of other measures to reform the legal system. I think it is important to remember that we have had great debates over the years about victims' rights and how important it is that victims be remembered when crimes are committed. It seems to me that on this particular proposal and in this case when a person is subject to criminal conduct--that is what this amounts to-- they have been victimized. This is not just compensatory damage for a mistake that is made. If you have been a victim of criminal conduct and are going to be deprived of the award that a jury provides you, that is fundamentally wrong. It ought to be defeated on just that point. I have listened to and have engaged in debates on victims' rights. Victims are sick and tired when criminal behavior is committed and they are not considered when the matters have come before the bar of justice. When an individual, a child, or an adult is found to be injured as a result of criminal conduct, that is what punitive damages are. I think they deserve to receive that award.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Clinton's resolution honoring the fallen firefighters of New York and to join with her in acknowledging the bravery and commitment of Harry Ford, Brian Fahey, and John Downing. These men were firefighters-- firefighters who risked their lives and gave their lives to protect the public. These men died on Sunday, June 17th, while fighting a fire in Queens, New York. The price they paid on our behalf was as great a price as any citizen can pay. We owe these men our deepest appreciation and respect. On Sunday, the 17th--Father's Day--Firefighters Ford, Fahey and Downing worked quickly to fight a fire in a local hardware store. Thirty minutes after leaving the fire station, responding to what they thought was a routine call, an explosion buried the men under a pile of rubble. Dozens of firefighters worked to rescue the men, but they could not be reached in time. These men were husbands and fathers. Harry Ford leaves behind his wife, Denise and two sons, Harry, age 12, and Gerard, age 10. Brian Fahey leaves us with his wife, Mary and three sons: Brendan, who is 8 years old, and 3-year-old twins, Patrick and James. John Downing is survived by his wife Anne, his daughter Joanne, age 7, and his son Michael, who is 3. My thoughts and prayers are with these families. I am humbled by their devotion to public service. Their deaths represent the ultimate sacrifice a person can make for his or her fellow human beings. They died while fighting a fire and it is not hyperbole to say that they died while making America a safer place to live. I am always saddened to realize that it takes a tragedy like this to bring attention to the needs of fire departments and firefighters nationwide. I hope that the memory of these three men will help Americans realize the impact of firefighters on our daily lives. Firefighters are almost always the first in a community to respond to a call for help. They are on the scene of traffic accidents and construction accidents. When a natural or man-made calamity strikes-- from hurricanes to school shootings to bombings--firefighters are there without fail, restoring order and saving lives. Unfortunately, fire departments across the Nation struggle to find resources to help keep our communities safe. As the demands placed on fire departments have grown in volume and magnitude, the ability of local residents to support them has been put to a severe test. As a result, towns and cities throughout the country are struggling mightily to provide the fire departments with the resources they require. For these reasons I have strongly supported helping localities meet their critical objectives. Communities need more firefighters and community firefighters need the resources to ensure that they have the training and equipment to protect themselves and the public. Last year we passed an important piece of legislation called the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement Act which authorized the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide grants to local firefighters so they could purchase the equipment they need. Congress appropriated $100 for the program last year and the FEMA has just completed the first grant competition under the program. The demand is extraordinary. FEMA received nearly $3 billion worth of grant applications--that's 30 times more in requests that is currently available. No amount of funding can bring back Firefighters Ford, Fahey, and Downing. New fire trucks or better training programs or even more firefighters cannot even begin to compensate for the loss suffered by the people of Queens and the families of these brave men. For their lives, we are forever indebted. But for their cause, we can dedicate ourselves to help ensure that no firefighter ever enters a burning building without the best possible training and equipment. So I stand here before you, Mr. President, and the members of this chamber to say that these men and their families shall not be forgotten. They have sacrificed their lives for us, and for this they deserve no less than the highest degree of honor and respect. We here today cannot compare our own deeds to those of Harry Ford, Brian Fahey, and John Downing, but we can bring honor to ourselves and justice to their memories by keeping them and the needs of the fire service in mind as we perform our own duties.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Louisiana. I commend him and the Senator from Vermont for their compromise proposal we will be voting on shortly. I reluctantly oppose my friend from Maine, my fellow New Englander. I have joined with her on so many issues and have such great respect for her. There is a title to this bill. It is not titled casually; it is called the Patients' Bill of Rights. We talk about a bill of rights. Obviously we are all most familiar with our Constitution and the Bill of Rights we embrace and cherish so richly as American citizens. But if we are going to have a bill of rights when it comes to basic fundamental health care, as has been pointed out by the Senator from Louisiana and the Senator from Massachusetts and others, then there ought to be a floor that applies across the country to all 50 States. That is what we are really advocating. If the Collins amendment is adopted, then what you are developing is a trapdoor in that basic floor that exists. Let me make the case just by pointing to one particular provision of this bill. That is the access to emergency room care, Mr. President. I have this chart to make the point. In the States that are in red in this chart, they have laws that are weaker than the underlying bill when it comes to access to emergency rooms. We are not talking about some grandiose new plan. We are talking about a fundamental right that you can have access to the closest emergency room. In 27 States, they have a much weaker provision than is in this law. We are saying when it comes to a Patients' Bill of Rights, access to clinical trials, specialists, emergency rooms, this is the floor across the country. If you want to pass laws at the State level that are substantially in compliance with that, we welcome that. If you want to do something more than we are doing here, we welcome that. But if you are going to say that we are going to allow weaker laws to exist in the access to a gynecologist, to a pediatrician, to a clinical trial, to a specialist, or to an emergency room, then we don't think that is right. If you are for the Collins amendment, in many ways you are going against this bill. I understand that. I appreciate the fact that people do not want to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights and just leave it up to each State to decide. But if you believe, as a majority of us do, and an overwhelming majority of the American public, that there ought to be a Patients' Bill of Rights, a basic floor that provides these basic standards, then you must vote to adopt the Breaux-Jeffords compromise amendment and retain the integrity of this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, June 27, at 10:30 a.m., in SR-301, Russell Senate Office Building, to receive testimony from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights regarding its latest report on the November 2000 election and from other witnesses on election reform in general. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Kennie Gill at the Rules Committee on 224-6352. committee on rules and administration

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Thursday, June 28, at 10 a.m., in SR-301, Russell Senate Office Building, to receive testimony from Members of the House of Representatives on election reform. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Kennie Gill at the Rules Committee on 224-6352.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me begin by, first of all, commending my good friends and colleagues from Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Arizona, Senators Kennedy, Edwards, and McCain, for their leadership on this issue--bringing a series of reforms that seek to guarantee quality health care for more than 190 million of our fellow citizens. This is extremely important. We know there are 43 million Americans who have no health insurance at all. We hope at some point we can develop legislation to protect those 43 million fellow citizens who have to go through the anxieties on a daily basis of hoping their children, their families will not suffer from some catastrophic illness which could wipe out whatever meager holdings they have. That debate will have to be reserved for another day. But there are 190 million Americans who obtain health care coverage through private insurance. So we begin the debate by trying to make sure that those 190 million people who are covered by private health care coverage will be able to have the kind of rights we think they ought to have as citizens of this country. Mr. President, I also should begin with sort of a disclaimer to you. My colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and I represent what is oftentimes referred to as the insurance capital of the world. My good friend, the Presiding Officer, is the Senator from, I suppose, the State of gaming and of family recreation. My State is well known for a variety of insurance companies that have made significant and positive contributions to the well-being of people not only here in the United States, but around the globe. We are very proud of the fact that we represent insurance companies that have provided great security for millions of people in so many different sets of circumstances. But it is important to note that, as a Senator from that State, one of the things we are talking about here is the obligations of my constituents, those insurance companies that are involved in providing private health care coverage. So today I suppose I engage in discussion that you may not expect to hear from someone who comes from a State where I represent these interests. I do so with a degree of sorrow because, unfortunately, in too many cases the industry does not understand the needs of millions of Americans. This is not true of the entire insurance industry in my State. There are many who have reached out and are trying to make a difference, to see to it that people do have access to specialists, emergency rooms, and clinical trials, and that they have an appeals process to turn to when they feel that they have been unfairly denied care. We have been at this debate now for 5 years. I recall a couple of years ago being a member of a conference committee after this body had dealt with a Patients' Bill of Rights--partisan politics took over. We sat in the committee rooms for days on end and nothing happened. For each day we wait, each week that goes by, every month that passes, these 190 million people in our country run a greater and greater risk that their rights are being denied, that basic health care coverage is not forthcoming. I hope my colleagues who are engaged, as we have been over the last few days, in delay tactics that won't allow for an amendment process to go forward will cease and desist. It is not what the American public wants. They may not agree with every dotted ``i'' and crossed ``t'' in John McCain's and John Edwards' and Ted Kennedy's bill. I respect that. I understand their differences, but not to have any amendments offered, not to be debating this, not to be discussing it beyond the rhetorical comments is not going unnoticed by the American public. As these days go by, I hope nothing happens to people, which could have been prevented by the passage of this legislation or some compromise version of it. Let us begin the process of discussion. Let us begin the process of voting. I am disappointed and saddened that we have not. I mentioned my State and the fact that I represent some of the largest, most successful insurance companies in the world. As many other States, my State has also taken action on this issue of a Patients' Bill of Rights. It has passed its own managed care protections. The reforms included in the Connecticut law take an important step toward protecting patients and doctors, but today 41 percent of Connecticut employees are denied these very protections because of Federal law preemptions. Almost half of my constituents are not protected by their State law. Unless we adopt a Federal law, they will go unprotected, and that is true in State after State because of the adoption of ERISA, legislation going back years under the leadership of the former Senator from New York, Jacob Javits, of blessed memory. Under his leadership, ERISA was passed, but as a result of that fine legislation and with the adoption of State laws providing protections for people's health care rights, a lot of our fellow citizens are preempted by that Federal law. That is the rationale for us engaging in this debate on a Patients' Bill of Rights. There must be Federal law. If not, we are excluding millions of Americans from the protections their fellow citizens living next door to them, living down the street, working next to them at their businesses are provided under their State protections. This debate is important, and we ought to be voting on amendments. Every hour that goes by, every day that goes by that we do not do our business raises even further risk that additional people will be harmed. The increased role of managed care in our health system has brought some very important improvements--better coordinated care, greater efficiency at lower costs, and an enhanced focus on preventive care. The health maintenance organizations deserve credit for making these positive steps. The benefits, however, have been accompanied by some concerns about the impact on the quality and delivery of care, and that is what the Kennedy-McCain-Edwards bill attempts to address. Far too often the decision about whether you or your family can get the health care you need is dictated by an insurance policy rather than your doctors. That is why it pains me as a Senator from Connecticut to have to talk about an industry of which I am so proud. While we all agree on the goal of increasing efficiency and managing costs in our health care system, we cannot do so at the expense of denying needed care. We have to strike that balance, and today that balance does not exist. I want to take a minute to talk about a single case in my State. I realize we are talking about 190 million people in the country who have private insurance insurance but do not have protections that a Patients' Bill of Rights would provide. I know there are 43 million people who have no health care coverage at all. Sometimes we get to talking about millions of people, millions of dollars, and billions of dollars and get lost in the morass of the Federal bureaucracy of how a Patients' Bill of Rights would work. We forget we are talking about individual people, families. I want to take a minute, if I may, and share with my colleagues the story of one family in my State and what happened to them as a result of our failure to have a Patients' Bill of Rights. I just spoke with this family a few minutes before coming to this Chamber. I did not want to talk about this family without their permission. I called the Moscovitch family in Connecticut and asked them if I could talk about their 15-year-old son, Nitai. Let me tell my colleagues what happened. This family lives in Brookfield, CT, a small town in my State. They are a hard-working family. In fact, the father was not yet home from work. He was on his way home from his job. Their son, Nitai Moscovitch, suffered from very severe emotional problems. The family was wise and smart enough to recognize their 15-year-old son, Nitai, needed help. He needed medical help immediately. This family sought that help, particularly after this young boy attempted suicide. He was admitted to the Danbury Hospital in the western part of my State. Despite the fact that the young boy had a history of trying to harm himself, the insurance company that provided coverage for this family would only agree to cover his treatment for several days at the hospital, as if he had been in an automobile accident, or if he had stumbled and broken his leg or been in an athletic injury. The idea that this was a child suffering from severe emotional illness was not under consideration: We will put on the Band-Aids, provide the stitches, but beyond that, we are not going to provide that coverage. Even though Nitai threatened to commit suicide if he were removed from the hospital, they saw this as the rantings of a teenage boy, not to be taken too seriously. Four hours after he was released, Nitai locked himself in a room, undid his belt on his trousers, and committed suicide. If that is an isolated case I conjured up, then I ought to be ashamed of myself. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. This goes on every day, not necessarily with the tragic ending as in this case, but coverage was denied not because someone looked at Nitai and said: We don't think your emotional problems are severe enough to warrant hospitalization. Someone sitting behind a desk, I suppose at some computer terminal, was making the determination that the policy was not going to cover him. That was the medical analysis given to this young man and this family. That has to stop. I am not suggesting that every medical examination or analysis is going to be right or there are not going to be tragedies involved, but we have to get away from the situation where the decisions about what kind of care a patient needs, what kind of doctor a patient ought to see is being determined by someone who has no medical training, no medical background at all, and then to further say basically they are not responsible. Let me complete the story. On behalf of his son, Nitai's father, Stewart Moscovitch, wanted to sue his health maintenance organization for playing the role of doctor and refusing to cover extended treatment at the hospital. But the health plan argued that existing Federal law, the very reason we are engaged in this debate, existing Federal law prevented the family from holding them liable. After a 3-year battle, this family secured a ruling that the Federal law did not apply in his case. However, today there is still no guarantee that the Moscovitch family or any family would have the right to hold their plan accountable for making treatment decisions. The bill we are debating will change that. I am not going to suggest that somehow we could have entirely prevented this tragedy from happening. As I said, it is conceivable that a doctor might have arrived at the same decision. Do not assume for a second I was assuming that Nitai's life definitely would have been saved but at least they might have had more choices. At least the choice should have been left to the doctor looking at this young man and not a decision made by an insurance company or an insurance employee who, with all due respect, has no business making the decision of whether or not extended hospital care for this child ought to be covered. I thank the Moscovitch family for allowing me to talk about their son. I called them to seek their permission to talk about their son. I was told by Nitai's brother that, in fact, the family had discussed it and hoped I would because it might, just might, make a difference. It may convince some who are wavering about whether or not this bill is warranted, whether or not this effort is worthwhile. It may be the case that one family, one individual will have a more profound effect than all of the numbers and millions of people and billions of dollars we talk about. It is family by family, patient by patient that the effects of not passing this legislation are most felt. Putting patients first means guaranteeing access to emergency room coverage when a rational person would say emergency care was needed. It means ensuring access to doctors qualified to treat a condition, and that it is those doctors who will decide the best course of treatment. Putting patients first means making sure that patients with illnesses that have not been cured by conventional treatment are not denied the chance to participate in potentially life-saving clinical trials. It means making sure that a patient and his family can have the prescription drugs doctors say they need, not just the drugs the insurance company says are cheaper. Other managed care bills have been introduced in this Congress that are watered-down versions. They are weaker versions. They are not truly a Patients' Bill of Rights. The Bipartisan Patient Protection Act is the only bipartisan legislation that will offer managed care patients and providers that serve them reasonable protections. The bill allows patients and doctors to determine the best course of care, establishes an independent appeals process for patients who believe they were unfairly denied care, and allows patients to hold health care plans accountable when they make those decisions. I hope our colleagues allow this debate to go forward. Let not another day pass in delaying a debate on amendments on this bill. It is blatantly unfair. Forget Democrats and Republicans. What you do to my party, sitting on this side of the aisle, is not terribly relevant; put that aside. If you will, think of the people you represent in your States. Even if you don't like this bill, offer your ideas on your approach to this. But allow an amendment process to go forward. It is unfair to these people, after 5 years, to not allow a full debate on amendments on this bill. That is what this institution was created for. It is what we ought to be engaged in. Now after the second day of listening to statements about this bill, it is time we started debating amendments. My hope is that will be the case. I understand the commitment of our distinguished majority leader, Senator Daschle, when he says we will stay here, we will stay here until this bill is properly and fully considered. It may be defeated. At the end of the day, 51 Members may decide to defeat this bill. I would be terribly unhappy if that were the case, but at least we would have had a chance to debate and consider amendments. Sitting here day after day, hour after hour, without the chance to consider amendments and vote on an important subject such as this is dreadful. My hope is my colleagues who are engaged in this delaying practice will cease and desist. I commend the authors of this bill and look forward to supporting them in the amendment process. My sincere hope is at the end of this discussion we will have amended the law and that the millions of Americans who are insured and preempted by Federal law as well as all the others with private insurance, will get the protections they deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I want to spend some time talking about the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which we passed just a few minutes ago. First, I commend my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, the chairman of the committee, for his continuing leadership in the area of education. Senator Kennedy has been a tireless champion of children and families and is now into his fifth decade here in the Senate. He has no equal when it comes to his passion for serving those in need, and demonstrated that passion once again during his management of this bill over the past 6 or 7 weeks. I also want to join with those who have commended our colleague, Senator Jeffords of Vermont. Senator Jeffords is the former chairman of this committee. We were elected to Congress together more than a quarter century ago. He has been a wonderful friend and fellow New Englander and in large part is responsible for the outlines of the bill just adopted by a substantial vote. In his quiet way, Jim Jeffords made a very profound and strong imprint on this legislation. Although much attention has been focused on political events over the last few weeks associated with our colleague from Vermont, that should not overshadow his substantive commitment to the quality of education in this country, and this reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is one of the finest examples of his efforts over the years. So I commend him for his work. I thank my friend from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, who is a tremendously bright and articulate Member of this body. We have our differences, but there is no more engaging Member, no one with whom I more enjoy debating a subject. He is knowledgeable and deeply committed to these issues. He has very strong views, but is a very fair individual, and he did a very fine job here on the floor. Other members, also have been very involved in this legislation, such as Senator Frist of Tennessee, who cares deeply about these issues; Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, and Mary Landrieu; and especially other members of the committee on which I served--Tom Harkin, Jack Reed, Patty Murray, Barbara Mikulski, Jeff Bingaman, and our new colleagues, Senator Clinton from New York, and Senator Edwards. Also, Susan Collins, and Tim Hutchinson from Arkansas. Paul Wellstone has offered many amendments in committee as well as on the floor, expressing his strong appetite for improving the quality of public education in America. Certainly, Tom Daschle, the distinguished majority leader, has been deeply involved in this debate and discussion over the last number of weeks and deserves a great deal of credit, along with Harry Reid, for keeping the battle moving forward and the debate moving forward over these last days of the debate. I thank Trent Lott, former majority leader, now minority leader, for his work as well. I am sure that I left some people out here, including the Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, who has also been deeply involved in education matters for many years--long before she arrived as a new Member of this body, in her work in the other Chamber, and in her home State of Michigan on behalf of children and families. I thank her for her work as well. And, Senator Biden, with whom I offered my comparability amendment, along also with Senator Reed. Madam President, this is not a bill I would have written. Nor is it one that I expect our Republican friends would have written, were we allowed to write our own version of a framework for elementary and secondary education. This is a compromise bill. There are parts of it about which I am very excited and others about which I am disappointed. This is not an uncommon reaction when a final vote on major legislation is called for. But we are not through the process. This is step 1 for us. The other body has adopted its version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and now we will meet in conference, to work out the differences between these two bills. I believe our collective work over the past couple of months has greatly improved the bill, and that is why I voted for it. Nevertheless, I hope that it will come back from conference a stronger bill. This bill will target resources to the neediest students in our country. It will make sure that classrooms are run by well-qualified teachers, and it will provide options to parents. Those are wonderful improvements over the status quo. I heard my friend from Utah say this bill was nothing more than the status quo. That is not the case. There also were many important amendments adopted, in many cases with broad bipartisan support. Senator Harkin and Senator Hagel put together what may be the most important amendment adopted in this bill, mandating full funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. After 26 years of waiting, communities, parents, teachers, and students finally will receive full funding of special education. This is a major achievement. I am very proud of the fact Senator Collins and I were able to get 79 votes for full funding of title I over the next 10 years. I hope that we can fully fund it more rapidly than that, but I believe, and my colleague from Massachusetts who has a wonderful historical memory of this law over the years may know, this is the first time we ever voted to fully fund title I, I am proud of this action. Senator Kennedy's amendment will increase the number of qualified teachers in our classrooms. That is a major achievement. Senator Wellstone's amendment ensures that the tests States develop to comply with this bill will be of high quality. Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas won strong bipartisan support to increase support for bilingual education. Our colleague from California, Senator Boxer, won support, I joined with her, to increase resources to provide children with productive afterschool programs. Senator Reed of Rhode Island deserves great credit for providing school libraries with desperately needed resources. The amendment of our colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, will strengthen math and science partnerships. That improves the bill tremendously as well. I was also pleased the Senate rejected efforts to include private school vouchers in this bill by a significant vote. Not out of any negative feelings about private education, but because with 50 million children in public schools and 5 million in private schools, resources are hard to come by, and we must do our best to improve the quality of public education. I am pleased as well the Senate accepted an amendment I offered, along with the support of the chairman of the committee and others, for the professional development of early childhood educators. Also, the amendment I offered with Senator Shelby of Alabama to protect student privacy was accepted by voice vote. For children to be ready for school and to learn to read, their early childhood educators must have the training to help them develop intellectually and socially, and this amendment contributes to that goal. The amendment I offered with Senator Shelby of Alabama to protect student privacy also was accepted by voice vote. This amendment will ensure parents have the right to decide whether their children will be asked personal questions by marketeers for commercial purposes during school time. This is a growing phenomenon, one that is a growing concern of mine, that classrooms are becoming market testing grounds. It is hard enough to educate a child. I do not think parents expect their children to become the subject of marketing surveys in school. Parents wouldn't tolerate this happening in their homes without their permission and they should not have to tolerate it in their children's schools without permission. Businesses can be great partners in the educational system. They have a vested interest in a well-educated workforce. But the extent to which and how they are involved is something about which we all ought to be conscious. But, I do have significant concerns about this bill. I am disappointed that it does not include funds dedicated to reducing class size and repairing crumbling schools. We know that these things improve student achievement and we will continue to fight for them. I also am disappointed we adopted the Helms amendment, which purported to be about ensuring the Boy Scouts access to public school facilities, a right already guaranteed them by the United States Supreme Court. The Boy Scouts have a long tradition of doing wonderful things for America's young men, but unfortunately the Helms amendment, in my view, effectively puts the Senate on record as approving the exclusionary policies of the Boy Scouts and other organizations, and that is a sad commentary as we enter the 21st century. Most of all, I am concerned that while this bill demands accountability for low-income schools and school districts, and establishes the goal of funding title I, we still have not received a commitment from the President or our Republican colleagues to provide the resources for Title I, special education, and other parts of this bill. I would have hoped that by now the President would have said there will be full funding of these programs during his administration. He has, for whatever reasons, decided not to make that commitment. I am still hopeful he will. That will go a long way in alleviating my concerns about whether or not these reforms are going to give these children an opportunity to compete on a level playing field with other children who have the tools that will allow them to succeed. It does not guarantee success, but it is an opportunity to succeed. We have an obligation at every level, Federal, State, and local, to see to it that all kids have a chance to succeed. It is important, if this bill is going to reach its potential, to have the resources we will need to give kids that chance. That has not yet happened, and I am very uneasy as we go into the conference about whether or not those commitments will be forthcoming. If we end up with nothing but tests and standards and leave needy children in this country in rural and urban areas without the resources to benefit from real reforms, then we will end up with a self-fulfilling prophecy of children who fail tests, which will be taken as a further indictment of public education. I know I am not alone in this concern. The chairman of the committee has expressed this feeling over and over, and I am hopeful that as this debate proceeds over the coming weeks, the commitments we have asked for with regard to resources will be forthcoming. And, finally, I am disappointed the Senate did not adopt an amendment which I offered along with Senator Biden and Senator Reid, with strong support of almost half of the Senate, calling for comparable educational opportunity services for all children within a State. We have done that for 36 years within school districts. Some districts have more students than 27 States in this country. For 36 years, they have been able to provide a comparable educational opportunity. I think States ought to meet that same criteria. This bill demands greater accountability from students, parents, teachers, school boards, and the Federal Government--the only entity we exclude from that is the States. I am disappointed that amendment was not adopted. But, again, to conclude these remarks, my hat is off to the chairman of the committee, to Jim Jeffords, as I mentioned earlier, for his work, to the members of our committee, going right on down the line to the most junior member, Senator Clinton of New York. Also, our Republican colleagues, including Judd Gregg, Bill Frist, Susan Collins, Tim Hutchinson and the others, who worked hard to make this a better bill. While we disagreed and I had strong arguments with them on many points, my respect for them is in no way diminished. In fact, if anything, it is enhanced by their commitment. We are all trying to do our best for the children of this country and I hope that in the weeks ahead, we will be able to improve this bill further. Again, I thank the chairman of the committee and his staff and all of our staffs. I will include all the names of people here. They worked so hard. From Senator Kennedy's staff, Michael Myers, Danica Petroshius, Jane Oates, Roberto Rodriguez, Michael Dannenberg, Dana Fiordaliso, and Ben Cope. From my staff, Lloyd Horwich, Shawn Maher, Jeanne Ireland, Grace Reef, Sheryl Cohen, and John Carwell. Bev Schroeder and Katie Corrigan of Senator Harkin's staff, Bethany Little of Senator Murray's staff, Elyse Wasch and Michael Yudin with Senator Reed, Jill Morningstar and Jay Barth with Senator Wellstone, and Ann O'Leary with Senator Clinton. Also, Carmel Martin and Dan Alpert with Senator Bingaman, Kimberly Ross with Senator Mikulski, and Crystal Bennett, with Senator Edwards. Mark Powden, Sherry Kaiman, and Andy Hartman with Senator Jeffords. Michele Stockwell with Senator Lieberman, Elizabeth Fay with Senator Bayh, and Kathleen Strottman with Senator Landrieu. I also want thank the staff on the other side, especially Denzel McGuire and Stephanie Monroe, with Senator Gregg, Holly Kuzmich with Senator Hutchinson, Maureen Marshall with Senator Collins, and Andrea Becker with Senator Frist. And, I want to thank Joan Huffer with Senator Daschle and David Crane and John Mashburn with Senator Lott, and Sandy Kress and Townsend McNitt, of the White House staff, for all of their help. I remember Senator Kennedy and I were up one Saturday morning weeks. We were in the building, walking around, and happened to see a door open. We walked in and there were the staffs, trying to work out differences and work out language in the bill. We offer the amendments, we get the attention, we appear before the cameras, but it is the staffs of our offices who do tremendous work and develop great understanding of these issues. I thank Senator Kennedy's staff, my own staff, the staff of the others, both majority and minority for the tremendous effort and time they put in to make this a better bill. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to honor George C. Springer, who is stepping down this month after an unprecedented 11 two-year terms as the President of the Connecticut Federation of Educational and Professional Employees, formerly the Connecticut State Federation of Teachers. George will remain active in the union as the recently- appointed director of the American Federation of Teachers' Northeast Region. I mentioned the change in the union's name because it highlights George's unceasing efforts on behalf of its members. In 1979, when George began his leadership of the union, it had about 11,000 members, almost all of whom were teachers. Today, the union has 24,000 members, including teachers and other professional school-related employees, State and municipal employees, health care professionals, and higher education faculty. Twenty-two years ago, the union had only one full- time officer, two clerical employees, and a handful of field representatives. Today, it has three full-time officers, a staff of 15, and numerous field representatives. George rightly is proud of the increased diversity of his union. George also ought to be proud of what his advocacy has brought--not only benefits for union members, but also the ability for them to do their jobs better, to better serve the children and all citizens of Connecticut. George tirelessly has fought for greater involvement for the union and its members in legislative and policy matters. I think it is especially appropriate, as we prepare to complete debate on reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, to talk about how public education in Connecticut has changed for the better during George's tenure. In 1979, teacher pay was poor, the gap between the quality of schools for wealthy children and those for poor children was great, and relations between the union and school boards was contentious. Today, teacher salaries and student achievement in Connecticut are among the best in the country, the State is working to provide a quality education for all children, and the union frequently works hand in hand with school management to improve the school system. But, George's influence has not been limited to Connecticut, or even the United States. As President, George has represented the union around the country and around the world, in such places as Brazil, Belgium, Hong Kong, Japan, and Sweden. He also has served as an election observer in South Africa and Nigeria. I have no doubt that from New Britain, Connecticut, where he taught for 20 years, to the many places he has been around the world, George has left his mark. Nor do I doubt that he will continue to leave his mark, as he works hard at the AFT to better connect State and local affiliates with the national organization and with each other. Tonight, George's fellow union members, other friends, and his family are gathering in Hartford to celebrate his leadership of the union. I regret that I cannot join them in person, but certainly I join them in spirit. It has been my privilege to know George for many years, and I offer my admiration and gratitude for his work, and best wishes as he moves on to new challenges.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, yesterday during rollcall votes 185 and 186, I was necessarily absent to attend services in connection with the passing of Mrs. Barbara Bailey. Mrs. Bailey was the spouse of the late John Bailey, the legendary former chairman of both the Connecticut State Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee. She was also the mother of Barbara Kennelly who represented the 1st Congressional District of Connecticut from 1983 through 1999. She was a remarkable woman and her passing saddens us all. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted as follows: On rollcall vote No. 185, the Domenici amendment as modified, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall vote No. 186, the Schumer amendment, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment No. 604, As Modified

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I commend my dear friend from Nebraska for his remarks celebrating the 226th anniversary of the Army. I am glad I was present on the floor to hear the annual ``Hooah'' from a wonderful former sergeant who served with great distinction during the Vietnam conflict. He is a wonderful Member of this body and a great friend to the veterans of America. I served in the Army. I was a weekend warrior. I defended the shores of Connecticut from outside aggression over the years. But, I am deeply proud to have worn the uniform of the Army while rising to the rank of E4. I am even more proud of my friend for his wonderful service and for what he has done in public life after his service. I join him in wishing happy birthday to our friends in the U.S. Army.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Ohio. He no longer serves on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. But he did serve on it. I have enjoyed my work in the Senate over the years, but never as much as I have enjoyed working with the Senator from Ohio on a number of different issues, and this one in particular which he just addressed, and that is the problem of substance abuse and children. We managed to put together a pretty good bill a few years ago on safe and drug free schools, largely because of the efforts of the Senator from Ohio. I commend him publicly for his present work and over the years. He brings a lot of personal experience as well. He has a pretty good size clan in his own right. I think it is almost a baseball team.