Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I was going to offer an amendment. I graciously yielded to a couple of things happening here. I am happy to yield to people to make statements unrelated to the bill, but I want to be protected. I would like to ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of these remarks, I be allowed to offer an amendment.

Mr. DODD. Just to clarify how the amendment will be handled, will the Senator from Utah make it 45 minutes equally divided with no second degrees? Will the Senator add that element to it?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send my amendment, No. 75, to the desk.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the late John V. Lindsay, a talented public servant and a remarkable man. John Lindsay served in public office, first as a Member of the United States House of Representatives, then as Mayor of New York City, during the 1960's and early 1970's, a tumultuous period in our Nation's history. In ways both large and small, he demonstrated an unswerving commitment to reason, to compassion and to progress for all Americans. As a Republican, he recalled that he belonged to the party of Lincoln. While many in the 1960's and 1970's walked the streets of America's cities, he walked the streets of Harlem, jacket flung over his shoulder, to promote understanding and harmony. While many counseled caution and hesitation, he urged reconciliation among the races and attention to the needs of the less fortunate. And while many fled our cities for suburbia, he stayed and worked tirelessly to make urban America safer and more culturally enriching for residents and visitors alike. John Lindsay made the fate of America's cities an urgent national concern. He believed that the Nation's future rested on the health and vibrancy of its urban centers. He supported the arts, affordable housing, school reforms and other initiatives to provide a better quality of life for both residents of and visitors to America's cities. Today, the renaissance being experienced in cities like New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Los Angeles suggest that John Lindsay's hopeful vision for our cities has been realized at least in part. Upon graduating from Yale University in 1943, he joined the Naval Reserve as an ensign, serving as a gunnery officer during World War II. He participated in the invasion of Sicily and in the American landings in Hollandia, the Admiralty Islands and the Philippines. He won five battle stars and was a lieutenant when he was discharged in 1946. Twelve years later, in 1958, John ran for Congress in New York's 17th Congressional District, which extended from Harlem to Greenwich Village on the East Side. Though ethnically and culturally diverse, he represented all of the people of his district with understanding, empathy, and a keen sense of their varied needs. He would represent them for eight years, re-elected three times by successively larger margins. Thereafter, he would represent all of the people of New York as Mayor from 1966 to 1974. In 1972, John ran for President. As we all know, he did not prevail in that endeavor, at least at the ballot box. But in another sense, he succeeded in showing many in America what the people of New York City already knew; that he was a man of uncommon intelligence, charisma, and vision. On a personal note, let me say that I had the great good fortune to know John not only as an elected leader, but as a friend. I will always cherish his warmth, his wit, and the wisdom he brought to all he did and said. Our Nation has lost a public servant of rare gifts and broad vision. I extend my deepest sympathies to his wife, Mary Lindsay, to his children Katherine Lake, Margaret Picotte, Anne Lindsay, John Jr., their spouses and his five grandchildren.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2001, along with my colleague Senator Lieberman. Representative Simmons of Connecticut introduced similar legislation in the House. The Eightmile River system is an important water resource within the Lower Connecticut River watershed. For more than 30 years, the Wild and Scenic River program has been a successful public-private partnership to preserve certain select rivers in a free-flowing state. Designation as a Wild and Scenic River would ensure that the river and surrounding watershed are protected from development projects under the locally controlled Conservation Management Plan, which works to preserve a river's natural and significant resources. But before a river receives Designation status as Wild and Scenic, a comprehensive study must be undertaken to determine whether a river possesses recreational, ecological, and scenic significance. Further, it must be demonstrated that there is a strong local and long-term commitment to preserving a river. I am confident of the Eightmile River's significance and community support. Five years ago, the Connecticut towns of Salem, East Haddam and Lyme joined with educational and environmental groups to form the Eightmile River Watershed Committee and signed a Conservation Compact to preserve the river. Another local group, the Connecticut River Watershed Council, has been working with local, state, and federal agencies to restore migratory fish to the Eightmile River. The building of fish ladders means that the area can now serve as a restored spawning area for Blue-backed Herring and Atlantic Salmon. Finally, property owners support designation for the Eightmile River in order to preserve the natural resource that flows by and near their property. Clearly, there is a grassroots commitment to retain the integrity of this river. The State of Connecticut has recognized the Eightmile River as a ``River of Importance.'' Eighty-five percent of the Eightmile River Watershed is forested and more than 180 species of birds, fish, plants and reptiles live there. It is truly one of the most diverse and thriving ecosystems in the lower Connecticut River Valley. Connecticut is a small state, less than 5,000 square miles, and is densely populated. While the State is actively working to preserve open space, the state consistently ranks near the bottom in the amount of Federal land. Our citizens are committed to balancing conservation and growth. That is why this designation is so important. While the state and local groups have done exceptional work so far, this designation would bring in federal technical assistance and foster coordination among the many concerned groups. It is time to get the formal process started. For all of these reasons, I am pleased to introduce the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2001.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2001, along with my colleague Senator Lieberman. Representative Simmons of Connecticut introduced similar legislation in the House. The Eightmile River system is an important water resource within the Lower Connecticut River watershed. For more than 30 years, the Wild and Scenic River program has been a successful public-private partnership to preserve certain select rivers in a free-flowing state. Designation as a Wild and Scenic River would ensure that the river and surrounding watershed are protected from development projects under the locally controlled Conservation Management Plan, which works to preserve a river's natural and significant resources. But before a river receives Designation status as Wild and Scenic, a comprehensive study must be undertaken to determine whether a river possesses recreational, ecological, and scenic significance. Further, it must be demonstrated that there is a strong local and long-term commitment to preserving a river. I am confident of the Eightmile River's significance and community support. Five years ago, the Connecticut towns of Salem, East Haddam and Lyme joined with educational and environmental groups to form the Eightmile River Watershed Committee and signed a Conservation Compact to preserve the river. Another local group, the Connecticut River Watershed Council, has been working with local, state, and federal agencies to restore migratory fish to the Eightmile River. The building of fish ladders means that the area can now serve as a restored spawning area for Blue-backed Herring and Atlantic Salmon. Finally, property owners support designation for the Eightmile River in order to preserve the natural resource that flows by and near their property. Clearly, there is a grassroots commitment to retain the integrity of this river. The State of Connecticut has recognized the Eightmile River as a ``River of Importance.'' Eighty-five percent of the Eightmile River Watershed is forested and more than 180 species of birds, fish, plants and reptiles live there. It is truly one of the most diverse and thriving ecosystems in the lower Connecticut River Valley. Connecticut is a small state, less than 5,000 square miles, and is densely populated. While the State is actively working to preserve open space, the state consistently ranks near the bottom in the amount of Federal land. Our citizens are committed to balancing conservation and growth. That is why this designation is so important. While the state and local groups have done exceptional work so far, this designation would bring in federal technical assistance and foster coordination among the many concerned groups. It is time to get the formal process started. For all of these reasons, I am pleased to introduce the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2001.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to address the Senate on the matter before us that has been the subject of the debate all morning--the resolution which would vitiate OSHA regulations on ergonomics. Ergonomics is a dreadful name. I am trying to find a good definition for it. It is probably causing some people to wonder what this debate is all about. I am told that ergonomics is the science of fitting the job to the worker and ergonomic injuries are repetitive stress injuries. There have been some rather startling statistics regarding these stress-related injuries over the last number of years. The National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine report of January, 2001, reported that in 1999, nearly 1 million people took time from work to treat or recover from work-related ergonomic injuries. The cost of these injuries is enormous--about $50 billion annually. Many of the people with ergonomic injuries we are familiar with, such as meat- packing workers and poultry workers, assembly line workers, computer users, stock handlers and canners, sewing machine operators, and construction workers. While women make up 46 percent of the overall workforce, they account for over 64 percent of these repetitive motion injuries. More statistics may be somewhat helpful here. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1.8 million ergonomic injuries are reported each and every year, and have been for well over the last decade as our economy produced more jobs of the kind I just described. Six hundred thousand people have lost work time as a result of these injuries. Ergonomic injuries cost businesses $50 billion a year. Finally, women, who make up 46 percent of the workforce, account for a majority of these injuries that are occurring in the workplace. These injuries are debilitating. They are painful and the economic hardship caused by them is significant. I can tell you firsthand about a woman who spent 30 years working in the Senate, and worked with me for almost the last 20 years. She developed carpal tunnel syndrome, a very painful injury. She was a valued worker in my office and showed up for work every day. I do not recall her ever being absent during the 20 years she spent with me. When she developed carpal tunnel syndrome, she was unable to perform her regular duties. But we found other work in the office for her to do until she was able to recover. She continued working in my office until she retired. I mention these statistics and numbers because I find it rather appalling that we are now in the business, if this resolution is adopted, of abolishing the rules that provide help for 1.8 million people a year who are injured by repetitive stress injuries. It is the kind of protection workers ought to be getting under OSHA. I don't know of another time in the 20th century when we rolled back the clock on protecting workers in this country from work-related injuries. I know there were times when people fought the initial legislation that provided protection. But I don't know if there was ever a time since this Nation first decided it was in the national interest to provide protection for people, that we have rolled back the standards in 10 hours of debate--10 hours. That is it, 10 hours of debate, after 10 years of crafting these rules to provide these protections. Let me tell you what is the greatest irony of all. Who started this debate? Who proposed that we do something about this? It was the Secretary of Labor, Elizabeth Dole, who first brought up the issue that we ought to do something about protecting people from these kinds of injuries. In fact, it was in August of 1990, in response to evidence that repetitive stress injuries were the fastest growing occupation illnesses in the country, that Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole announced the beginning of rulemaking on the ergonomics standards. Two years later, in 1992, her successor, Lynn Martin, under yet another Republican Administration, issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on these repetitive stress injuries. And not until substantial scientific study had been conducted did the Clinton administration release a draft of proposed standards in February of 1999. However, before issuing the final rule, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration extended the comment period, at the request of some of my colleagues and others, and held 9 weeks of public hearings. They heard from 1,000 witnesses and reviewed 7,000 written comments. The final standards were issued in November of 2000 and they went into effect on January 16, 2001. So after 10 years of work by good people who did not bring any ideological bent to this at all--at the suggestion of two Republican Secretaries of Labor--today, in 10 hours of debate, we are going to wipe all of this out. I am not going to stand here and suggest to you that every dotted ``i'' and crossed ``t'' in these regulations is perfect or right. I do not claim that level of expertise to know whether or not that is the case. But if it is not perfect, then let's fix it. Do not wipe all of this out--not after 10 years of work. It would take an act of Congress, adopted by both Houses and signed by the President, in order for the Administration to put some regulations back into effect to protect people. What are these regulations? I think it is also very revealing what these standards are. The standards require that all covered employers provide their employees with basic information about signs and symptoms of these repetitive stress injuries or ergonomics injuries, the importance of reporting these injuries, risk factors associated with ergonomic hazards, and a brief description of the ergonomics standard. The employer has no further responsibilities under the rule unless an employee reports an ergonomic injury or signs of symptoms of an ergonomic injury that lasts for 7 days after being reported. Then, if the employer determines, and I never heard of a rule set up like this--if the employer determines that the ergonomic injury is work-related, and that the injured employee is exposed to serious hazards, the employer must craft an appropriate remedy. Not some neutral board, the employer makes the determination. To call this excessive stretches the imagination and credulity. These are not onerous standards. And if we want to fix some of them, then let's try to do that. But to eliminate it altogether, --in 10 hours of debate or less--after all of this work, I find terribly disappointing, to put it mildly. We are only a few weeks into this new administration. There are ways in which you address problems. This is not a proper way to do so. There are 100 of us in this Chamber who care about these issues and who can work on them. But to bring up a resolution like this and try to jam it through, and eliminate all this work, I think, is a great step backwards. I am terribly disappointed that the leadership of this body has decided to choose this route as a way of dealing with this issue. There is more misinformation being heard about this particular issue than anything else I can think of. As I said, these injuries are debilitating. They are painful. People are losing work and time. Are we just going to wipe out all of these standards, after 10 years of research, sound science and an unprecedented amount of time for public comment? Employees have a right to expect a safe workplace. We fought long and hard in this country to provide these rights for people. And all along the way, there were those who objected--whether it was child labor laws or safety and health standards, work conditions, or hours. Unfortunately, at every critical moment in history there have been those who stood up and said: We can't afford to do this; that it is an onerous burden on the employers of this country to have to provide a safe workplace. People ought to be grateful they have a job and not complain about the conditions under which they work or the injuries they may incur at the workplace. At every moment in history, when people have stood in this Chamber and elsewhere and fought on behalf of working people, there have been people who have stood up and said: We can't afford to do it. It is too complicated. And we are not going to do it. Those who are offering this resolution may succeed today, but the American people will not forget it. And the 1.8 million people this year--65 percent of them women--who are going to suffer, with no recourse, will not forget it, either. There is a process by which you can fix this law, if you want to. A 10-hour debate on an unamendable resolution, after 10 years of work, is not the way to go. It is not the way to go. I urge the authors of this resolution to withdraw it before the vote occurs this afternoon and allow this Chamber and the Members to work on this with the administration, and not reach some fait accompli that wipes out 10 years of work by intelligent, smart people who knew what they were talking about. I would hope the leadership would see fit to do so. I yield the floor. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order recognizing Senator Thompson be vitiated.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I hope that this effort will be the culmination of our long-term efforts to fully fund the Federal share of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Last Congress, Senator Jeffords and I twice offered budget amendments to fully fund IDEA, and I have offered many measures over the years to increase funding for IDEA. Of course, I also have worked closely with Senators Kennedy and Harkin on this issue, and I am thrilled to be joining today with the many other cosponsors of this bill, Senators Murray, Reed, Hagel, Roberts, Collins, and Snowe. The Helping Children Succeed by Fully Funding IDEA Act offers Congress the opportunity to fulfill our goal of funding 40 percent of the cost of educating children with disabilities and to strengthen our support for children, parents, and local schools. This act is quite simple, it directs the appropriation of funds for IDEA so that we will fully fund IDEA by 2007. When Congress passed IDEA in 1975, we set a goal of helping States meet their constitutional obligation to provide children with disabilities a free, appropriate education by paying for 40 percent of those costs. We have made great strides toward that goal in the last few years, having doubled Federal funding over the past 5 years. Nevertheless, we still only provide 15 percent of IDEA costs. In my own State of Connecticut, in spite of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to fund special education programs, we are facing a funding shortfall. In our towns, the situation is even more difficult. Too often, our local school districts are struggling to meet the needs of their students with disabilities. The costs being borne by local communities and school districts are rising dramatically. From 1992 through 1997, for example, special education costs in Connecticut rose half again as much as did regular education costs. Our schools need our help. Of course, no one in Connecticut, or in any State or community in our country would question the value of ensuring every child the equal access to education that he or she is guaranteed by our Constitution. The only question is how best to do that, and a large part of the answer is in this legislation. This legislation demonstrates that our commitment to universal access is matched by our commitment to doing everything we can to helping States and schools provide that access. And this amendment will help not only our children and schools, it will help entire communities, by easing their tax burden. By our failure to meet our goal of fully funding IDEA, we force local taxpayers--homeowners and small businesspeople--to pay the higher taxes that these services require. That is especially a problem in Connecticut, where so much of education is paid for through local property taxes. If we are going to talk about the importance of tax relief for average Americans, there are few more important steps we can take than passing this legislation. It will go far to alleviate the tax burden that these people and businesses bear today. Last year, the National Governors' Association wrote me that ``Governors believe the single most effective step Congress could take to help address education needs and priorities, in the context of new budget constraints, would be to meet its commitment to fully fund the federal portion of IDEA.'' Over the next 10 years, we're looking at a $2.7 trillion non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus. I think that fully funding IDEA is one of the most productive ways that we can use a small part of that surplus. I ask that my colleagues seize this opportunity and support this amendment and choose to help our schools better serve children with disabilities, because I am tired of the false dichotomy that many people perceive between parents of children without disabilities and parents of children with disabilities. By fully funding the Federal share of IDEA, and easing the financial burden on states and schools, we can stop talking about ``children with disabilities'' and ``children without disabilities,'' and start talking instead about all children, period.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I hope that this effort will be the culmination of our long-term efforts to fully fund the Federal share of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Last Congress, Senator Jeffords and I twice offered budget amendments to fully fund IDEA, and I have offered many measures over the years to increase funding for IDEA. Of course, I also have worked closely with Senators Kennedy and Harkin on this issue, and I am thrilled to be joining today with the many other cosponsors of this bill, Senators Murray, Reed, Hagel, Roberts, Collins, and Snowe. The Helping Children Succeed by Fully Funding IDEA Act offers Congress the opportunity to fulfill our goal of funding 40 percent of the cost of educating children with disabilities and to strengthen our support for children, parents, and local schools. This act is quite simple, it directs the appropriation of funds for IDEA so that we will fully fund IDEA by 2007. When Congress passed IDEA in 1975, we set a goal of helping States meet their constitutional obligation to provide children with disabilities a free, appropriate education by paying for 40 percent of those costs. We have made great strides toward that goal in the last few years, having doubled Federal funding over the past 5 years. Nevertheless, we still only provide 15 percent of IDEA costs. In my own State of Connecticut, in spite of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to fund special education programs, we are facing a funding shortfall. In our towns, the situation is even more difficult. Too often, our local school districts are struggling to meet the needs of their students with disabilities. The costs being borne by local communities and school districts are rising dramatically. From 1992 through 1997, for example, special education costs in Connecticut rose half again as much as did regular education costs. Our schools need our help. Of course, no one in Connecticut, or in any State or community in our country would question the value of ensuring every child the equal access to education that he or she is guaranteed by our Constitution. The only question is how best to do that, and a large part of the answer is in this legislation. This legislation demonstrates that our commitment to universal access is matched by our commitment to doing everything we can to helping States and schools provide that access. And this amendment will help not only our children and schools, it will help entire communities, by easing their tax burden. By our failure to meet our goal of fully funding IDEA, we force local taxpayers--homeowners and small businesspeople--to pay the higher taxes that these services require. That is especially a problem in Connecticut, where so much of education is paid for through local property taxes. If we are going to talk about the importance of tax relief for average Americans, there are few more important steps we can take than passing this legislation. It will go far to alleviate the tax burden that these people and businesses bear today. Last year, the National Governors' Association wrote me that ``Governors believe the single most effective step Congress could take to help address education needs and priorities, in the context of new budget constraints, would be to meet its commitment to fully fund the federal portion of IDEA.'' Over the next 10 years, we're looking at a $2.7 trillion non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus. I think that fully funding IDEA is one of the most productive ways that we can use a small part of that surplus. I ask that my colleagues seize this opportunity and support this amendment and choose to help our schools better serve children with disabilities, because I am tired of the false dichotomy that many people perceive between parents of children without disabilities and parents of children with disabilities. By fully funding the Federal share of IDEA, and easing the financial burden on states and schools, we can stop talking about ``children with disabilities'' and ``children without disabilities,'' and start talking instead about all children, period.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to join my friend and colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, in introducing the Education for Democracy Act. The Education for Democracy Act re-authorizes grants to The Center for Civic Education to provide a course of instruction on Constitutional principles and history and on the roles of State and local governments in the Federal system, and, in coordination with the National Council on Economic Education, curriculum and teacher training programs in civics, government, and economics for teachers from many foreign countries. The strength of our democracy comes from the informed participation of citizens, whether voting in an election, spending time on jury duty, volunteering for community service, or simply keeping aware of current affairs. The purpose of this bill is to improve the quality of civics and government education, and to educate students about the history and principles of the Constitution of the United States, including the Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson said: ``I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.'' In addition to offering instruction in the core subject areas, it is essential that our schools prepare our children to be informed, effective, and responsible citizens. Comprehension of and commitment to democratic values is of particular consequence for every American. The values, principles, and beliefs that we share not only have provided a foundation for the stability of our government, they have spurred efforts by individuals and groups which have brought us closer to realizing our goal of liberty and justice for all. College freshmen in 1999 demonstrated the lowest levels of political interest in the 22-year history of surveys conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles. That finding should serve as a warning to protect our democracy by ensuring that our children receive instruction in civic education. Our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, proclaim that ultimate political authority rests with the people, who have the power to create, alter, or abolish government. As wielders of such awesome power, it is imperative that the people, all the people, be educated to exercise their power judiciously. The programs for teachers from other countries also are of great importance. America's greatness and power flow from our democratic principles. Exporting those principles will promote human rights and ensure international stability. Senator Domenici and I recently introduced the Strong Character for Strong Schools Act to help expand States' and schools' ability to make character education, including civics education, a central part of every child's education. I think that good citizenship is an essential part of good character, and I ask my colleagues to join Senator Cochran and me in support of the Education for Democracy Act.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to join my friend and colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, in introducing the Education for Democracy Act. The Education for Democracy Act re-authorizes grants to The Center for Civic Education to provide a course of instruction on Constitutional principles and history and on the roles of State and local governments in the Federal system, and, in coordination with the National Council on Economic Education, curriculum and teacher training programs in civics, government, and economics for teachers from many foreign countries. The strength of our democracy comes from the informed participation of citizens, whether voting in an election, spending time on jury duty, volunteering for community service, or simply keeping aware of current affairs. The purpose of this bill is to improve the quality of civics and government education, and to educate students about the history and principles of the Constitution of the United States, including the Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson said: ``I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.'' In addition to offering instruction in the core subject areas, it is essential that our schools prepare our children to be informed, effective, and responsible citizens. Comprehension of and commitment to democratic values is of particular consequence for every American. The values, principles, and beliefs that we share not only have provided a foundation for the stability of our government, they have spurred efforts by individuals and groups which have brought us closer to realizing our goal of liberty and justice for all. College freshmen in 1999 demonstrated the lowest levels of political interest in the 22-year history of surveys conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles. That finding should serve as a warning to protect our democracy by ensuring that our children receive instruction in civic education. Our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, proclaim that ultimate political authority rests with the people, who have the power to create, alter, or abolish government. As wielders of such awesome power, it is imperative that the people, all the people, be educated to exercise their power judiciously. The programs for teachers from other countries also are of great importance. America's greatness and power flow from our democratic principles. Exporting those principles will promote human rights and ensure international stability. Senator Domenici and I recently introduced the Strong Character for Strong Schools Act to help expand States' and schools' ability to make character education, including civics education, a central part of every child's education. I think that good citizenship is an essential part of good character, and I ask my colleagues to join Senator Cochran and me in support of the Education for Democracy Act.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution celebrating the 40th anniversary of the founding of the Peace Corps. Many of my colleagues know of my history as a Peace Corps volunteer in the Dominican Republic, and the great impact that that experience had on me. Serving outside of the United States and seeing the shortcomings of other nations, I grew to appreciate this nation more and more, and developed a strong sense of what it means to be an American. And, I was proud to share my experiences as a United States citizen with the people I was sent to help. At the end of the day, the smiling faces of the people in the community in which I was stationed made all my hard work worthwhile. My experience as a Peace Corps volunteer was almost 33 years ago, when the Peace Corps was still a relatively new organization. But, under the leadership of such distinguished directors as Sargent Shriver, Loret Ruppe, Paul Coverdell, Mark Schneider, and all the other directors in the Peace Corps history, the organization has grown and grown. I am proud to stand here today and report that from its humble beginnings as a method for Americans to share their expertise and assistance with other nations, the Peace Corps has grown into an organization that sends more than 7,000 volunteers to 76 different countries a year. These volunteers are really the heart and soul of the Peace Corps. They are the ones at the front lines, working hard and making individual connections with the citizens of the countries in which they work. Since 1961, Peace Corps volunteers have brought a wealth of practical assistance to communities in Africa, Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and the Pacific. They have worked at such disparate tasks as halting the spread of AIDS, advising small business owners, protecting the environment, educating students, and increasing farm yields. Volunteers have played a vital role in short-term disaster relief and humanitarian efforts. In the face of many personal and physical challenges, Peace Corps volunteers offer their ingenuity and an approach to problem solving that is both optimistic and pragmatic. Above all, the Peace Corps enduring success is rooted in volunteer's commitment to leave behind skills that allow people to take charge of their own futures. Peace Corps volunteers also make a difference at home by continuing their community service and strengthening Americans' appreciation of other cultures. By visiting classrooms, working with community groups, and speaking with friends and family members, volunteers help others learn more about the world in which we live and help build a legacy of service for the next generation. Today, the Peace Corps continues to strengthen existing programs and expand its activities around the world, including new programs in Mozambique, Bangladesh, and Georgia. The Peace Corps also plans to graduate from several countries where volunteers have made significant progress during a critical period of transformation, including Poland, the Slovak Republic, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Current volunteers are somewhat different than the volunteers of the early years when I was a volunteer. The average age has risen from 22 to 28, the percentage of women has increased from 35 to 60, the number of volunteers with graduate degrees is growing, and today's volunteers represent the most ethnically diverse group so far. However, today's volunteers share a characteristic with their predecessors that is a cornerstone of Peace Corps service--a commitment to the spirit of volunteerism and service that President Kennedy first envisioned 40 years ago. Today, on Peace Corps Day, thousands of returned volunteers will celebrate by sharing the knowledge and insights gained from their overseas experiences with school groups and local communities throughout the United States. A series of activities are also planned in the Peace Corps countries, where volunteers and their host country colleagues will celebrate their accomplishments and the universal goals of partnership and goodwill. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution celebrating the Peace Corps and its worldwide network on the 40th anniversary of the Peace Corps, and in honoring Peace Corps volunteers, past and present, for their four decades of service to the world.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we have just adopted a resolution offered by the majority leader and others that will honor our former colleague, Paul Coverdell of Georgia, for his service as a Member of this body, as a member of the political life of the State of Georgia, and as a Director of the U.S. Peace Corps. This resolution, among other things, would name the Washington national headquarters of the Peace Corps as the Paul D. Coverdell Peace Corps Headquarters. The bill would also authorize $10 million in appropriations to give an award to the University of Georgia to support the construction of the Paul D. Coverdell Building at the Institute of Biomedical and Health Sciences at the University of Georgia. The legislation to honor our former colleague, in addition to what was done last year--when we enacted the Paul D. Coverdell Worldwide School Act of 2000--would designate the Worldwide Schools Program as the Paul D. Coverdell Worldwide Schools Program that was begun by Senator Coverdell when he was Director of the Peace Corps. Last year's action was a fitting one by this Congress to honor our former colleague and is an appropriate tribute which recognizes the special contribution Paul Coverdell made to the Peace Corps during his tenure as its Director. I strongly and enthusiastically supported its enactment. Let me, first of all, say there is a particular reason I speak on this particular issue, in addition to my affection for Paul Coverdell and the years I spent working with him. As I mentioned a moment ago in the colloquy with the distinguished majority leader, some 33 years ago, after I finished college, I served as a Peace Corps volunteer in the Dominican Republic not far from the Haitian border for 2\1/2\ years in the mountains. I worked with 22 communities and some 11,000 people in the northwest region of that country. It was an important period of maturation in my life. I learned a great deal about myself and have a deeper appreciation of my own country. Serving outside of the United States and seeing the shortcomings of other nations, one appreciates in many ways unimaginable as a U.S. citizen, how fortunate we are to live in this great country with 200 years of strong democracy and freedoms and opportunities that the world envisions. One also comes away with a deeper appreciation of other cultures and other peoples. It was a wonderful experience. I have often said that next to my family and the circumstances of growing up in a strong, healthy household with five siblings and wonderful parents, no other event in my life was as significant as these years as a Peace Corps volunteer--as a part of growing up and learning more about myself, sparking, in many ways, a determination to be a part of public life. And that has occurred over the years since my arrival in the House of Representatives as the first former Peace Corps volunteer to be elected to the Congress, along with Paul Tsongas that year, a blessed memory. And then I arrived in the Senate, along with Paul Tsongas, 2 years after his arrival, as Peace Corps volunteers here. Today I am the only returning volunteer. I sometimes like to have some fun with my colleague from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, the junior Senator from West Virginia, who was a staff member of the Peace Corps. But we make a significant distinction between staff members and volunteers. The 161,000 Americans who are former Peace Corps volunteers will appreciate that distinction. There are deeply emotional and strong feelings that I have about this organization and the contribution that it has made to our Nation and to millions of people all over the globe. This was an idea that was born in a speech given by another Senator in the State of Michigan as he was running for President in 1960. His name was John Fitzgerald Kennedy. He said, on the steps of the University of Michigan, that he had an idea where Americans of all ages might take a period out of their lives to serve the needs of others around the globe. It was an idea that Hubert Humphrey had talked about as a Senator--not specifically the Peace Corps, but he had raised the idea of Americans serving the interests of others around the globe. Then, over the years, beginning with the remarkable leadership of Sargent Shriver as the first Director of the Peace Corps, there have been 14 other Directors over 40 years. Most remarkably, there was one directorship under Loret Ruppe, the wife of a former Republican House Member, who I served with for 8 years under the Reagan years. She led the Peace Corps in a most magnificent way. In fact, I remember she even forwent some of her salary initially because she did not feel she understood the Peace Corps well enough to take a salary. That is how dedicated she was to this organization. But over the years, we have talked about the Peace Corps not as John Kennedy's Peace Corps or Hubert Humphrey's Peace Corps or Sargent Shriver's Peace Corps or Loret Ruppe's Peace Corps or my Peace Corps; it has been the Nation's. It just says: The Peace Corps. There is one room at the Peace Corps named for Sargent Shriver, but that is the only facility I know of that has a name on it at all, because we never thought it belonged to any particular person. Literally hundreds of thousands of people, in direct and indirect ways, have made a significant contribution to this organization. I served with volunteers who lost their lives during the term of their service. Yet despite that, and the efforts maybe in some countries to designate certain places or areas in memory of these individuals, we have kept it sort of as a nameless organization in that sense. I hope people understand that when this proposal was made--and I respect the fact that these things can happen--no one came and asked me what I thought about whether or not we ought to name this building after one particular individual. Had I been asked about it prior to this decision to move forward with it--regardless of who had come forward with any particular name--I would have expressed the same reservation. This has nothing to do with my deep respect for Paul Coverdell. As the majority leader pointed out, I gave a heartfelt set of remarks at the time of his passing, so I feel somewhat awkward in even standing up and talking about this. But we have to be far more judicious, and careful not to race down and offer resolutions to put names on buildings in this community and elsewhere without thinking through what the implications are. For those who have served well, brought honor to institutions, to try to race ahead with one name over another does not serve this country well, does not serve its institutions well. I was asked to be the co-chairman of a bipartisan group last year to choose two Senators' portraits to be painted on two ovals outside this Chamber in the reception area. Slade Gorton from the State of Washington was the other member of this two-member commission. We made selections after deep discussions with the Senate historian and with other Members. In fact, I remember having a conversation with the distinguished former minority-majority leader, Senator Byrd of West Virginia, about his ideas. We went to our respective caucuses, shared these ideas, and, finally, after having vented the entire process, came to the Chamber with the suggestions of Senator Vandenberg and Senator Wagner of New York to be the two suggestions. But we went through the process even before we decided to put the portraits of the two Senators high up on the wall of the reception area. I would urge my colleagues, aside from this particular set of circumstances, that rather than trying to compete with one another as to whether or not we are going to have a Republican or a Democrat or some particular name on a building, that we slow down, think, and be more careful about how we proceed on these matters. That was the motivation, more than anything else, that caused me to object yesterday to this resolution going forward, the concerns I had about the naming process, in this particular resolution. So in no way does my lack of enthusiasm for this resolution, which is before us and which has just been adopted, suggest a criticism of Paul Coverdell's tenure at the Peace Corps. In fact, he was a very fine Director of the Peace Corps, who made a number of contributions to the organization, including the establishment, as we already heard, of the Worldwide Schools Program, and the dispatching of volunteers, for the first time, to Hungary and Poland. As I said, there were also 14 other Directors of the Peace Corps who made significant contributions. Paul was not the Peace Corps's first Director. As I mentioned, Sargent Shriver was the first Director, who gave the organization the kind of direction and definition it needed at the outset and during his entire tenure. Loret Ruppe, who I mentioned, holds the honor of having served as the longest Director of the Peace Corps, which was during the 8 years of the Reagan administration. I respected Paul Coverdell enormously. I worked closely with him on Peace Corps issues when he was the Director between 1989 and 1991. I actually chaired his confirmation hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He and I continued to work together on Peace Corps matters when he joined the Senate in 1993, and served, as he did then, as the ranking member. I was then chairman of the subcommittee having jurisdiction over the Peace Corps. Whenever he would discuss any legislation related to the Peace Corps, the first thing Paul Coverdell would ask was, is it good for the Peace Corps? Is it going to create problems? Is it going to fracture the bipartisan consensus that has existed for 40 years with respect to this organization? Paul always put the interests of the organization, and particularly the volunteers, first. I believe we should do so as well. That is our responsibility, in my view. This year the Peace Corps will celebrate its 40th anniversary since being established by President Kennedy in 1961. The Peace Corps stands as a living embodiment of the well-remembered challenge that President Kennedy posed to all Americans more than four decades ago: It is not what your country can do for you but, rather, what you can do for your Nation. The Peace Corps was first established by Executive order during the early days of the Kennedy administration. Sargent Shriver was named as its first Director. Soon thereafter Congress enacted legislation to codify it into law. The legislation is quite simple. It set forth three goals for the organization: to help the people of interested nations in meeting their need for trained men and women, to help promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of peoples served, and to help promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of Americans. As the first Director of the Peace Corps, Sargent Shriver confronted the special challenge of transforming President Kennedy's challenge to America's young adults into an operation program that would meet the three goals established by this organization. During the 5 years of his tenure as Director, Sargent Shriver gave form to the dream of voluntary service. The 14 Directors who followed in his footsteps benefitted from the foundation that he had established for the organization. However, each succeeding Director, in his or her own way, has also made significant contributions, which has kept the Peace Corps strong and vibrant over these past 40 years. The heart and soul of the organization, however, is not the Directors of the Peace Corps, or the Peace Corps staff in Washington, or the buildings; it is the volunteers--past, present, and future. Over the past 40 years, more than 161,000 Americans, young and old, men and women, have given up at least 2 years of their lives in service to our Nation, and in far flung corners of the world. I was privileged, as I said at the outset of these remarks, to be one of those volunteers. Peace Corps volunteers have served in 130 nations, working to bring clean water to communities, teaching their children, helping start small businesses, and more recently joining in the international efforts to stop the spread of AIDS. Today, there are more than 7,000 volunteers serving in 76 nations, working to put a living face on America for those people in developing countries who might never otherwise have any contact with America or her values. Through the Peace Corps, the United States has shared its most valuable resource in the promotion of peace and development--its people. That is our greatest resource, and volunteers are the very embodiment of our best values. The men and women who have served and answered the call of the Peace Corps reflect the rich diversity of our Nation, but they have one thing in common; namely, a common spirit of service, of dedication, and of idealism. We should not let politics or partisan bickering ever in any way diminish that spirit. Let us continue to respect the unique nature of the Peace Corps and show deference to the tens of thousands of volunteers who have given their time to make the Peace Corps the internationally respected organization that it is today. It is more than one director. It is more than any one volunteer. In fact, the sum total of the Peace Corps is larger than all of its parts. That is why we should not try to embody the spirit of the organization by placing one of its elements above the others. For those reasons, I raised the objections and the reservations about this resolution. I withdrew those reservations in the spirit of cooperation, knowing it is important that the Peace Corps not be embroiled in this kind of battle. I hope in the future more patience will be demonstrated, more consultation involved, before we move ahead at the pace we did with this particular proposal. My respect and admiration to Paul and his family, to his wife, and to his staff and others who have worked with him over the years. Please understand that my objections raised here today, my reservations raised here today, have nothing whatsoever to do with my deep admiration for him, his work as Senator, or his work as Director of the Peace Corps during his 2 years of service. I thank my colleague from West Virginia and yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I don't expect the leader to stay for some remarks I will give at the conclusion of the majority leader's presentation. But I want him to know and others of my colleagues that I considered Paul Coverdell to be a very good friend of mine. We worked very closely together chairing or being ranking member on the committee that dealt with the Peace Corps during his tenure. In fact, I arranged and handled his confirmation process to become Director of the Peace Corps and feel very strongly about the relationship I had with him. The concerns I raised over the last days have nothing whatsoever to do with my admiration and respect for Paul Coverdell. They have to do with an institution with which I have been closely identified and affiliated for 40 years, the Peace Corps. I am the only Member of this Chamber who served as a Peace Corps volunteer. In fact, I was the first Member of the U.S. Congress elected to serve in the Peace Corps as a volunteer along with Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts some 33 years ago. My concern and my involvement with this organization are deeply felt. The remarks I will give this afternoon have to address that, as well as the larger issue to which the majority leader has referred; that is, the issue of the naming process that goes on around town for which I believe a number of my colleagues share a common concern. Maybe at some point we might draft some legislation that allows for a deliberate process to be used rather than sort of racing to the finish line as to who gets to put a label on some building or monument. I appreciate his listening. But I want him to know that over these last several days as I raised my objection yesterday--the Senator from Nevada had an objection--I really wanted to have some time to pause and think this process through. But I appreciate and I know how closely the majority leader was to Paul Coverdell and how much his friendship meant to him. I hope he understands that what I was engaged in in no way was meant to be any disrespect at all for our former colleague but went to a deeper issue, one about which I feel strongly.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, over the past decade the science of identifying genetic markers for diseases has evolved at an astonishing pace. For an increasing number of Americans, science fiction has become reality--their doctors can now scan their unique genetic blueprints and predict the likelihood of their developing diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. Armed with this knowledge, individuals and families can make informed decisions about their health care including, in some cases, even taking steps to prevent the disease or to detect and treat it early. Unfortunately, however, phenomenal advances in our knowledge about genetics have outpaced the protections currently provided in law. Thus, the potential also exists for this information to be used by health insurers or employers to deny health coverage or job opportunities. And, in fact, recent events have catapulted the issue of genetic discrimination from a potential concern to a devastating reality. Just this week, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against an employer for requiring genetic testing of employees who file injury claims. Additionally, a recent survey of over 2,000 companies conducted by the American Management Association showed that 18.1 percent of companies require genetic or medical family history data from employees or job applicants. According to the same survey, 26.1 percent of the companies that require genetic or family medical history tests use the results of those tests in hiring decisions. We know that Federal and State laws currently offer only a patchwork of protections against the misuse of genetic information. While the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 took important first steps toward prohibiting genetic discrimination in health insurance, it left large gaps. For example, it does not prohibit insurers from requiring genetic testing or from disclosing genetic information and offers no protection at all for people who must buy their insurance in the individual market. And, while several States, including Connecticut, have enacted legislation prohibiting health insurance discrimination, these laws can not protect the 51 million individuals in employer-sponsored ``self-funded'' health plans. Additionally, few States have chosen to address the issues of employment discrimination or the separate issue of the privacy of genetic records. I know from personal experience that this issue is not a partisan one. Four years ago, I joined Senator Domenici in introducing one of the first bills on this critical topic, addressing both insurance and employment discrimination. And two years ago, along with many of my Democrat colleagues, I joined Senator Snowe in supporting strong legislation protecting patients from genetic discrimination in insurance. Today I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Daschle, Senator Harkin and Senator Kennedy in introducing comprehensive legislation to safeguard the privacy of genetic information and prohibit health insurance or employment discrimination based on genetic information. Specifically, this legislation would prohibit health insurers from discriminating based on genetic predisposition to an illness or condition and would prevent insurers from requiring applicants for health insurance to submit to genetic testing. This bill would also address concerns about employment discrimination by preventing employers from firing or refusing to hire individuals who may be susceptible to a genetic condition. Finally, this legislation holds employers and insurers accountable by imposing strong penalties those who violate these provisions. Three years ago, in a visit to Yale University's Genetic Testing Center I had the opportunity to glimpse cutting edge uses of that technology. I also had the opportunity, however, to hear the fears expressed by the patients at the center. On that visit I met with Keith Hall, who has been a patient at Yale for several years--since he was first diagnosed with Tuberous Sclerosis, a genetic disease that causes tumors of the brain, kidney and other organs, and sometimes mental retardation. Keith worries about what would happen to his insurance if he ever had to switch jobs. I also met with Ashley Przybylski, an 11-year-old girl from Oxford, CT. Ashley suffers from a genetic nutritional disorder that can cause seizures and brain damage. While currently the family's insurance covers the exorbitant cost of the medication that keeps her healthy-- $33,000 a year--Ashley faces the prospect of being denied coverage when she gets older. While we as a Nation welcome these scientific achievements, it is critical we ensure that they be applied for the purposes of preventing or treating disease, rather than for denying health insurance or employment to individuals. This issue is too important to ignore for yet another year. Each day that passes more individuals suffer discrimination. Each day that we fail to act, more families will be forced to make decisions about genetic testing based, not on their health care needs, but on fear. I pledge my commitment to ensuring that continued progress in science is matched by progress in creating protections against discrimination and establishing fundamental rights to privacy. I'd like to again thank my colleagues, Senator Daschle, Senator Kennedy and Senator Harkin for joining me in introducing this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to join my friend and colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, in introducing the Strong Character for Strong Schools Act. Senator Domenici and I have worked together for many years on this important issue. We established the Partnerships in Character Education Pilot Project in 1994 and have worked regularly since then to commemorate National Character Counts Week. So, I am pleased that today we are introducing the Strong Character for Strong Schools Act to help expand States' and schools' ability to make character education a central part of every child's education. Our schools may be built with the bricks of English, math and science, but character education certainly is the mortar. This initiative ensures that our children's character, as well as their minds, receives care and nurturing in our schools. Character education means teaching students about such qualities as caring, citizenship, fairness, respect, responsibility, trustworthiness, and other qualities that their community values. Character education provides students a context within which to learn. If we view education simply as the imparting of knowledge to our children, then we will not only miss an opportunity, but will jeopardize our future. Character education isn't a separate subject, but part of a seamless garment of learning. For example, at Waterford High School, in Connecticut, as part of the character education program, math students designed a ramp for kids who use wheelchairs. The students learned about math, but also about caring. Theodore Roosevelt said that ``[t]o educate a person's mind and not his character is to educate a menace.'' That may be, but I prefer Dr. Martin Luther King's exhortation that we judge each other not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character. A recent survey of high school students by the Character Counts Coalition found that during the preceding year, 71 percent cheated on an exam; 92 percent lied to their parents and 78 percent lied to a teacher; about 35 percent had stolen from a store; and 16 percent were drunk in school. This doesn't mean that these are bad kids, but it does mean that we need more character education. We know that these programs work. Schools across the country that have adopted strong character education programs report better student performance, fewer discipline problems, and increased student involvement with the community. Children want direction--they want to be taught right from wrong. The American public wants character education in our schools, too. Studies show that about 90 percent of Americans support schools teaching character education. Virtually all national education organizations are involved in promoting character education. Last June, the Connecticut Department of Education, on behalf of many State organizations, issued a Call to Action letter, outlining a program to improve the school climate in all Connecticut schools. And, the Connecticut Education Association has developed its own character education program that teaches kids about not bullying and other behaviors that can disrupt schools and make it difficult for children to learn. As all education policy should be, character education is bi- partisan. When Senator Domenici and I introduced a resolution last Congress establishing National Character Counts Week, we had 57 co- sponsors, with broad support in both parties. And President Bush, in his education plan, calls for increased funding for character education. Our children may be one-quarter of our population, but they definitely are 100 percent of our future. That's why this measure is so important--it provides a helping hand to our schools and communities to ensure that children's futures are bright and filled with opportunities and success. So, I am confident that not only are we doing the right thing here, but that we will see this bill become law along with other education reforms, this Congress.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, over the past decade the science of identifying genetic markers for diseases has evolved at an astonishing pace. For an increasing number of Americans, science fiction has become reality--their doctors can now scan their unique genetic blueprints and predict the likelihood of their developing diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. Armed with this knowledge, individuals and families can make informed decisions about their health care including, in some cases, even taking steps to prevent the disease or to detect and treat it early. Unfortunately, however, phenomenal advances in our knowledge about genetics have outpaced the protections currently provided in law. Thus, the potential also exists for this information to be used by health insurers or employers to deny health coverage or job opportunities. And, in fact, recent events have catapulted the issue of genetic discrimination from a potential concern to a devastating reality. Just this week, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against an employer for requiring genetic testing of employees who file injury claims. Additionally, a recent survey of over 2,000 companies conducted by the American Management Association showed that 18.1 percent of companies require genetic or medical family history data from employees or job applicants. According to the same survey, 26.1 percent of the companies that require genetic or family medical history tests use the results of those tests in hiring decisions. We know that Federal and State laws currently offer only a patchwork of protections against the misuse of genetic information. While the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 took important first steps toward prohibiting genetic discrimination in health insurance, it left large gaps. For example, it does not prohibit insurers from requiring genetic testing or from disclosing genetic information and offers no protection at all for people who must buy their insurance in the individual market. And, while several States, including Connecticut, have enacted legislation prohibiting health insurance discrimination, these laws can not protect the 51 million individuals in employer-sponsored ``self-funded'' health plans. Additionally, few States have chosen to address the issues of employment discrimination or the separate issue of the privacy of genetic records. I know from personal experience that this issue is not a partisan one. Four years ago, I joined Senator Domenici in introducing one of the first bills on this critical topic, addressing both insurance and employment discrimination. And two years ago, along with many of my Democrat colleagues, I joined Senator Snowe in supporting strong legislation protecting patients from genetic discrimination in insurance. Today I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Daschle, Senator Harkin and Senator Kennedy in introducing comprehensive legislation to safeguard the privacy of genetic information and prohibit health insurance or employment discrimination based on genetic information. Specifically, this legislation would prohibit health insurers from discriminating based on genetic predisposition to an illness or condition and would prevent insurers from requiring applicants for health insurance to submit to genetic testing. This bill would also address concerns about employment discrimination by preventing employers from firing or refusing to hire individuals who may be susceptible to a genetic condition. Finally, this legislation holds employers and insurers accountable by imposing strong penalties those who violate these provisions. Three years ago, in a visit to Yale University's Genetic Testing Center I had the opportunity to glimpse cutting edge uses of that technology. I also had the opportunity, however, to hear the fears expressed by the patients at the center. On that visit I met with Keith Hall, who has been a patient at Yale for several years--since he was first diagnosed with Tuberous Sclerosis, a genetic disease that causes tumors of the brain, kidney and other organs, and sometimes mental retardation. Keith worries about what would happen to his insurance if he ever had to switch jobs. I also met with Ashley Przybylski, an 11-year-old girl from Oxford, CT. Ashley suffers from a genetic nutritional disorder that can cause seizures and brain damage. While currently the family's insurance covers the exorbitant cost of the medication that keeps her healthy-- $33,000 a year--Ashley faces the prospect of being denied coverage when she gets older. While we as a Nation welcome these scientific achievements, it is critical we ensure that they be applied for the purposes of preventing or treating disease, rather than for denying health insurance or employment to individuals. This issue is too important to ignore for yet another year. Each day that passes more individuals suffer discrimination. Each day that we fail to act, more families will be forced to make decisions about genetic testing based, not on their health care needs, but on fear. I pledge my commitment to ensuring that continued progress in science is matched by progress in creating protections against discrimination and establishing fundamental rights to privacy. I'd like to again thank my colleagues, Senator Daschle, Senator Kennedy and Senator Harkin for joining me in introducing this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr President, I would like to briefly explain my recent vote to support the nomination of Gale Norton to be Secretary of Interior. At the outset, let me say that I did so with serious reservations. In fact, I find many of Ms. Norton's past positions, statements and actions most troubling. Gale Norton has built a successful career advocating for the mining, timber, and oil industries. Her record in this respect has led many to question whether she can strike an appropriate balance between conservation and development. She has argued that several fundamental environmental laws are unconstitutional, including the Endangered Species Act and the Surface Mining Act, two laws that the Secretary of Interior is tasked with enforcing. She has advocated opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, in Alaska to oil drilling. This vital ecosystem supports hundreds of thousands of caribou, bears, wolves and oxen and 160 species of birds. Is it prudent to destroy this pristine land for what the U.S. Geological Survey estimates is a 6-month supply of oil? I believe not. As Attorney General of Colorado, she was a proponent of the State's self-audit law, which allows polluting companies to escape fines if they report their violations and make efforts to correct the problem. Unfortunately, the Summitville Mine in Colorado was not as vigilant as it should have been and continued to operate even though it still had serious environmental problems. Only when the mine leaked cyanide into a local river did Ms. Norton's office step in. While she worked vigorously to clean up the damage and billed Summitville for the cost, it was the federal government who had to step in and prosecute the offenders. A Secretary of Interior must be vigilant, quick to respond to disaster, and pro-active in policy-making. I am troubled by Ms. Norton's slow response at Summitville and her inability to articulate at the confirmation hearing what she might do to reduce the chances of a similar disaster. Many have urged me and my Senate colleagues to reject this nomination and some have unfairly compared Ms. Norton to former Interior Secretary James Watt. I am one of several current Members of the Senate who was here in 1981 and I remember James Watt. During his confirmation hearing, he remained unyielding in his devotion to development and extractive industries. That intractable stand, coupled with his past statements and actions led me to vote against James Watt for Secretary of Interior. In fact, I am one of six current members of the Senate who cast a vote in opposition to Mr. Watt's nomination. I did not detect such a divisive tone during Gale Norton's confirmation hearing before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I take some comfort from statements she made, under oath, specifically her intention to enforce the laws as written and interpreted by the courts, including the Endangered Species Act. Ms. Norton gave assurances to several committee members that she would uphold the current moratorium that exists on offshore oil and gas leases in California and Florida. She further stated that she was willing to work with other States to achieve similar results regarding offshore oil and gas leases. I was pleased to hear Gale Norton's strong support for our National Parks, including eradicating maintenance backlogs. I look forward to working with her and members of the Senate to ensure proper funding levels in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations for this and other environmental protection efforts. Finally, I was pleased that Ms. Norton supports fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I trust she will work with Congress to achieve that goal and to enact the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, a bill that had broad bipartisan and bicameral support in the 106th Congress. Land and Water Conservation funds and the matching grant program have been very important to the ability of Connecticut and other States to acquire land and enhance recreation areas and parks. I am mindful that some of Ms. Norton's testimony reflects a stark change in policy beliefs. Do I think these newly stated positions make her an environmentalist? No, I do not. Do I think positions she has taken in the past could pose harm to our public lands? Yes, I do. However, the entirety of Ms Norton's record, including testimony given at the hearing, demonstrates a sensitivity and an understanding of the role of the Secretary of Interior. The Secretary of Interior has enormous responsibility over our Nation's public treasures. That person must be a responsible steward for close to 500 million acres throughout the country, including Weir Farm National Historic Site and the McKinney National Wildlife Refuge in Connecticut. The Secretary must oversee and protect public lands, not plunder them. In many instances Gale Norton has demonstrated a willingness to advocate Federal interests and be an honest and fair broker. As Associate Solicitor for the Department of Interior, she upheld federal interests including habitat restoration at the Como Lake restoration project and the Endangered Species Act on behalf of the California Condor. While Colorado Attorney General, Ms. Norton ensured that the Rocky Mountain Arsenal was sufficiently cleaned up and urged Congress to establish a wildlife refuge there. I respect people's strong feelings regarding the nomination of Gale Norton, and in fact, I share some of their deeply rooted concerns. I did not cast this vote lightly or without a heavy degree of concern. I am not ignorant of the fact that Gale Norton is a nominee who represents the views of our President or that any other nominee for Interior Secretary would share those views. Nor do I agree in sending a message by voting against a nominee. This is an individual, a Cabinet nominee, not a piece of legislation. The President is entitled to a degree of deference in assembling his Cabinet, a bipartisan tradition that most members follow. I have spent a quarter century in Congress fighting for measures to protect our air, drinking water, lakes, rivers and public lands. I prefer sending a message by enacting legislation that will strengthen our quality of life and opposing policy that would weaken or destroy our natural resources. Working together, Democrats and Republicans have enacted such lasting laws as the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act. Gale Norton is undertaking an enormous responsibility, but one that affords an opportunity to bring people together. She has given me and my colleagues her word to uphold and enforce our laws. I trust she will remain true to her word, and I look forward to working with her.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to join my friend and colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, in introducing the Strong Character for Strong Schools Act. Senator Domenici and I have worked together for many years on this important issue. We established the Partnerships in Character Education Pilot Project in 1994 and have worked regularly since then to commemorate National Character Counts Week. So, I am pleased that today we are introducing the Strong Character for Strong Schools Act to help expand States' and schools' ability to make character education a central part of every child's education. Our schools may be built with the bricks of English, math and science, but character education certainly is the mortar. This initiative ensures that our children's character, as well as their minds, receives care and nurturing in our schools. Character education means teaching students about such qualities as caring, citizenship, fairness, respect, responsibility, trustworthiness, and other qualities that their community values. Character education provides students a context within which to learn. If we view education simply as the imparting of knowledge to our children, then we will not only miss an opportunity, but will jeopardize our future. Character education isn't a separate subject, but part of a seamless garment of learning. For example, at Waterford High School, in Connecticut, as part of the character education program, math students designed a ramp for kids who use wheelchairs. The students learned about math, but also about caring. Theodore Roosevelt said that ``[t]o educate a person's mind and not his character is to educate a menace.'' That may be, but I prefer Dr. Martin Luther King's exhortation that we judge each other not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character. A recent survey of high school students by the Character Counts Coalition found that during the preceding year, 71 percent cheated on an exam; 92 percent lied to their parents and 78 percent lied to a teacher; about 35 percent had stolen from a store; and 16 percent were drunk in school. This doesn't mean that these are bad kids, but it does mean that we need more character education. We know that these programs work. Schools across the country that have adopted strong character education programs report better student performance, fewer discipline problems, and increased student involvement with the community. Children want direction--they want to be taught right from wrong. The American public wants character education in our schools, too. Studies show that about 90 percent of Americans support schools teaching character education. Virtually all national education organizations are involved in promoting character education. Last June, the Connecticut Department of Education, on behalf of many State organizations, issued a Call to Action letter, outlining a program to improve the school climate in all Connecticut schools. And, the Connecticut Education Association has developed its own character education program that teaches kids about not bullying and other behaviors that can disrupt schools and make it difficult for children to learn. As all education policy should be, character education is bi- partisan. When Senator Domenici and I introduced a resolution last Congress establishing National Character Counts Week, we had 57 co- sponsors, with broad support in both parties. And President Bush, in his education plan, calls for increased funding for character education. Our children may be one-quarter of our population, but they definitely are 100 percent of our future. That's why this measure is so important--it provides a helping hand to our schools and communities to ensure that children's futures are bright and filled with opportunities and success. So, I am confident that not only are we doing the right thing here, but that we will see this bill become law along with other education reforms, this Congress.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Student Privacy Protection Act with my friend and colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby. Senator Shelby recently asked me to join him as a co-chair of the Congressional Privacy Caucus and I am pleased that we are today introducing legislation to help protect the privacy of one of America's most vulnerable groups-- our students. A recent GAO report confirms that more and more, schools are being perceived by some not just as centers for learning, but as centers for commercial research. Our children should be instilled with knowledge, not mined for knowledge on their commercial preferences and interests. Schools are there to help children grow up to be good citizens--not to provide a captive audience for market researchers and major advertisers. Our bill is simple--it provides parents and their children with modest, appropriate, privacy protections from market research in schools that would gather personal information about students, during school hours, for purely commercial purposes. It does not ban advertising, nor does it ban market research. It simply requires that, before a researcher can start asking a young student to provide personal information, that researcher must obtain parental consent or its equivalent. Surely, that is not too much to ask. If someone came to your home and started to ask your child about his or her age, gender, neighborhood, food preferences, and entertainment preferences, surely you would want to know the purpose of such questions before deciding whether to consent to them. We think parents and children are entitled to no less consideration just because a child is in school. This is part of a larger phenomenon that is familiar to anyone who has walked through a school in the past few years--the stunning increase in commercial advertising in schools. Gone are the days when commercial advertising simply meant the local hardware store's name on the basketball scoreboard or the local dry-cleaner's name on the football scoreboard. Schools, teachers and their students are daily barraged with commercial messages aimed at influencing the buying habits of children and their parents. A 1997 study from Texas A&M, estimated that children, age 4 to 12, spent more than $24 billion themselves and influenced their parents to spend $187 billion. One major spaghetti sauce firm has encouraged science teachers to have their students test different sauces for thickness as part of their science classes. A cable television channel in New Jersey had elementary school students fill our a 27-page booklet called ``My All About Me Journal'' as part of a marketing survey. In one school, a student was suspended for wearing a Pepsi T-shirt on the school's Coke Day. In another, credit card applications were sent home with elementary school students for their parents and the school collected a fee for every family that signed up. Advertisers focus on students and schools for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks--because that's where the money is. And many schools enter into commercial contracts with advertisers because, as the GAO found, they are strapped for cash. Schools often are faced with two poor choices--provide computers, books, and other educational and recreational equipment with commercial advertising, or not at all. The bill that Senator Shelby and I offer today does not second guess the hard decisions that school administrators are making each and every day. Nor does it ignore the fact that business leaders often are the strongest advocates for school improvement and the greatest benefactors of the educational process. What it does is address what the GAO report considers to be perhaps the most troubling form of commercial activity in schools--the ``growing phenomenon'' of market research. According to GAO, ``none of the education officials we interviewed said schools were appropriate venues for market research. . . .'' Nevertheless, none of the districts surveyed by GAO had policies specifically addressing market research and the GAO found that this activity is widespread. One firm alone has conducted market research in more than 1,000 schools. Another company, which since has discontinued these activities, provided computers to 1,800 schools, about 8.6 percent of all U.S. secondary schools. In exchange, the company was allowed to advertise to and ask questions of students using these computers. There are other examples. Suffice it to say that this is a practice that not only is inappropriate in the opinion of education officials, but is unknown to many parents. Nearly half of parents in a recent survey were not aware that websites can collect personal information about students without their knowledge. This bill would return to parents the right to protect their children's privacy. It's simple, it's modest, it contains appropriate exceptions, and it's our hope that it will become law together with other educational reforms being considered by this Congress.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Student Privacy Protection Act with my friend and colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby. Senator Shelby recently asked me to join him as a co-chair of the Congressional Privacy Caucus and I am pleased that we are today introducing legislation to help protect the privacy of one of America's most vulnerable groups-- our students. A recent GAO report confirms that more and more, schools are being perceived by some not just as centers for learning, but as centers for commercial research. Our children should be instilled with knowledge, not mined for knowledge on their commercial preferences and interests. Schools are there to help children grow up to be good citizens--not to provide a captive audience for market researchers and major advertisers. Our bill is simple--it provides parents and their children with modest, appropriate, privacy protections from market research in schools that would gather personal information about students, during school hours, for purely commercial purposes. It does not ban advertising, nor does it ban market research. It simply requires that, before a researcher can start asking a young student to provide personal information, that researcher must obtain parental consent or its equivalent. Surely, that is not too much to ask. If someone came to your home and started to ask your child about his or her age, gender, neighborhood, food preferences, and entertainment preferences, surely you would want to know the purpose of such questions before deciding whether to consent to them. We think parents and children are entitled to no less consideration just because a child is in school. This is part of a larger phenomenon that is familiar to anyone who has walked through a school in the past few years--the stunning increase in commercial advertising in schools. Gone are the days when commercial advertising simply meant the local hardware store's name on the basketball scoreboard or the local dry-cleaner's name on the football scoreboard. Schools, teachers and their students are daily barraged with commercial messages aimed at influencing the buying habits of children and their parents. A 1997 study from Texas A&M, estimated that children, age 4 to 12, spent more than $24 billion themselves and influenced their parents to spend $187 billion. One major spaghetti sauce firm has encouraged science teachers to have their students test different sauces for thickness as part of their science classes. A cable television channel in New Jersey had elementary school students fill our a 27-page booklet called ``My All About Me Journal'' as part of a marketing survey. In one school, a student was suspended for wearing a Pepsi T-shirt on the school's Coke Day. In another, credit card applications were sent home with elementary school students for their parents and the school collected a fee for every family that signed up. Advertisers focus on students and schools for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks--because that's where the money is. And many schools enter into commercial contracts with advertisers because, as the GAO found, they are strapped for cash. Schools often are faced with two poor choices--provide computers, books, and other educational and recreational equipment with commercial advertising, or not at all. The bill that Senator Shelby and I offer today does not second guess the hard decisions that school administrators are making each and every day. Nor does it ignore the fact that business leaders often are the strongest advocates for school improvement and the greatest benefactors of the educational process. What it does is address what the GAO report considers to be perhaps the most troubling form of commercial activity in schools--the ``growing phenomenon'' of market research. According to GAO, ``none of the education officials we interviewed said schools were appropriate venues for market research. . . .'' Nevertheless, none of the districts surveyed by GAO had policies specifically addressing market research and the GAO found that this activity is widespread. One firm alone has conducted market research in more than 1,000 schools. Another company, which since has discontinued these activities, provided computers to 1,800 schools, about 8.6 percent of all U.S. secondary schools. In exchange, the company was allowed to advertise to and ask questions of students using these computers. There are other examples. Suffice it to say that this is a practice that not only is inappropriate in the opinion of education officials, but is unknown to many parents. Nearly half of parents in a recent survey were not aware that websites can collect personal information about students without their knowledge. This bill would return to parents the right to protect their children's privacy. It's simple, it's modest, it contains appropriate exceptions, and it's our hope that it will become law together with other educational reforms being considered by this Congress.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the people of El Salvador and India who are working so bravely towards recovery in the wake of the devastating earthquakes that recently struck those nations. In the case of El Salvador, the death toll has exceeded 700, and countless numbers have been left injured and homeless. More than 68,000 people have been evacuated with no promise of ever returning, and 60,000 are living in temporary shelters. Indeed, in addition to the 74,000 homes that were so suddenly destroyed last month, another full 118,000 may have been damaged beyond repair, and in some areas, Mr. President, one quarter of schools were completely destroyed. While the cost of rebuilding is still being calculated, the El Salvador National Emergency Committee estimates that it most certainly will run to over $1 billion, with an estimated $100 million loss in agricultural revenue alone. At the time of the quake the people of El Salvador were already hard at work rebuilding their country after the 12 years of civil conflict that had claimed the lives of 70,000 men, women, and children during the 1980's. Their suffering, as they struggle toward stability and development, has only been compounded by the natural disasters of the past two years. After a dozen years of civil strife, the people of El Salvador were able to reach a political settlement of their differences. This speaks volumes about their commitment and courage. Since the 1992 peace accords, they have worked to build a prosperous and democratic country. This is a people tested well beyond what they should be asked to bear. At each step on the path to recovery they have faced a new challenge, and each time they have responded tenaciously and stepped forward again. Mr. President, this earthquake is not the first time in recent memory that a natural disaster has brought devastation on such a wide scale to the people of El Salvador. In addition to this terrible earthquake, there has also been a serious outbreak of dengue fever, a serious and debilitating disease. And it was only two years ago that Hurricane Mitch tore through Central America, exacting an unbearable toll on an already fragile region. In the countries of El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua, more than 11,000 lives were swept away in the rain, winds, and massive landslides that Mitch wrought. In some areas, more than 70 percent of crops were demolished. The price tag of that devastating hurricane soared to more than $4 billion once a full accounting was made. Mr. President, the people of El Salvador did not simply wring their hands in despair at the devastation of Mitch. They worked to improve their lives--they rebuilt roads, and schools, and homes. They began to address the needs of citizens dealing with painful losses and an uncertain future. They began to pull themselves, with the help of international monetary and humanitarian assistance, out of the darkness created by Mitch when they were struck again by another wanton force of mother nature. This earthquake, which registered a thundering 7.6 on the Richter scale, once again threatens to break the back of an already struggling nation. Mr. President, the story unfolding right now in India is no less compelling and deserves our equal attention and concern. January 26th is traditionally a day of celebration in India, a day when people gather with their families in their homes to celebrate Republic Day, their constitution, and their country. But this January the clamor of parades and cheers was replaced by the roar of collapsing buildings torn down by an earthquake registering 7.9 on the Richter scale, the worst earthquake in India in a half century. Tremors were felt in Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh as the earth shook early that morning. Hardest hit was Bhuj, a city of 150,000 in the Gujarat state, only 43 miles from the quake's epicenter. The government of India places the official death toll at more than 16,000, but estimates this figure could climb to a ghastly 100,000 in the days and weeks to come. Six hundred thousand people have been left homeless, many of whom are sleeping out in the open, with too few blankets among them, for fear of returning to unsteady buildings. Many others simply have no place to go. As many as 35 million people have been affected in some way by the earthquake, a figure so staggering it is almost impossible to comprehend. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) places the cost of rehabilitation and reconstruction at $1.3 billion. The daunting task that now lies before us is to bring some measure of relief and care to those who were spared, including an estimated 3,000 orphaned children. Tragically, the state of Gujarat was particularly vulnerable to a natural disaster such as this, as one quarter of its citizens live below the poverty line and almost one half of households rely on public food distribution under normal conditions. In an emergency such as this, the situation becomes exponentially more dire than before. In addition to the desperate need for food, medicine, and shelters, many Indian officials now fear epidemics of cholera and typhoid if access to clean, safe, drinking water is not quickly restored. This task has been made all the more difficult because it comes in the midst of a 3 year drought in India which affected almost 3 million people in the state of Gujarat last year. The majority of water supply wells are caked with mud and temporarily out of service, promoting concerns that some who managed to survive the earthquake may instead succumb to disease while they wait for clean water. Certainly, the survivors of this earthquake should not be exposed to further suffering and injury. Mr. President, we cannot and should not ask the governments of El Salvador and India, or their people, to walk the path toward recovery alone. At a time when these countries seek peace and development, we must be there as both an ally and a partner. We must not turn away from their suffering, but rather must respond swiftly and effectively. In fact, international relief efforts are already in full operation in both El Salvador and India, providing basic necessities such as drinking water, food, blankets and temporary shelter to the quakes' victims. The United States government is actively participating in these international efforts through the work of USAID. At the time of the quake, USAID personnel in El Salvador immediately began meeting with Salvadoran relief agencies to evaluate the extent of the damage and the level of aid necessary. To date, USAID assistance to El Salvador totals more than $5 million, the majority of which was allocated for temporary shelter programs. In addition, the World Food Programme has provided 900 metric tons of rations, the International Federation of the Red Cross has released $100,000 of disaster relief funds as well as sent a delegation of relief workers to assist the 1,200 person Salvadoran Red Cross. Medicines for hospitals and temporary clinics are pouring in from the Pan-American Health Organization, and the International Development Bank is considering a $20 million emergency loan. Monetary and other contributions from additional organizations continue to arrive as well. In India, USAID has pledged $9 million in emergency relief, including emergency food distribution, airlifts, and temporary shelter equipment. Indeed, more than 38 countries have responded to India's cries, as well as several hundred non-governmental organizations including UNICEF, The International Federation of the Red Cross, and the World Food Programme. It is my hope, Mr. President, that the Bush administration will recognize how desperately our help is still needed in El Salvador and India and will respond not only with continued short-term emergency relief aid, but also with a comprehensive plan for long term reconstruction and development. In the case of India that will require that waiver authority be exercised by the Administration to permit broader categories of assistance to be provided despite existing sanctions against that country. I would urge the Administration to do so. I am confident that our colleagues in the Senate join with me in extending our prayers and our hands to the people of two nations who must persevere at very difficult moments in their histories. I am confident that with our help the lives of the peoples of these two nations will improve day by day.