Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I did make that point. The Senator from California has been a leader on this issue for a long time and on many other issues related to education. But I made the point about how many people care about this issue and I shared the polling numbers with my colleagues.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator. I suspect my time has expired, Mr. President.

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, and I don't intend to object, but I have an amendment on the bill, a relevant amendment. If it is going to be much longer, I will come back in an hour. If we can get to it, I would like to do that or let me go, so I can do something else.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote to waive the budget point of order that I know my friend from Pennsylvania will have to make. I thank him again. I will end where I began. He has been a very good friend on a lot of these issues. I realize his objections to this are not on the policy issue as much as it is a problem financially. But I wanted to offer this amendment because it is a critically important one. My hope is we get back to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and that we spend more time on that bill before this session ends. We have a chance to address these kinds of policy questions, on which I think more of my colleagues would like to be heard. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I was as complimentary as I could be. But I will be even more complimentary. I am deeply grateful to the Senator.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as I understand it, I have 2 minutes to explain the amendment?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, to my colleagues, very briefly, this amendment is a carryforward to what has been offered by Senator Kennedy, Senator Bingaman, Senator Wellstone, and Senator Murray, all trying to improve the quality of public education in the country. One of the key issues is afterschool programs. We know from parents all across the country the most dangerous period for 5 million children unattended is between 3 and 6 in the afternoon. Good afterschool programs are meaningful. The country wants it. School boards have asked for it. But despite efforts, we have only funded 310 afterschool programs. Last year, there were 2,500, close to 3,000, applications for afterschool dollars. We could only meet the requests of 310 school districts. It seems to me we must do something to improve the quality of education with good afterschool programs, when children are most at risk, most vulnerable, when they get involved with habits of smoking, and alcohol, of marijuana, when they are victimized. As we know by every police study, afterschool programs work. I realize there are budgetary concerns, but we spend less than one- half of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget on the quality of public education in this country. That is a disgrace. What we have offered in these series of amendments is to improve our Federal investment in education. This amendment is to improve the quality of afterschool programs for the 5 million children in America who need that assistance.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, to introduce important legislation to enhance the safety of our children. The Children's Research Protection Act will strengthen protections for children participating in research and also increase the number researchers expert in pediatric pharmacology. Three years ago, Senator DeWine and I were successful in enacting legislation to reverse a troubling statistic--the fact that only 20 percent of drugs on the market have been tested specifically for their safety and efficacy in children. Our legislation, The Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, for the first time provided a incentive for drug companies to test their products for use with children. The results of that legislation have been overwhelming. In the 2 years since this initiative was started, drug manufacturers have launched more than 300 new pediatric studies of 127 drugs. In contrast, in the 5 years prior to enactment of our legislation, the industry conducted only 11 pediatric safety studies for drugs already on the market--11 studies in five years versus over 300 in just 2 years. The most immediate consequence of this surge in the industry's interest in testing their products in children is the rapid increase in the number of children being signed up to participate in research studies--more than 18,000 children will eventually be needed just for the 300 trials that have been proposed so far. While we're thrilled with the success of our legislation, it has forced us to take a hard look at the adequacy of the safety protections for children participating in research. All experimental treatments, by their very nature, contain some risk. Research involving children is no exception. Yet, despite the risks, each year thousands of parents agree to allow their children to participate in a clinical trial, either in hopes of improving their own health or the health of other children. In doing so, they place their trust in the expertise and ethics of the researchers and in strong oversight by the federal government. The vast majority of the time that trust is well-founded. But recent isolated incidents involving children harmed during clinical trials, as well as increasing concerns about the adequacy of federal oversight for clinical trials, generally point to the need to proactively address the issue of the safety of children in research. It is that need to be proactive that has led Senator DeWine and I to introduce the Children's Research Protection Act. This legislation will address critical safety issues in children's research by: (1) Requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to review the current regulations for the protection of children participating in research and to clarify and update them to ensure the highest standards of safety. Requiring that all HHS funded and regulated research comply with these strengthened federal protections. (Currently research overseen by the Food and Drug Administration, but funded by private pharmaceutical companies, is not required to comply with the additional children's protections, although many pharmaceutical companies do so voluntarily.) (3) Requiring the 15 federal agencies that don't currently have special guidelines for children's research to develop them within 12 months. (4) Asking the Secretary of HHS to review the adequacy of the IRB (Institutional Review Board) process for protecting children in clinical trials and to report to Congress within 6 months on the question of whether we should have a national board(s) to review adverse events arising out of research on children. (5) Increasing the number of researchers that are experts in conducting drug research with children by providing grants for fellowship training and creating a loan repayment program for pediatric drug researchers. Only 20 physicians complete clinical pharmacology speciality training programs each year--of these, only 2 or fewer specialize in pediatric pharmacology. We still have a long way to go to make sure that children are not an afterthought when it comes to drug research, but we can start by making sure that when they volunteer to help other children by participating in research, their safety is paramount. This measure prescribes a strong dose of safety for our children. It provides critically important safeguards and protections when it comes to pediatric medicine testing, allowing us to increase our knowledge of children's medication without increasing the danger to children. I am pleased to join Senator DeWine in this effort and I look forward to working with my colleague to pass this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the attached letters and a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, to introduce important legislation to enhance the safety of our children. The Children's Research Protection Act will strengthen protections for children participating in research and also increase the number researchers expert in pediatric pharmacology. Three years ago, Senator DeWine and I were successful in enacting legislation to reverse a troubling statistic--the fact that only 20 percent of drugs on the market have been tested specifically for their safety and efficacy in children. Our legislation, The Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, for the first time provided a incentive for drug companies to test their products for use with children. The results of that legislation have been overwhelming. In the 2 years since this initiative was started, drug manufacturers have launched more than 300 new pediatric studies of 127 drugs. In contrast, in the 5 years prior to enactment of our legislation, the industry conducted only 11 pediatric safety studies for drugs already on the market--11 studies in five years versus over 300 in just 2 years. The most immediate consequence of this surge in the industry's interest in testing their products in children is the rapid increase in the number of children being signed up to participate in research studies--more than 18,000 children will eventually be needed just for the 300 trials that have been proposed so far. While we're thrilled with the success of our legislation, it has forced us to take a hard look at the adequacy of the safety protections for children participating in research. All experimental treatments, by their very nature, contain some risk. Research involving children is no exception. Yet, despite the risks, each year thousands of parents agree to allow their children to participate in a clinical trial, either in hopes of improving their own health or the health of other children. In doing so, they place their trust in the expertise and ethics of the researchers and in strong oversight by the federal government. The vast majority of the time that trust is well-founded. But recent isolated incidents involving children harmed during clinical trials, as well as increasing concerns about the adequacy of federal oversight for clinical trials, generally point to the need to proactively address the issue of the safety of children in research. It is that need to be proactive that has led Senator DeWine and I to introduce the Children's Research Protection Act. This legislation will address critical safety issues in children's research by: (1) Requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to review the current regulations for the protection of children participating in research and to clarify and update them to ensure the highest standards of safety. Requiring that all HHS funded and regulated research comply with these strengthened federal protections. (Currently research overseen by the Food and Drug Administration, but funded by private pharmaceutical companies, is not required to comply with the additional children's protections, although many pharmaceutical companies do so voluntarily.) (3) Requiring the 15 federal agencies that don't currently have special guidelines for children's research to develop them within 12 months. (4) Asking the Secretary of HHS to review the adequacy of the IRB (Institutional Review Board) process for protecting children in clinical trials and to report to Congress within 6 months on the question of whether we should have a national board(s) to review adverse events arising out of research on children. (5) Increasing the number of researchers that are experts in conducting drug research with children by providing grants for fellowship training and creating a loan repayment program for pediatric drug researchers. Only 20 physicians complete clinical pharmacology speciality training programs each year--of these, only 2 or fewer specialize in pediatric pharmacology. We still have a long way to go to make sure that children are not an afterthought when it comes to drug research, but we can start by making sure that when they volunteer to help other children by participating in research, their safety is paramount. This measure prescribes a strong dose of safety for our children. It provides critically important safeguards and protections when it comes to pediatric medicine testing, allowing us to increase our knowledge of children's medication without increasing the danger to children. I am pleased to join Senator DeWine in this effort and I look forward to working with my colleague to pass this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the attached letters and a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that Meredith Miller and Kathy HoganBruen, of my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to report on major progress in the implementation of the Northern Ireland peace accords. I know many Americans have been very closely following the events in Northern Ireland over the past number of years, under the leadership of President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and the former majority leader, George Mitchell, who provided a herculean effort to bring together the disparate sides in Northern Ireland. New ground was broken over the weekend which significantly enhances, I think, the prospects for permanent peace after more than a quarter of a century of sectarian conflict. I mentioned George Mitchell. I mentioned the President and the Vice President. Certainly people like Jean Kennedy Smith, the American Ambassador to Ireland, our colleagues here, Senator Kennedy and Senator Pat Moynihan, and Peter King in the House--there is a long list of people who have been trying very hard to get the two communities of Northern Ireland to come together and resolve their differences, establish a political framework for dealing with future conflict, and to abandon the bullet and the bomb, which has claimed too many lives over too long a period of time. The news this weekend is that we are far closer to achieving that goal. Martti Ahtisaari, the former President of Finland, and Cyril Ramaphosa, the former leader of the African National Congress, reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain yesterday that the Irish Republican Army allowed them to examine the organization's hidden arsenals during the weekend of June 24. The independent inspectors concluded that the IRA's weapons caches could not be used without detection. This is a major achievement. This is one that has broken open the issue of disarmament that has been one of the stumbling blocks to achieving the final goals of the Good Friday accords. This first inspection by international experts is credible evidence that the IRA is prepared to follow through with respect to its commitment of May 6 to open its secret arsenal of weapons to international inspection. This confidence-building measure, in my view, could convince the people of Northern Ireland that the IRA is sincere with respect to its pledge to put its weapons ``completely and verifiably'' beyond use in the context of implementation of the Good Friday accords, those very accords which George Mitchell of Maine, the former majority leader, was so instrumental in bringing about. It would seem to me that the decision by David Trimble to press members of the Ulster Unionist Party to rejoin the Northern Ireland Assembly has been vindicated by recent events. I commend David Trimble, as well. Despite numerous setbacks that have occurred from time to time with respect to the full implementation of the 1998 accords, Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the Prime Minister of Ireland, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, and President Bill Clinton have never lost faith in the process. By the way, people like Albert Reynolds and Bertie Ahern deserve great credit, as do David Trimble, Gerry Adams, John Hume, and Martin McGuinness, who have done a magnificent job in bringing this about. There are so many people who have been part of the effort to achieve what I think we are on the brink of achieving here. The events over the weekend demonstrate that their faith is not misplaced. They deserve great credit for not losing faith. I, too, have remained optimistic that peace is possible. That is because I believe the people of Northern Ireland are anxious to put this long and very painful conflict behind them. Indeed, before the February setback over decommissioning, which caused key provisions of the peace accords to be suspended, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the executive had been functioning. The reactivation of the assembly late last month has once again restored self-government in Belfast. The international inspections of weapons caches together with the renewal of discussions between the IRA and the International Commission on Decommissioning are giant steps toward the full decommissioning of weapons throughout Northern Ireland. The IRA has historically held itself out as the guardian of the Catholic minority--a minority that has experienced decades of inequality and injustice at the hands of a Unionist or Protestant majority. Paradoxically, the IRA has sought to promote justice and equality for the Catholic community through violence and other terrorist acts against the police and the Protestant majority. The Good Friday accords acknowledge past inequalities and injustices and, at the same time, establish a framework for resolving these inequities through the political process. There are now strong indications that the IRA is prepared to work within that framework to achieve its objectives. The IRA's willingness to permit international inspections of its weapons is further proof that it is within the realm of possibility to remove the bomb and the bullet from Irish politics once and for all. It is my fervent hope that these independent inspections will reduce the feelings of mistrust that have historically plagued relations between the Nationalist and Unionist communities and their political leaders and allow further progress to be made toward implementing other important provisions of the accords, especially those related to police reform. Each side has taken positive steps to meet the letter and spirit of the Good Friday Accords. Having said that, there is much that remains to be done to achieve other equally important objectives of the accords, particularly the guarantee of justice and equality for all of the people of Northern Ireland --Protestants and Catholics. Toward that end, I would urge the British government to move forward expeditiously to implement the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, the so called Patten Commission. Creating a police force that is professional, impartial, and representative of the community it serves, as called for by the Patten Commission, is the only way to guarantee justice and equal treatment for all. Since the parties first embarked on the road to resolving Northern Ireland's ``Troubles'' in 1994, there have been steps forward and there have been steps back--sometimes it has seemed more of the latter than the former. The latest actions by the IRA set the stage for a new chapter in the history of Northern Ireland--a chapter of peace and reconciliation between the communities of Northern Ireland, as embodied in the letter and spirit of the 1998 Good Friday Accords. I strongly urge Northern Ireland's political leaders to take to heart the significant progress toward peace that has been achieved in recent weeks--to draw from that progress renewed energy. And, to find the capacity to set aside mistrust, allow deep-seated wounds to heal, and proceed together to make justice and equality a reality for all the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I appreciate his kind comments. I will add additional names, too: people such as Tip O'Neill and Tom Foley. There is a long history that goes back several decades of people who have fought for a political solution to the problems here and within Ireland. I am grateful to my colleague from Nevada for making the point.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend our colleague from New Mexico for offering what I think is about as important an amendment as you can have, when it comes to the issue of education. Regrettably, we have abandoned--I hope only temporarily--the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the authorization bill. That bill is only dealt with once every 6 years by the Congress. It is the bedrock piece of legislation that deals with the elementary and secondary educational needs of America's children; the some 50 million who attend our public schools every day of the school year. Of the 55 million or so children who go to elementary and secondary schools, roughly 50 million of them attend a public school. Despite the efforts of the committee of jurisdiction--we spent 2 or 3 days discussing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--we have now decided we are no longer going to debate that or discuss that issue any longer. I think that is a tragedy when we consider how important to the American public is the issue of education, how important it is to strengthen our schools. Everyone knows so many of them are in desperate need of help. That we cannot find the time--only once every 6 years--to talk about this issue is deplorable. It was through the efforts of my colleague from New Mexico, in fact, that we were able to provide language in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to deal with the issue of accountability in our public schools. I regret this bill has been abandoned. I hope we will get back to it, although I am doubtful that will be the case. But, if we do, we will have a chance to further discuss it. The Senator from New Mexico has offered an amendment to set aside $250 million within title I to help States implement effective programs to turn around failing schools. Last year, $134 million was appropriated for this purpose, and the committee's appropriations bill does not include any funding for accountability grants. The President requested $250 million, and this amendment meets that request. The fact that the proposal coming out of the committee disregards accountability altogether is a stunning failure to recognize how important it is that we make a concerted effort to put these failing schools back on their feet. What is title I? We talk in terms of titles, dollar amounts, and alphabet soup when it comes to certain programs. Title I is the basic education program to provide assistance to the most disadvantaged students in the country, whether they live in urban, rural, or suburban areas. Roughly $8 billion, more than half the entire Federal budget's commitment on education, goes for title I, disadvantaged students. In fact, it is an indictment of the Federal Government that we only contribute less than one-half of 1 percent of our entire Federal budget to elementary and secondary education. Imagine, less than one-half of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget goes to elementary and secondary education, despite the fact that most Americans say with a single voice that education is about as important an issue as this country has to address. Despite those feelings, we contribute a tiny fraction of the entire Federal budget to this most compelling need. Of the $15 billion we spend on education, half is spent on these disadvantaged children through title I. That is title I. Senator Bingaman has offered an amendment that provides that of the $8.3 billion, we are going to allocate $250 million, which is not included in the present bill. It provides $250 million to do something to get these failing schools back on track. It has been suggested that a failing school ought to be shut down. I understand the frustration that leads people to that conclusion, but too often when we shut down one of these schools, there are no great alternatives around the corner for these children. There is not that well-run little parochial school or some private school to which these children can go. Too often these schools exist in the worst neighborhoods and worst areas of the country in terms of economics. We need to do something to get these schools back on track and functioning well so these children, who, through no fault of their own, are born into these circumstances in these neighborhoods and communities across the country, have a chance. It is one thing to talk about accountability, but the Senator from New Mexico has offered some strong, thoughtful language on how to achieve that accountability in our Nation's educational system. We have shifted our focus from what the Federal education dollar has bought to more on outcome: What do you get; what comes out of that school. It is a worthwhile shift to begin to determine what schools are producing, how well are these children prepared to move on to the next level of education to become productive citizens of our country, good citizens, and good parents. There are too often a staggering number of schools that fail when it comes to outputs. Effective accountability measures is what business leaders call quality control measures. They determine whether students are achieving to the high standards they ought to be, to make sure public dollars are being spent wisely. Accountability is especially important in schools with high concentrations of disadvantaged students to ensure all students have an opportunity to meet high standards of achievement. In our view, we must spur change and reform in these failing schools. Shutting them down is not the answer. Getting them to perform better is. Setting positive accountability standards is one of the ways to help achieve that goal. That is what the Senator from New Mexico is offering in this amendment: Some dollars allocated and setting accountability standards will help us achieve the desired results. As we all know, despite concerted efforts by States and school districts, accountability provisions in title I have not been adequately implemented due to insufficient resources. When we have a budget, such as this one, that does not allocate even a nickel for accountability, we cannot give a speech about accountability and then not provide any of the resources to see to it that accountability is achieved. In 1998, to make the point, only 8 States out of the 50 reported that school support teams were able to serve the majority of schools identified as being in need of improvement. Less than half of the schools identified as in need of improvement in the 1997-1998 period reported they received additional professional development or technical assistance. It seems quite obvious we need to strengthen title I with only 8 States out of 50. Even among those States, the results are paltry when it comes to accountability. We clearly need to do a far better job if we are going to give these students and these families a chance to have a school to continue and provide the education these children ought to be receiving. We have to strengthen title I to make more schools more accountable for the academic success of all the children who attend them and to assure States and districts do all they can to turn around failing schools by using proven, effective strategies for reform. We must make all schools accountable for good teaching and improved student achievement. We cannot turn our backs on low-performing schools, as I said. We must do all we can to improve them. If all else fails and we have to close them down, that is one thing, but if we jump to close schools without trying to improve them, too often we abandon these young students. School districts and States need the additional support. Less than one-half of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget is dedicated to education, and we are talking about $250 million out of the title I resources to improve the accountability standards. My view, and I think the view of most of us, is that we ought to act now and make these schools more accountable for these disadvantaged children. I am hopeful that will be the case. Again, I congratulate our colleague from New Mexico for offering this amendment. I mentioned one-half of 1 percent of the Federal budget is spent on elementary and secondary education. Out of 100 cents in the dollar we contribute, one-half of 1 percent represents 7 cents when it comes to an education dollar; 93 cents come from our States and mostly local governments who support the educational needs of the local communities. When we get to our poorest communities in rural America--I know the Presiding Officer can relate to this; he represents a very diverse State, one that has strong urban areas but strong rural areas as well--when we get to a poor rural community or poor urban area, the tax base, in many cases, does not exist to provide for the educational needs. My hope is in the coming years we are going to do a better job of being a better partner with local towns, a better partner with our States, so the Federal Government is contributing a greater share, about $1. Seven cents out of 100 cents toward the needs of America's children in the 21st century is an appalling indictment of failing to improve the quality of education. I do not know of a single Senator who dissents when it comes to the issue of accountability, making sure these students are coming out of educational institutions with the abilities, the talents, and the knowledge they need to move on. On this we can all agree. We have to not just talk about it, we have to invest in it. The Senator from New Mexico has offered a proposal that will at least put some dollars into the accountability standards, along with the language that tells how best to achieve accountability. I strongly endorse this amendment and hope our colleagues will support it. I thank the distinguished managers of this bill, Senator Specter and Senator Harkin, for their willingness to provide for a new and significant investment in child care. I have been critical about the accountability standards and the lack of funding. Before those remarks, I should have commended them for the work they have done on child care. As most of my colleagues know, I have spent a good part of my career in the Senate trying to improve the quality of child care in this country. This bill raises the level of the child care development block grant to a total funding of $2 billion which will allow an additional 220,000 children across this country to be served in a child care setting. To put this investment in perspective, I note that this year's increase in funding of child care is double the program's growth in the previous 10 years of its existence. This funding represents the fruits of 2 years of bipartisan efforts. In addition to thanking the chairman and ranking member of this appropriations subcommittee, I want to recognize individuals who have fought long and hard to provide this assistance to America's working families. My colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, my colleagues from Maine, Senator Snowe and Senator Collins, and my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, who has been a stalwart in fighting for this issue for many years. There are a lot of other people here who have been involved. Senator John Chafee, who was a terrific fighter on many issues--by the way, Parade magazine, this past Sunday, had a wonderful story by Mr. Brady, who served with John Chafee in Korea. It was a wonderful piece about John Chafee's service in the Korean war, as we remembered the veterans of that conflict that began 50 years ago the day before yesterday. John Chafee was a tremendous fighter and great ally when it came to child care. I do not want to conclude these remarks without mentioning his wonderful contribution in this area. The funding allocation that is in this bill demonstrates that helping working families is not a partisan issue. I am glad to report that, in fact, in the last year, on four different occasions, we had votes on child care in the midst of some very tense and heated debates. In every single instance, this body--by a fairly significant margin--supported increasing the allocations for child care. It did not get done in conference reports, with the House of Representatives, in the first session of this Congress. But Senator Specter told me last year: I promise you this year we will put the dollars in to get that level up to $2 billion. He did so. I thank him for fulfilling that commitment, not to me so much but to the working families in this country, who need this help tremendously. So for 220,000 families who do not have the choice of staying at home or going to work but must work, either as single parents or two-income- earning parents, who need the resources to provide for their families, decent child care is worthwhile. I note, just as an aside on this issue, we have a wonderful child care facility that serves the family of the Senate. One of our colleagues, John Edwards of North Carolina, is the proud father of a new baby, but also has another young child. He brought the child to the child care center in the last few days to receive the services of that setting. He was notified that in the 35-year existence of the child care center that serves the Senate family, he is the first Member of the Senate who actually has a child in that child care center. Certainly, we get some indication of maybe why we have not been as aggressive in pursuing the child care issues, when for obvious reasons--age and so forth--Members here are not likely to have children of child care age and needs. But most Americans who have young children and work have a need today. This appropriation will assist the neediest people in the country, the neediest who are out there working every day to provide for their families and also need to have a decent place, a safe place-- hopefully, a caring place--where they can leave their child in the care of others when they go off to work and provide for their economic needs. I applaud the committee for its efforts in that regard. But as I said at the outset, I am very disappointed we have not done more in the area of accountability when it comes to elementary and secondary education needs and our failing schools. In this context, I urge the adoption of the Bingaman amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my appreciation to the bill managers, Chairman Warner and Senator Levin, for accepting my amendment (No. 3549) regarding headstones and grave markers for veterans. This amendment entitles each deceased veteran to an official headstone or grave marker in recognition of that veteran's contribution to this nation. This amendment is identical to a bill I introduced last year, S. 1215, which has the support of veterans groups such as The American Legion, The Retired Enlisted Association and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. It is cosponsored by Senators Byrd, Kennedy, Santorum, Conrad, Leahy, Kohl, Feingold and Lieberman. There is no more appropriate time for this amendment. Last month, we commemorated Memorial Day. In just a few days our nation will observe Independence Day. Each of these holidays reminds us of the sacrifices made by our veterans. Today our nation is losing one thousand World War II veterans each day. And although they do not boast or brag much, we are all well aware of their monumental contribution to America's remarkable history of freedom, prosperity and political stability. This amendment would enable their country and their families to recognize that contribution. As anyone who has made burial arrangements for a deceased veteran knows, the Department of Veterans Affairs must provide a headstone or grave market in recognition of that veteran's service. What some may not know, and what this amendment would change, is that once a family places a private headstone on their veteran's grave, they forfeit their veteran's entitlement to the official VA headstone or marker. This law has its origins in the period following the Civil War when our nation wanted to ensure that no veteran's grave went unmarked. Today, however, when virtually no one is buried in an unmarked grave, the VA headstone or grave marker serves to officially recognize a person's service in the U.S. armed forces. The present policy generates more complaints to the VA than any other burial-related issue. About twenty thousand veterans' families contact the VA each year to register their belief that their family member is due some official recognition for his or her military service regardless of whether a private headstone has been placed on the grave. A constituent of mine, Mr. Thomas Guzzo, first brought this matter to my attention. His father, Agostino, a U.S. army veteran, passed away in 1998. Agostino Guzzo is interred in a mausoleum at Cedar Hill Cemetery in Hartford, but his final resting place does not bear any official military reference to his service in the U.S. Army. Agostino Guzzo's family wants an official VA marker, but, because of the policy I have described, they cannot receive one. Faced with this predicament, Thomas Guzzo contacted me, and I attempted to straighten out what I thought to be a bureaucratic mix-up. I was surprised to realize that Thomas Guzzo's difficulties resulted not from some glitch in the system, but rather from the law itself. I wrote to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs regarding Thomas Guzzo's very reasonable request. The Secretary responded that his hands were tied as a result of the obscure law to which I have just referred. This amendment is a modest means of solving an ongoing problem that continues to be a source of irritation to the families of our veterans. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that it would cost three million dollars during the first year it is in effect, and about two million dollars per year thereafter. That is a small price to pay to recognize our deceased veterans and put their families at ease. Prior to November 1, 1990, when a veteran passed away, the VA was required to provide a headstone or grave marker unless a family bought a private headstone. For those families, the VA provided a check for the amount, about $77, it would have spent on a headstone. This amendment will not reenact that policy, which was discontinued due to cost considerations. It simply says that an official VA marker or headstone will be provided for those families that ask for one, and may be placed at a site that they deem to be appropriate. In most cases, families that have placed a private headstone will request a marker--a $20 brass plate--that would be mounted to the headstone. Surely we can do that much for our veterans in this time of budget surpluses. This amendment allows the Department of Veterans Affairs to better serve veterans and their families, and I encourage my colleagues to listen to the thousands of veterans' families who simply hope to recognize a family member's military service. The Greatest Generation gave so much to this country in life, this is the least we can do for them when that life comes to an end. They did their duty and answered the call to serve. It is up to us to give them the modest recognition that they deserve. Again, I want to thank the managers for their support and the Senate for adopting the amendment. I am hopeful that this provision will be maintained in the conference report.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will be proposing another amendment briefly. I did not speak during the consideration of the Wellstone amendment but, in effect, the amendment offered by our friend and colleague from Washington is tantamount to the same conclusion as the Wellstone amendment. This amount will be reduced, as I understand the amendment, to some $200 million, in effect gutting the program. An amendment that says we not spend the money would have the same effect, in my view. This is a complicated and difficult issue. I say to my friend from Washington, for whom I have the highest regard and respect, and I listen to him carefully when he speaks on any issue, I am deeply concerned. This is not a perfect package by any stretch of the imagination. If I were crafting this alone, it would be somewhat different than the package before us. I understand with 535 Members of Congress and a Defense Department and a State Department and dealing with regional governments as well in the hemisphere who are as concerned about this issue as we are, we cannot craft a package that reflects necessarily the views of every single person. We have to put together a package that seems to make the most sense from a variety of perspectives. I did not speak on the Wellstone amendment, but my feelings are very strong when it comes to this issue of Colombia. Colombia is the oldest continuous democracy in Latin America. I do not engage in hyperbole when I suggest to my colleagues that this nation of Colombia is very much, in my view, on the brink of being disintegrated by narcotraffickers and guerrilla forces operating in that country. The narcotraffickers are accumulating a fortune, a vast fortune, significant parts of which are being used to finance the guerrilla operations. The major source of funding for the narcotraffickers, regretfully, comes from right here in the United States. We lose about 50,000 people a year in the United States to drug-related deaths. We are the largest market for illegal Colombian drugs. Just in the last 2 years, Colombia's coca production has grown by 40 percent. In 1999, the United States estimated the street value of cocaine processed from Colombia's coca fields and sold on the streets of this country was in excess of $6 billion. Whether we like it or not, we are engaged in the conflict in Colombia. Because of events in that country and because of our own habits in this Nation, people are dying in the streets of America. This is not some distant conflict without any ramifications here at home. I do not believe this issue is necessarily going to be resolved because we have a military aid package going to Colombia. It is going to be resolved through a variety of measures and means. I, frankly, have been terribly disappointed; we are now almost in July--this is a request for help from our neighbor, from President Pastrana, from a democratic government, where 1 million people are now displaced because of the conflict in Colombia. And 100,000 people leave that country every 6 months because of the war there, many of them coming to our shores and many of them going to other nations. Colombia is greatly distressed. Politicians, journalists, judges, and innocent civilians are being gunned down. We think we put ourselves at great risk when we run for political office if someone slams a screen door in our face. In Colombia, if you run for high office, you run the risk of being killed. That is not an exaggeration. Literally dozens and dozens of people who have had the temerity to stand up to the narcotraffickers and to some of these paramilitary forces, and others, have lost their lives. President Pastrana, the President of the country, was actually taken hostage and kept in the trunk of a car not that many years ago as a victim of this conflict. My point is this. This package may not be perfect, but our delay in responding to a neighbor's call for help is getting too long. Every day we wait, every day we delay, means more lives lost, means greater strength for these narcotraffickers, who respect no one, not sovereignty, not governments, certainly not democratically elected governments, and will use whatever means available to them in order to secure their position and gain resources through their illegal trade in death, a trade in death which costs the lives of people in this country. Obviously, we have to do a lot here at home. We can't blame the Colombians because we have illegal drug habits in this country that exceed anywhere else in the world. But part of the answer is going after the source. So when we step up to offer the Colombian democracy a chance to fight back, we are not only doing it for them; we are doing it for ourselves. So with all due respect to my friend from Washington, and others, this may not be a perfect plan, but every day we delay in stepping up to help our neighbor, we cause more hardship, more death and destruction in our own country, and greater is the proximity of Colombia losing its democratic government, losing its sovereignty. So I hope that this amendment will be rejected, as was the previous amendment, and that we will get about the business of passing this legislation, and giving these people a chance to fight back, and also giving ourselves an opportunity to reduce the hardship in our own streets as a result of the narcotrafficking problem. I do not claim to be any deep expert on the issue of antinarcotics efforts, but I respect those who are. From General McCaffrey to our colleagues in this Chamber, and in the other House, who work on this issue every single day, almost without exception, they say this is a must-pass program; that if we back away from our responsibility, if we back away from an ally and a friend and a neighbor in trouble, then our credibility, when it comes to fighting back on this issue, will be severely damaged, if not lost entirely, in this part of the world. President Pastrana deserves the admiration, support, and respect of the American people and this Congress. From the first days he was elected to office, he has sought to resolve the conflict in his country with a major guerrilla group in his nation that has operated for 40- some years, by sitting down with them to try to resolve their differences. He even turned over a sizable portion of Colombia, his own nation--a small percentage of the population resides in this area of Colombia. I have here a partial map of Colombia. It is not clearly shown on the map, but a substantial portion of Colombia is in an area called the llanos, a Spanish word for lowlands, wetlands. When you come out of the Andes in Colombia, and come down into the llanos areas, the flat areas, there is a large section of this piece of territory which President Pastrana and his government conceded--in effect, an autonomous region-- as part of the effort to try to resolve this 40-year-old conflict with the major guerrilla group called the FARC. As I said, a small percentage of the Colombian population actually lives there. But that was part of his concession to try to resolve this dispute. Just recently, he also made a concession of some additional property. I show you a better map of Colombia. It is a little clearer. On the map you can see the darker area. Here is the Andean ridge that runs from Venezuela down through Ecuador and through Colombia. There are major population centers in the northern sections of Colombia around Bogota. This area over here is the least populated area of Colombia. It is in this shaded area shown here where this concession was made. There have also been concessions made in the north. President Pastrana has desperately tried to bring this conflict with this age-old guerrilla operation to a conclusion. But the problem is, the major cocaine and major coca productions occur in areas very similar--in fact, this is the darkened area, the DMZ area, in an area called Caqueta and Putumayo. The Putumayo region is along the border of Ecuador. And the Caqueta region is very similar to it. This is the largest region from which these killer drugs come that end up on our streets. It is estimated, by the way, these narcotraffickers have profits in excess of $1 million a day--some would suggest three times that number--daily profits made in the streets of the United States to fund their operations and to support guerrilla activities. They cannot handle this alone. If it is left entirely up to Colombia to solve this problem, it gets worse every hour. I know it is a lot of money, $1 billion. It is not cheap. But every day we delay, every day we refuse to step up, this problem becomes worse and the narcotraffickers get stronger. They are already now in Ecuador. They moved into this region, where they moved the product up through Ecuador to the chemistry laboratories and then back down through Ecuador and either back into Colombia or out to the United States. It is a serious issue. Their government has pleaded with us for some help for over a year. We are now almost finished with this session of Congress, and we still have not addressed this issue. Again, I respect my colleague from Washington. But there was another time, a half a century ago, when neighbors in another part of the world asked for our help--not our direct involvement--in something called the Lend-Lease Program. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in a national address to the country, described it to the American public in terms of a house being on fire and neighbors asking for some help. In a sense, today, that is what we are being asked to do. We have here a democratic neighbor, the oldest democracy in Latin America, one of our best allies in the world, a group of people who have supported us and have been through hell over the last 20 years as judges and presidential candidates, prosecutors, state legislators. Anyone who had the guts to stand up to narcotraffickers has gotten gunned down or their families kidnapped and put through a reign of terror by these people, and now they ask us for a little help. All of those drugs come here. They end up on our streets. They kill our kids. They want to know if we will help to put an end to it. I think it is very little to ask, considering the magnitude of the problem, how precarious it is for us here at home and for this good neighbor and friend to our south. Regardless of party, political persuasion, or ideology, this is a time when we need to say to democratic countries in this hemisphere, we stand with you, particularly when the fight involves us very directly. I hope this amendment will be resoundingly defeated and a strong message sent that this Congress, despite its demands for attention and time and resources, is not going to turn its back on the people of Colombia. Rather we will be saying that we will, in an expeditious fashion, provide the resources necessary so these people have a chance to fight back against a crowd who wants to take their sovereignty and simultaneously add to the carnage on our own streets. For those reasons, I urge rejection of this amendment. When the tabling motion is offered, I hope my colleagues will support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and others who may wish to join us. I will read the substance of the amendment; then I will go into the language. The substance of the amendment is as follows: We would strike the words ``procurement, refurbishing, and support for UH-1H Huey II helicopters'' and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``procurement and support for helicopters determined by the U.S. Department of Defense, in consultation with the Colombian military, to be the most effective aircraft to support missions by elite Colombian counter narcotics battalions in eradicating the expanding cultivation and processing of illicit drugs in remote areas of Colombia.'' I begin these remarks by stating what was perhaps obvious to my colleagues but may not be obvious to all who are following this debate. My colleague and I from Connecticut represent a division of United Technologies known Sikorsky Aircraft which produces Blackhawk helicopters. I am not proposing an amendment that mandates that the Blackhawk helicopter be the helicopter of choice. I am sure that may disappoint some of my constituents that I am not fighting on behalf of a particular helicopter. Rather, my amendment provides for the helicopter to be selected on its relative merits. As I said a moment ago, when it comes to narcotics issues, I don't claim great expertise. I don't claim to be a military expert when it comes to making decisions about which helicopters may be the best to use in a given situation. Rather than offer an amendment, which my colleague from Connecticut and I might have done, to say we replace the language here, which does call for a specific helicopter, with the one that is produced in our home State, our amendment says, let the people who have to make the assessment about what would work best in Colombia decide, not what the Senators from Connecticut want or the Senators from Texas or some other place. My amendment would allow our military experts to say what makes the most sense, in consultation with the people who will be receiving this military equipment. Even if Senators disagree with this package in its entirety, I hope they will support this amendment so that at least Colombia will be receiving the kinds of equipment that will be necessary to get the job done. The questions raised by our colleague from the State of Washington about whether or not this policy can work are not illegitimate. None of us have a crystal ball to determine whether or not this particular program is going to produce the desired results of those of us who support it. One way we can almost guarantee it won't is to insist that the Colombian Government accept only the hardware which we want to give them, not which may be the best in order to deal with the problem but that which we think they ought to have because of some parochial interest. I don't want to be in a position of demanding that the Colombian Government take a helicopter made in my State. Nor should anyone else be demanding they take one from theirs. Let us let the experts decide on what works best. That is the reason I am offering this amendment with a number of my other colleagues. The administration's primary rationale in proposing the $1.2 billion supplemental aid package in support of what is called Plan Colombia was to assist the Colombian Government in stemming the massive growth in coca cultivation in southern Colombia. Again, it is the area I described in the shaded green around the Caqueta and Putumayo region. It is not limited to those areas. There are other areas as well where the products are grown. Those are the principal ones. In the last 2 years, Colombia's coca production has grown by 40 percent. In 1999, the estimated street value in the United States was in excess of $6 billion coming out of this region, just in a year alone. We are talking about a billion-dollar program to deal with a supply in coca alone, in 1 year, 2 years, in excess of $6 billion. The Colombian Government has proposed to address the explosion in coca production by going to the source, the coca-producing regions of Putumayo and Caqueta in southern Colombia. However, these coca growing areas are also strongholds of the FARC guerrilla organizations-- frankly, there is a relationship between the drug cultivators and the guerrillas in these two areas. There are also right-wing paramilitary organizations which operate in these areas, but the paramilitary groups are more extensive in the northern part of the country. To address these threat levels and logistical difficulties in mounting substantial counter narcotics programs, President Pastrana has made a central feature of his plan the so-called push into southern Colombia, where the bulk of the problem resides. The key components of the push into southern Colombia are to equip and train two additional Colombian counter narcotics battalions, the training and deployment of the first battalion having already occurred in December of last year, and to provide tactical mobility, which is airlift capacity, to these newly trained battalions so that the Colombian national police will have sufficient area security to carry out eradication and other drug law enforcement operations in southern Colombia. The Clinton administration specifically requested almost $600 million to support that component of Plan Colombia, a request essentially met in the House-passed emergency supplemental bill. The success or failure of push into southern Colombia depends in no small measure not only on the effectiveness of these battalions but also on the effectiveness and the capacity and capability of the equipment with which we provide them. It is going to be critically important that we not jam down the throats of this government equipment that is not going to meet the test, not going to help get the job done. That is why I offer this amendment today. President Pastrana and U.S. defense experts spent a number of months discussing how best to ensure the maximum effectiveness of these operations. Contrary to the assertion of my colleague from Washington, a lot of time has been spent discussing this issue. There has not been a lack of discussion about what is going on in Colombia. There has been a lot of discussion, a lot of hearings. Our Pentagon and other experts have determined that the ability to transport substantial numbers of elite Army troops together with members of the national police quickly and safely to remote areas of Colombia would be absolutely critical to the overall success of the larger strategy. After reviewing a number of different options, including the possibility of non-U.S. aircraft, the Colombian Army selected the Blackhawk helicopter as their equipment of choice in dealing with this issue. According to Gen. Charles Wilhelm, Commander in Chief of the Southern Command, our top military person in the region, the ultimate decision to select the Blackhawk over other options was based on its superiority in the following areas: range, payload, survivability, versatility, service ceiling, and other technical considerations. Let me share a chart with you that makes the point more clearly than anything I could have just said, in very specific terms. I have here a chart that shows a comparison between the Huey II, presently demanded in this bill, and the Blackhawk. Let me go down each one of the critical areas identified by our top military people in the Southern Command. What is the maximum cruise speed of the Huey II? It is 100 knots. The Blackhawk is 155 knots. The maximum number of passengers at sea level is 11 persons for the Huey and 24 for the Blackhawk. The maximum passengers at 9,000 feet is 8 persons the Huey and 18 persons for the Blackhawk. On this other chart, when you are based here in northern Colombia and you have to get to southern Colombia, you have to fly over the Andes. This is not at ground level or sea level. For those people who may be familiar with the geography of this area, to suggest somehow you are going to have an effective quick-response team, taking 8 people in a Huey helicopter over the Andes, as opposed to a Blackhawk, which can carry 18 at 9,000 feet, is to put this program in serious jeopardy. The maximum flight time is 1.5 hours for the Huey; its 2.5 for the Blackhawk. The range of a Huey is 196 nautical miles. It is 300 nautical miles for the Blackhawk. The ceiling--how high they can go--is 16,000 feet for a Huey and 20,000 feet in a Blackhawk. The weight the Huey can carry is 10,500 pounds; the Blackhawk can carry 22,000 pounds. Fuel consumption for a Huey is 600 pounds an hour. For the Blackhawk, it is 700 pounds an hour. The sling load is 5,000 pounds for the Huey and 9,000 pounds--almost double--for the Blackhawk. The payload at 4,000 feet again is more than double for the Blackhawk as opposed to a Huey. Mr. President, in virtually every category that our top military people have said is important, the Blackhawk outperforms the Huey. I am not offering an amendment that demands that we write in Blackhawk instead of Huey. My amendment says let our military people decide which is best. If you are going to vote for this program, then you ought to let the military people decide what is going to give it the greatest chance of success, and not have a bunch of Congressmen and Senators tell you what is going to have the greatest chance of success. We should give significant weight to what our military people think will work in this area. If you want to condemn the Plan Colombia program to failure at the outset, then provide them with inferior equipment so that they can't get the job done. I suggest that is what is happening with the present language in this bill. In virtually every operational category--speed, maximum passengers, flight time, ceiling, weight-carrying capacity--the Blackhawk outperforms the Huey. That is not at all surprising, since the Huey is a Vietnam war vintage aircraft, which first went into production in 1959--40 years ago. The production of Hueys ended in 1976, a quarter of a century ago. The Blackhawk is newer; in fact, it is still being manufactured. Moreover, the Blackhawk was engineered specifically to address the deficiencies experienced with the Huey during the Vietnam conflict. The so-called Huey II is a retrofitted Huey. The upgrade package that the Committee mark would fund was only developed 4 years ago and sold to the Colombian armed forces to improve the performance of Hueys currently in operation in that country. None of the U.S. services have chosen to upgrade Huey inventories using the kits the Appropriations Committee proposes to provide Colombia. In fact, the U.S. Armed Forces are in the process of phasing out current inventories of the 800 Huey aircraft and replacing them entirely with the newer model aircraft, including Blackhawks. Hueys are no longer used in combat missions by any of the U.S. Armed Forces. The Appropriations Committee has indirectly acknowledged the differences in capability of the two aircraft by recommending a 2-for-1 substitute of Hueys for Blackhawks--60 Huey II's, instead of 30 Blackhawks. That also means that the significant cost advantages that the proponents of the Huey II have pointed to as a justification for the substitution is significantly reduced. It is even further reduced because U.S. military experts who are familiar with the conditions in Colombia in which the aircraft will be operating have stated it will actually take two-plus Hueys to accomplish what one Blackhawk could do. If that is the case, then the cost advantage argument goes out the window. The mission cost for a typical mission of transporting 88 troops from a base, at a distance of 98 miles or less, would cost essentially the same. The committee has asserted in it's committee report that one of the rationales for substituting Hueys for Blackhawks was the more immediate availability of Huey II's. I think that is disputable, in light of the fact that the 60 Hueys would require major refurbishing. There is currently a limited capacity in the United States, or Colombia for that matter, to do that in a time frame that is much faster than the delivery schedule that Sikorsky has proposed for the 30 Blackhawks. However, setting that point aside for the moment, there is another more fundamental flaw, with all due respect, in the committee's argument. It assumes the Colombian army has trained pilots available to fly in the 60 Hueys once they arrive. Mr. President, that simply is not the case. The expectation is that it will take between 6 to 9 months to train a pilot to fly those Hueys, or the Blackhawks for that matter. In the case of Hueys, at least double the number of pilots will need to be trained to enable the Colombian Army to have an equivalent air mobility for its elite battalions. You will need at least double the number of pilots trained to carry out the missions. Frankly, the serious questions as to whether or not that many individuals can be identified on short notice in Colombia to undergo such training in order to actually produce the necessary pilots to operate that many Hueys safely and with the capacity and efficiency that is necessary. Again, I don't claim to be an expert on this, conversant in all the nuances of various helicopter technologies. For that reason, my amendment does not demand that the Huey be the choice. I have made a case for it here, but I have tried to point out the fallacies in the demanding choice in the bill. Again, whether or not you agree with this policy overall, I hope you will support this amendment. In fact, if you will oppose the policy because you think it is not likely to work well, then you ought to be for this because at least this increases the chance of success of this program. So my amendment simply says let the pros make the choices--not Senators or Congressmen for a specific State, but those who are knowledgeable about this issue, the defense experts in our own country, and those in Colombia who know this terrain. Last, I will put up a chart that shows the relative ranges of the two helicopters. If you look at the colored circles on the chart, the red line is the range of a Huey. The black line is the range of a Blackhawk. Look at the difference in terms of range capacity of these two pieces of equipment. With that, I hope that my colleagues will support this amendment when a vote is called for on it.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, has the unanimous consent request been propounded?

Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD. I would like to attend the ceremony, as well. Perhaps the leadership could provide a window for those who want to attend that ceremony.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise this today as an original cosponsor of the National and Community Service Act of 2000 and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the reauthorization of the Corporation for National Service through this legislation. While Americans often wonder what, exactly, it is that the numerous agencies and commissions scattered around town do, it is quite clear what the Corporation for National Service does. It's members tutor and mentor at-risk youth. They build affordable housing and clean up the Nation's rivers, streams and parks. They help seniors live independent and productive lives. They provide assistance to the victims of natural disasters. And perhaps most importantly, they train others to do all of these tasks and dozens more--leveraging their numbers, multiplying their effect, addressing countless community needs. These are important tasks. They empower our citizens. They build our communities. They renew our country. That is what the Corporation for National Services does in my view--provide a true national service to the citizens of this country. The Corporation for National Service is one of the most impressive success stories in recent memory. The numbers are simply remarkable. Take the AmeriCorps initiative for example. Since it's inception in 1993, more than 150,000 Americans have served or are currently serving as AmeriCorps members. They have provided much-needed assistance to 33 million of their neighbors in more than 4,000 communities. Specifically, AmeriCorps members have helped nearly 3 million children succeed in school through tutoring and mentoring initiatives. They have worked with the police and other community organizations to safeguard our neighborhoods--establishing, operating and expanding over 40,000 safety patrols and working with 600,000 at-risk youth in after- school programs. AmeriCorps members have improved the daily lives of Americans by building or rehabilitating over 25,000 homes, working with 340,000 people to find jobs, and providing food, clothing and other necessities to over 2.5 million homeless people. With regard to our natural environmental, AmeriCorps members have planted over 50 million trees and removed 70,000 tons of trash from our neighborhoods. And when I talk about the leverage created through AmeriCorps members recruiting and training others, I am talking about nearly two million volunteers brought to bear on locally generated programs because of the efforts of AmeriCorps members. The National Senior Service Corps has been another resounding success. What Tom Brokaw has dubbed ``The Greatest Generation'' is still ready to meet the needs of their communities and they have been energized by the Corporation for National Service. With over 25,000 Foster Grandparents, 15,000 Senior companions and 467,000 Retired and Senior Volunteer Program members, nearly 250,000 children--including, 58,000 with learning disabilities or suffering from abuse and neglect-- have been given an invaluable source of loving care. Sixty-two thousand older Americans in need of a little extra help have been paired with Senior Corps members to make daily life more manageable. These Senior Corps members provide a critical bridge to independence for these seniors. Whether by helping with the daily tasks or simply being a friendly companion, these Senior Corps members are making a huge difference. Learn and Serve, yet another initiative of the Corporation for National service, has served more than 1.5 million students in kindergarten through college and helped them apply academic skills to meet community needs. It is an admirable track record of accomplishment, Mr. President. One that according to recent study returns $1.66 to the community for every dollar invested. While compiling the numbers, however, we often forget the impact this program has on those who dedicate themselves as volunteers. But we must not forget the impact that service has on those who give of themselves--their time and their energy--to make a difference. The personal satisfaction one receives from working for others is a feeling I can speak about personally. Long before AmeriCorps was a reality, I was Peace Corps volunteer in a small town in the Dominican Republic. But whether it is in the Dominican Republic or in my home state of Connecticut--or any state across this nation--there are many small towns that need help sustaining their educational system or providing health care to their neighbors or maintaining their environment or any number of areas. And an honest day's work on behalf of those efforts translates in any language. It is a source of tremendous satisfaction and pride. These are emotions that drive participants in either the PeaceCorps abroad or AmeriCorps here at home, to continue to work and continue to build their communities, something that can't be quantified. There is also a real period of personal learning that AmeriCorps members go through. A study by Aguirre International determined that ``participation in AmeriCorps results in substantial gains in life skills for more than three-quarters of the members'' who participate. When we talk about life skills here, we are talking about communications skills, interpersonal skills, analytical problem- solving, organizational skill and using information technology. These are necessary skills for the 21st century. AmeriCorps members take these skills with them after their term of service, back to employers who want them, back to communities who need them. The Corporation for National Service awakens in its members a strong ethic of civil responsibility and a lifelong desire to serve. By immersing its members in local, state and national issues, and asking them to address and interact with these issues, the Corporation for National Service is a catalyst for civic participation. And regardless of which side of the aisle you sit on, I think we can all agree that an active and involved constituency is what we all hope for. Acorss the range of initiatives that I have touched upon today, are a couple of common themes. Primarily, these efforts are initiated from the ground-up. These programs were not crafted by Senators or Congressmen or someone employed here in Washington, they are generated by people within the community they serve and administered at the state level. That allows these programs the flexibility to take advantage of the individual strengths of each community and as a result, better address their needs. Secondly, these programs harness what we all know is the true strength of America, it's citizens. The corporation for National Service is channeling a constant flow of human energy, ingenuity, and talent into the states and communities of our country. The Corporation partners with organizations that have a proven track record to provide the necessary human resource to grow and expand these already successful programs. It is a model that works. It is an idea that has captured the imagination and harnessed the energy of this Nation. It is our responsibility to ensure that it continues. The legislation we offer today will ensure that the Corporation for National Service continues through 2005. It retains the successful structure of the system that has been so effective over the last seven years, but makes allowances for a few improvements in the overall program, including a more responsive effort to ensure an increased participation by people with disabilities and a recognition that Indian tribes are qualified organizations to receive grants. This is a good bill. I hope we can work with our colleagues in the House to ensure that legislation reauthorizing the Corporation for National Service is passed by both houses and sent to the president for signature this year.