Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on Alternate Energy-Related Uses on the Outer Continental Shelf: Opportunities, Issues and Implementation of Section 388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, DHS' Acquisition Organization: Who is Really in Charge?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, every Memorial Day, words fight a losing battle against action. Each year, as spring warms into summer, we pause our lives and bow our heads in safety, and grope for words to honor the men and women who have made that safety possible. Inevitably, we fail; we say ``fallen'' when we mean ``killed''; we say ``sacrifice'' for those who died unwillingly, in great pain. I believe we do so because we want to find a register for our voice to match the heroism of their work, but, also, because high words shield us from the immediacy of death in war. Even as we remember, we can't help looking away. But some lack that luxury. They are in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they are living the war we speak about. For 10 American soldiers in Iraq, Memorial Day was their last day. Last week, the Senate was out of session in commemoration of Memorial Day, but now that we have returned, I want to honor the memory of one of those 10 soldiers: Army 1LT. Keith Neil Heidtman. He was a native of Norwich and a graduate of the University of Connecticut. He was 24 years old. On Monday, May 28, the helicopter he was copiloting crashed, likely brought down by enemy fire. Early the next morning, an Army chaplain brought the news to Lieutenant Heidtman's family. For Maureen and Arthur Robidoux, his mother and stepfather, for Kerry Heidtman, his father, for Chris Heidtman, his uncle, and for Keely Heidtman, his older sister, memories will never fill the place of the live they loved. ``If you had to pick your son, this is who you would pick,'' said Chris Heidtman. ``He was handsome, he was bright''. A star baseball player and a distinguished ROTC cadet, Lieutenant Heidtman volunteered for pilot training upon his graduation in 2005. He learned the value of service from his parents, both public servants themselves: his mother at the State Department of Children and Families, and his father in a State child-support program. His death reminds us that the highest service carries the highest cost. ``We're sending our finest, and we're losing them,'' said Lieutenant Heidtman's uncle. So today we honor one of our finest, who wore our uniform and died long before his time. Next Memorial Day, his name will join the rolls of our dead. I pray that by then time will have soaked up his family's tears. Next spring, we will bow our heads and look for words to do him justice. I don't believe those words exist. His best memorial will be in our silence.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleague Senator Ensign, to introduce the Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2007, which will provide children with safe, healthy, and academically focused afterschool programs. This bill is endorsed by the Afterschool Alliance, an organization representing more than 20,000 public, private, and nonprofit afterschool providers who are dedicated to expanding access to high quality afterschool programs, as well as many other national and local organizations. More than 14 million children enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade spend time unsupervised in the hours after school. Between the hours of 3 p.m. and 6 p.m., while parents are at work, kids are most likely to experiment with risky behaviors. To the contrary, students who regularly attend afterschool programs have better grades and behavior in school, better peer relations and emotional adjustment, and lower incidences of drug use, violence, and pregnancy. America's families rely on afterschool programs to give their children the opportunity to be engaged in high quality learning activities that will enhance their children's success in school and in life. The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2007 is designed to do three things: enhance program quality and sustainability, address the obesity epidemic by including physical fitness and wellness programs in the list of possible programming activities, and encourage service learning. First, our bill provides States with tools designed to sustain high quality afterschool programs by allowing program grantees to renew their grants based on their program performance. The legislation also gives States the option to expand their technical assistance functions to further improve the quality of afterschool programs. Second, this bill will increase opportunities for children and young people to be more physically active. As obesity reaches epidemic proportions in our society, allowing for such opportunities is critical in ensuring our children's overall health. Obesity is among the easiest medical conditions to recognize, but among the most difficult to treat. The annual cost to society for obesity is estimated at nearly $100 billion. Physical activity and wellness programs are critical to our overall health and well-being. Third, this bill encourages children to be involved in service learning and youth development activities. Service learning integrates student designed service projects with academic studies. This type of program has been shown to strengthen student engagement, enhance student achievement, lower drop out and suspension rates, develop workforce and leadership skills and provide opportunities for team work. The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act will help build the character and work ethic of our children and youth. Finally, it is of paramount importance that we adequately fund our afterschool programs. Currently, afterschool programs have served, at most, only 1.4 million children. It is critical that we provide more opportunities for youth to be engaged in high quality afterschool programming. The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act provides a critical first step toward ensuring the health, safety, and education of our Nation's children. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleague Senator Ensign, to introduce the Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2007, which will provide children with safe, healthy, and academically focused afterschool programs. This bill is endorsed by the Afterschool Alliance, an organization representing more than 20,000 public, private, and nonprofit afterschool providers who are dedicated to expanding access to high quality afterschool programs, as well as many other national and local organizations. More than 14 million children enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade spend time unsupervised in the hours after school. Between the hours of 3 p.m. and 6 p.m., while parents are at work, kids are most likely to experiment with risky behaviors. To the contrary, students who regularly attend afterschool programs have better grades and behavior in school, better peer relations and emotional adjustment, and lower incidences of drug use, violence, and pregnancy. America's families rely on afterschool programs to give their children the opportunity to be engaged in high quality learning activities that will enhance their children's success in school and in life. The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2007 is designed to do three things: enhance program quality and sustainability, address the obesity epidemic by including physical fitness and wellness programs in the list of possible programming activities, and encourage service learning. First, our bill provides States with tools designed to sustain high quality afterschool programs by allowing program grantees to renew their grants based on their program performance. The legislation also gives States the option to expand their technical assistance functions to further improve the quality of afterschool programs. Second, this bill will increase opportunities for children and young people to be more physically active. As obesity reaches epidemic proportions in our society, allowing for such opportunities is critical in ensuring our children's overall health. Obesity is among the easiest medical conditions to recognize, but among the most difficult to treat. The annual cost to society for obesity is estimated at nearly $100 billion. Physical activity and wellness programs are critical to our overall health and well-being. Third, this bill encourages children to be involved in service learning and youth development activities. Service learning integrates student designed service projects with academic studies. This type of program has been shown to strengthen student engagement, enhance student achievement, lower drop out and suspension rates, develop workforce and leadership skills and provide opportunities for team work. The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act will help build the character and work ethic of our children and youth. Finally, it is of paramount importance that we adequately fund our afterschool programs. Currently, afterschool programs have served, at most, only 1.4 million children. It is critical that we provide more opportunities for youth to be engaged in high quality afterschool programming. The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act provides a critical first step toward ensuring the health, safety, and education of our Nation's children. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I have spoken about the amendment already, last evening. Again, I have talked to Senator Graham of South Carolina and the Senator from Massachusetts, the manager of this legislation on the floor. My understanding is, at an appropriate time we will have an opportunity to actually vote on these amendments. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment to the immigration bill with my good friend from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, that relates to the parents of U.S. citizens. My amendment is simple in what it proposes but enormously important in what it seeks to accomplish. It prevents this bill from dividing millions of American families by making it easier for U.S. citizens and their parents to unite. As currently written, this bill weakens the principle of family reunification in a way that is harmful to our nation and unfair to our fellow citizens. Under current law, parents are defined as immediate relatives and exempt from green card caps. Yet this bill drastically and irresponsibly excludes parents from the nuclear family and subjects them to excessively low green card caps and an overly restrictive visa program. This amendment rights this wrong by increasing the new annual cap on green cards for parents of U.S. citizens; extending the duration of the parent visitor visa; and ensuring that penalties imposed on overstays are not borne collectively. The debate on this provision goes to the heart of how a family is defined in America. For millions of American citizens, parents are not distant relatives but absolutely vital members of the nuclear family who play a critical role, be it as grandparents providing care for their grandchildren while their parents are at work or as sources of strength and support for their bereaved or single children. Ensuring that parents have every opportunity to unite with their children or live with them for extended periods is important not only because of their contribution to the nuclear family but also so that their children can support and care for them in sickness and in health. We all know that sense of duty from our own lives. And for those of us who have lost our parents, we wish we had the opportunity to do so. That is exactly why it has been our policy to date to allow U.S. citizens to sponsor their parents to come to this country without caps. Yet now we are told that parents are no longer immediate relatives and subject to caps. That parents no longer fit in the same category of relatives as minor children and spouses, an idea that millions of Americans would disagree with. We are told that we must weaken that principle, thus disrupting the lives of countless law-abiding families, in the name of reducing ``chain migration.'' Well, that is a red herring. The truth is that once parents of citizens obtain immigrant visas, they usually complete the family unit and are unlikely to sponsor others. That is why today we must do justice to the families of our fellow citizens who seek nothing more than to keep their families intact. This amendment does just that. First, it increases the new green card cap from 40,000 to 90,000. Ninety thousand is the average number of green cards issued each year to parents who as I mentioned have to date been exempt from caps. Again this is just an average. Last year the number was 120,000. It is abundantly clear that 40,000 green cards per year is an unreasonably low number. One of the goals of this bill is to clear the backlog on immigrant visa applicants which in some cases extends as far back as 22 years. If we don't allot sufficient numbers of green cards for parents in this bill, we risk creating a whole new category of backlog. Ninety thousand would meet this need. To those who still think 90,000 is too high a number, I would also argue that it is simply not the place of the Senate to tell our fellow citizens that they should wait a year or two to see their parents. I would ideally not want the parents of any citizen of this country subject to caps but working within the framework of this bill, I believe 90,000 is entirely fair and reasonable. Second, it extends the parent visitor visa to allow for an aggregate stay of 180 days per year and makes it valid for 3 years and renewable. These are already accepted timeframes for the validity of a visa. Madam President, 180 days is the length of a tourist visa; H-1Bs are valid for 3 years. This would allow those parents who do not want to permanently leave their countries of residence yet want to stay with their children in the U.S. for extended periods the ability to do so. The current bill however limits the length of this visa to only 30 days per year--30 days. This is far too soon to pry parents away, particularly those who come to America for health reasons, or to care for their children during and after childbirth. Many parents who live abroad, come to the United States at great expense. They often come from thousands of miles away just to be with their children and grandchildren. To limit them to a 30-day visit per year is simply unacceptable, especially when under a tourist visa, an individual can come to this country for 6 months. To think that a parent can only be with his or her child or grandchild for 1 month out of 12 is simply unacceptable. Yet under this provision, a tourist can be in America six times longer than a parent of a citizen. That is not the America I know. That is not an America that cherishes family values. Third, and finally, this amendment prevents collective punishment for parent visa overstays. Under this bill, if the overstay rate exceeds 7 percent for two years, either all nationals of countries with high overstay rates can be barred or the entire program can terminated. Needless to say, this form of collective punishment is patently wrong and unjust. We should never punish law abiding individuals on account of the misdeeds of others. Under this bill, for example, a sponsor could be barred from sponsoring his widowed mother because his father at some earlier date overstayed his visa. That is not the type of law we want on our books. That is not what this country is about. Nor is it about stopping thousands of parents from entering this country because of the misdeeds of some. This my amendment will unite and strengthen the families of our fellow Americans and the fabric of our society, while upholding the best traditions of this great country. Because as we all know, families are the backbone of our country. Their unity promotes our collective stability, health, and productivity and contributes to the economic and social welfare of the United States. My amendment does not strike at this bill's core; nor should it be a partisan issue. It is one of basic humanity and fairness for our fellow citizens. What is at stake here is whether Congress should dictate to U.S. citizens if and when they can unite with their parents; if and when their parents can come and be with their grandchildren; if and when U.S. citizens can care for their sick parents here on American soil. It is our duty to remove as many obstacles as we can for our fellow citizens to be with their parents. None of us would stand for anyone dictating the terms of that union to us. Why should we then apply a double standard for other citizens of this country? We must craft a law that is tough yet just. I urge my colleagues not to think of this amendment in terms of numbers and caps, but in terms of its all too real and painful human impact for U.S. citizens. I urge them to vote for this amendment and to take down the legislative barrier that this bill has stood up between our fellow citizens and their parents. Again, at the appropriate time, I will ask for a recorded vote on this amendment. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for allowing us to get in the queue here so that when these matters come up for votes, we will be able to consider them.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to announce that I am voting against the Iraq war supplemental. I wish I didn't have to. I wish that I looked at Iraq and saw a stable, united government, a society free of terrorists and insurgents, and liberal democracy around the corner, if only we spent another billion dollars, or a hundred lives, or another year of waiting. I wish that our surge had, at long last, brought quiet to the tortured city of Baghdad. I wish that our President's policies were working. I wish that I could look at Iraq and say, with a clear voice and a clean conscience: I share our President's confidence. I wish; and even as I wish, the truth tells me otherwise. It tells me that 3,415 men and women in uniform have already sacrificed everything in Iraq, with no end in sight. It tells me that our military is being hollowed out by the Iraq experience, that two-thirds of our Army in the United States and 88 percent of our National Guard are forced to report: Not ready for duty, sir. It tells me that the American people demand an end to this war, and that the Iraqi people--for whose sake we toppled a dictator and established elections, precisely so we could hear their voice--demand the same. I look at this bill and I don't see the truth in it. It exists in a world in which the President's plans are all meeting their mark. It gives us a status-quo strategy that has failed and failed again. It writes the President a blank check. I had hoped that this supplemental would have passed with strong timetables for withdrawal, a unambiguous line in the sand. A responsible supplemental would have established definitive guidance for the President to transition the mission of our forces away from combat operations. It would have defined that mission clearly as counter- terrorism, training of Iraqi forces, and American force protection. It would have required a diplomatic and economic strategy in Iraq. And it would have held both the President and the Iraqi Government accountable. The Feingold-Reid-Dodd bill contained just such timetables, and mandated a responsible transition in mission, all backed by Congress's constitutional power of the purse. But I cannot, in good conscience, support the half-measure that has taken its place. Instead of establishing realistic timetables, this supplemental does one thing only: It delays for 4 months, until funding runs out again, the decision we all know is coming: ultimately, combat troops will be redeployed from Iraq. This bill allows 4 more months of reckless endangerment of our troops and our national security. A Senator shouldn't talk like that, some will say. I will be told I am declaring surrender right here on the Senate floor. Those are the words that will come from the other side of the aisle, big, grand words--surrender, triumph, defeat, victory--words that will blur and swirl together until they lose all mooring in reality. The President's supporters want to paint us a picture of a world in which we line up on a field of battle, the terrorists on one side and America on the other, and fight pitched warfare until one side waves the white flag. But Iraq does not exist in that world. General Petraeus tells us that there will be no military solution; so does the Iraq Study Group. Senator Hagel, a war hero and member of the Foreign Relations Committee, tells us that ``there will be no victory or defeat in Iraq . . . Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there . . . Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost.'' So I am not conceding defeat in Iraq--because there is no defeat to be conceded. There is only the hope that Sunni, Shia, and Kurd will reconcile in government, call off their militias and death squads, and turn against the foreign terrorists who have helped to spark this civil war. Our combat presence in Iraq cannot make that hope real. We can, and must, continue to assist the Iraqis in trying to reach these goals--but we cannot do it with military might alone. In the end, the challenges in Iraq can only be addressed through political means. We are told, again and again, that we are failing to ``support the troops''--support that is subject to only the vaguest of measurements: ``messages'' and ``signals'' and ``resolve.'' We answer with fact. We answer with young lives lost and dollars squandered. We answer with the wisdom of James Baker and Lee Hamilton. We ask how any conceivable definition of ``support'' would leave our troops stranded in a civil war of strangers, with no mission or end in sight. And we say, unequivocally, that the only way to support our troops is to bring them home--now. In fact, from the very outset of this war, it has been the President's defense policies that have hollowed out our Armed Forces and further threatened our national security. To reverse this negligence, Democrats have taken concrete action for our troops, again and again. In 2003, I offered an amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill to add $322 million for critical protective gear identified by the Army, which the Bush administration had failed to include in its budget. But it was blocked by the administration and its allies. In 2004 and 2005, I authored legislation, signed into law, to reimburse troops for equipment they had to purchase on their own, because the Rumsfeld Pentagon failed to provide them with the body armor and other gear they needed to stay alive. And last year, working with Senators Inouye, Reed, and Stevens, I offered an amendment to help address a $17 billion budget shortfall to replace and repair thousands of war-battered tanks, aircraft, and vehicles. This provision was approved unanimously and enacted in law. That is support--support that can be measured, support that carries a cost beyond words. And it is support that will continue, even if this supplemental fails, as it should. The Defense Department has ample funds to maintain our combat troops in Iraq until they can be withdrawn responsibly. The failure of this bill will not turn funds off like a spigot--the military simply does not work like that. Instead, our troops are supported by the more than $150 billion in the Pentagon's regular operations and maintenance account--and in the meantime, we might negotiate with the President for a responsible drawdown of combat troops. Any implication that we are stranding our soldiers in the desert--without fuel or bullets or rations--is totally specious. And it follows that the President's Memorial Day deadline is totally arbitrary. The lives of our troops are more important than the President's vacation schedule. Why should he set timelines for Democrats but not for Iraqis? Instead, let us vote down this bill and then join President Bush at the table, with the dignity befitting an equal branch of government, and the authority vested in us by the American people and our Constitution. Let us bring this disastrous war to a responsible end. And after 4 years of failed policy, let our voice be loud and unmistakeable: This far, and no further.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, last week the Senate and House of Representatives voted to adopt a budget resolution for the upcoming fiscal year. I was proud to support this budget, which, in my view, represents an important first step towards returning our nation to a healthy and strong fiscal and economic course. Like the budget of any family or business, the federal budget provides a framework for responsibly meeting our nation's most important priorities while ensuring that we are living within our means. This year's budget restores much-needed fiscal discipline while better targeting our resources towards the investments that will best promote economic growth, national security, and broad-based opportunity. First, the budget resolution reinstates pay-as-you-go rules, which require that any new spending or tax cuts be paid for with spending cuts or new sources of revenue--rather than simply adding the cost to the national debt for our children and grandchildren to repay with interest. These rules played a major role in helping us to achieve Federal budget surpluses in the late 1990s. The resolution also puts a stop to procedural abuses that had been used by the previous leadership in the Congress, notably the use of budget reconciliation protections-- designed for legislation that reduces the deficit--to ram through passage of budget-busting tax bills. These procedural improvements, combined with reasonable and responsible spending limits and revenue targets, provide for much-improved--and much-needed fiscal discipline on both the spending and revenue sides of the ledger. In the 1990s, we saw how responsible budget policies and economic growth reinforced each other in a cycle that lifted Americans' standard of living across the board. Under the current administration, by contrast, Americans have seen the opposite effect, as irresponsible and poorly targeted fiscal policies have squandered the previous decade's fiscal gains while economic growth has accrued more and more narrowly to a smaller segment of the population. The Federal budget has declined from a surplus of $236 billion in 2000 to a deficit of $248 billion last year, while the national debt has grown from $5.6 trillion to $8.8 trillion. Over the same period, real median household income in our country has fallen by nearly $1,300. Within the context of fiscal responsibility, the budget adopted last week puts in place a framework for restoring the investments necessary for broad-based economic growth and a return to budget surpluses. Rather than leaving middle-class families behind, it focuses on strengthening the middle class--the backbone of our economy. This begins with promoting an agenda of innovation and entrepreneurship. The President's budget this year--for the second consecutive year--proposed the largest cut to education in the history of the Department of Education, along with cuts to research and development and technology transfer. It would be hard to find a worse idea than to cut the investments that allow our children to fulfill their maximum potential and drive our nation's economic growth now and in the future. This budget rejects the president's cuts, providing an additional $6.3 billion for education from preschool to graduate school. As I have said numerous times before, we can be confident that the investment we make here will be returned to us many times over. This year's budget also directs more resources towards improving heath care quality and coverage, and reducing cost--an issue that affects every American family and businesses' bottom line. The resolution includes a deficit-neutral reserve fund to help cover uninsured children and funds for health information technology and comparative effectiveness to help reduce skyrocketing costs. Just as importantly, with our military being stretched to its limits, the budget includes full funding for restoring force readiness and adequately equipping our military personnel serving in harm's way. It also includes $3.6 billion above the Bush administration's budget to address the needs of veterans when they return home, because the brave Americans who have served our country deserve much better than the conditions that were revealed in the recent Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandal. The priorities laid out in the budget adopted last week contrast sharply with the agendas of recent years. Where the Bush administration and previous leadership in the Congress sacrificed all else at the altar of high-income tax cuts, this year's budget will keep taxes low while restoring the importance of education, health care, clean and renewable energy, and the needs of our military. This change is a welcome development that puts our Nation on a better, stronger, more prosperous, and more secure course for the future.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, Barbara Miles, a specialist in financial institutions retired from the Government and Finance Division of the Congressional Research Service, CRS, at the Library of Congress on May 3, 2007. Including 32 years at CRS and her six years in the executive branch as an economist and econometrician at the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the Department of Commerce, Ms. Miles devoted 38 years of service to the American people. CRS and the Congress lost an exceptionally able and dedicated public servant with her departure. A native of California, Ms. Miles earned a bachelor's degree in economics from Occidental College in Los Angeles and a master of economics degree from the University of Washington at Seattle. She began her CRS service in July 1975, as an economist. She was successively promoted throughout her career, attaining the position of Specialist in Housing in 1979, and that of Specialist in Financial Institutions in 1995. Ms. Miles' research was in the general area of housing. She is an expert in a range of housing-related policy issues such as the housing industry and finance, housing supply and prices, housing demand, mortgage interest rates and affordability, and federal policies toward home ownership. Ms. Miles provided close support to numerous members of Congress and their staff, in the form of analysis, confidential memos, and reports during the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s. She worked closely with Congress as it drafted the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 that established the Resolution Trust Corporation, which liquidated the assets of insolvent savings and loans, and reimbursed depositors and other creditors. As her career developed, Ms. Miles also devoted her talents to the study of and analysis of public policy concerning government sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, which are stockholder-owned companies whose Congressional charters call on them to support the secondary mortgage market, especially lower income groups and geographic areas not well served by lenders. She provided ever more insightful and detailed reports on the costs, benefits, and risks of various GSEs, advising Congress on the impact of the GSEs on different sectors of the housing market in particular, as well as on the nation's economy in general. Through regular and ever expanding contacts, she helped to familiarize members and staff with the role of Congress in policy options and oversight of the GSEs. She provided regular analyses of options for legislation and oversight. Her work included in-person briefings, telephone briefings, lectures, seminars, reports, confidential and general distribution memoranda, and CRS reports for Congress. She testified before Congress on many occasions. All of her work in the area of GSE-related oversight and legislation by Congress demonstrated an extremely detailed understanding of the complex, significant policy issues surrounding these institutions and their operations. Her insights and perspective were plain, and understandable; the clarity and rigor of her analyses won praise from members and commendations at CRS. In 2000, Ms. Miles assumed the position of Section Head of the Banking, Securities, Insurance, and Macroeconomics Section within the CRS Government and Finance Division. For the next five years she supervised eight to ten economists, ranging from experienced veterans to newly-appointed staff hired from the private sector, other government agencies, and from distinguished graduate programs. She was generous with her time and offered constructive advice working with staff through multiple revisions to produce the most useful products for members and staff. She challenged veteran staff to think and write in new ways to better serve Congress. She emphasized the need for economists to write clearly and to connect the micro economic foundations of financial markets to macro economic policy to best assist Congress in its duties of scrutiny, oversight, and legislation. Ms. Miles' own broad expertise and depth of experience in her section's wide-ranging policy responsibilities provided her with unique tools during her period as a section manager in CRS. She conducted knowledgeable oversight of section written materials and was regarded by her staff and management as a skilled reviewer whose insistence on the highest standards was matched by her ability as a mentor and educator. She constantly worked with her staff to improve the precision and clarity of their writing and to produce accurate, balanced and insightful analysis of the issues of the day in a timely manner. Ms. Miles led her section to new levels of intellectual excellence and dedicated service to Congress, while gaining the unquestioned respect and genuine affection of her staff. Ms. Miles was an invaluable resource in many ways that did not always attract notice. Throughout the course of her career, other analysts frequently consulted with her for her subject matter and economic expertise. She tirelessly peer-reviewed papers. Ms. Miles managed a long-running CRS cooperative ``Capstone'' project, initiated with students and faculty of the University of Texas, that examined corporate governance policy issues and questions for Congress. She initiated and nurtured a popular ``Brown Bag Luncheon'' series of lecture-discussions on policy issues. She selected topics and used her wide contacts to arrange for speakers for a program that has covered a very broad range of issues, and continues to draw standing-room-only audiences. Ms. Miles was honored by her colleagues when they elected her president of the Congressional Research Employee Association. CRS management recognized Ms. Miles for achieving and exceeding the organizational goals established for her section, leading her staff to new levels of excellence that could not have been attained without her steady and inspired guidance. Her mastery of technical skills, her understanding of and commitment to the mission and goals of the Congressional Research Service, coupled with her ability to communicate these to her staff, helped lead her section to significantly improved organizational performance. After stepping down as section head in 2005, Ms. Miles continued to mentor new staff. In stepping down, she planned to spend more time analyzing and writing about government-sponsored enterprises, housing issues, and financial services. She also took on the role of division reviewer to ensure that all products met the highest CRS standards. Ms. Miles won numerous awards and praise from members during her 32 years at CRS. In 1995, a Senator praised one of her products for ``explaining that the debate between the direct lending and the guaranteed loan program is fundamentally a debate over political philosophy and not a debate over economics. . . . It is important to keep in mind that these economists at the Congressional Research Service are not individuals who work for the Republican Party, nor are they individuals who have some hidden agenda, who have some connection to the banks or the guaranty agencies. They are simply economists who work for the Congressional Research Service and provide us with objective, nonpartisan analyses of the programs that Congress develops.'' In 1998, two Senators and a Representative praised her work on the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. She wrote numerous concise and complete reports for CRS. She also contributed to the Joint Economic Committee's Demographic Change and the Economy of the Nineties with ``Demography and Housing in the 1990s,'' which turned out to be a classic work on housing. Ms. Miles also testified before Congressional committees numerous times on housing and mortgage issues. The members of the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on the Budget were the most frequent beneficiaries of her insights and wisdom. In 1993, she received a CRS special achievement award for ``extraordinary contributions to debate over the student loan program including the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.'' In 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2004 she received incentive awards for sustained high performance. In 2001 and 2002 she received honorary superior service awards. Upon her retirement, Ms. Miles received a meritorious service award. Ms. Miles was active in professional associations, conferences and meetings. She participated in conferences sponsored by the Chicago Federal Home Loan Bank, the Chicago Federal Reserve, the American Economics Association, the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, and Women in Housing and Finance. In her private life, Ms. Miles remains an avid bicycle rider who has raced competitively. One of her goals after retirement is to ride a ``century'' or 100 miles. She is also an active member of the Episcopal Church, in which she served with distinction on the Diocesan Council Episcopal of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington. For the 32 years of her career at CRS--and her six years of previous federal service--Ms. Miles won the respect, admiration, and thanks of her colleagues. Her steadfast dedication to service to Congress and the nation and her commitment to the highest standards of unbiased and timely response to Congressional requests for information have made a positive and lasting contribution. On behalf of the members of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Senator Shelby and I express our deep appreciation to Ms. Miles for her many years of dedicated public service and wish her well as she goes on to other endeavors.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a bill I am introducing with my colleagues, Senator Smith and Senator Reed. The bill is a reauthorization of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, a landmark legislation enacted nearly three years ago that significantly strengthened our commitment as a Nation to reduce the public and mental health tragedy of youth suicide. I would like to take a moment to thank my colleagues who joined me in this effort, particularly Senator Smith. We all know the personal tragedy Senator Smith, his wife, Sharon, and their family suffered when their son and brother, Garrett, took his life over 3 years ago. Since that time, Senator Smith and Sharon have become tireless advocates in advancing the cause of youth suicide prevention, and their work should be commended. Three years after this important legislation became law, suicide among our Nation's young people remains an acute crisis that knows no geographic, racial, ethnic, cultural, or socioeconomic boundaries. Each year, almost 3,000 young people take their lives, making suicide the third overall cause of death between the ages of 10 and 24. Young people under the age of 25 account for 15 percent of all suicides completed. In fact, more children and young adults die from their own hand than from cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke and chronic lung disease combined. Equally alarming are the numbers of young people who consider taking or attempt to take their lives. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention figures estimate that almost 3 million high school students, or 20 percent of young adults between the ages of 15 and 19, consider suicide every year. Furthermore, over 2 million children and young adults actually attempt suicide each year. Seventy percent of people who die by suicide tell someone about it in advance. Yet, tragically, few of these young people do not receive appropriate intervention services before it's too late. When it was enacted into law, the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act became the first legislation specifically designed to prevent youth suicide. The legislation established a new grant initiative for the further development and expansion of youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategies and the community-based services they seek to coordinate. It additionally authorized a dedicated technical assistance center to assist States, localities, tribes, and community service providers with the planning, implementation, and evaluation of these strategies and services. It also established a new grant initiative to enhance and improve early intervention and prevention services specifically designed for college-aged students. Lastly, it created a new inter-agency collaboration to focus on policy development and the dissemination of data specifically pertaining to youth suicide. I am pleased to say that to date, 29 States, 7 tribes, and 55 colleges and universities have benefitted from $63.4 million in resources to increase their services to youth, provided by the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act. The bill we introduce today seeks to continue the good work started by the initial legislation. First, it authorizes $210 million over 5 years for continued development and expansion of statewide youth suicide prevention and early intervention strategies. Second, it authorizes $31 million over 5 years to continue assisting college campuses meet the needs of their students. And third, it authorizes $25 million over 5 years to continue the vital research on suicide prevention for all age groups being conducted by the Suicide Prevention Technical Assistance Center. I continue to believe that finding concrete, comprehensive and effective remedies to the epidemic of youth suicide cannot be done by lawmakers on Capitol Hill alone. Those remedies must also come from individuals, doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, nurses, teachers, advocates, survivors, and affected families, who are dedicated to this issue or spend each day with children and young adults that suffer from illnesses related to suicide. Despite the goals we have achieved with the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, I believe that our work is not done. I hope that, as a society, we can continue working collectively both to understand better the tragedy of youth suicide and develop innovative and effective public and mental health initiatives that reach every child and young adult in this country-- compassionate initiatives that give them encouragement, hope, and above all, life. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a bill I am introducing with my colleagues, Senator Smith and Senator Reed. The bill is a reauthorization of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, a landmark legislation enacted nearly three years ago that significantly strengthened our commitment as a Nation to reduce the public and mental health tragedy of youth suicide. I would like to take a moment to thank my colleagues who joined me in this effort, particularly Senator Smith. We all know the personal tragedy Senator Smith, his wife, Sharon, and their family suffered when their son and brother, Garrett, took his life over 3 years ago. Since that time, Senator Smith and Sharon have become tireless advocates in advancing the cause of youth suicide prevention, and their work should be commended. Three years after this important legislation became law, suicide among our Nation's young people remains an acute crisis that knows no geographic, racial, ethnic, cultural, or socioeconomic boundaries. Each year, almost 3,000 young people take their lives, making suicide the third overall cause of death between the ages of 10 and 24. Young people under the age of 25 account for 15 percent of all suicides completed. In fact, more children and young adults die from their own hand than from cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke and chronic lung disease combined. Equally alarming are the numbers of young people who consider taking or attempt to take their lives. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention figures estimate that almost 3 million high school students, or 20 percent of young adults between the ages of 15 and 19, consider suicide every year. Furthermore, over 2 million children and young adults actually attempt suicide each year. Seventy percent of people who die by suicide tell someone about it in advance. Yet, tragically, few of these young people do not receive appropriate intervention services before it's too late. When it was enacted into law, the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act became the first legislation specifically designed to prevent youth suicide. The legislation established a new grant initiative for the further development and expansion of youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategies and the community-based services they seek to coordinate. It additionally authorized a dedicated technical assistance center to assist States, localities, tribes, and community service providers with the planning, implementation, and evaluation of these strategies and services. It also established a new grant initiative to enhance and improve early intervention and prevention services specifically designed for college-aged students. Lastly, it created a new inter-agency collaboration to focus on policy development and the dissemination of data specifically pertaining to youth suicide. I am pleased to say that to date, 29 States, 7 tribes, and 55 colleges and universities have benefitted from $63.4 million in resources to increase their services to youth, provided by the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act. The bill we introduce today seeks to continue the good work started by the initial legislation. First, it authorizes $210 million over 5 years for continued development and expansion of statewide youth suicide prevention and early intervention strategies. Second, it authorizes $31 million over 5 years to continue assisting college campuses meet the needs of their students. And third, it authorizes $25 million over 5 years to continue the vital research on suicide prevention for all age groups being conducted by the Suicide Prevention Technical Assistance Center. I continue to believe that finding concrete, comprehensive and effective remedies to the epidemic of youth suicide cannot be done by lawmakers on Capitol Hill alone. Those remedies must also come from individuals, doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, nurses, teachers, advocates, survivors, and affected families, who are dedicated to this issue or spend each day with children and young adults that suffer from illnesses related to suicide. Despite the goals we have achieved with the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, I believe that our work is not done. I hope that, as a society, we can continue working collectively both to understand better the tragedy of youth suicide and develop innovative and effective public and mental health initiatives that reach every child and young adult in this country-- compassionate initiatives that give them encouragement, hope, and above all, life. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I wish to spend, if I can, just a few moments--I see my colleague from New Jersey is still on the floor, and he will be joining me at an appropriate time in offering an amendment dealing with parents of U.S. citizens. The Senator from New Jersey speaks eloquently about this issue on a very personal level. I am proud to be the author of an amendment with him and others to try to improve this legislation. This amendment would unite parents with their families in the United States by increasing the cap on green cards issued to them, extending the duration of the newly created parent visa, and ensuring that penalties imposed on people overstaying this visa are not unfairly applied to others, as they would be in this legislation. Under current law, parents of U.S. citizens are defined as immediate relatives, along with spouses and minor children, and are exempt from green card caps. Under the proposed legislation, S. 1348, parents would be removed from this category and subject to an annual cap of 40,000 green cards. This amendment increases the cap on green cards in this bill to 90,000. That is about the average annual number of green cards issued to parents of U.S. citizens. Second, we are trying to extend the duration of the newly created parent visitor visa to 180 days. Under this bill, the amount of time a parent could stay here under a parent visitor visa is limited to 30 days per year. On the other hand, a tourist visa is valid for 180 days per year. The idea that your parent can only come here for 30 days is something that is offensive to a lot of Americans who believe in the value and importance of children and parents being together. This amendment would also ensure that penalties imposed on overstays are not unfairly applied to others, as they would be in this legislation. If the number of overstays exceeds 7 percent, individuals from disproportionately high-risk countries could be barred from coming to the United States on this visa program or the entire program could be terminated. I hardly think it necessary to make the case about the value of parents and children being united for a period of time and what it means, if you are parents yourselves, to be able to have grandparents spend some time with their grandchildren. We take great pride in that. We extol the value of family. One would be hard pressed to hear a speech given by someone in public office today, regardless of the subject matter, that doesn't at some point or the other talk about how important it is to value families, to do everything we can to keep families together, the importance of inter- generational communication, grandparents and grandchildren, parents and children, the value of that to a nuclear family. Certainly, we all recognize we have serious issues of security that need to be dealt with at our borders, doing what we can to provide for the legal status of those who are seeking to come here through traditional means. It is a major step backwards for a country that prides itself on allowing for families to be together, understanding the importance of it, that we would be talking about legislation that cuts by more than half the average annual number of green cards needed for parents to visit their children, dealing with them in a separate category, and providing actually a longer visa for tourists than for parents. No one knows who gets excluded when you go from no cap down to 40,000. Obviously, a lot of parents would be excluded in any given year. As evidenced over the years, once parents do come for a limited amount of time, that usually completes the family unit. They are not likely to sponsor other relatives. U.S. citizens with parents abroad should not be treated differently than those with parents here, to provide that opportunity in time for them to be together. This amendment would increase the green card cap to 90,000 so we are meeting the average annual need and not creating an insurmountable backlog. It would make sure that sufficient numbers of green cards are available to parents who come to the United States. We extend the parent visa to 180 days and make it renewable and valid for 3 years. Those are already accepted time frames for the validity of visas. 180 days is the length of a tourist visa. H-1B visas are valid for 3 years. This legislation limits parents to an annual stay of 30 days. It does not specify any long-term validity. This is far too short a time allotment, I think most would agree, particularly for parents who come for health reasons or to help their children during and after childbirth. Lastly, this amendment would make penalties for parent visa overstays applicable only to them. Under the legislation before us, if the overstay rate among visa holders exceeds 7 percent for 2 years, all nationals of countries with high overstay rates can be barred from this program or the program can be terminated. Sponsors of overstays are also barred from sponsoring other aliens on this visa. This amendment strikes that language that unfairly collectively punishes those who have not violated the law, allowing law-abiding parents to continue to unite with their children. The amendment is comprehensive and touches on all three points of family reunification: parents with their children, grandparents with their grandchildren. Again, it hardly needs a lengthy explanation of the value. I regret deeply that my children don't have the benefit of their grandparents. They passed away too many years ago. How many times on a daily basis I think of what a value it would be to my children to know their grandparents, not to mention what it would have meant to my wife when she gave birth to be able to have her mother around during that period of time or the weeks thereafter to have her come and spend a couple of months. To be with the family as they are getting on their feet, I don't know of a single American who doesn't understand this basic concept. At the appropriate time, I will offer this amendment. I am pleased my lead cosponsor on this amendment is my colleague and friend from New Jersey. I thank him for his support. He told me the story of his family. I think maybe more than anything else I heard over the last several weeks, thinking about what it would have meant for his family coming from Cuba and not being able to come here moved me to the point where I thought this was something we ought to offer on this legislation. At the appropriate time I will offer the amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I regret that I could not join last night's debate on amendments to the comprehensive immigration reform bill. Had I been present, I would have supported the amendment offered by Senators Dorgan and Boxer, which was designed to eliminate the bill's guest worker provision. Though it was not adopted, I salute its principles and hope that they will find their way, once again, into our national debate on immigration. The immigration bill was set to allow 400,000 foreign guest workers into America each year, eligible for two-year stays, alternating with a year in their home countries. In their eloquent remarks last evening, Senators Dorgan and Boxer rightly identified this provision's shortcomings. First, as Senator Boxer observed, ``We are setting up a system of exploitation.'' I am concerned that the immigration bill offers insufficient protection to guest workers, leaving them open to victimization by low wages, long hours, and dangerous conditions. It threatens to import into America a permanent underclass, rootless in our communities and ignorant of our language, valued for nothing more than its muscle power. A labor system like that is suited to an empire, not to a republic of opportunity and not to the principles of immigration we have long honored in America. No one denies that much of America's economy depends on immigrant labor. But if we want to do more than exploit that labor--if we want to sew it into our social contract, if we want to treat immigrants with justice and dignity--a path to citizenship is a necessity. That brings me to the guest worker provision's second shortcoming: It lacks such a path. If we are willing to offer the opportunity of citizenship even to those who entered our country illegally, it is inconsistent to deny it to those who come with our sanction. Third and finally, the guest worker provision harms American workers. Threatened by outsourcing and globalization, their expenses for healthcare and education skyrocketing even as their incomes fail to keep pace, American workers now face 400,000 competitors, each year, in their own country, willing and able to do their jobs for lower wages. Last night, Senator Dorgan told us a moving story of furniture-makers in Pennsylvania whose jobs were eliminated and shipped to China. As their plant shut down, each one of those craftsmen signed the bottom of the last piece of furniture their company would make in America. As we import wage pressures onto our own shores, we will be hearing hundreds of similar stories in the years to come. The guest worker provision threatens to eat away at our middle class. It has the potential to harm guest workers and American workers alike. Who, then, does it benefit? I don't think I need to tell my colleagues the answer. But unless we reform our standards for guest workers, we will be putting the demand for cheap labor above the dignity of immigrants and Americans alike. I voted to strip the guest worker provision from last year's immigration bill; and I supported stripping it this year. And while the amendment offered by Senators Dorgan and Boxer did not pass, I am heartened that we adopted Senator Bingaman's amendment to limit the program to 200,000 guest workers per year. And as we move forward in this debate, I hope that we will also have chance to strengthen protections for guest workers and reduce wage pressure on Americans.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate be in morning business, and each Senator be allowed to speak for no more than 10 minutes each.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Dodd pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 207 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of myself and good friend, Senator Gordon Smith, the United States Commitment to Global Child Survival Act of 2007. This bill seeks to drastically reduce child and maternal mortality rates abroad. It is a goal entirely within our reach, relying on tools that are already within our grasp. We have the power to save millions of innocent lives; and there is no better measure for the success of our foreign aid. The legislation would perform three simple yet vital functions. First, it would require the administration to develop and implement a strategy to improve the health of, and reduce mortality rates among, newborns, children, and mothers in developing countries. Second, it would establish a task force to monitor and evaluate the progress of the relevant departments and agencies of our Government in meeting by 2015 the U.N. Millennium Development Goals related to reducing mortality rates for mothers and for children under 5. Third, it would authorize appropriations for programs that improve the health of newborns, children, and mothers in developing countries. Specifically, it would increase funding for child survival programs from the current level of around $350 million to $600 million in fiscal year 2008, $900 million in fiscal year 2009, $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2010, and up to $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2011-2012. I know that some of my colleagues will dispute the wisdom of such a large investment. None of them would deny this issue's importance; but some may question its priority. How can we answer them? In a world of seemingly intractable problems, we have here an opportunity for quick and uncomplicated success. Each dollar we spend in this cause helps to save a vulnerable life. And what is more, we have already given our word. As part of the Millennium Development Goals, the United States made an explicit commitment, along with 188 other countries, to reducing child and maternal mortality. But at current funding levels, we are set to renege on that promise by a wide margin. On September 14, 2005, President Bush stated that the United States is ``committed to the Millennium Development Goals.'' I commend the President for his words, but they have not been matched with action. As we reach the goals' halfway mark, the world's progress is distressingly slow. The leading medical journal The Lancet reports that, of the 60 countries accounting for 90 percent of child deaths, ``only 7 are on track to meet the goal for reducing child mortality, 39 are making some progress, and 14 are cause for serious concern.'' Now what does that mean in real, human terms? It means each year over 10 million children under the age of 5 die in the developing world, that's approximately 30,000 each day. About 4 million of those children die in their first 4 weeks of life. In many cases, they aren't even provided with a fighting chance. Preventable or treatable diseases such as measles, tetanus, diarrhea, pneumonia, and malaria are the most common causes of death. Similarly, more than 525,000 women die from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth, more than 1,400 each day. Some of the most common risk factors for maternal death include early pregnancy and childbirth, closely spaced births, infectious diseases, malnutrition, and complications during childbirth. Nearly every one of those deaths is entirely preventable. And that fact makes a poor American commitment inexcusable. That commitment will not require new medicine. It will not require sophisticated technology. The tools we need are already at hand. Even now, simple measures are saving lives in the developing world. Studies in the Lancet tell us that, for just over $5 billion, the world could prevent two-thirds of under-5 child deaths with proven, low-cost, high-impact interventions. For 6 million lives, that is a bargain. How cheap are these lifesaving measures? Oral rehydration therapy for diarrhea costs 6 cents per treatment. Antibiotics to treat respiratory infections cost a quarter per treatment. Encouraging breastfeeding, providing vitamin supplements and immunizations, and expanding basic clinical care are just as cost effective. This bill incrementally scales up U.S. funding for child and maternal health programs up to $1.6 billion by 2011. That is a third of the money the world needs to save those 6 million children's lives, and it is proportionate to our efforts against HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria. And it is less money than we spend in Iraq in just 1 week. Yes, 1 week. To be clear, America is not new to this battle. We've had some significant successes: Between 1960 and 1990, U.S. investment in reducing child mortality in the developing world contributed to a 50 percent reduction in under-5 deaths. Over the past 20 years, we have devoted over $6 billion to child survival programs. But as I have noted, at current funding levels in the U.S. and abroad, the world will not meet the Millennium Development Goals. Certainly, America cannot meet them alone. But with a strong effort, we can galvanize other nations to do their part and come forward with the funds we need to save lives. So I am proud to offer the Global Child Survival Act of 2007, a bill with widespread, bipartisan, bicameral support. It has been endorsed by Save the Children, the US Fund for UNICEF, and the One Campaign; is being jointly introduced with my good friend Senator Gordon Smith from across the aisle; and was introduced last week in the House in a bipartisan manner by Congresswoman Betty McCollum and Congressman Chris Shays. For me it's simple. As the world's only superpower and largest economy, the United States is in a unique position to tackle the toughest challenges of our times. Where we can make a concrete difference, we must not fail to act. Where we have the tools to alleviate death and suffering, we must deliver them. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Millions of lives are in the balance. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of myself and good friend, Senator Gordon Smith, the United States Commitment to Global Child Survival Act of 2007. This bill seeks to drastically reduce child and maternal mortality rates abroad. It is a goal entirely within our reach, relying on tools that are already within our grasp. We have the power to save millions of innocent lives; and there is no better measure for the success of our foreign aid. The legislation would perform three simple yet vital functions. First, it would require the administration to develop and implement a strategy to improve the health of, and reduce mortality rates among, newborns, children, and mothers in developing countries. Second, it would establish a task force to monitor and evaluate the progress of the relevant departments and agencies of our Government in meeting by 2015 the U.N. Millennium Development Goals related to reducing mortality rates for mothers and for children under 5. Third, it would authorize appropriations for programs that improve the health of newborns, children, and mothers in developing countries. Specifically, it would increase funding for child survival programs from the current level of around $350 million to $600 million in fiscal year 2008, $900 million in fiscal year 2009, $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2010, and up to $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2011-2012. I know that some of my colleagues will dispute the wisdom of such a large investment. None of them would deny this issue's importance; but some may question its priority. How can we answer them? In a world of seemingly intractable problems, we have here an opportunity for quick and uncomplicated success. Each dollar we spend in this cause helps to save a vulnerable life. And what is more, we have already given our word. As part of the Millennium Development Goals, the United States made an explicit commitment, along with 188 other countries, to reducing child and maternal mortality. But at current funding levels, we are set to renege on that promise by a wide margin. On September 14, 2005, President Bush stated that the United States is ``committed to the Millennium Development Goals.'' I commend the President for his words, but they have not been matched with action. As we reach the goals' halfway mark, the world's progress is distressingly slow. The leading medical journal The Lancet reports that, of the 60 countries accounting for 90 percent of child deaths, ``only 7 are on track to meet the goal for reducing child mortality, 39 are making some progress, and 14 are cause for serious concern.'' Now what does that mean in real, human terms? It means each year over 10 million children under the age of 5 die in the developing world, that's approximately 30,000 each day. About 4 million of those children die in their first 4 weeks of life. In many cases, they aren't even provided with a fighting chance. Preventable or treatable diseases such as measles, tetanus, diarrhea, pneumonia, and malaria are the most common causes of death. Similarly, more than 525,000 women die from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth, more than 1,400 each day. Some of the most common risk factors for maternal death include early pregnancy and childbirth, closely spaced births, infectious diseases, malnutrition, and complications during childbirth. Nearly every one of those deaths is entirely preventable. And that fact makes a poor American commitment inexcusable. That commitment will not require new medicine. It will not require sophisticated technology. The tools we need are already at hand. Even now, simple measures are saving lives in the developing world. Studies in the Lancet tell us that, for just over $5 billion, the world could prevent two-thirds of under-5 child deaths with proven, low-cost, high-impact interventions. For 6 million lives, that is a bargain. How cheap are these lifesaving measures? Oral rehydration therapy for diarrhea costs 6 cents per treatment. Antibiotics to treat respiratory infections cost a quarter per treatment. Encouraging breastfeeding, providing vitamin supplements and immunizations, and expanding basic clinical care are just as cost effective. This bill incrementally scales up U.S. funding for child and maternal health programs up to $1.6 billion by 2011. That is a third of the money the world needs to save those 6 million children's lives, and it is proportionate to our efforts against HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria. And it is less money than we spend in Iraq in just 1 week. Yes, 1 week. To be clear, America is not new to this battle. We've had some significant successes: Between 1960 and 1990, U.S. investment in reducing child mortality in the developing world contributed to a 50 percent reduction in under-5 deaths. Over the past 20 years, we have devoted over $6 billion to child survival programs. But as I have noted, at current funding levels in the U.S. and abroad, the world will not meet the Millennium Development Goals. Certainly, America cannot meet them alone. But with a strong effort, we can galvanize other nations to do their part and come forward with the funds we need to save lives. So I am proud to offer the Global Child Survival Act of 2007, a bill with widespread, bipartisan, bicameral support. It has been endorsed by Save the Children, the US Fund for UNICEF, and the One Campaign; is being jointly introduced with my good friend Senator Gordon Smith from across the aisle; and was introduced last week in the House in a bipartisan manner by Congresswoman Betty McCollum and Congressman Chris Shays. For me it's simple. As the world's only superpower and largest economy, the United States is in a unique position to tackle the toughest challenges of our times. Where we can make a concrete difference, we must not fail to act. Where we have the tools to alleviate death and suffering, we must deliver them. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Millions of lives are in the balance. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk, which next week I will ask my colleagues to consider. I do so with some reluctance, but we have reached a point where the concerns revolving around the Attorney General's Office as well as the head of the World Bank have come to a point where I think this body ought to express itself, given the concerns that are mounting about these individuals' ability to perform their functions. Washington, DC, has always been home to controversies. We know that. But the ones currently swirling around the Department of Justice and the World Bank are simply unacceptable and I think must come to an end. The President, in my view, must assume the responsibility here. We are focused on calling for resignations, but the Commander in Chief, the President, is where the buck stops. He bears the responsibility to replace these individuals if they have reached a point where they no longer have the ability to run these institutions, instilling the kind of confidence and global support the American public would expect. I do not say this with any sense of glee at all, but I think we have arrived at a moment where a change of leadership in these two offices is essential. Let me begin with Mr. Gonzales, if I may, whose saga continues to unfold, with each revelation more disturbing than the last. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the country. He must be above politics, and put administration of justice above partisan gain. Clearly, that is not the case here. It is now abundantly clear the Attorney General has placed his friendship and allegiance to the President above the sworn duty to defend and protect the Constitution. These are not allegations I have made alone; others have also made these points. We heard Tuesday in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing the shocking testimony of the former Deputy Attorney General of the United States about Mr. Gonzales' role while White House Counsel, attempting to pressure then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to authorize domestic surveillance despite the fact that the Justice Department, under John Ashcroft, determined that would be illegal. He went to Attorney General Ashcroft's bedside when he was in critical condition to try to secure his signature to allow those practices to go forward. This is not healthy. It is hurting our country, hurting the morale of the Justice Department, and it is time for the President to step forward and appoint a new Attorney General. Let me, if I quickly can, turn to the President of the World Bank, Mr. Wolfowitz. The World Bank, as we all know, plays a vital role in global efforts to reduce poverty, aid development, and promote good governance in all nations in which it operates. Mr. Wolfowitz in particular made fighting corruption his signature issue at the bank; yet we know of the allegations here. I don't need to go into detail about them. My colleagues know what they are; they have been widely reported. A World Bank ethics committee investigating this incident reported to the World Bank's Board of Directors: Mr. Wolfowitz's contract requiring that he adhere to the Code of Conduct for board officials and that he avoid any conflict of interest, real or apparent, was violated. That is their conclusion. In short, I believe Mr. Wolfowitz broke the World Bank's ethical and governance rules, and instead of combating corruption abroad, as he pledged to do, his actions brought it to the heart of the World Bank. I point out that 40 members of the Bank's anti-corruption unit issued a statement saying this: The credibility of our front-line staff is eroding in the face of legitimate questions from our clients about the bank's ability to practice what it preaches on governance. These are not my words; again, these are the words of the World Bank staff. Their work is being compromised by the actions of their President. Moreover, several of the World Bank's largest donors, including European nations who supply a major portion of the World Bank's operating revenue, have warned they might withhold these funds for the World Bank so long as Mr. Wolfowitz remains in office. I don't take any pleasure in suggesting this. But when the Justice Department and the World Bank are under assault because of the actions of their two leaders, it is time for the American President, who has the authority to replace these individuals, to do so. I know there is reluctance on the part of my colleagues to involve themselves in some of these matters, but when institutions as important as the Justice Department and the World Bank are suffering from loss of credibility, I think it is incumbent on this body to express itself. At an appropriate time next week I will ask for this resolution to be considered by this body. I know we have the important matter of immigration to consider, but this matter is also important. Of course, should the President move forward and call for the resignations and replace these individuals, then this resolution would be moot. In the meantime, I intend to press forward with this idea. I urge my colleagues in both parties to support this resolution, regardless of their feelings about these individuals or their personal relationships with them--we bear a responsibility that goes beyond personalities here. The Justice Department deserves better. The World Bank deserves better. I hope my colleagues will join in a bipartisan way to express the sense of the Senate that the President ought to replace these individuals and restore the confidence and the good feelings we all ought to have about both of these institutions.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President. I want to take a few brief moments to explain why I supported the Feingold-Reid-Dodd amendment this morning, and why I opposed the other two amendments offered before this body. While I would have preferred a stand-alone vote on the Feingold-Reid- Dodd bill, as I think we owe the American people and our brave men and women in uniform unequivocal support for changing our mission in Iraq, I am nonetheless still pleased that we at least had a cloture vote on this amendment. As my colleagues know, the language in this amendment was almost identical to the language in the stand-alone Feingold-Reid-Dodd bill, which I strongly endorsed. This amendment would have mandated that the phased redeployment of U.S. combat forces from Iraq begin within 120 days, and set a deadline of March 31, 2008 for the completion of that redeployment. It allowed for continued counter-terrorism operations, force protection, and training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. Reid-Feingold represented the only responsible way to force the President to change his flawed policy in Iraq. I deeply respect Senator Warner and the leadership that he has demonstrated for many decades in the Senate, but I could not in good conscience vote for his amendment. The Warner amendment would have done nothing to force a change in mission, it would not have held the Bush administration or the Iraqi Government accountable, and it would not have started the process of redeploying our forces from Iraq. Instead, it would have allowed the President to waive any restrictions, just as he has waived the advice from the Baker-Hamilton Commission, and just as he has ignored the will of the American and Iraqi people. I had absolutely no objection to the resolved clauses of Senator Cochran's amendment, which stated that ``It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should send legislation to the President providing appropriations for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in a manner that the President can sign into law by not later than May 28, 2007.'' In fact, Congress already sent President Bush a robust supplemental funding bill and the President chose to veto it. Moreover, the Feingold-Reid-Dodd amendment provided funding for these critical missions and was wholly ``in a manner that the President can sign it into law by not later than May 28, 2007.'' But, in Senator Cochran's amendment, this language was preceded by inaccurate statements. These statements claim that ``funds previously appropriated to continue military operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom are depleted.'' This is simply not true. The Congressional Budget Office estimates, and the Pentagon confirms, that there is enough funding to last through mid-summer. It is my hope that in the coming days, the Senate will continue to seek meaningful ways to bring about a responsible and urgent change in the President's failed policy in Iraq. I look forward to working with my colleagues to do just that. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am speaking today, as I have for the past 26 years, at the desk my father used during his 12 years as a Member of the Senate, from 1959 to 1971. I would like to think that this surface still bears some of the marks he might have made in an idle moment. As he did almost 50 years ago, I too have etched my name in this desk drawer. Today I rise to speak of my father, for it was on this day, May 15, 1907, 100 years ago, that my father was born. I have two young daughters, Grace and Christina. They never knew their grandfather. For my girls, he is a painting that hangs in my office, photos in our home, or stories over dinner. I try to explain, as parents and grandparents do, what their grandfather meant to me, who he was, what he did. I must say, it is hard to find the words. Some of my father's 12 grandchildren were lucky enough to know him. Even so, memory fades; but on this day, his 100th birthday, I wish to call up his memory as a gift to you, his grandchildren, and 17 great-grandchildren. Like so many of his generation, born in the early years of the last century, my father, Thomas Dodd, had to overcome hardships--the death of his mother at an early age, the collapse of his father's business, the Depression years. Yet so much like his generation, hard jolts and trying experiences transformed and molded a man who would make a significant contribution to his country and our world. As the Connecticut State director of the National Youth Administration in the early days of the New Deal at the height of the Great Depression, he helped young men and women find work--any work. As an FBI agent and then lawyer in the Justice Department, your grandfather and great-grandfather pursued notorious gangsters and prosecuted those who denied others their civil rights. He helped create the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department and brought to justice those who committed fraud and espionage. All those experiences were valuable contributions to helping those in need and bringing to justice those who did harm. But none of those experiences compared to what he called the most important work of his life: his role as executive counsel under Justice Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg trials. By his own admission, this was the most important work of his career. It also was his most important, most life-changing event. For almost 18 months, from the summer of 1945 to the fall of 1946, he confronted those who were the authors of the worst evil of the 20th century, maybe ever. As one of the leading prosecutors in the most important trial of the 20th century, your grandfather and great- grandfather demonstrated the supremacy of the rule of law over vengeance. Or, as Justice Robert Jackson said at the opening of those trials: That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of law is one of the most significant tributes that power has ever paid to reason. From the Nuremberg years, your grandfather and great-grandfather emerged as one of the sharpest defenders of human rights in his day and an outspoken crusader against tyranny in all its forms. To those who suffered under the domination of the Soviet Union, there was no more valiant voice. To this day, he is remembered warmly by those who suffered under dictatorial regimes. During his 16 years in Congress, first in the House of Representatives and 12 years in the Senate at this very desk, Thomas Dodd worked hard to make a difference in the lives of people everywhere who needed a champion. Your grandfather's and great-grandfather's career did not end as he wanted it. He did not leave this desk as he would have liked. In 1970, he ran for another term and lost. ``Those who fight the times,'' it was said of him, ``do not always have an easy end.'' He returned to his home in Connecticut, and shortly after he died, 30 years before you were born, Grace and Christina. At the end of his life, his obituary was headlined ``A Lonely Fighter.'' It struck me as such an odd word for my father, who was such a wonderful storyteller, surrounded cradle to grave by a great big Irish Catholic family. I don't recall my father being alone a day of his life. And yet in his public life he had the politician's rarest virtue: he wasn't afraid to be alone. However important and interesting your grandfather and great grandfather's life was, it is a terrible injustice to merely recite the chronology of his experiences. Even more important than what he did was the kind of person he was. Thomas Dodd was principled and courageous, fearless in the face of injustice, and outspoken in his defense of those in need. He was ahead of his time in so many ways--as an advocate for national health care, a proponent of sensible gun safety laws, an early voice warning of the effect of violence on television and the dangers of drug addiction, and a defender of those whose human rights were being denied. Your grandfather and great-grandfather loved your grandmother and great-grandmother so much. He loved his children very much, as well. But the deep love for my mother was special to behold. He was loyal to his hometown of Norwich, CT, and he cared deeply about the people of our home State. Thomas Dodd was a person of deep faith and a lifelong friend to many. He was proud of his family, and how proud he would be of his grandchildren and what they have accomplished and of the contribution you and his great grandchildren will make to your world. Sixty-one years ago next month my father wrote the following words to my mother about his experience at Nuremberg. He was proud of what he had done at Nuremberg. While the words were addressed to his children, they also speak to his grandchildren and great grandchildren. I feel badly about you being alone with the children, but I'm doing the right thing and I feel sure we will not regret it. I will never do anything as worthwhile. Some day the boys will point to it, I hope, and be proud and inspired by it. Only a few weeks before his death, in May of 1971, my father did an interview with a local Connecticut reporter. I was sitting in the room that day when the reporter asked if my father had known at the outset of his public life, when it began in 1932, how it would end, would he do it over again? I shall never forget his unhesitating answer: I would do it again in a minute, for there is no other calling where you can do as much for as many people as you can in a public life. My father's answer has been the source of inspiration for me over these past 32 years in public service. So on this, your 100th birthday, from all of us--your six children, your son and daughters-in-law, your 12 grandchildren and 17 great grandchildren--we say thank you, we love you, and happy birthday.

Mr. DODD. Right.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator very much.