Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter on this matter from Joshua Bolten, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with my colleague from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, that will strengthen the content and pedagogy knowledge of our present K-12 teacher workforce and thus ultimately raise student achievement. My proposal would establish eight new Teacher Professional Development Institutes throughout the Nation each year over the next five years based on the model which has been operating at Yale University for over 25 years. Every Teacher Institute would consist of a partnership between an institution of higher education and the local public school system in which a significant proportion of the students come from low-income households. These Institutes will strengthen the present teacher workforce by giving each participant an opportunity to gain more sophisticated content knowledge and a chance to develop curriculum units with other colleagues that can be directly applied in their classrooms. We know that teachers gain confidence and enthusiasm when they have a deeper understanding of the subject matter that they teach and this translates into higher expectations for their students and thus, an increase in student achievement. The Teacher Professional Development Institutes are based on the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute model that has been in existence since 1978. For over 25 years, the Institute has offered six or seven thirteen-session seminars each year, led by Yale faculty, on topics that teachers have selected to enhance their mastery of the specific subject area that they teach. The subject selection process begins with representatives from the Institutes soliciting ideas from teachers throughout the school district for topics on which teachers feel they need to have additional preparation, topics that will assist them in preparing materials they need for their students, or topics that will assist them in addressing the standards that the school district requires. As a consensus emerges about desired seminar subjects, the Institute director identifies university faculty members with the appropriate expertise, interest and desire to lead the seminar. University faculty members, especially those who have led Institute seminars before, may sometimes suggest seminars they would like to lead, and these ideas are circulated by the representatives as well. The final decisions on which seminar topics are offered are ultimately made by the teachers who participate. In this way, the offerings are designed to respond to what teachers believe is needed and useful for both themselves and their students. The cooperative nature of the Institute seminar planning process ensures its success: Institutes offer seminars and relevant materials on topics teachers have identified and feel are needed for their own preparation as well as what they know will motivate and engage their students. Teachers enthusiastically take part in rigorous seminars they have requested, and as part of the program, practice using the materials they have obtained and developed. This helps ensure that the experience not only increases their preparation in the subjects they are assigned to teach, but also their participation in an Institute seminar gives them immediate hands-on active learning materials that can be used in the classroom. In short, by allowing teachers to determine the seminar subjects and providing them the resources to develop relevant curricula for their classroom and their students, the Institutes empower teachers. Teachers know their students best and they know what should be done to improve schools and increase student learning. The Teacher Professional Development Institutes promote this philosophy. From 1999-2002, the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute launched a National Demonstration Project to create comparable Institutes at four diverse sites with large concentrations of disadvantaged students. These demonstration projects are located in Pittsburgh, PA, Houston, TX, Albuquerque, NM, and Santa Ana, CA. Follow-up evaluations have earned very positive results from the teacher participants in the Yale-New Haven Institute, as well as the four demonstration sites. The data strongly support the conclusion that virtually all teachers felt substantially strengthened in their mastery of content knowledge and they also developed increased expectations for what their students could achieve. In addition, because of their involvement in the course selection and curriculum development process, teacher participants have found these seminars to be especially relevant and useful in their classroom practices. Ninety-five percent of all participating teachers reported that the seminars were useful. These Institutes have also served to foster teacher leadership, to develop supportive teacher networks, to heighten university faculty commitments to improving K-12 public education, and to foster more positive partnerships between school districts and institutions of higher education. By some studies, teacher quality is the single most important school- related factor in determining student achievement. In support of this, the No Child Left Behind Act requires a ``highly qualified'' teacher to be in every classroom by the end of 2005-2006. Effective teacher professional development programs that focus on subject and pedagogy knowledge are a proven method for enhancing the success of a teacher in the classroom and in helping them meet the highly qualified criteria. Though a K-12 teacher shortage is forecast in the near-term and many new teachers will be entering our schools, those teachers who are presently on the job will do the majority of teaching in the classrooms in the very near future. For this reason, it is imperative to invest in methods to strengthen our present teaching workforce. Like many professions, the quality of our teachers could diminish if their professional development is neglected. Research has shown that positive educational achievements occur when coursework in a teachers' specific content area is combined with pedagogy techniques. This is what the Teacher Professional Development Institutes Act strives to accomplish. The Yale-New Haven Institutes have already proven to be a successful model for teacher professional development as demonstrated by the high caliper curriculum unit plans that teacher participants have developed and placed on the web and by the evaluations that support the conclusion that virtually all the teacher participants felt substantially strengthened in their mastery of content knowledge and their teaching skills. My proposal would open this opportunity to many more urban teachers throughout the nation. I urge my colleagues to act favorably on this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with my colleague from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, that will strengthen the content and pedagogy knowledge of our present K-12 teacher workforce and thus ultimately raise student achievement. My proposal would establish eight new Teacher Professional Development Institutes throughout the Nation each year over the next five years based on the model which has been operating at Yale University for over 25 years. Every Teacher Institute would consist of a partnership between an institution of higher education and the local public school system in which a significant proportion of the students come from low-income households. These Institutes will strengthen the present teacher workforce by giving each participant an opportunity to gain more sophisticated content knowledge and a chance to develop curriculum units with other colleagues that can be directly applied in their classrooms. We know that teachers gain confidence and enthusiasm when they have a deeper understanding of the subject matter that they teach and this translates into higher expectations for their students and thus, an increase in student achievement. The Teacher Professional Development Institutes are based on the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute model that has been in existence since 1978. For over 25 years, the Institute has offered six or seven thirteen-session seminars each year, led by Yale faculty, on topics that teachers have selected to enhance their mastery of the specific subject area that they teach. The subject selection process begins with representatives from the Institutes soliciting ideas from teachers throughout the school district for topics on which teachers feel they need to have additional preparation, topics that will assist them in preparing materials they need for their students, or topics that will assist them in addressing the standards that the school district requires. As a consensus emerges about desired seminar subjects, the Institute director identifies university faculty members with the appropriate expertise, interest and desire to lead the seminar. University faculty members, especially those who have led Institute seminars before, may sometimes suggest seminars they would like to lead, and these ideas are circulated by the representatives as well. The final decisions on which seminar topics are offered are ultimately made by the teachers who participate. In this way, the offerings are designed to respond to what teachers believe is needed and useful for both themselves and their students. The cooperative nature of the Institute seminar planning process ensures its success: Institutes offer seminars and relevant materials on topics teachers have identified and feel are needed for their own preparation as well as what they know will motivate and engage their students. Teachers enthusiastically take part in rigorous seminars they have requested, and as part of the program, practice using the materials they have obtained and developed. This helps ensure that the experience not only increases their preparation in the subjects they are assigned to teach, but also their participation in an Institute seminar gives them immediate hands-on active learning materials that can be used in the classroom. In short, by allowing teachers to determine the seminar subjects and providing them the resources to develop relevant curricula for their classroom and their students, the Institutes empower teachers. Teachers know their students best and they know what should be done to improve schools and increase student learning. The Teacher Professional Development Institutes promote this philosophy. From 1999-2002, the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute launched a National Demonstration Project to create comparable Institutes at four diverse sites with large concentrations of disadvantaged students. These demonstration projects are located in Pittsburgh, PA, Houston, TX, Albuquerque, NM, and Santa Ana, CA. Follow-up evaluations have earned very positive results from the teacher participants in the Yale-New Haven Institute, as well as the four demonstration sites. The data strongly support the conclusion that virtually all teachers felt substantially strengthened in their mastery of content knowledge and they also developed increased expectations for what their students could achieve. In addition, because of their involvement in the course selection and curriculum development process, teacher participants have found these seminars to be especially relevant and useful in their classroom practices. Ninety-five percent of all participating teachers reported that the seminars were useful. These Institutes have also served to foster teacher leadership, to develop supportive teacher networks, to heighten university faculty commitments to improving K-12 public education, and to foster more positive partnerships between school districts and institutions of higher education. By some studies, teacher quality is the single most important school- related factor in determining student achievement. In support of this, the No Child Left Behind Act requires a ``highly qualified'' teacher to be in every classroom by the end of 2005-2006. Effective teacher professional development programs that focus on subject and pedagogy knowledge are a proven method for enhancing the success of a teacher in the classroom and in helping them meet the highly qualified criteria. Though a K-12 teacher shortage is forecast in the near-term and many new teachers will be entering our schools, those teachers who are presently on the job will do the majority of teaching in the classrooms in the very near future. For this reason, it is imperative to invest in methods to strengthen our present teaching workforce. Like many professions, the quality of our teachers could diminish if their professional development is neglected. Research has shown that positive educational achievements occur when coursework in a teachers' specific content area is combined with pedagogy techniques. This is what the Teacher Professional Development Institutes Act strives to accomplish. The Yale-New Haven Institutes have already proven to be a successful model for teacher professional development as demonstrated by the high caliper curriculum unit plans that teacher participants have developed and placed on the web and by the evaluations that support the conclusion that virtually all the teacher participants felt substantially strengthened in their mastery of content knowledge and their teaching skills. My proposal would open this opportunity to many more urban teachers throughout the nation. I urge my colleagues to act favorably on this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am honored to have the opportunity to rise today to join my colleagues and, indeed, my country men and women in paying tribute to our departed and, I would say, sincerely beloved former President Ronald Reagan. We mourn his loss and we give our condolences, of course, to Mrs. Reagan and their family. I cannot claim, as some can in this Chamber, to have known President Reagan personally and well. In fact, we met a few times while he was serving in the White House. I was attorney general of Connecticut and visited with attorneys general. We did have one remarkable rendezvous. Our paths crossed, figuratively speaking, as President Reagan was departing Washington, having completed his second term as President. I was arriving as a freshman Senator from Connecticut. It was January 14, 1989, and the outgoing President was set to give his final weekly radio address Saturday morning. As always, he gave a masterful and moving performance, engaging the Nation with his wisdom and his wit. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, the new Senate majority leader, asked me to give the Democratic response to President Reagan that Saturday morning in January. It was a high honor, of course, for me as a freshman Senator to be asked to give the weekly radio address but it was, needless to say, a tough act to follow. I looked back to my remarks and in them I see I praised President Reagan for his love of country, his fervent devotion to freedom, and his commitment to the values of faith, flag, and family. I said I was ``inspired and encouraged by his sense of patriotism,'' and I urged all Americans to work together on our unfinished business with ``the spirit of purpose and confidence that is the legacy of the Reagan years.'' Today, 15 years later, I am very proud I was able to speak those words, and proud of their truthfulness. My admiration and respect for President Reagan has only grown with time. The optimism, the idealism, the patriotism, and confidence he radiated infected us all and are exactly what we need today. President Reagan won the trust of the American people and used that trust to lead. I believe he won the trust of the American people because he reflected their values and they knew he was the real thing, that he stuck to what he believed was right, whether it was popular or not. His leadership was classic democratic leadership, with a small ``d.'' His moral conviction, combined with his pragmatism, enabled him to do an awful lot for our country and the world. He understood what America was about, which was freedom and opportunity, and extended both in America and throughout the world. After all, he led our country and the free world to victory in the final battle of the cold war against communism. Ronald Reagan's message of optimism and purpose was carried by one of the most effective messengers ever to occupy the Oval Office. His rhetoric, after all, made us swell with pride, sometimes harden with indignation, often resonate with emotion. He also made us laugh. I loved President Reagan's jokes and borrowed them often, sometimes with attribution, sometimes not. One of my favorites was the one that said a lot about him and about what he believed, what he was for, and what he was against. It was about the commissar who visited the Communist collective farm in Russia. He greeted the farmer, who was the head of the farm, on an inspection tour and asked the farmer how the potato crop had been that year. The farmer said: Oh, commissar, the potato crop has been excellent. As a matter of fact, if we took all the potatoes we grew on this farm this year and put them one on top of the other, they would reach all the way up to the feet of God. Troubled, the commissar from Moscow said, comrade farmer, I am glad to hear you did so well raising potatoes, but what do you mean about reaching up to the feet of God? This is a Soviet Communist collective farm. There is no God. The comrade said, that is okay, because there are no potatoes, either. So it was. I heard someone in the last few days since President Reagan's death repeat a one-liner of his where the press was getting on him because they said he was not working hard enough as President. At some public gathering, President Reagan said he was aware of these criticisms and he was also aware of the old line that hard work never killed anybody, but, President Reagan said, I figure why should I run the risk? And so it was. His sense of humor and exuberance served him and the country well. Yes, he was a cold warrior, our leader in the final battle of the cold war, but he was also a happy warrior. In this and in so many other ways, Ronald Reagan reflected the personality and values of the American people. You could disagree with his policies, but you could never find his personality or his sincerity disagreeable. He treated Democrats and Republicans alike, which is to say with respect. That attitude was contagious and even infected both Chambers of Congress. President Reagan once urged an audience of young people to live lives ``that were a statement, not an apology.'' This week we remember a true American giant, whose life was a statement, not an apology--a statement of America's values and its transcendent spirit of our faith in God and our love of country, of our national purpose, which is to uphold and extend the reality of freedom and opportunity in the world. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep gratitude to my long-time office manager, Lorraine Perona, who, after more than 27 years of outstanding and dedicated service to the U.S. Senate, is retiring on June 30, 2004. When I first took office as a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut on January 3, 1989, Lorraine was one of a small group of staff members I had assembled to assist me as I began my service. I was fortunate to have a person of Lorraine's extensive knowledge and years of Senate staff experience to set up my office. She did a wonderful job and has kept my office running for more than 15 years, as office manager and financial director; and she has done so with style and grace. She has been an influential leader in my office, and her contributions have been many. Many staff and interns have passed through the doors of my office over the years. All have benefitted from Lorraine's caring guidance, common sense, and expertise. Lorraine studied international relations at American University and subsequently worked at Dartmouth College in charge of foreign study programs. Through a contact there, she learned of an opening in the office of Senator John Durkin, Democrat from New Hampshire, and thus began her Senate career in March 1977. Following her work in Senator Durkin's office, Lorraine built her career in the Senate setting up offices for newly elected Members, including Senator Carl Levin, Democrat from Michigan, in 1979, Senator Frank Lautenberg, Democrat from New Jersey, in 1982, and, of course, myself in 1989. Lorraine is an expert at creating attractive, functional and comfortable work spaces, not an easy task given our limited space and resources. She is respected and beloved among her office manager colleagues and throughout the Senate community, where she has made many friends. For the past few years, Lorraine has been faced with many serious health problems. She has faced these personal challenges with great courage. Despite her suffering and hardship, she has continued to do her utmost in service to me and the citizens of Connecticut. Lorraine has been an inspiration to us all. I know it is difficult for Lorraine to leave my office and her extended Senate family; she often speaks of the Senate as ``home.'' It is difficult for us, as well, for we will miss her kindness, warmth, and wise counsel. But hers is a retirement well earned, and Lorraine can be very proud of her public service and contributions to the work of the Senate. As she completes her Government career, I wish Lorraine good health and every happiness. I know she has a great deal to look forward to with her husband, Bernie Rooney, and lovely daughter, Shannon, and I wish them all the best. I extend to Lorraine Perona my personal thanks and congratulations for more than 27 years of exemplary service to the U.S. Senate.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would bring needed changes to our financial markets so that the interests of America's small individual investors are protected and defended. The recent revelations about unethical and illegal practices in the mutual fund industry have been deeply disturbing--to me and to ordinary investors throughout the country. In November 2003, the Governmental Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget, and International Security heard testimony from the Director of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC's) Enforcement Division about a survey of fund practices that the SEC had just completed. The survey found that half of the largest 88 mutual funds had permitted a practice called market-timing, which allows some investors to trade quickly in and out of the funds, even though many of those funds had explicit policies against such trading because of its detrimental impact on other investors in the fund. The survey also found that a full one- quarter of the brokerage firms it looked at indicated that they had allowed certain customers to engage in late-trading, an illegal practice that allows favored investors to execute trades based on that day's price after the market had closed, when new information had come to light. Perhaps most shocking, the survey found that, in some cases, fund company officials profited personally at the expense of their customers by market-timing their own funds. In a later hearing, we learned about the problem of excessive fees at some funds and the fact that such fees may not be prominently disclosed to investors or, as is the case with some types of fees, not disclosed at all. These concerns are of particular importance because, in a very real sense, mutual fund investments are investments in the American dream. They hold the nest eggs, the retirement savings, and the college funds for millions of America's working families. But they also feed capital into today's economy, fueling the engine that creates and maintains American jobs. Mutual funds are where so many Americans put their money: 95 million people, at last count, own shares in these funds. Indeed, in the wake of the Enron scandal, when investigators uncovered widespread deceptions and conflicts of Wall Street stock analysts, conventional wisdom said average investors would find safe haven in mutual funds rather than in individual stocks. It is therefore particularly--and--ironically disheartening to see the scandals and breaches of trust that have now afflicted the mutual fund industry. The recent revelations about mutual funds, however, provides us with the opportunity and the responsibility to accomplish real, structural reform in the fund industry. That is why I have joined with Senator Akaka and Senator Fitzgerald in introducing S. 1822, the Mutual Fund Transparency Act, and why I have also joined Senators Corzine and Dodd in introducing S. 1971, the Mutual Fund Investor Confidence Restoration Act. Both of these bills take on many of the significant mutual fund problems that have come to light in recent months. Together, they bar late trading and discourage market timing; reform mutual fund governance rules to require that the chairman and 75 percent of board members of mutual fund companies be independent and strengthen the definition of independent; require far more extensive disclosure of fund fees and expenses; and work to increase financial literacy. But beyond these important, basic reforms, we need to craft new approaches that address the changing nature of this country's investor class. In the last two decades, a near-revolutionary expansion in the number of people participating in the financial markets has occurred. Since 1980, we've seen the share of U.S. households owning mutual funds soar from less than 6 percent to nearly 50 percent in 2002. The number of families owning stocks, directly or indirectly through funds, has increased 60 percent in the last fifteen years and, as of 2001, exceeded half of all families. Along with this phenomenon, and contributing to it, we've seen individuals increasingly taking responsibility for investing their own retirement money--a responsibility that was once entrusted to professionals . It used to be that employees were typically enrolled in so-called ``defined benefit'' pension plans that guaranteed them certain income and for which the employer took responsibility for investing the money properly. Now individuals are more frequently given responsibility for investing their retirement savings themselves through 401(k) plans. In fact, since 1983, the number of defined-benefit plans has declined over 70 percent, while participation in 401(k) plans has been increasing. Forty-eight million Americans now have 401(k) plans. Neither changes in the law, nor changes by federal regulators, however, have kept pace with the increasing participation and the increasing responsibilities of small investors. When the Investment Company Act was enacted in 1940, it brought sweeping changes, and, for the first time, Federal regulation, to the fund industry, which had been fraught with fraud and abuse in the 1920's. The 1940 Act and the other securities laws passed in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash were instrumental in restoring investor confidence and in establishing the basic disclosure regime that continues to undergird securities regulation today. But the 1940 Act remains much as it was when it was enacted, and disclosure requirements that once appeared radical now often result in forms of technical compliance that little serve average investors who have neither the time nor guidance to find their way through the verbiage of fund disclosures. Nor has the SEC, created in the same era and charged with protecting investors, adequately kept up with the shifting makeup and needs of contemporary investors. To its credit, the SEC in recent months has made a number of changes and proposals specifically to address the problems uncovered in the mutual fund industry, and in the 1990's it undertook a serious effort to ensure that more securities documents were written in ``plain English.'' The Commission, however, has not accomplished the more fundamental reorientation that I believe is called for--and that indeed I did call for in the aftermath of the Enron scandal--to an agency that does not merely regulate and punish the securities industry but affirmatively and proactively seeks ways to assist and protect ordinary investors. The Small Investor Protection Act that I am introducing today would bring about these needed changes by ensuring that the SEC is more routinely attuned to the needs of average investors. In doing so, this bill serves as an important complement to, though surely not a replacement for, the other mutual fund reform legislation I have cosponsored. And I am pleased that the bill has the support of the Consumer Federation of America, Fund Democracy, Inc., Public Citizen's Congress Watch, Consumer Action and Consumers Union. To accomplish the goal of better protecting small investors, the bill would take the following four steps: 1. Create a Division of the Investor. Too often in recent years, the interests of ordinary investors have not seemed to be the driving force behind the Commission's regulatory actions. Wall Street's representatives regularly meet with Commission staff to comment on each new Commission proposal but the voice of the small investor has been harder to hear. To ensure that the voices of small investors are heard, my bill would create a separate division within the Commission--coequal with the other four major divisions at the SEC--to provide for a permanent and institutionalized advocate for the interests of ordinary investors. The Division of the Investor would be responsible for such things as providing the small investor's perspective on new rule and policy proposals, identifying new issues of particular concern to small investors, and serving as a conduit for the concerns of outside advocates for small investors. 2. Establish an Office of Risk Assessment. As part of the Governmental Affairs Committee's investigation into the Enron scandal, former Senator Thompson and I released a bipartisan staff report concluding, among other things, that the SEC needed to move away from simply reacting to cases of financial fraud to actively rooting out fraud. In other words, the SEC needed to ``reconceptualize its role as a more proactive force in protecting the marketplace against financial fraud.'' This conclusion has only been reinforced by the fact that the recent and widespread problems in the mutual fund industry were apparently not identified by the Commission but were uncovered by others. I am therefore very encouraged that Chairman Donaldson has announced the creation of an Office of Risk Assessment to gather and analyze data on new trends and risks and identify new areas of concern for the Commission. This effort, in my view, is critical to protecting small investors because it will increase the likelihood that practices detrimental to small investors will be proactively identified and addressed before they reach scandalous proportions. To ensure the SEC continues to pursue this important function, my bill would provide formal legislative recognition to the Office of Risk Assessment and institutionalize its responsibilities. 3. Require Consumer Research to Gauge Whether Disclosures are Easily Understood by Consumers. The disclosure of information to investors is fundamental to securities regulation in the U.S. With respect to mutual funds, for instance, the SEC requires a wide array of disclosures to be made in prospectuses, annual reports to shareholders, advertising, and in other media. None of these disclosures, however, is likely to serve its intended purpose if ordinary investors can't understand them. There is little empirical evidence on whether investors do in fact understand the disclosures being made. Although the SEC has from time-to-time engaged in consumer research, such as surveys, focus groups, etc., it does not routinely or systematically test its proposed disclosures to determine if they are likely to be understood by ordinary investors. My bill would change that by requiring that the Commission consider empirical consumer research to determine whether a proposed disclosure--including its wording, format, and the context in which it appears--is likely to improve the understanding of ordinary investors. 4. Require Investment Companies to Provide Brief, Easy-to-Understand Disclosures of Mutual Fund Characteristics. All too often, the important details of a mutual fund purchase are lost among the pages and pages an investor receives from his or her investment company. That is why the Small Investor Protection Act would also require investment companies to provide purchasers with a brief summary that will clearly and succinctly outline the relevant characteristics of a mutual fund. Ideally, this summary would be on a single page, and it could not exceed four pages; it would include information such as expenses and risks associated with the fund, as well as the degree to which the fund is diversified. By providing this information in an easy-to-understand format, the Act would help investors make decisions about which funds are best suited to their particular needs and financial goals. If enacted, these proposals, taken as a whole, would go a long way towards reorienting the regulation of our financial markets to better address the needs of the small investors who have become such an integral part of our economy and for whom investments in the market have become such a large part of their economic security. These proposals would ensure that the concerns of ordinary investors receive as much prominence in regulatory decisions as the concerns of Wall Street giants, that average investors receive relevant information in a form they can understand, and that they are better protected from existing conflicts of interest. In short, this legislation would help level the playing field for small investors. That is something that we need to do to restore confidence to our financial markets, which have been damaged by more than two years of scandals, and that we must do because it is the right thing for the millions of Americans who are saving and investing to provide a better future for themselves and their children. They deserve nothing less. I ask unanimous consent that a letter in support of this legislation from Consumer Federation of America, Fund Democracy, Inc., Public Citizen's Congress Watch, Consumer Action and Consumers Union be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would bring needed changes to our financial markets so that the interests of America's small individual investors are protected and defended. The recent revelations about unethical and illegal practices in the mutual fund industry have been deeply disturbing--to me and to ordinary investors throughout the country. In November 2003, the Governmental Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget, and International Security heard testimony from the Director of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC's) Enforcement Division about a survey of fund practices that the SEC had just completed. The survey found that half of the largest 88 mutual funds had permitted a practice called market-timing, which allows some investors to trade quickly in and out of the funds, even though many of those funds had explicit policies against such trading because of its detrimental impact on other investors in the fund. The survey also found that a full one- quarter of the brokerage firms it looked at indicated that they had allowed certain customers to engage in late-trading, an illegal practice that allows favored investors to execute trades based on that day's price after the market had closed, when new information had come to light. Perhaps most shocking, the survey found that, in some cases, fund company officials profited personally at the expense of their customers by market-timing their own funds. In a later hearing, we learned about the problem of excessive fees at some funds and the fact that such fees may not be prominently disclosed to investors or, as is the case with some types of fees, not disclosed at all. These concerns are of particular importance because, in a very real sense, mutual fund investments are investments in the American dream. They hold the nest eggs, the retirement savings, and the college funds for millions of America's working families. But they also feed capital into today's economy, fueling the engine that creates and maintains American jobs. Mutual funds are where so many Americans put their money: 95 million people, at last count, own shares in these funds. Indeed, in the wake of the Enron scandal, when investigators uncovered widespread deceptions and conflicts of Wall Street stock analysts, conventional wisdom said average investors would find safe haven in mutual funds rather than in individual stocks. It is therefore particularly--and--ironically disheartening to see the scandals and breaches of trust that have now afflicted the mutual fund industry. The recent revelations about mutual funds, however, provides us with the opportunity and the responsibility to accomplish real, structural reform in the fund industry. That is why I have joined with Senator Akaka and Senator Fitzgerald in introducing S. 1822, the Mutual Fund Transparency Act, and why I have also joined Senators Corzine and Dodd in introducing S. 1971, the Mutual Fund Investor Confidence Restoration Act. Both of these bills take on many of the significant mutual fund problems that have come to light in recent months. Together, they bar late trading and discourage market timing; reform mutual fund governance rules to require that the chairman and 75 percent of board members of mutual fund companies be independent and strengthen the definition of independent; require far more extensive disclosure of fund fees and expenses; and work to increase financial literacy. But beyond these important, basic reforms, we need to craft new approaches that address the changing nature of this country's investor class. In the last two decades, a near-revolutionary expansion in the number of people participating in the financial markets has occurred. Since 1980, we've seen the share of U.S. households owning mutual funds soar from less than 6 percent to nearly 50 percent in 2002. The number of families owning stocks, directly or indirectly through funds, has increased 60 percent in the last fifteen years and, as of 2001, exceeded half of all families. Along with this phenomenon, and contributing to it, we've seen individuals increasingly taking responsibility for investing their own retirement money--a responsibility that was once entrusted to professionals . It used to be that employees were typically enrolled in so-called ``defined benefit'' pension plans that guaranteed them certain income and for which the employer took responsibility for investing the money properly. Now individuals are more frequently given responsibility for investing their retirement savings themselves through 401(k) plans. In fact, since 1983, the number of defined-benefit plans has declined over 70 percent, while participation in 401(k) plans has been increasing. Forty-eight million Americans now have 401(k) plans. Neither changes in the law, nor changes by federal regulators, however, have kept pace with the increasing participation and the increasing responsibilities of small investors. When the Investment Company Act was enacted in 1940, it brought sweeping changes, and, for the first time, Federal regulation, to the fund industry, which had been fraught with fraud and abuse in the 1920's. The 1940 Act and the other securities laws passed in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash were instrumental in restoring investor confidence and in establishing the basic disclosure regime that continues to undergird securities regulation today. But the 1940 Act remains much as it was when it was enacted, and disclosure requirements that once appeared radical now often result in forms of technical compliance that little serve average investors who have neither the time nor guidance to find their way through the verbiage of fund disclosures. Nor has the SEC, created in the same era and charged with protecting investors, adequately kept up with the shifting makeup and needs of contemporary investors. To its credit, the SEC in recent months has made a number of changes and proposals specifically to address the problems uncovered in the mutual fund industry, and in the 1990's it undertook a serious effort to ensure that more securities documents were written in ``plain English.'' The Commission, however, has not accomplished the more fundamental reorientation that I believe is called for--and that indeed I did call for in the aftermath of the Enron scandal--to an agency that does not merely regulate and punish the securities industry but affirmatively and proactively seeks ways to assist and protect ordinary investors. The Small Investor Protection Act that I am introducing today would bring about these needed changes by ensuring that the SEC is more routinely attuned to the needs of average investors. In doing so, this bill serves as an important complement to, though surely not a replacement for, the other mutual fund reform legislation I have cosponsored. And I am pleased that the bill has the support of the Consumer Federation of America, Fund Democracy, Inc., Public Citizen's Congress Watch, Consumer Action and Consumers Union. To accomplish the goal of better protecting small investors, the bill would take the following four steps: 1. Create a Division of the Investor. Too often in recent years, the interests of ordinary investors have not seemed to be the driving force behind the Commission's regulatory actions. Wall Street's representatives regularly meet with Commission staff to comment on each new Commission proposal but the voice of the small investor has been harder to hear. To ensure that the voices of small investors are heard, my bill would create a separate division within the Commission--coequal with the other four major divisions at the SEC--to provide for a permanent and institutionalized advocate for the interests of ordinary investors. The Division of the Investor would be responsible for such things as providing the small investor's perspective on new rule and policy proposals, identifying new issues of particular concern to small investors, and serving as a conduit for the concerns of outside advocates for small investors. 2. Establish an Office of Risk Assessment. As part of the Governmental Affairs Committee's investigation into the Enron scandal, former Senator Thompson and I released a bipartisan staff report concluding, among other things, that the SEC needed to move away from simply reacting to cases of financial fraud to actively rooting out fraud. In other words, the SEC needed to ``reconceptualize its role as a more proactive force in protecting the marketplace against financial fraud.'' This conclusion has only been reinforced by the fact that the recent and widespread problems in the mutual fund industry were apparently not identified by the Commission but were uncovered by others. I am therefore very encouraged that Chairman Donaldson has announced the creation of an Office of Risk Assessment to gather and analyze data on new trends and risks and identify new areas of concern for the Commission. This effort, in my view, is critical to protecting small investors because it will increase the likelihood that practices detrimental to small investors will be proactively identified and addressed before they reach scandalous proportions. To ensure the SEC continues to pursue this important function, my bill would provide formal legislative recognition to the Office of Risk Assessment and institutionalize its responsibilities. 3. Require Consumer Research to Gauge Whether Disclosures are Easily Understood by Consumers. The disclosure of information to investors is fundamental to securities regulation in the U.S. With respect to mutual funds, for instance, the SEC requires a wide array of disclosures to be made in prospectuses, annual reports to shareholders, advertising, and in other media. None of these disclosures, however, is likely to serve its intended purpose if ordinary investors can't understand them. There is little empirical evidence on whether investors do in fact understand the disclosures being made. Although the SEC has from time-to-time engaged in consumer research, such as surveys, focus groups, etc., it does not routinely or systematically test its proposed disclosures to determine if they are likely to be understood by ordinary investors. My bill would change that by requiring that the Commission consider empirical consumer research to determine whether a proposed disclosure--including its wording, format, and the context in which it appears--is likely to improve the understanding of ordinary investors. 4. Require Investment Companies to Provide Brief, Easy-to-Understand Disclosures of Mutual Fund Characteristics. All too often, the important details of a mutual fund purchase are lost among the pages and pages an investor receives from his or her investment company. That is why the Small Investor Protection Act would also require investment companies to provide purchasers with a brief summary that will clearly and succinctly outline the relevant characteristics of a mutual fund. Ideally, this summary would be on a single page, and it could not exceed four pages; it would include information such as expenses and risks associated with the fund, as well as the degree to which the fund is diversified. By providing this information in an easy-to-understand format, the Act would help investors make decisions about which funds are best suited to their particular needs and financial goals. If enacted, these proposals, taken as a whole, would go a long way towards reorienting the regulation of our financial markets to better address the needs of the small investors who have become such an integral part of our economy and for whom investments in the market have become such a large part of their economic security. These proposals would ensure that the concerns of ordinary investors receive as much prominence in regulatory decisions as the concerns of Wall Street giants, that average investors receive relevant information in a form they can understand, and that they are better protected from existing conflicts of interest. In short, this legislation would help level the playing field for small investors. That is something that we need to do to restore confidence to our financial markets, which have been damaged by more than two years of scandals, and that we must do because it is the right thing for the millions of Americans who are saving and investing to provide a better future for themselves and their children. They deserve nothing less. I ask unanimous consent that a letter in support of this legislation from Consumer Federation of America, Fund Democracy, Inc., Public Citizen's Congress Watch, Consumer Action and Consumers Union be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I would like to discuss a major 40-page white paper my office has now released about the outsourcing of American jobs overseas, and the larger challenge it represents to our economic future. The paper attempts to reach beyond the current debate and focus on the next wave of this challenge, which potentially could affect high end research and development jobs, as well as manufacturing and call center jobs. The implications of this trend are profound: it threatens America's competitive advantage in an era when the entire world is competing based on free enterprise economics and open trade-- one of our longstanding goals. Seen in this light, the challenge is more fundamental, and requires that we fundamentally rethink America's competitiveness strategy over the long-term. What we have thought was our nation's ultimate competitive advantage--our high end R&D prowess--may be challenged. There has been little informed discussion of the fundamental long term challenge of offshoring high end engineering, research and development jobs. Nor have many acknowledged how our nation's irresponsible fiscal policy has undermined U.S. competitiveness. The debate needs to focus on our own needs and solutions, and not simply decry other countries and their industries for rising to challenge us in the global economy. To meet this challenge, we have to face some hard facts. The American economy may be failing to adapt to fundamental changes and to growing competition in the global economy. We are not just losing jobs--we may be losing critical parts of our innovation infrastructure, and with them, our competitive edge in the global marketplace. The offshore outsourcing of jobs is just the tip of an economic iceberg that America is sailing towards. Here is one measurement of the size of it. An analysis by the Institute of Business and Economic Research at UC Berkeley estimates that 14 million American jobs are at risk. If that's accurate, our economic vitality and national security are in jeopardy. As the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology concluded recently, ``Maintenance of U.S. technical preeminence is not forever assured.'' Carly Fiorina put it more succinctly and memorably: ``There is no job that is America's God given right anymore.'' How do we reassert our world economic leadership and regain our innovation advantage in a more competitive world? And how do we do so without turning a blind eye to the very real pain that many American workers are feeling as a result of the churning in the global job market? These are the big questions we must answer together--private and public sectors, business and labor, even Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. But first, we have to better understand what is occurring. Outsourcing is not new. It is really just a variation of the division of labor, a defining feature of capitalism. In a competitive marketplace, with its premium on efficiency, businesses naturally focus their limited resources on their most profitable operations while subcontracting--or outsourcing--functions that can be performed more efficiently and cheaply elsewhere. Jobs shift as a result. What is new about outsourcing today is its global reach. Technological innovations in transportation and communication have erased geographic borders. Physical proximity to the point of sale is no longer the absolute economic necessity it used to be, particularly for service jobs. We know that manufacturing jobs have been shifting overseas for some time. But now the services sector is being hit hard by offshore outsourcing--and that hurts. The services sector provides 83 percent of America's jobs, employing 86 million people. It dominates our economy. Customer call centers and data entry facilities are being relocated to places where capable labor can be found at lower wage levels. High- speed digital technologies make a connection between Boston and Bangalore as fast as between Boston and Baltimore. But offshoring is no longer limited to entry-level services jobs. Higher skilled professional jobs like computer chip design, programming, architecture, engineering, consulting, automotive design, and pharmaceutical research are beginning to go overseas. That is the bulk of the iceberg below the surface of the sea. The outsourcing of R&D is probably the most alarming illustration of this new problem. American companies now invest $17 billion in R&D abroad every year. IT multinationals have now established 223 R&D centers in China alone. One study by Forrester Research estimates that over the next 15 years, 3.3 million U.S. service jobs and $136 billion in wages will move offshore. Another by McKinsey's Global Institute suggests that the number of U.S. services jobs lost to offshoring will accelerate at an annual rate of 30 to 40 percent during the next five years. Because the government collects no official data on offshore outsourcing in the services sector, we cannot be at all certain of these figures. But we can be certain that, although the offshore outsourcing problem in the high-end services sector may not be acute at the moment, it will be in the near future if current trends continue. If a software programmer in India earning $7,000 a year can do the same work as a software programmer in the United States making $64,000 a year, it is only a matter of time before more of those jobs relocate overseas. The Washington response to offshore outsourcing has been predictable: politicians and policy makers jump to predetermined conclusions and finger the usual suspects. On the one hand, we have the do nothings who profess an abiding and absolute faith in laissez faire capitalism, and see any government intervention as self-defeating. In fact, they argue that jobs flowing overseas are healthy, that they are evidence that the system is working, and that we have nothing to worry about. The problem with this view, of course, is that we do have something to worry about. Not only does rising unemployment take a real human toll, it also eats away at our ability to create new jobs. Advanced production capabilities and research and development jobs are strategic assets that have defined our nation's competitive advantage. While proximity to the point of sale is less critical, geography still matters in the innovation process. Countries and regions that cluster university and industry research, knowledge-based start-ups, capital for entrepreneurs support from larger firms, and advanced manufacturing--with the talent to support all of this capture new industries. As we lose jobs to foreign countries, especially high-skilled services jobs, we lose critical parts of our innovation infrastructure--labor, capital, knowledge, facilities, and technology-- and with them, the engine of job creation. To cash in on our crops, we are moving the farm--and with it, the promise of future economic harvests. On the other hand, you have the do anythings who will do anything that might save some jobs today, even if it means losing more tomorrow. Protectionism is their favorite tool--raising higher and higher trade barriers on the unproven argument that it will make it harder and harder for jobs to go overseas. In their attempts to build a tall wall to stop offshore outsourcing, the do anythings are falling into a trap. Trying to keep jobs in our own borders through protectionist measures will only keep other jobs out. It will also invite retaliation from beyond our borders that will cost us many of the millions of American jobs that are based on exports. The bottom line is that both the do nothings and the do anythings are wrong. Neither gets to the heart of the outsourcing problem--America's failure to innovate. That's what we all need to do something--the right thing--about. To stop offshore outsourcing and preserve American jobs, America needs to rise to the international competition and grow again through innovation. There is no other way. Leaving it all to the markets won't work. Hiding behind a wall won't work. Attempting to rig the game won't work. Only education, innovation, investment, trade, training and hard work will give us the growth and jobs we want and need. In my white paper, I lay out a number of suggestions about how we can achieve this. Let me highlight a few. First, we must encourage greater innovation and technology development. Basic research and development have been essential to creating the kind of technological breakthroughs that create jobs and reap profits. But the high costs and high risk associated with early stage R&D make the needed investments burdensome for many businesses. Federal funding is crucial here, but federal R&D spending as a percent of GDP has been in steady decline since the mid-1960's--it is less than half of what it was then. We need to reinvest in R&D. And we need to reorganize our innovation ecosystem to bring on innovations much faster. Tax incentives for R&D investment are one means of doing so. We should make the R&D tax credit permanent, and restructure it to spur collaborative research. We also need to look at the kind of R&D we do. Although the United States is overwhelmingly a service economy, our federal and corporate R&D is geared to manufacturing. Corporate R&D is now 68 percent of the total national R&D expenditures--and 62 percent of that amount is still focused on manufacturing. But much of the offshore outsourcing challenge will hit our services sector. That is why we must add a new services sector emphasis to our R&D investments. Government and industry should review their R&D portfolios and raise their investments in services research. Second, we must recognize that no matter how much we innovate, some people are going to lose the jobs they have now. We need to shore up our safety nets to help those hurt by offshore outsourcing. We need, for example, to extend coverage of Trade Adjustment Assistance programs to support and retrain service workers who lose their jobs due to trade. We should also experiment with new concepts like wage loss insurance, offered as part of severance and paid for by a small percentage of the employer's savings from offshoring. Third, we need to strengthen our trade policies. America will prosper by selling high value goods and services to other nations, not by shutting ourselves off from competition and markets. We need to innovate new goods and services and lower trade barriers abroad to start to reverse our trade deficits, so trade becomes a net jobs insourcer--not a net outsourcer. Overseas markets for American exports are critical to our economic well-being, already directly supporting 12 million American jobs and indirectly many, many more. We can't lose those jobs. We can and must add to them. But pirates do prey in international economic waters, stealing American jobs by breaking trade rules or exploiting trade loopholes. We need to crackdown on cheating--and that will take strong government action. Our Federal trade agencies are oriented to negotiating trade agreements; they focus less on the difficult implementation and enforcement of those agreements. We must do both. Foreign currency manipulation and intellectual property theft are forms of piracy that also must be fought and stopped. To illustrate the impact of unfair trade practices on American competitiveness, and what we can do about it, let me discuss one sector I have followed over the years--semiconductors, the highest end of U.S. manufacturing. In the 1980's, America was close to losing this sector to Japan. But we battled back, and thanks to innovations that grew from a creative public-private partnership called Sematech, we secured our world semiconductor dominance. It provided a key boost to our growth rate and IT leadership in the 90's. But now, we are at risk of losing that dominance--this time to China. The Chinese government is using straight industrial subsidies to capture semiconductors: from value-added tax subsidies--which are in violation of WTO agreements--to plant subsidies, to worker subsidies. China's currency manipulation further skews the competition. After neglecting this issue for too long, the U.S. Trade Representative finally insisted in March on consultations with the Chinese on VAT subsidies for semiconductors. If these talks fail, we should not hesitate to bring a WTO case against China. The loss of most of our semiconductor industry will not only weaken our economy--it will threaten our national security. The U.S. Department of Defense needs to reenter the R&D field with industry and work to spur new semiconductor advances. Fourth, our talent base is what ultimately sizes our economy, yet the number of U.S. graduates in engineering and physical science is dropping 1 percent a year. In China, 45 percent of all graduating students received their degree in engineering. In the United States, it's only 5 percent. Education reforms are no longer a policy option for us. They are a necessity, from kindergarten through university diploma. We also need a whole new approach to job training. This century, 60 percent of the new jobs will require skills held by only 20 percent of today's workforce. That is one huge skills gap that we must fill fast if we want to remain competitive. One way to do so is to build stronger partnerships between companies and community colleges to ensure workers get the training they need. Increasing the number of graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics through incentive grants and special scholarships is another way to fill the skills gap. Updating our methods of training to 21st century standards is also important. One way to do so is to train workers by using interactive internet gaming technology to foster better knowledge retention, promote continual skills updating, and even have fun. IT has transformed many sectors--it is time it got to training. Finally, we need to get our federal fiscal house in order. Our staggering $550 billion current annual deficit, and the course we are on to add $10 trillion to the deficit in the next decade, will eventually raise interest rates. The Medicare Trustees told us last month that our unfunded liabilities are $72 trillion. That's right--$72 trillion. Meanwhile, other nations are buying our debt and are acquiring too much influence over our future. Foreign nationals hold 46 percent of the U.S. national debt. China and Japan together hold $662 billion. We must get our fiscal house in order to stay strong, independent and competitive. To begin to act on such proposals and meet the challenges of offshore outsourcing, we first need an injection of political will--bipartisan political will--and that's not easy to find in Washington these days. In the mid-1980's, we faced a similar political deadlock on economic policy. We were in the midst of a recession and our two political parties were driven to the opposite poles of economic policy. Republicans favored deeper and deeper tax cuts to stimulate job growth while sending the deficit through the roof. Democrats pushed for more protectionism and an industrial policy. Neither side thought it could compromise without risking the support of its political base. It sounds familiar, doesn't it? The creation of a bipartisan commission that focused on the unemployment problem in a cool-headed, depoliticized way helped to break the deadlock. The President's Commission on Industrial Competitiveness, known as the ``Young Commission,'' was proposed by President Reagan, supported by the Democratic Congress, and chaired by Helwett-Packard CEO John Young. It brought all sides to the table and forced each to acknowledge the hard facts that shaped the debate. That Commission proposed the first generation of reforms that became a bipartisan competitiveness agenda. Public-private collaborations instead of industrial supports, R&D investments in information technology, became a foundation for the economic boom of the 90's. That is exactly the kind of initiative we need today: a new Young Commission, charged with analyzing the impact of global economic changes on the American economy, including the offshore outsourcing problem, and offering nonpartisan proposals to preserve our innovation infrastructure and create more high-wage American jobs. We face a dramatically different set of economic competitors now than in the 80's. We have a much more complex set of competitive problems. That's why we need a new generation of competitive solutions if we are going to restore our economic leadership. Some of these solutions will look similar to the kinds I am proposing in my white paper today. Some may not. But regardless, a consensus must be built that would rule out the extremes and rule in the progressive course needed to meet the new foreign competition. At the beginning of the last century, America faced equally profound economic and social changes. In his inaugural address, President Theodore Roosevelt noted that, ``Modern Life is both complex and intense. And the tremendous changes wrought by the extraordinary industrial development of the last half century are felt in every fiber of our social and political being.'' He went on to say that, ``There is no good reason why we should fear the future. But there is every reason why we should face it seriously-- neither hiding from ourselves the gravity of the problems before us, nor fearing to approach these problems with the unbending, unflinching purpose to solve them.'' To meet the challenge of offshore outsourcing, we need to summon up the same honesty, seriousness, and sense of national purpose that TR called for a century ago. If we do, I am confident we will prevail, the American economy will keep on growing, and the next generation of Americans will live better and better lives. To conclude, I would like to submit for the record for the benefit of my colleagues a summary of the white paper, which is posted on my Senate website with the title ``Offshore Outsourcing and America's Competitive Edge: Losing out in the High Technology R&D and Services Sectors,'' that my staff and I have worked on in the hope it will stimulate a better, broader response to the long-term implications of offshore outsourcing. I want to thank my staffers Elka Koehler, Sara Hagigh, Bill Bonvillian, and Chuck Ludlam for their work on this report. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the white paper summary in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my esteemed colleague from the State of Virginia, Senator Warner, in introducing The 21st Century Pell Grant Plus Act. This bill is intended to provide an immediate and direct response to the urgent need in this country to encourage greater numbers of graduates in the critical areas of math and science and foreign language. Specifically, our bill would provide financial incentives to American college students, via enhanced Pell grants, to pursue degrees in science, engineering, mathematics, and key foreign languages. These subject areas are critical for meeting our nation's economic and homeland security needs. Although the number of jobs requiring scientific and technical skills is projected to grow over the next decade, the last ten years have witnessed a significant decline in the number of relevant baccalaureate degrees awarded by U.S. institutions of higher education. Recent reports have highlighted the decline in science and engineering graduates in our country, which has threatened the United States' worldwide dominance in science and innovation. Foreign advances in basic science now often exceed those in the United States. To exacerbate the matter, future demographics signal that many of the presently employed engineers and scientists who entered the workforce in the 1960s and 1970s will retire during the next decade. Unfortunately, their children are not following them into the same professions. Many of our competitors in the world market are not experiencing these same problems. The universities in some European and Asian countries are attracting science and engineering majors at much higher rates than the universities in the United States. For example, China graduated three times as many engineering graduates than the United States did in 1999. In 2000, there were 24 nations who awarded a higher percentage of science and engineering degrees than the United States did. In that same year, the percentage of students earning science degrees in Finland was 2.5 times higher than in the United States. Graduate education trends are no better. According to National Science Foundation indicators, between 1986 and 1999, China produced science and engineering doctorates at an average annual growth rate of 36.5 percent. By comparison, the United States had an average annual growth rate of just 2.2 percent during the same period. We must also keep in mind that of all the science and engineering doctoral degrees earned in the United States in 1999, 48.6 percent of them were earned by non-U.S. citizens. I noted in my recent offshore outsourcing study, now posted on my website, that as global competition for technical talent intensifies, our economic security depends on producing U.S.-born science and engineering graduates. Not being able to fill the jobs in this country with U.S. citizens is also a threat to our national security. Thus, it is imperative that our higher education system, which is the best in the world, train more individuals in science and technology. Our bill provides a simple and efficient solution to this problem. Under our proposal, any student who qualifies for a Pell Grant and majors in science, engineering, mathematics, or certain foreign languages would be eligible to receive a grant that is double the size of the original award. Every two years the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security, and the director of the National Science Foundation will develop a list of engineering, mathematics, science, and foreign language majors, degrees, certificates, or programs that if pursued by a student, may enable that student to receive the increased Federal Pell Grant amount. Science, engineering, technology, and innovation are key to our economic growth, prosperity, and security. The 21st Century Federal Pell Grant Plus Act aims to strengthen our technical workforce, and thus our economic and homeland security, by encouraging more of our college students to study science, engineering, mathematics, and foreign languages. I urge my colleagues to act favorably on this measure. I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a man who some have appropriately described as a true gentleman as well as an outstanding leader in engineering and science. Dr. John H. Hopps died on May 14, 2004 at 65 years of age. He has advised my office on our nation's science talent issues for the past three years, and I want to dedicate today's new bill to him. At the time of his death, he was serving as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and National Laboratories, and Deputy Director of Defense Research and Engineering. He accepted this dual position out of a strong sense of national service after the September 11 attack. The science community has lost a member who has served as an inspiration to many, including members of my staff, for his commitment to his profession and his unique approaches to developing our technical workforce. Among his many achievements, including many in University education and at NSF, I would note that Dr. Hopps was the author of numerous scholarly and scientific papers, and was recognized as one of the top African Americans in Technology in 2004. I might also mention that in addition to his intellectual prowess, he was passionate about athletics--a winning combination. As we introduce this bill to highlight the importance of this profession, I thought it was appropriate to recognize Dr. Hopps, and thank my colleagues for this opportunity.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my esteemed colleague from the State of Virginia, Senator Warner, in introducing The 21st Century Pell Grant Plus Act. This bill is intended to provide an immediate and direct response to the urgent need in this country to encourage greater numbers of graduates in the critical areas of math and science and foreign language. Specifically, our bill would provide financial incentives to American college students, via enhanced Pell grants, to pursue degrees in science, engineering, mathematics, and key foreign languages. These subject areas are critical for meeting our nation's economic and homeland security needs. Although the number of jobs requiring scientific and technical skills is projected to grow over the next decade, the last ten years have witnessed a significant decline in the number of relevant baccalaureate degrees awarded by U.S. institutions of higher education. Recent reports have highlighted the decline in science and engineering graduates in our country, which has threatened the United States' worldwide dominance in science and innovation. Foreign advances in basic science now often exceed those in the United States. To exacerbate the matter, future demographics signal that many of the presently employed engineers and scientists who entered the workforce in the 1960s and 1970s will retire during the next decade. Unfortunately, their children are not following them into the same professions. Many of our competitors in the world market are not experiencing these same problems. The universities in some European and Asian countries are attracting science and engineering majors at much higher rates than the universities in the United States. For example, China graduated three times as many engineering graduates than the United States did in 1999. In 2000, there were 24 nations who awarded a higher percentage of science and engineering degrees than the United States did. In that same year, the percentage of students earning science degrees in Finland was 2.5 times higher than in the United States. Graduate education trends are no better. According to National Science Foundation indicators, between 1986 and 1999, China produced science and engineering doctorates at an average annual growth rate of 36.5 percent. By comparison, the United States had an average annual growth rate of just 2.2 percent during the same period. We must also keep in mind that of all the science and engineering doctoral degrees earned in the United States in 1999, 48.6 percent of them were earned by non-U.S. citizens. I noted in my recent offshore outsourcing study, now posted on my website, that as global competition for technical talent intensifies, our economic security depends on producing U.S.-born science and engineering graduates. Not being able to fill the jobs in this country with U.S. citizens is also a threat to our national security. Thus, it is imperative that our higher education system, which is the best in the world, train more individuals in science and technology. Our bill provides a simple and efficient solution to this problem. Under our proposal, any student who qualifies for a Pell Grant and majors in science, engineering, mathematics, or certain foreign languages would be eligible to receive a grant that is double the size of the original award. Every two years the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security, and the director of the National Science Foundation will develop a list of engineering, mathematics, science, and foreign language majors, degrees, certificates, or programs that if pursued by a student, may enable that student to receive the increased Federal Pell Grant amount. Science, engineering, technology, and innovation are key to our economic growth, prosperity, and security. The 21st Century Federal Pell Grant Plus Act aims to strengthen our technical workforce, and thus our economic and homeland security, by encouraging more of our college students to study science, engineering, mathematics, and foreign languages. I urge my colleagues to act favorably on this measure. I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a man who some have appropriately described as a true gentleman as well as an outstanding leader in engineering and science. Dr. John H. Hopps died on May 14, 2004 at 65 years of age. He has advised my office on our nation's science talent issues for the past three years, and I want to dedicate today's new bill to him. At the time of his death, he was serving as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and National Laboratories, and Deputy Director of Defense Research and Engineering. He accepted this dual position out of a strong sense of national service after the September 11 attack. The science community has lost a member who has served as an inspiration to many, including members of my staff, for his commitment to his profession and his unique approaches to developing our technical workforce. Among his many achievements, including many in University education and at NSF, I would note that Dr. Hopps was the author of numerous scholarly and scientific papers, and was recognized as one of the top African Americans in Technology in 2004. I might also mention that in addition to his intellectual prowess, he was passionate about athletics--a winning combination. As we introduce this bill to highlight the importance of this profession, I thought it was appropriate to recognize Dr. Hopps, and thank my colleagues for this opportunity.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senators Brownback, Clinton, Santorum and Landrieu, the Children and Media Research Advancement Act, or CAMRA Act. Mr. President, we believe there is an urgent need to establish a Federal role for targeting research on the impact of media on children. Almost 5 years ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended no television viewing for children under the age of 2. They subsequently recommended limiting all screen time exposure, including television, videos, computer and video games, to 1-2 hours per day for older children. The Academy based these decisions on their best sense of how to facilitate the healthy development of children. However, not enough research had been conducted in this area to know if these particular recommendations were good advice or not. Five years later, we still have very limited information about the role of media, particularly the role of digital media, in very early development. Why not? None of our Federal agencies are charged with ensuring an ongoing funding base for a coherent research agenda about the role of media in children's lives. From the cradle to the grave, we now live and develop in a world of media--a world that is increasingly digital, and a world where access is at our fingertips. This emerging digital world is well known to our children, but its effects on their development are not well understood. From ages 2-18, children are spending an average of 5 and a half hours with media each day. For those who are under age 6, 2 hours of exposure to screen media each day is common, even for those who are under age 2. That is about as much time as children under age 6 spend playing outdoors, and it is much more time than they spend reading or being read to by their parents. How does this investment of time affect their development? We have all wondered about the answer to this question. Take the Columbine incident. After two adolescent boys shot and killed some of their teachers, classmates, and then turned their guns on themselves at Columbine High School, we asked ourselves if media played some role in this tragedy. Did these boys learn to kill in part from playing first-person shooter video games like Doom where they acted as a killer? Were they rehearsing criminal activities when playing this game? We looked to the research community for an answer. In the violence and media area, we had invested in research more so than in any other area, and as a result, we knew more. Therefore, some answers were forthcoming about how this tragedy could have taken place as well as steps that could be taken, such as media education programs, which could prevent similar events from happening in the future. Even so, there is still a considerable amount of speculation about the more complex questions. Why did these particular boys, for example, pull the trigger in real life while others who played Doom confine their aggressive acts to the gaming context? Consider the national health problem of childhood obesity. Does time spent viewing screens and its accompanying sedentary life styles contribute to childhood obesity? Or is the constant bombardment of advertisements for sugar-coated cereals, snack foods, and candy that pervade children's television advertisements the culprit? What will happen when pop-up advertisements begin to appear on children's cell phones that specifically target them for the junk food that they like best? The answer to the obesity and media question is also complex. We need more answers. A recent report linked very early television viewing with later symptoms that are common in children who have attention deficit disorders. Does television viewing cause attention deficits, or do children who have attention deficits find television viewing experiences more engaging than kids who don't have attention problems? Or do parents whose children have difficulty sustaining attention let them watch more television to encourage more sitting and less hyperactive behavior? How will Internet experiences, particularly those where children move rapidly across different windows, influence attention patterns and attention problems? Once again, we don't know the answer. Many of us find that our children are becoming increasingly materialistic. Does exposure to commercial advertising and even the ``good life'' experienced by media characters partly explain materialistic attitudes? We're not sure. What will happen when our children will be able to click on their television screen and go directly to sites that advertise the products that they see in those favorite programs? Many of us believe that time spent with computers is good for our children, teaching them the skills that they will need for success in the 21st century. Are we right? How is time spent with computers different from time spent with television? Is the time spent with media the key to success, or is the content? The questions about how media affect the development of our children are clearly important, abundant, and complex. Unfortunately, the answers to these questions are in short supply. Such gaps in our knowledge base limit our ability to make informed decisions about media policy. We know that media are important. Over the years, we have held numerous hearings in these chambers about how exposure to media violence affects childhood aggression. We have passed legislation to maximize the documented benefits of exposure to educational media, such as the Children's Television Act which requires broadcasters to provide educational and informational television programs for children. We acted to protect our children from harm by passing the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act which provides safeguards from commercial exploitation for our youth as they explore the Internet, a popular pastime for them. But there are many areas where our understanding is preliminary at best, particularly those that involve the effect of our newer digital media. For example, we have passed numerous laws about sexually explicit content, such as the Communications Decency Act, the Child Online Protection Act, and the Children's Internet Protection Act to shield children from exposure to online content that is deemed harmful to minors. However, we know very little about how this kind of exposure affects children's development or about how to prevent children from falling prey to adult strangers who approach them online. In order to ensure that we are doing our very best for our children, the behavioral and health recommendations and public policy decisions we make should be based on objective behavioral, social, and scientific research. Yet no Federal research agency has responsibility for overseeing and setting a coherent media research agenda that can guide these policy decisions. Instead, Federal agencies fund media research in a piece meal fashion, resulting in a patch work quilt of findings. We can do better than that. The bill we are introducing today would remedy this problem. The CAMRA Act will provide an overarching view of media effects by establishing a program on Children and Media within the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. This program of research, to be vetted by the National Academy of Sciences, will fund and energize a coherent program of research that illuminates the role of media in children's cognitive, social, emotional, physical, and behavioral development. The research will cover all forms of electronic media, including television, movies, DVDs, interactive video games, and the Internet and will encourage research with children of all ages-- even babies and toddlers. The bill also calls for a report to Congress about the effectiveness of this research program in filling this void in our knowledge base. In order to accomplish these goals, we are authorizing $90 million dollars to be phased in gradually across the next five years. The cost to our budget is minimal. The benefits to our youth and our nation's families are immeasurable. Our children live in the information age. Our nation has one of the most powerful and sophisticated information technology systems in the world. While this system entertains us, it is not harmless entertainment. Media have the potential to facilitate the healthy growth of our children. They also have the potential to harm. We have a stake in finding out exactly what that role is. Access to that knowledge requires us to make an investment: an investment in research, an investment in and for our children, an investment in our collective future. By passing the Children and Media Research Advancement Act, we can advance knowledge and enhance the constructive effects of media while minimizing the negative ones. We can make future media policies that are grounded in a solid knowledge base. We can be proactive, rather than reactive. In so doing, we build a better nation for our youth, and we create a better foundation to guide future media policies about the digital experiences that pervade our children's daily lives. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senators Brownback, Clinton, Santorum and Landrieu, the Children and Media Research Advancement Act, or CAMRA Act. Mr. President, we believe there is an urgent need to establish a Federal role for targeting research on the impact of media on children. Almost 5 years ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended no television viewing for children under the age of 2. They subsequently recommended limiting all screen time exposure, including television, videos, computer and video games, to 1-2 hours per day for older children. The Academy based these decisions on their best sense of how to facilitate the healthy development of children. However, not enough research had been conducted in this area to know if these particular recommendations were good advice or not. Five years later, we still have very limited information about the role of media, particularly the role of digital media, in very early development. Why not? None of our Federal agencies are charged with ensuring an ongoing funding base for a coherent research agenda about the role of media in children's lives. From the cradle to the grave, we now live and develop in a world of media--a world that is increasingly digital, and a world where access is at our fingertips. This emerging digital world is well known to our children, but its effects on their development are not well understood. From ages 2-18, children are spending an average of 5 and a half hours with media each day. For those who are under age 6, 2 hours of exposure to screen media each day is common, even for those who are under age 2. That is about as much time as children under age 6 spend playing outdoors, and it is much more time than they spend reading or being read to by their parents. How does this investment of time affect their development? We have all wondered about the answer to this question. Take the Columbine incident. After two adolescent boys shot and killed some of their teachers, classmates, and then turned their guns on themselves at Columbine High School, we asked ourselves if media played some role in this tragedy. Did these boys learn to kill in part from playing first-person shooter video games like Doom where they acted as a killer? Were they rehearsing criminal activities when playing this game? We looked to the research community for an answer. In the violence and media area, we had invested in research more so than in any other area, and as a result, we knew more. Therefore, some answers were forthcoming about how this tragedy could have taken place as well as steps that could be taken, such as media education programs, which could prevent similar events from happening in the future. Even so, there is still a considerable amount of speculation about the more complex questions. Why did these particular boys, for example, pull the trigger in real life while others who played Doom confine their aggressive acts to the gaming context? Consider the national health problem of childhood obesity. Does time spent viewing screens and its accompanying sedentary life styles contribute to childhood obesity? Or is the constant bombardment of advertisements for sugar-coated cereals, snack foods, and candy that pervade children's television advertisements the culprit? What will happen when pop-up advertisements begin to appear on children's cell phones that specifically target them for the junk food that they like best? The answer to the obesity and media question is also complex. We need more answers. A recent report linked very early television viewing with later symptoms that are common in children who have attention deficit disorders. Does television viewing cause attention deficits, or do children who have attention deficits find television viewing experiences more engaging than kids who don't have attention problems? Or do parents whose children have difficulty sustaining attention let them watch more television to encourage more sitting and less hyperactive behavior? How will Internet experiences, particularly those where children move rapidly across different windows, influence attention patterns and attention problems? Once again, we don't know the answer. Many of us find that our children are becoming increasingly materialistic. Does exposure to commercial advertising and even the ``good life'' experienced by media characters partly explain materialistic attitudes? We're not sure. What will happen when our children will be able to click on their television screen and go directly to sites that advertise the products that they see in those favorite programs? Many of us believe that time spent with computers is good for our children, teaching them the skills that they will need for success in the 21st century. Are we right? How is time spent with computers different from time spent with television? Is the time spent with media the key to success, or is the content? The questions about how media affect the development of our children are clearly important, abundant, and complex. Unfortunately, the answers to these questions are in short supply. Such gaps in our knowledge base limit our ability to make informed decisions about media policy. We know that media are important. Over the years, we have held numerous hearings in these chambers about how exposure to media violence affects childhood aggression. We have passed legislation to maximize the documented benefits of exposure to educational media, such as the Children's Television Act which requires broadcasters to provide educational and informational television programs for children. We acted to protect our children from harm by passing the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act which provides safeguards from commercial exploitation for our youth as they explore the Internet, a popular pastime for them. But there are many areas where our understanding is preliminary at best, particularly those that involve the effect of our newer digital media. For example, we have passed numerous laws about sexually explicit content, such as the Communications Decency Act, the Child Online Protection Act, and the Children's Internet Protection Act to shield children from exposure to online content that is deemed harmful to minors. However, we know very little about how this kind of exposure affects children's development or about how to prevent children from falling prey to adult strangers who approach them online. In order to ensure that we are doing our very best for our children, the behavioral and health recommendations and public policy decisions we make should be based on objective behavioral, social, and scientific research. Yet no Federal research agency has responsibility for overseeing and setting a coherent media research agenda that can guide these policy decisions. Instead, Federal agencies fund media research in a piece meal fashion, resulting in a patch work quilt of findings. We can do better than that. The bill we are introducing today would remedy this problem. The CAMRA Act will provide an overarching view of media effects by establishing a program on Children and Media within the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. This program of research, to be vetted by the National Academy of Sciences, will fund and energize a coherent program of research that illuminates the role of media in children's cognitive, social, emotional, physical, and behavioral development. The research will cover all forms of electronic media, including television, movies, DVDs, interactive video games, and the Internet and will encourage research with children of all ages-- even babies and toddlers. The bill also calls for a report to Congress about the effectiveness of this research program in filling this void in our knowledge base. In order to accomplish these goals, we are authorizing $90 million dollars to be phased in gradually across the next five years. The cost to our budget is minimal. The benefits to our youth and our nation's families are immeasurable. Our children live in the information age. Our nation has one of the most powerful and sophisticated information technology systems in the world. While this system entertains us, it is not harmless entertainment. Media have the potential to facilitate the healthy growth of our children. They also have the potential to harm. We have a stake in finding out exactly what that role is. Access to that knowledge requires us to make an investment: an investment in research, an investment in and for our children, an investment in our collective future. By passing the Children and Media Research Advancement Act, we can advance knowledge and enhance the constructive effects of media while minimizing the negative ones. We can make future media policies that are grounded in a solid knowledge base. We can be proactive, rather than reactive. In so doing, we build a better nation for our youth, and we create a better foundation to guide future media policies about the digital experiences that pervade our children's daily lives. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. As my colleagues know, much has been done at both the national and State levels, including our own States, to help clean up contaminated brownfield properties. However, the Federal Tax Code contains a potential roadblock. Section 512 of the Internal Revenue Code establishes an unrelated business income tax, or UBIT, on the income that a tax-exempt entity derives from a trade or business that is not substantially related to its exempt purpose. The UBIT applies to gains from the sale or exchange of property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of such a trade or business. The UBIT also applies to gains from the sale or exchange of any debt-financed property. These UBIT provisions have reduced the economic attractiveness of investments in remediation and redevelopment of the nation's brownfield sites by tax-exempt entities like university endowments and private pension funds. According to the Chamber of Commerce, tax-exempt entities hold about $7 trillion in financial assets. This is a very large pot of money that could be tapped for brownfield cleanups.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of this resolution to support the designation of May 3 through May 7, 2004 as National Charter Schools Week. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to recognize and honor the success of charters schools across the nation. I strongly believe that charter schools enrich our nation and enhance our public education system by providing diverse and innovative educational options for parents and their children. Currently, nearly 3,000 charter schools are operating in 37 States and the District of Columbia and are serving about 750,000 students. We must continue to sponsor and encourage the development of charter schools. The fact is that nearly 40 percent of charter schools report having a waiting list. Indeed, with these students, we could fill over 1,000 new charter schools. One of the many positive aspects of the charter movement is that it has managed to bring together educators, parents, community activities, business leaders, and politicians from across the political spectrum to support a common goal of better educating our children by offering more choice and more accountability within our public schools. In many cases, charter schools are built from the ground up by educational leaders and thinkers, working with teachers, parents and local leaders, to reinvent the public school with fresh ideas and expanded options. To their credit, studies have shown that student achievement gains in public schools are substantial and that charter schools are serving a higher percentage of low-income and minority students than the traditional school system. Now, more than ever, we must continue to support and encourage the charter movement to give parents and children meaningful public school choices, particularly to children in low-performing schools. I am, therefore, most pleased to join my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, along with Senators Carper, Durbin, DeWine, Coleman, Landrieu, Dole, Sununu, Domenici, Craig, Alexander and Frist, in recognizing the success of charter schools and the value they add to public education. I also commend the Charter School Leadership Council and express my full support for the activities planned this week to celebrate charter schools, teachers and developers, and the parents and children they serve.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, Long Island Sound holds a special place in our Nation's history, its present, and its future. It has played a key role in the development of the Nation, from the early days of the colonists, through to this day. Its bounty nourished the colonists, its coves sheltered their ships, and provided harbors for trade. Today, Long Island Sound remains a vital resource to the area: its biological resources provide jobs, and its beauty draws tourists who come to visit the Sound to fish, to sail, and simply to enjoy its shores. It is estimated that these activities contribute approximately $5 billion annually to the economy of the region. This is not so surprising when you realize that over 28 million people live within 50 miles of the Sound. It is a blessing that so many people can enjoy and benefit from Long Island Sound, in so many ways. But it is also a challenge that threatens the future of the Sound. Less than 20 percent of the shoreline of Long Island Sound is accessible to the public, and every year, more shoreline is developed and removed from public access. Marshes and estuaries around the Sound are being drained and developed at an alarming rate. These tidal marshes are critical for the ecological health of the Sound, which is the foundation of the Sound's vital economic contribution to the region. In short, to preserve the blessings of Long Island Sound for future generations, this generation must act. This is why Senator Clinton and I have introduced the Long Island Sound Stewardship Act. The Long Island Sound Stewardship Act builds on the years of good work done by the Long Island Sound Study Group. This group, made up of dedicated people from Federal, State, and local government agencies, non-government organizations, and private interests, has worked together to develop a vision of good stewardship for Long Island Sound. Many of them are here today, and I thank them for their hard work. Our bill will help us achieve their vision, by providing funds and a congressional mandate to work towards this vision. Under this bill, those who agree to preserve public access or ecological characteristics of their land can be recognized by having the land designated as a Long Island Stewardship Site. The bill also provides funding to facilitate the preservation of these characteristics. Most important, the bill achieves these ends through a voluntary program, a cooperative venture between all the stakeholders: public and private, Federal, State, and local. The Long Island Sound Study has already set a fine example of cooperation and vision. I introduce this bill to further that vision. I look forward to working with the Connecticut and New York delegations, and all the stakeholders, as we develop and refine this bill. I am confident that working together, we will preserve the blessings of Long Island Sound. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Long Island Sound Stewardship Act be printed in the record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, Long Island Sound holds a special place in our Nation's history, its present, and its future. It has played a key role in the development of the Nation, from the early days of the colonists, through to this day. Its bounty nourished the colonists, its coves sheltered their ships, and provided harbors for trade. Today, Long Island Sound remains a vital resource to the area: its biological resources provide jobs, and its beauty draws tourists who come to visit the Sound to fish, to sail, and simply to enjoy its shores. It is estimated that these activities contribute approximately $5 billion annually to the economy of the region. This is not so surprising when you realize that over 28 million people live within 50 miles of the Sound. It is a blessing that so many people can enjoy and benefit from Long Island Sound, in so many ways. But it is also a challenge that threatens the future of the Sound. Less than 20 percent of the shoreline of Long Island Sound is accessible to the public, and every year, more shoreline is developed and removed from public access. Marshes and estuaries around the Sound are being drained and developed at an alarming rate. These tidal marshes are critical for the ecological health of the Sound, which is the foundation of the Sound's vital economic contribution to the region. In short, to preserve the blessings of Long Island Sound for future generations, this generation must act. This is why Senator Clinton and I have introduced the Long Island Sound Stewardship Act. The Long Island Sound Stewardship Act builds on the years of good work done by the Long Island Sound Study Group. This group, made up of dedicated people from Federal, State, and local government agencies, non-government organizations, and private interests, has worked together to develop a vision of good stewardship for Long Island Sound. Many of them are here today, and I thank them for their hard work. Our bill will help us achieve their vision, by providing funds and a congressional mandate to work towards this vision. Under this bill, those who agree to preserve public access or ecological characteristics of their land can be recognized by having the land designated as a Long Island Stewardship Site. The bill also provides funding to facilitate the preservation of these characteristics. Most important, the bill achieves these ends through a voluntary program, a cooperative venture between all the stakeholders: public and private, Federal, State, and local. The Long Island Sound Study has already set a fine example of cooperation and vision. I introduce this bill to further that vision. I look forward to working with the Connecticut and New York delegations, and all the stakeholders, as we develop and refine this bill. I am confident that working together, we will preserve the blessings of Long Island Sound. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Long Island Sound Stewardship Act be printed in the record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I will vote in support of the Pension Funding Equity Act conference agreement--although I do so with some reluctance. On January 28, 2004, the Senate passed H.R. 3108 with broad bipartisan support. The Senate-passed version addressed the critical need to update the interest rate for the purposes of calculating pension contributions. It also provided deficit reduction relief for single-employer pension plans, and multiemployer plan relief. It was a balanced bill which recognized that all companies holding defined benefit plans are suffering from the same market ills. Apparently, because of heavy-handed pressure from the White House, the conference agreement before us omits critical relief for all but 4 percent of multiemployer pension plans, to the detriment of thousands of union workers and small businesses that participate in multiemployer pension plans. In my State of Connecticut, for example, the economic downturn has been devastating for the Connecticut Iron Workers pension fund. This plan, which was fully funded a few years ago, now faces a financial crisis, and is desperately in need of the relief which is denied under this bill, but which is being offered to 35 million workers covered under single employer plans. Senate conferees demonstrated an admirable willingness to reach a reasonable compromise on the multiemployer pension relief provision. This compromise would have limited the multiemployer relief provisions to cover only 20 percent of multiemployer plans. I understand conferees were willing to compromise even further. But the White House was adamant in their opposition to multiemployer plan provisions, which is hard to understand because, historically, multiemployer plans place very little burden on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. I wish the President had taken a different stance. I understand that my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, will soon introduce legislation to address the concerns of multiemployer pension plans. I intend to support and cosponsor this legislation, and would hope that Congress would act swiftly to pass such a measure. In the meantime, I will vote for this bill, because I believe it is essential that we update the interest rate formula for pension calculations prior to April 15, when the first quarterly payments of the year become due. Without this relief, many pension plans will face unmanageable financial strains, and that will ultimately hurt workers. Companies will be forced to grapple with decisions about layoffs, pension cutbacks, and withholding critical investments. Like many companies around the Nation, Connecticut hospitals, for example, and other healthcare employers in my State, have been hard hit by poor asset returns, declining interest rates, and spiraling pension plan costs. Without this replacement to the 30-year Treasury bond interest rate, I am informed that Connecticut hospitals will face financial hits that they simply cannot absorb and will be forced to cut benefits. I will vote in support of H.R. 3108 so that millions of current workers covered by defined benefit plans will not see their benefits slashed, and so that additional resources will be available for investment and job creation. I urge my colleagues, however, to support legislation to provide relief for multiemployer pension plans, and I urge the White House to listen to reason.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in praise of the exemplary efforts of the construction and maintenance crews, engineers, and State and Federal transportation officials to quickly re-open Interstate 95 in Bridgeport, Connecticut, last week after a devastating fire destroyed a portion of the highway. On behalf of the people of Connecticut, I offer them my deepest thanks for the hard work--and teamwork--that has restored a vital artery in our nation's transportation system faster than anyone thought possible. On Thursday evening, March 25, a car and a tanker truck collided while traveling along I-95 South in Bridgeport. The tanker truck, carrying 12,000 gallons of home heating oil, tipped over and slid along the barriers before stopping and, minutes later, the truck's contents ignited, sending flames 50 to 60 feet into the air. Remarkably, no one was killed or injured in the accident, and within 20 minutes firefighters had extinguished the blaze, but the damage had been done. Both the existing southbound bridge and a new bridge that had just been built alongside of it were severely damaged. I-95 in Connecticut--a traffic corridor of national significance that links New York City with Boston--was immediately shut down in both directions over a distance spanning several exits. This caused major traffic problems, especially for tractor-trailer drivers. Engineers determined that the northbound overpass could be shored up and made structurally sound again, and additional supports were erected to reinforce the northbound span, which was reopened to traffic on Sunday night, March 28. The southbound lanes, however, were beyond easy repair, and engineers concluded that a temporary bridge would have to be erected to support traffic on the southbound span of the highway. A temporary bridge was supplied by Acrow Corp of Carlstadt, NJ. It arrived in pieces and was assembled by crews from the Connecticut Department of Transportation, DeMatteo Construction, and Brunalli Construction. By Sunday morning, the skeleton of the temporary bridge had been fully assembled. A steel deck was then laid on top of it and the surface was paved. The southbound lanes of I-95 were reopened on Wednesday morning at 3:30 a.m. Approximately 120,000 vehicles pass over this span of I-95 every day, and officials initially estimated that the highway would be closed for three to four weeks. But the crews that performed the work managed to re-open it in just five days. This accomplishment cannot be overstated. I rise today to say thank you to the Connecticut DOT employees, Federal DOT officials, contractors and others who worked around the clock to make it possible. Your service to our State is deeply appreciated, and we commend you for your excellent work.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President I rise to discuss S. 2207, Pregnancy and Trauma Care Access Protection Act of 2004, and S. 1637, the Jumpstart our Business Strength (JOBS) Act. Unfortunately I did not have an opportunity to cast a cloture vote yesterday on S. 2207 due to my observance of Passover in Connecticut. The medical malpractice problem is a difficult issue and one about which I have long been concerned. We need to strike the appropriate balance so that we have a system that ensures those harmed by medical negligence are justly compensated while at the same time not set up a system that unnecessarily inflates insurance rates. I have long sought to address this issue in a fair and rational way. For instance, I authored several bipartisan and balanced reform bills with Senator McConnell in the past. Unfortunately, the bills that have been before the Senate this Congress have been neither bipartisan nor balanced. This includes the Pregnancy and Trauma Care Access Protection Act of 2004. S. 2207 goes further than necessary and than advertised, offering limited liability not only to doctors, but also to medical device manufacturers and drug companies. Furthermore, the $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages included in this bill may often prove too low for many seriously harmed patients. I believe in meaningful and fair medical malpractice reform; but this bill and the others debated on the floor this session simply do not fit that description. For these reasons I would have voted against cloture for S. 2207, which failed to receive the needed 60 votes by 49 to 48. I was also unable to cast a second cloture vote on a motion to recommit S. 1637, the ``Jumpstart our Business Strength (JOBS) Act,'' a bill to repeal the foreign sales corporation tax regime, and its successor, the extraterritorial income tax regime, that have been found to be an illegal export subsidy by the World Trade Organization. I voted against the first cloture filing on March 24 and, had I been present on April 7, I would also have voted against cloture. The cloture vote failed to meet the 60-vote threshold by 50 to 47. I support many of the provisions of the underlying bill, S. 1637, which provides tax relief to domestic manufacturers, curtails abusive tax shelters, and contains a number of international tax simplification and reform measures. Cloture would have prevented debate on a number of amendments that deserve to be debated and voted upon. The Senate must renew efforts to bring the FSC/ETI bill to the floor, to pass S. 1637, while at the same time allowing open debate and votes on issues of importance to American employees.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Lieberman pertaining to the introduction of S. 2305 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Karen Volker, a foreign policy fellow in my office, be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of the day.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise today, along with my friend and colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, to introduce the Greater Middle East and Central Asia Development Act of 2004. This would be a Marshall Plan for the Greater Middle East. Let me put it in the context of the news we are receiving from Iraq today. While public opinion surveys that have been taken by independent groups have shown recently that the substantial majority of the people of Iraq, quite understandably, are grateful that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, and while a majority of them are optimistic about their future--a better life for themselves and their children--it is clear, of course, every day there is a growing group of Saddam loyalists left over from the previous regime, and terrorists, fanatical jihadists, insurgents who will attack and kill Americans and Iraqis to stop the forward movement of progress and freedom and prosperity in Iraq. We clearly have to respond to that with force in defense of our values, of liberty, of freedom for the Iraqis. We have, if you will allow me to use Scriptural words, to employ our swords. But it is also true in Iraq and throughout the world that we will only win the war on terrorism if we use not just our swords but plowshares as well. That is what this piece of legislation Senator Hagel and I are introducing today is all about. I want to speak for a few moments about it. Senator Hagel will be over later in the day to offer his remarks on the bill. Madam President, a half century ago, at the dawn of the cold war, Congress authorized the Marshall Plan for Europe--a bold initiative inspired by Secretary of State George Marshall and premised on a simple but transformational idea: that to stop communism, we had to rebuild and democratize Europe. The Marshall Plan offered monetary aid, of course, but it offered much more. It was a national commitment of American values to transform the future of Europe by offering the Europeans the blessings of liberty and prosperity, and thereby linking, in the deepest way, Europe's future with our own. The same ideals and goals of the Marshall Plan can and must now be applied to the people of the Greater Middle East. The predominantly Muslim countries of the Middle East and Central Asia have, unfortunately, emerged at this moment in history as the cradle of fanatical Islamic jihadist terrorism. There is a great civil war being fought in the Arab world between the peace-loving, law- abiding majority of Muslims and the minority of jihadists. This civil war unleashed the violent terrorist forces that led to September 11, 2001, the attacks on America; March 11, 2004, the attacks on Spain; and the repeated attacks in places such as Fallujah in Iraq that are occurring almost every day. The outcome of our war against Islamic terrorists will be determined by the way in which we use our swords and our plowshares to determine the outcome of the civil war in the Muslim world. To stop al-Qaida and other terrorist groups from expanding this civil war and recruiting a new generation of killers, we must use all of our military power to capture and kill the enemy. We must drain the swamps of terrorists in Iraq and wherever they grow. At the same time we must combat the conditions that fuel terrorism and drive recruits to al-Qaida and hate and despair. To do this we must seed the garden, not just drain the swamp, with freedom, hope, and economic opportunity. If we invest in the political and economic future of the Middle East and Central Asia in our time, as we did in Europe with the Marshall plan after the end of the Second World War and at the beginning of the cold war, we will expand democracy's reach, choke off the terrorists, strengthen our own national security, and move the world toward greater peace. That is the underlying premise of the legislation Senator Hagel and I are introducing today. It is designed to complement our swords in the war against terrorism with the plowshares of political and economic assistance. Our legislation is not soft. It is not welfare. It is in fact a different kind of warfare on the battlefield of ideas and ideologies, visions for the future. Although there are compelling humanitarian reasons for offering assistance to the people of the Greater Middle East, there are also compelling American national security reasons for doing so. The political and economic assistance Senator Hagel and I are proposing might be though of as additional weapons in America's arsenal in the fight against terrorists. Let me summarize what our legislation contains. We advocate making a major financial investment in the future of the Middle East and Central Asia. How we propose making this investment is in some ways as significant as how much we propose investing. The key to the success of our Marshall plan for the Middle East, as it was of the Marshall plan for Europe, is it is not a detailed list of programs. It is a statement of values and purposes. It is the creation of a structure to carry out those values and purposes, and it is a commitment of American and international resources to realize those purposes. Our legislation would create three new international institutions that will support economic and political development in the Greater Middle East and Central Asia, open institutions that will require participation by representatives of the countries benefiting from this support, a partnership. Institutionalizing involvement of a wide group of donors and recipients will promote better cooperation and give ownership and accountability to the impacted nations and to the private reformers in those nations--key ingredients to successful foreign assistance. The first new institution Senator Hagel and I would create is a trust for democracy for the Middle East that would support the development of civil society in the region, not unlike efforts we made to help those who had the dream of freedom and opportunity in countries of the former Soviet Union, now living to experience that dream. Modeled on the Balkan Trust for Democracy, this institution we propose would marshal the support of civic leaders and reformers as well as private foundations to provide grants to worthy grassroots projects that support free association and promote civic responsibility, the building blocks of democracy. Second, Senator Hagel and I would build a multilateral development foundation that would provide a second track for assistance, together with other donors, assistance that would be additional to that already being provided bilaterally by the U.S. and other international donors. This foundation will be a public place where we and other donors can come together with the countries of the region to set priorities together, to work together for the greater good of this troubled region. Many countries in the Greater Middle East are richer than they are developed, meaning their wealth has not translated to economic progress for most of the people. We would invite all governments in the region to sit on the board of this foundation, and we would ask all to contribute financially and programmatically to it. Finally, our legislation would establish a new Middle East and Central Asia development bank, like the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. This bank would include private sector participation and would underwrite large-scale infrastructure projects in the region. It would also have a microcredit lending facility and a project development facility. We also believe it is important and necessary to make American assistance more effective. That is why we are calling for the establishment of an office of the coordinator for Greater Middle East and Central Asia at our Department of State. The creation of such an office would help ensure all assistance provided by any government agency of ours is in line with the overarching goals and objectives of our foreign policy. It would also give other donors and countries of the region a simple place to go when seeking information about the programs we would create. With this collaborative structure in place, Senator Hagel and I would authorize $5 billion in assistance over the next 5 years. That is no small sum. But it is in fact small in comparison to the tens of billions of dollars in today's money that were spent on the Marshall plan in Europe 50 years ago and the hundreds of billions of dollars we are spending now and will continue to have to spend for the military side of the war against terror. That figure, we believe, is the minimum required to have a positive, measurable impact in the region and to signal the seriousness of our intentions. Earlier this month, civil society leaders from all over the Arab world gathered in Alexandria, Egypt to discuss an Arab reform agenda. At that meeting participants agreed on a declaration that calls for significant reforms that encompass the ``political, economic, social, and cultural aspects'' of society. The fact is the reforms those Arab world reformers seek are at least as far-reaching as those that are being suggested by others from the outside, including from the United States. I know there are similar reform efforts underway in Central Asia. They deserve our support. In introducing this legislation today, Senator Hagel and I hope to give new impetus to the discussions taking place in Washington and elsewhere about what we collectively can do to support political and economic reform in the Greater Middle East and to give the people in those great regions an alternative to a better life than the hatred and suicidal death al-Qaida offers. The Bush administration has put forward serious proposal along the same lines as ours. It certainly has the same goals. This bill Senator Hagel and I are introducing today is intended to build on that effort. We hope it helps shape the debate of the best method to implement, which should be one of partnership and collaboration along with a serious commitment of American resources. In June, the United States will host the G-8 summit in Sea Island, GA. That summit will be followed by the U.S.-EU and NATO summits also in June. The future of the Greater Middle East will be placed high on the agenda of all those important meetings. By introducing this legislation today, Senator Hagel and I hope to enable our Government to go into these summits with the bipartisan support of the Congress and also to provide some direction as to what we believe should be done and how it might best be done. Senator Hagel and I hope our colleagues will take a look at this proposal and join us in cosponsoring it and sending thereby a message no less profound and no less necessary than the message of the Marshall plan half a century ago, that the United States is serious about improving the lives and expanding the freedoms of the millions of people who live in the Greater Middle East and Central Asia. Today, that is our most urgent international imperative. At the dawn of the cold war, America answered the challenge of communism by seeding a garden of peace, hope, and prosperity in Europe. Today, at the dawn of our current war against terrorism, it is equally essential that we answer the inhumane, barbaric threats of terrorism and acts of terrorism with all necessary force, but also by seeding the same kind of garden of peace, hope, and prosperity in the Greater Middle East.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President. I come to the floor today to congratulate the University of Connecticut Huskies' Men and Women's basketball teams on their double national championship. This is the first time any school has accomplished this incredible feat. With this achievement, coaches Jim Calhoun and Geno Auriemma have solidified their place at the peak of college basketball's coaching mountain. On Monday night, the men, lead by terrific performances by Emeka Okafor and Ben Gordon, defeated the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets 82-73. This victory gave the men's program its second national title. On Tuesday, the women, on the strength of a brilliant 17-point effort by Diana Taurasi, completed the Huskies' double dip, knocking off the Tennessee Lady Vols by the score of 70-61 to capture their third straight national championship and the fifth in the school's history. These victories were captured with great teamwork, which was fortified by outstanding leadership. Not just from the two legendary coaches, but from the players themselves. On the men's side, Emeka Okafor, whose dominating second half in the semi-finals against Duke is the stuff of which legends are made. That performance, followed by his brilliant 24 point 15 rebound effort in the championship game earned him Most Outstanding Player in the Final Four honors, and will most likely make him the top pick in this summer's NBA draft. On the women's side was Diana Taurasi. Diana's greatness speaks for itself. She lead the Huskies to three straight national titles, compiled a career NCAA tournament record of 22-1, and was named Most Outstanding Player in the Final Four the past two seasons. This year started out with the greatest of expectations for both teams. They were both picked as pre-season No. 1 teams, but as the season wore on, each had their share of adversity. Coach Calhoun and Coach Auriemma saw their teams suffer tough losses and key injuries. Each team's best player would battle through nagging injuries that made many people question whether they had what it took to reach their championship aspirations. What is truly remarkable is that neither team ever doubted themselves. As the calendar turned to March, both teams battled through the adversity, and began the long steady journey toward greatness. After all the ups and downs of a long season, our UCONN Huskies finished the season where they started--on top of the college basketball world. Mr. President, today is a day of great pride for Connecticut. We are proud of Jim Calhoun, Geno Auriemma, and their terrific players. We thank them for their brilliance. We thank them for giving us such tremendous joy in watching them play. At a time when there are so many things that divide us and have us concerned, it is so important to have something that unites us, lifts our spirits, and gives us a sense of pride. Thanks to the Huskies' unprecedented accomplishment, today we can truly say Connecticut is the College Basketball Capital of America.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise today, along with my friend and colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, to introduce the Greater Middle East and Central Asia Development Act of 2004. This would be a Marshall Plan for the Greater Middle East. Let me put it in the context of the news we are receiving from Iraq today. While public opinion surveys that have been taken by independent groups have shown recently that the substantial majority of the people of Iraq, quite understandably, are grateful that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, and while a majority of them are optimistic about their future--a better life for themselves and their children--it is clear, of course, every day there is a growing group of Saddam loyalists left over from the previous regime, and terrorists, fanatical jihadists, insurgents who will attack and kill Americans and Iraqis to stop the forward movement of progress and freedom and prosperity in Iraq. We clearly have to respond to that with force in defense of our values, of liberty, of freedom for the Iraqis. We have, if you will allow me to use Scriptural words, to employ our swords. But it is also true in Iraq and throughout the world that we will only win the war on terrorism if we use not just our swords but plowshares as well. That is what this piece of legislation Senator Hagel and I are introducing today is all about. I want to speak for a few moments about it. Senator Hagel will be over later in the day to offer his remarks on the bill. Madam President, a half century ago, at the dawn of the cold war, Congress authorized the Marshall Plan for Europe--a bold initiative inspired by Secretary of State George Marshall and premised on a simple but transformational idea: that to stop communism, we had to rebuild and democratize Europe. The Marshall Plan offered monetary aid, of course, but it offered much more. It was a national commitment of American values to transform the future of Europe by offering the Europeans the blessings of liberty and prosperity, and thereby linking, in the deepest way, Europe's future with our own. The same ideals and goals of the Marshall Plan can and must now be applied to the people of the Greater Middle East. The predominantly Muslim countries of the Middle East and Central Asia have, unfortunately, emerged at this moment in history as the cradle of fanatical Islamic jihadist terrorism. There is a great civil war being fought in the Arab world between the peace-loving, law- abiding majority of Muslims and the minority of jihadists. This civil war unleashed the violent terrorist forces that led to September 11, 2001, the attacks on America; March 11, 2004, the attacks on Spain; and the repeated attacks in places such as Fallujah in Iraq that are occurring almost every day. The outcome of our war against Islamic terrorists will be determined by the way in which we use our swords and our plowshares to determine the outcome of the civil war in the Muslim world. To stop al-Qaida and other terrorist groups from expanding this civil war and recruiting a new generation of killers, we must use all of our military power to capture and kill the enemy. We must drain the swamps of terrorists in Iraq and wherever they grow. At the same time we must combat the conditions that fuel terrorism and drive recruits to al-Qaida and hate and despair. To do this we must seed the garden, not just drain the swamp, with freedom, hope, and economic opportunity. If we invest in the political and economic future of the Middle East and Central Asia in our time, as we did in Europe with the Marshall plan after the end of the Second World War and at the beginning of the cold war, we will expand democracy's reach, choke off the terrorists, strengthen our own national security, and move the world toward greater peace. That is the underlying premise of the legislation Senator Hagel and I are introducing today. It is designed to complement our swords in the war against terrorism with the plowshares of political and economic assistance. Our legislation is not soft. It is not welfare. It is in fact a different kind of warfare on the battlefield of ideas and ideologies, visions for the future. Although there are compelling humanitarian reasons for offering assistance to the people of the Greater Middle East, there are also compelling American national security reasons for doing so. The political and economic assistance Senator Hagel and I are proposing might be though of as additional weapons in America's arsenal in the fight against terrorists. Let me summarize what our legislation contains. We advocate making a major financial investment in the future of the Middle East and Central Asia. How we propose making this investment is in some ways as significant as how much we propose investing. The key to the success of our Marshall plan for the Middle East, as it was of the Marshall plan for Europe, is it is not a detailed list of programs. It is a statement of values and purposes. It is the creation of a structure to carry out those values and purposes, and it is a commitment of American and international resources to realize those purposes. Our legislation would create three new international institutions that will support economic and political development in the Greater Middle East and Central Asia, open institutions that will require participation by representatives of the countries benefiting from this support, a partnership. Institutionalizing involvement of a wide group of donors and recipients will promote better cooperation and give ownership and accountability to the impacted nations and to the private reformers in those nations--key ingredients to successful foreign assistance. The first new institution Senator Hagel and I would create is a trust for democracy for the Middle East that would support the development of civil society in the region, not unlike efforts we made to help those who had the dream of freedom and opportunity in countries of the former Soviet Union, now living to experience that dream. Modeled on the Balkan Trust for Democracy, this institution we propose would marshal the support of civic leaders and reformers as well as private foundations to provide grants to worthy grassroots projects that support free association and promote civic responsibility, the building blocks of democracy. Second, Senator Hagel and I would build a multilateral development foundation that would provide a second track for assistance, together with other donors, assistance that would be additional to that already being provided bilaterally by the U.S. and other international donors. This foundation will be a public place where we and other donors can come together with the countries of the region to set priorities together, to work together for the greater good of this troubled region. Many countries in the Greater Middle East are richer than they are developed, meaning their wealth has not translated to economic progress for most of the people. We would invite all governments in the region to sit on the board of this foundation, and we would ask all to contribute financially and programmatically to it. Finally, our legislation would establish a new Middle East and Central Asia development bank, like the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. This bank would include private sector participation and would underwrite large-scale infrastructure projects in the region. It would also have a microcredit lending facility and a project development facility. We also believe it is important and necessary to make American assistance more effective. That is why we are calling for the establishment of an office of the coordinator for Greater Middle East and Central Asia at our Department of State. The creation of such an office would help ensure all assistance provided by any government agency of ours is in line with the overarching goals and objectives of our foreign policy. It would also give other donors and countries of the region a simple place to go when seeking information about the programs we would create. With this collaborative structure in place, Senator Hagel and I would authorize $5 billion in assistance over the next 5 years. That is no small sum. But it is in fact small in comparison to the tens of billions of dollars in today's money that were spent on the Marshall plan in Europe 50 years ago and the hundreds of billions of dollars we are spending now and will continue to have to spend for the military side of the war against terror. That figure, we believe, is the minimum required to have a positive, measurable impact in the region and to signal the seriousness of our intentions. Earlier this month, civil society leaders from all over the Arab world gathered in Alexandria, Egypt to discuss an Arab reform agenda. At that meeting participants agreed on a declaration that calls for significant reforms that encompass the ``political, economic, social, and cultural aspects'' of society. The fact is the reforms those Arab world reformers seek are at least as far-reaching as those that are being suggested by others from the outside, including from the United States. I know there are similar reform efforts underway in Central Asia. They deserve our support. In introducing this legislation today, Senator Hagel and I hope to give new impetus to the discussions taking place in Washington and elsewhere about what we collectively can do to support political and economic reform in the Greater Middle East and to give the people in those great regions an alternative to a better life than the hatred and suicidal death al-Qaida offers. The Bush administration has put forward serious proposal along the same lines as ours. It certainly has the same goals. This bill Senator Hagel and I are introducing today is intended to build on that effort. We hope it helps shape the debate of the best method to implement, which should be one of partnership and collaboration along with a serious commitment of American resources. In June, the United States will host the G-8 summit in Sea Island, GA. That summit will be followed by the U.S.-EU and NATO summits also in June. The future of the Greater Middle East will be placed high on the agenda of all those important meetings. By introducing this legislation today, Senator Hagel and I hope to enable our Government to go into these summits with the bipartisan support of the Congress and also to provide some direction as to what we believe should be done and how it might best be done. Senator Hagel and I hope our colleagues will take a look at this proposal and join us in cosponsoring it and sending thereby a message no less profound and no less necessary than the message of the Marshall plan half a century ago, that the United States is serious about improving the lives and expanding the freedoms of the millions of people who live in the Greater Middle East and Central Asia. Today, that is our most urgent international imperative. At the dawn of the cold war, America answered the challenge of communism by seeding a garden of peace, hope, and prosperity in Europe. Today, at the dawn of our current war against terrorism, it is equally essential that we answer the inhumane, barbaric threats of terrorism and acts of terrorism with all necessary force, but also by seeding the same kind of garden of peace, hope, and prosperity in the Greater Middle East.