Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with Senators Snowe, Kennedy, Collins, Murray, Durbin, Lautenberg, Clinton and Johnson to introduce legislation which would supply greatly needed support to

college students struggling to balance their roles as parents with their roles as students. The Child Care Access Means Parents in School Act, CCAMPIS, would increase access to, support for, and retention of low-income, nontraditional students who are struggling to complete college degrees while caring for their children.

The typical college student is no longer an 18 year old recent high school graduate. According to a 2002 study by the National Center for Education Statistics, only 27 percent of undergraduates meet the ``traditional'' undergraduate criteria of earning a high school diploma, enrolling full-time, depending on parents for financial support and not working or working part-time. This means that 73 percent of today's students are considered nontraditional in some way. Clearly, nontraditional students--older students with children and various job and life experiences--are filling the ranks of college classes. Why? Because they recognize the importance of college to future success. It is currently estimated that a full-time worker with a bachelor's degree earns about 60 percent more than a full-time worker with only a high school diploma. This amounts to a lifetime gap in earnings of more than $1 million.

Today's nontraditional students face barriers unheard of by traditional college students of earlier years. Many are parents and must provide for their children while in school. Access to affordable, quality and convenient child care is a necessity for these students. But obtaining the child care that they need is often difficult because of their limited income and nontraditional schedules, compounded by declining assistance for child care through other supports. Campus based child care can fill the gap. It is conveniently located, available during the right hours, and of high quality and lower cost. Unfortunately, it is unavailable at many campuses. Even when programs do exist, they are often available to only a fraction of the eligible students. That is where the Dodd-Snowe CCAMPIS Act comes in.

The Dodd-Snowe CCAMPIS Act increases and expands the availability of campus based child care in three ways. First, it raises the minimum grant amount from $10,000 to $30,000. For most institutions of higher education, $10,000 has proven too small relative to the effort to complete a Federal application. Grant offices on campuses often pass small grants over in favor of those that appear more cost effective.

Second, the Dodd-Snowe CCAMPIS Act ensures that a wider range of students are able to access services. Present language defines low- income students as students eligible to receive a Federal Pell Grant. This language excludes graduate students, international students, and students who may be low-income but make slightly more than is allowed to qualify for Pell grants. CCAMPIS will open eligibility for these additional populations.

Third, the CCAMPIS Act raises the program's current authorization level from $45 million to $75 million so that we not only expand existing programs, we create new ones.

Research demonstrates that campus based child care is of high quality and that it increases the educational success of both parents and students. Furthermore, recipients of campus based child care assistance who are on public assistance are more likely to never return to welfare and to obtain jobs paying good wages.

Currently, there are approximately 1,850 campus based child care programs but over 4,000 colleges and universities eligible to participate in the CCAMPIS program. Currently, CCAMPIS funds only 343 programs in 25 states and the District of Columbia. Meanwhile, the number of nontraditional students across America is increasing. As these numbers increase, the need for campus based child care will be increasingly unmet.

This is a modest measure that will make a major difference to students. It will offer them new hope for starting and staying in school. I am hopeful that it can be considered and enacted as part of the Higher Education Act. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important measure forward.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senators Edwards, Levin and Kennedy, the Youth Service Scholarship Act. This Act would authorize the Secretary of Education to award college scholarships of up to $5,000 a year to high school students and undergraduates who perform community service.

A recent study titled Community Service and Service Learning in U.S. Public Schools reveals that 66 percent of public schools involve students in community service. This means that approximately 54,000 public schools in America currently engage about 13.7 million students in community service each year. Other studies have shown that nearly 84 percent of high school students participate in volunteer activities either in or out of school, and two-thirds of college students have recently participated in volunteer activities.

The Youth Service Scholarship Act is dedicated to assist low-income students who dedicate a significant portion of their time to volunteer service with money for college. This Act would authorize the Secretary of Education to award college scholarships of up to $5,000 to high school students who perform over 600 hours of community service in two years. In order to be considered, high school applicants must maintain a 2.0 grade point average, submit character recommendations, and write an essay on the nature of their community service. Additional money is available if the student continues to participate in a significant amount of community service once they are in college.

Volunteerism not only brings support and services to communities in need, it provides significant benefits to the students who participate. Research has shown that students who volunteer are 50 percent less likely to use drugs and alcohol, or engage in destructive behavior. Additionally, students who volunteer are more likely to receive good grades, be philanthropic, graduate, and be interested in going to college.

In the 21st Century, higher education is not a luxury, it is a necessity. For many of our low-income youth, finding money to pay for college is an obstacle to enrollment. This scholarship program provides aid to motivated and inspirational youth.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Youth Service Scholarship Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children and Family HIV/AIDS Research and Care Act of 2004. This bipartisan legislation will address the special needs of children and youth with HIV/AIDS--needs that are too often overlooked, both domestically and internationally. This legislation recognizes the simple fact that when it comes to HIV prevention, research, care, and treatment, children and youth are not just small adults. To give them a chance for a healthy future, we must ensure that their unique needs are met.

I want to begin by thanking my good friend Senator Bond of Missouri for joining me in introducing this important legislation. Senator Bond has provided crucial support for children and for children's health. Over the years, he has been a leader in the fight to protect children from birth defects and developmental disabilities. He has also done a great deal to ensure that our nation's children's hospitals and community health centers have the resources they need to continue to provide essential care to children and families. I am very pleased to work with him to move this legislation forward.

Children's growing bodies are especially susceptible to the rapid advancement of HIV infection. Because their immune systems are still immature, the disease typically progresses more rapidly and differently in children than in adults. For example, children with HIV infection are more prone to neurological abnormalities and certain opportunistic infections than adults. In addition, because children's bodies are growing and developing, HIV/AIDS can have profound effects on children's physical growth and ability to reach developmental milestones such as crawling, walking and learning to talk.

While research has definitively shown that initiating drug treatment in children in a timely manner promotes normal growth and development, and prolongs life, treating children with HIV/AIDS presents particular challenges. Appropriately formulated and dosed HIV/AIDS drugs are urgently needed to ensure that children receive optimal care. Currently, liquid formulations that young children can swallow are not always readily available. In addition, pediatric dosing and safety information for these powerful drugs is often lacking, particularly for younger children. This lack of information puts children at risk; too much medication can be toxic and too little will not effectively suppress the virus. Over time, under-dosing can lead to drug resistance, a particularly serious concern for children who will need to use these medications for years, if not decades.

Appropriate HIV/AIDS care and treatment for children and youth also requires that special attention be paid to their social development needs. Children and youth have unique concerns regarding disclosure and stigma that may be exacerbated by frequent absences from school and social activities, and the onset of sexual maturity. Working with schools and other social and community institutions is imperative to promoting a sense of normalcy. Because children are not typically medical decision-makers, developing long-term care partnerships with parents and other caregivers is also crucial to successful care and treatment. At the same time, maximizing each child's own ability to take active participation in different aspects of his or her own care can increase a child's sense of ownership over treatment, improving adherence and overall health.

By reauthorizing and expanding Title IV of the Ryan White CARE Act this legislation will help to ensure that the unique care and treatment needs of children are addressed. This program is a lifeline for more than 53,000 women, children, and youth affected by HIV/AIDS served annually by Title IV-funded projects. Through 91 grants in 35 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, Title IV projects provide medical care, case management, support services, mental health, transportation, child care, and other crucial services to families affected by HIV/AIDS. Title IV is the smallest of the four main titles of the Ryan White CARE Act, yet reaches the highest proportion of minorities.

Key to the success of Title IV projects is the model of ``family- centered care.'' This model of care treats the whole family as the client, whether several family members are infected by HIV, or just a parent or child. The family-centered care model is crucial to developing strong partnerships between consumers and providers, leading to better health outcomes for women,

children, and youth. By allowing affected family members to receive services, as well as the infected individuals, Title IV projects promote health at the family level, thereby prolonging life, improving quality of life, and saving money by keeping people out of the hospital.

I would like to take a moment to recognize the work done by the Children, Youth and Family AIDS Network of Connecticut, which provides Title IV services to more than 500 children, youth, women, and families affected by HIV/AIDS in my home state. I have heard from many of these individuals about just how important these services are to their quality of life.

While recommitting the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to family-centered care and the unique work of Title IV, this legislation will also expand the innovative strategies Title IV projects have used to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission. Since 1994, when the administration of preventive drug interventions was shown to significantly reduce perinatal HIV transmission, the number of newborns infected with HIV has decreased dramatically. Yet mother-to- children transmission does continue to occur, largely due to missed opportunities for identifying HIV-positive pregnant women and providing the supportive services needed to ensure adherence to recommended treatment regimens. We propose to fund demonstration grants to assess the effectiveness of two strategies in reducing mother-to-children transmission: (1) Increasing routine, voluntary HIV testing of pregnant women and (2) increasing access to prenatal care, intensive case management, and supportive services for HIV-positive pregnant women.

In addition, this bill will encourage research into key care and treatment questions affecting the pediatric populations. These include: the long-term health effects of preventive drug regimens on HIV-exposed children; the long-term health, psycho-social, and prevention needs for children and adolescents perinatally HIV-infected; the transition to adulthood for HIV-infected children; and safer and more effective treatment options for infants, children, and adolescents with HIV disease.

Since history suggests that a vaccine may prove to be the most effective, affordable, long-term approach to stopping the spread of HIV, this legislation will also ensure that children are not an afterthought when it comes to the development of an HIV vaccine. Currently, some of the populations hardest hit by the pandemic--infants and youth--are at risk of being left behind in the search for an effective vaccine. Because we cannot assume that a vaccine tested in adults will also be safe and effective when used in pediatric populations, it will be important to ensure that promising vaccines are tested in infants and youth as early as is medically and ethically appropriate. Failure to begin planning for the inclusion of these groups in clinical trials could mean significant delays in the availability of a pediatric HIV vaccine, at the cost of countless thousands of lives. This legislation will ensure that we begin now to address the logistical, regulatory, medical, and ethical issues presented by pediatric testing of HIV vaccines so that children can share in the benefits of any advances in vaccines research.

I want to thank several organizations for lending their expertise to the development of this legislation, in particular the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth and Families, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, all of whom support this bill. I would also like to note that the AMS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition is endorsing this legislation. I would ask unanimous consent that three letters of endorsement be printed in the Record.

HIV/AIDS is the single greatest health care catastrophe facing the world today. We need to do much more to seek effective treatments and, eventually, a cure for this horrible illness. This legislation is by no means sufficient to reach that goal, but it is a step towards ensuring that children are not left behind as we make progress, and then when we do finally eradicate HIV/AIDS once and for all, children and youth are able to benefit immediately. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I wish a happy 70th birthday to an outstanding citizen and dear friend, Peg Curtin.

Peg was one of my earliest and strongest supporters when I first ran for Congress in 1974. Peg's family and mine have been close since the 1950s, when my father served in the House and then in the U.S. Senate.

For nearly three decades, Peg has compiled an outstanding record of public and community service in Connecticut. She has truly given her heart and soul to the people of our State.

From 1974 to 1977, Peg was a union organizer for the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees and a member of the international staff of the AFL-CIO. In 1975, she was part of the transition team of one of our State's most beloved Governors, the late Ella T. Grasso. That year, Peg also began the first of 4 years as a member of the New London City Council, including one year as the city's mayor. Among her many accomplishments was the development and implementation of New London's first-ever affirmative action plan.

From 1979 to 1996, Peg devoted her time and energy to the State of Connecticut. For 12 years, she served as under secretary at the Office of Policy and Management's Division of Intergovernmental Relations. There, her talents enabled her to handle a demanding and diverse array of tasks,

from state labor negotiations to emergency assistance during natural disasters. Peg then went on to manage labor relations for 6 years at the University of Connecticut Health Center. She retired in 1996 after once again winning a seat on the New London City Council, an office she continues to hold today.

Peg Curtin's public service is not limited to her official duties. She has been involved in numerous charitable causes. There are far too many for me to list here on the floor, but I will just mention a few: the Connecticut Special Olympics, the American Red Cross, and the March of Dimes. It is only fitting that at tonight's celebration of Peg's birthday, the proceeds for the events will benefit two of the causes about which Peg cares so deeply--the New London Youth Organization and the New London Parks Conservancy.

We in Connecticut are lucky to have Peg Curtin working on our behalf. There is no doubt in my mind that our State is a better place today because of her efforts. I am privileged to call her my friend, and I truly admire her commitment to service, charity, and community. It is my pleasure to wish Peg a very happy birthday, and to send her my best wishes for many, many more wonderful years.

Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to address the Senate in morning business for 2 minutes.

On behalf of all of us, I am sure my colleagues will agree when they read his remarks, we thank him for his leadership and look forward to working with him to strengthen the OAS, to make it a more viable and important organization as these wonderful friends and neighbors of ours grapple with the economic and natural disasters they face and as they do everything in their power to strengthen democracy and freedom throughout this hemisphere.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the extension of the middle-class tax cuts that the Senate will pass shortly.

While the conference report to accompany H.R. 1308, the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004, is not perfect, I do plan to support this initiative because I feel strongly that we should provide tax relief to working families.

These are families that work hard and play by the rules. Over the past 3\1/2\ years, they are also families who, as a group, have suffered the most from the economic slowdown. In general, they are working harder, earning less, and paying more for the necessities of life. The least we can do for these families is provide them with some measure of tax relief to make their financial burden a bit lighter. Tax bills enacted in the previous 3\1/2\ years primarily benefitted the very most affluent. The conference agreement we consider today benefits those who truly need tax relief.

This conference report extends four important middle-class tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of this year. These are: first, the $1,000 child tax credit, which has been scheduled to fall to $700 next year; second, the current 10-percent income tax bracket; third, a set of tax measures to offset the marriage penalty; and fourth relief from the alternative minimum tax, which without action, would unfairly force more middle income families into paying higher taxes totaling $23 billion over the next 10 years.

The conference report also provides assistance to military families in combat zones by increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC, and the child credit for military families in 2004 and 2005 by giving them the option to include combat pay in their calculations. This provides an additional $199 million of assistance to military families in combat zones since under current law many soldiers are denied their rightful EITC and child credit because combat pay is excluded. While this is just a two-year fix, I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that Congress take action to permanently fix this glitch in the law.

I was pleased that the conference report also includes several provisions that are vital to education, environmental protection, and job growth. These include the teacher expense deduction, which allows teachers to deduct up to $250 annually for their classroom expenses; expensing of Brownfields environmental remediation costs; tax credits for electricity produced from certain renewable resources; and the extension of the research and development tax credit, which has done much to create jobs and enhance our Nation's competitiveness.

However, while I will support this conference report, it is at best incomplete legislation for two reasons. First, because it fails to pay for the more than $145 billion in tax cuts that it contains.

I am very concerned with the shocking deterioration in fiscal discipline by the administration and congressional leadership. When President Bush took office in January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected a Federal budget surplus of $5.6 trillion by 2011. Today, that projected record surplus has turned into a record deficit that is expected to total $4.4 trillion over the next 10 years.

Regrettably, efforts to make this package a more fiscally responsible one has been blocked and rebuffed by the leaders of this Congress, including the efforts by members of the leadership's own party. Just 2 months ago, several Members from both sides of the aisle proposed a package which would have ensured that not a penny would have been added to the deficit. But the proposal was rejected by the administration and Republican congressional leadership.

According to an address this week by Rodrigo de Rato, the President of the International Monetary Fund, budget and trade deficits in the United States are a large and growing threat. He stated, ``We believe that such a large imbalance is a risk not only to the United States economy, but to the world economy.''

We know only too well from past instances that if deficits are left unchecked, they will exert an enormous upward pressure on interest rates and in so doing will increase the cost of homes, cars, higher education, and establishing and running a small business. These increased costs have the potential to dwarf any relief provided by a bill such as the one now before the Senate.

I also find it lamentable that the Senate was not provided with an opportunity to consider this legislation in its entirety since what has been brought before us is a conference report most of whose provisions were never brought before the Senate for full consideration. Had it been fully debated in the Senate under normal procedures, Senators might have been able to make this legislation more fiscally responsible. But because of the procedural tactics of Republican Congressional leadership, Senators never had a chance to do that.

The second reason why this legislation is at best incomplete is that it fails to lower the income threshold for the refundable child tax credit. By not including this important provision, 4.3 million hard- working families will see the value of their child tax credit significantly diminished. That is unfair to those men and women working to lift themselves up economically and provide a decent life for their children.

And so while I am going to support this legislation, I would like to make it very clear to this body that I do not think that our efforts to help working families are adequately discharged by this legislation.

There is much work to be done to give poor and working people meaningful opportunity to achieve secure lives for themselves and their children now and for generations to come.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, as I noted earlier today on the Senate floor, I had the privilege of attending the inaugural ceremony of His Excellency Miguel Angel Rodriguez to be the next Secretary General of the Organization of American States. It was an honor to be present for that event. I was inspired by the words of the Secretary General as he assumed his new office.

Earlier today, I put the entire speech in the Congressional Record so that our colleagues would have an opportunity to review it. One paragraph in particular caught my attention because it is so relevant to what we are attempting to do with the programs we fund in the legislation before us:

In this twenty-first century, inspired by the values we

share, imbued with the ideals of our forefathers, and

outraged by the pain of poverty, inequity and exclusion, we

women and men of the Americas must redouble our efforts, to

expedite the achievement and full exercise of human freedom

and dignity.

These words are especially relevant to the abysmal state of affairs in Haiti. We truly should be outraged by the poverty, inequity and exclusion that most of the 8 million Haitians live with everyday.

Two-thirds of Haiti's 8 million people live in poverty. Twenty-five percent of Haitian children under the age of five are chronically malnourished. The average life expectancy is 53 years. The infant mortality rate is 80 per 1000 births--an extraordinarily high percentage. HIV/AID affects more than 5 percent of the Haitian population--the highest infection rate in the Western Hemisphere and comparable to rates being experienced in Sub Saharan Africa.

And if an ordinary day in Haiti was not bad enough, natural disasters had made recent days even more unspeakable. Over the last 4 months these natural disasters have made an already vulnerable population more endangered. Four months ago, flooding took the lives of 1,700 Haitians. More recently, Tropical Storm Jeanne has already been responsible for the deaths of at least 1,000 people--we will probably never know the full extent of lives lost as many bodies swept out to sea during the torrential rains will never be recovered.

As if that were not enough, insecurity prevails through most of the country with armed gangs threatening to kill individuals for their political views or affiliations.

Secretary General Rodriguez is absolutely right: We truly must redouble our efforts so that every Haitian can live in freedom with dignity, rather than in abject poverty and pervasive insecurity.

In that regard, I appreciate the attention that the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee have paid to Haiti's plight in the bill before us. Even though the overall allocation in the fiscal year 2005 budget for foreign assistance programs is very limited, the bill before us contains approximately $80 million in assistance for Haiti: $20 million in Child Survival and Health programs; $25 million in development assistance to support agricultural and environmental and other development related programs; $25 million in Economic Support funds for judicial reform programs, and $10 million of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Control monies for police training.

I certainly support all of those allocations. But given the challenges confronting Haiti today, it isn't nearly enough.

More importantly, it neglects a very critical and immediate need confronting Haiti now, namely planning and organizing elections so that the interim, unelected regime can be replaced by a government chosen by the Haitian people in free and fair elections.

Past experience makes it patently obvious that without the assistance of the international community, Haitian authorities will be unable to conduct municipal, parliamentary and presidential elections next year. Some steps have been taken to begin the electoral process. The new Provisional Electoral Council, CEP, has been formed, but it has yet to agree on a calendar for the elections or on the measures necessary to ensure their success. But the CEP alone will not be able to conduct these elections without money and technical assistance from the international community.

The United Nations has already asked the Organization of American States to assist the CEP with the first steps toward holding elections, namely creating a voter registration list. Further down the road the OAS will be asked to assist with other aspects of the elections. The OAS is willing and committed to assisting Haiti with its electoral process, but it cannot do it without adequate funding. The amendment I have proposed to the pending legislation would contribute $10 million for that effort.

Mr. President, $10 million won't cover the entire costs of Haiti's elections, but it is an important signal that the US is prepared to be a partner in that effort. It should also position the OAS to solicit additional funds from other interested OAS members.

The United States has committed itself and our resources to assisting Iraq and Afghanistan conduct elections over the next 6 months. Surely we can do as much for a small country in our own hemisphere. Are the people of Haiti any less worthy to live in freedom and democracy than those in Iraq or Afghanistan? I do not believe they are--I hope my colleagues don't either. And for that reason I would urge that they support this amendment.

Amendment No. 3694

Madam President, as all Americans, especially those in Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana well know, this hurricane season is proving terribly destructive and it is not over yet. Many of my colleagues have risen before this body to describe the damage caused by Hurricanes Charley, Francis, and Ivan. I want to commend them for their efforts and commend this body for the speed with which it passed $2 billion worth of aid to help Florida recover from the devastation. I understand additional aid packages are also under consideration, and I urge my colleagues to move as swiftly as possible to provide all necessary aid to help those who were affected by these storms.

At the same time, I want to call attention to another region which was also hard-hit by these storms. To date, Hurricanes Charley, Francis, and Ivan, as well as Tropical Storm Jeanne have claimed the lives of well over 1,000 people and caused extensive damage throughout the Caribbean, especially in Haiti, Grenada, and Jamaica.

Just this past week, Tropical Storm Jeanne made landfall on the Island of Hispaniola. Rain, mud slides and flooding have made it the season's deadliest storm, claiming at least 1,070 lives in the impoverished nation of Haiti, 19 in the Dominican Republic and 7 in Puerto Rico. As of September 21, 50 percent of the city of Gonaives, in northern Haiti, remained under water, and the loss of lives and infrastructure to the people of Gonaives are enormous and likely to increase.

Tropical Storm Jeanne is only the latest in what has been a deadly hurricane season. Two weeks ago, Hurricane Ivan cut a swath of destruction across much of the Caribbean. Keith Mitchell, the Prime Minister of Grenada, called the damages to his island, ``beyond imagination,'' and with good reason. Over 90 percent of the buildings in Grenada were damaged by the storm. Two thirds of the population, approximately 60,000 out of a total of 95,000 residents, are now homeless. Power is out across the island, and the Grenadan people are in desperate need of food, water, and shelter. The Hurricane even destroyed a 17th century stone prison, allowing a number of inmates to escape.

I am pleased that the United States has already provided nearly $1 million in direct assistance to Grenada, $700,000 to Jamaica, $300,000 to the Bahamas, and $60,000 to Haiti. The Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, moreover, currently has teams on the ground throughout the Caribbean, assessing what steps the United States should take to bring additional aid to this devastated region.

But the Caribbean remains in desperate need. United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination teams have estimated that more than 50,000 people require urgent water and sanitation services in Jamaica. In the Gonaives region of Haiti, at least 20,000 are homeless, and 80 percent of the population was severely affected by the storm. Indeed, our immediate goal has to be providing basic necessities: food, water, shelter.

But while we must focus on these requirements, we cannot forget that rebuilding lost infrastructure in these countries will require a much more significant and sustained commitment of aid. It is always difficult to estimate total damages so soon after such a devastating storm, but one thing is certain--the cost of recovery will be immense. The World Bank estimates the rebuilding costs in Grenada alone are likely to rise to several billion dollars. The United States and the international community must rise to this challenge.

Many countries and organizations have already made some important contributions. CARICOM nations, in particular, have stepped forward to provide assistance. Trinidad and Tobago has pledged $1.7 million to Grenada and Jamaica, and around 200 troops from CARICOM countries have helped restore order in St. George's, the capital of Grenada, where looting was rampant in the immediate aftermath of the storm.

These storms, however, did more than just knock out power and telephone lines. They damaged schools and hospitals. They destroyed agriculture and industry critical to the long-term economic future of the region. In Grenada, the nutmeg crop, which is critical to the Grenadan economy, suffered extensive damages, and these crops will take years to recover, since Nutmeg trees take as many as 20 years to grow to their full potential. The year's banana crop was almost entirely lost, and the tourist industry was also badly damaged. National Public Radio quoted an advisor to Prime Minister Mitchell as saying, ``Grenada has no economy. The economy is dead.''

Flooding, meanwhile, has destroyed homes and crops throughout Haiti, particularly in the northern region of Gonaives. Most of the agricultural land outside that city has been flooded, and at least 20,000 are without homes. The poorest nation in the Americas, Haiti has already suffered from political turmoil as well as flooding, which four months ago claimed the lives of at least 1,700 people. As I mentioned earlier, this time, more than 1,070 have lost their lives.

Mr. President, Louis Telesford, a 27 year old Grenadan, had his wooden home destroyed by Hurricane Ivan. According to the Associated Press, he is now living along with 15 other people in his neighbor's concrete house. ``It's going to be a long, long time before we recover,'' said Mr. Telesford. ``We need help.'' I urge the administration to ensure that we provide this critical assistance.

Will my colleague yield for a question?

Mr. President, I don't want to interrupt the flow. The Senator is going through a lot of numbers and statistics, and we owe a debt of gratitude to Senator Conrad for this analysis. I would like to come back to this deficit picture. I think these other numbers on jobs and so forth are in direct relation to our fiscal policies. There is a correlation because of our inability--and I am posing a question to the Senator--or unwillingness to make the kind of important investments that any period of economic growth requires, which are obviously being adversely affected by the amount of debt we are accumulating.

I don't know if my colleague from North Dakota saw the same article I did yesterday, which was the lead story in the World Business section of the New York Times in which the IMF chief sees potential hazard in U.S. fiscal policies. I quote:

``We believe that such a large imbalance''

Talking about debt and deficit.

``is a risk not only to the United States economy, but for

the world economy'' as well.

There are implications of allowing this fiscal situation to get so out of hand so quickly. As I recall it, in January 2001, we were looking at 10 years of surplus of $5.6 trillion. We are told now that the projections over the next 10 years of debt is somewhere around $3.5 trillion.

My question is, what are the implications for the younger generation? We have heard debate about death taxes. What about a birth tax here? What are the obligations of the children being born who are accumulating the debt that is occurring here? I wonder if he might comment on the IMF story and what it means for a child born in the 21st century with this kind of debt, what sort of price tag have they been saddled with as a result of the mismanagement of our fiscal economy?

Mr. President, I was stunned by those numbers. As I recall, I think you said that we have borrowed around $600 billion from Japan, about $150 billion from China, and billions more from other countries. To make the picture clear, that is like a bank holding a mortgage on your home. They hold the paper on America. They can call due those notes at any time, I presume, or within a reasonable time, and could insist upon us paying back those obligations. So, in other words, our economic well-being is in no small measure tied to the desires of nations that may not have the same goals as we do, either in economic or foreign policy. They hold the mortgage, in a sense, on our future; is that correct?

In 40 months.

Mr. President, if I may further add, that is just the exact point I wanted to raise with my colleague from North Dakota. We talk about rising interest rates, and we are talking about some tax cuts. As I understand it, when we begin to talk about an interest rate hike, which we invariably are going to see, the actual cost of a college loan, a home mortgage, a car payment, or any other obligation which most middle-income families have to borrow to meet these obligations-- we have watched higher education costs go up more than 30 percent; we have watched health care premiums go up 45 percent; we have watched the price of gasoline go up 20 percent; all under this President's watch. To make those payments, it will actually exceed whatever tax cut we may be providing to that middle-income family because of our inability or the unwillingness of this administration to actually be more responsible in managing the fiscal picture of this country, and average consumers are going to see interest rate hikes that are going to dwarf any tax cut they may get; isn't that correct?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to conclude my comments.

I thank my colleagues. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for taking a little time to go over this issue. These are our choices. There are those who may think the path we are on is a reasonable and sound one, that these numbers really do not make any difference. We hear that all the time: Deficits don't matter. My colleague from North Dakota has laid out exactly why they do matter and why we are going to have to pay for these things and get our fiscal picture in shape, or we are going to pay an awful price.

When we think of the IMF warning countries about their economic policies or fiscal policies, we are normally talking about third and fourth world nations. Here is the head of the IMF now telling the greatest economy in the history of the world: You better get your act together; not only are you going to hurt yourself, but you are going to hurt the world economy.

In a few days, Americans have a choice to make, and the choice the Senator from North Dakota laid out is a clear one. Politics is about the future. What the Senator is talking about is the future. I am tired hearing about debates 40 years ago. Americans want to know what is going to happen to their kids and grandchildren, and the Senator from North Dakota laid out the scenario that if we do not make the right choices, it will cost us dearly.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the nomination of Porter Goss to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA. Yesterday the Senate Intelligence Committee voted 12-to-4 to send Representative Goss' nomination to the Senate floor. I welcome the opportunity to say a few words about this important nomination and about the state of our Nation's intelligence community.

As my colleagues know, in 1947, President Harry Truman signed legislation which provided for the establishment of the CIA. This important agency supports the President, the National Security Council, and American officials who play a role in shaping or executing the national security policy of the United States. The CIA engages in research and analysis of information, as well as a host of other activities related to foreign intelligence and national security.

However, as every American knows all too well, times have changed since 1947. We are now engaged in new battles. We are facing new threats. The Soviet Union is no longer our arch enemy. Instead we face an enemy that is dispersed throughout the world in small cells-- sometimes connected, sometimes acting independently. The new threat-- terrorism--is an asymmetrical one.

Nonetheless, we must remember that terrorism alone is not our enemy. It is a tactic used by our enemies. Therefore, our task is twofold. First, we must defeat soundly those who would attack our country and endanger the security of Americans. But secondly, we must also defeat the murderous ideology of terrorism. That is because terrorism is the enemy of all humankind.

It knows no faces, names, or nationalities. And I am confident that a strong America, which is respected by our friends and allies, can defeat this scourge.

Indeed, one thing we can all agree upon in this body is that a strong and capable intelligence effort has never been more important to the security of our Nation. That brings me to the nomination before us today. At the best of times the job of Director of Central Intelligence is a difficult one. And we all know that these are not the best of times. Our intelligence infrastructure failed this Nation when we needed it most.

There are two important traits that the next Director of the CIA needs to possess in order to be successful in restoring the effectiveness of our intelligence capabilities.

First, it is of the utmost importance that the Director of the CIA be nonpartisan. The safety of the American people is not a matter of political parties. National security is an issue that must unite us in a common cause. To that end, I share the deep concerns of several of my colleagues that some of Representative Goss's comments during his tenure as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee were overly partisan and blindly supportive of the Bush administration.

Moreover it is critical to recognize that he chose to become involved in the political process. That decision was not forced on him. He chose it freely. And I believe that it has undermined his ability to be a nonpartisan Director of Central Intelligence, DCI. There is no question that intelligence has been politicized in this administration. I know it. The American people know it. And the civil servants who work at the CIA know it. To rush to confirm an individual who has played a role in politicizing intelligence is extremely unwise and only serves to further demoralize the individuals who are working so hard to protect our national security.

Second, he or she must have the knowledge and experience necessary to lead some of our most critical intelligence efforts. We cannot ignore the fact that the most egregious lapses in history by our Nation's intelligence community happened while Mr. Goss was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee--the committee responsible for ensuring that US intelligence agencies function effectively. If he failed in his oversight responsibilities, as I believe he has, how then can we have any confidence that he is capable of accomplishing an even more difficult task--the fundamental reform of the entire intelligence apparatus? I do not believe that we can.

We all know that the 9/11 Commission has recommended a major overhaul of our intelligence operations. Much of that will have to be done at the CIA. It is going to take an individual with very strong management skills to carry out the restructuring of that agency. He will have to have credibility within the institution of the CIA if he is to be successful. Institutions resist change. Based upon Mr. Goss' weak oversight of the agency, I am not confident that he has the wherewithal to overcome the resistance he will confront to the fundamental reforms being contemplated.

Actions always speak louder than words. Unfortunately, we don't know what Mr. Goss's actions will be as director, but we do know what his actions have been as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. In my opinion, to confirm Mr. Goss with such uncertainty about his ability to get the job done would be irresponsible.

This position is too critical to leave to chance. The agency is currently being led by a very able career intelligence director. He is already working with the committees of Congress to devise a plan to restore the effectiveness and credibility of the US intelligence community. In the immediate future, he will continue to do so.

For those reasons, I will oppose this nomination when the Senate votes today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes this afternoon and express my concern and the concern of many of us around the country about the growing squeeze that is occurring on middle-income families in the United States. This is a very alarming trend we are seeing.

I address not only that point but also the issue of what is happening with the rising level of poverty in the country, particularly poverty among our youngest citizens in the earliest ages, and the number of children being born in the United States who are being born into extreme poverty--not just living in poverty but living below half the poverty line.

When you think of the combination of the squeeze occurring on the middle income and watching the growing numbers of children living in poverty in this country, all of us ought to be supremely alarmed about those trendlines.

Add to that the fact that there now appears to be the largest single deficit in the history of the United States, and the failure to create new jobs in the country, which is the worst performance of job creation since just prior to the beginning of the Great Depression back in the 1920s. We have lost somewhere between 1 million and 1.5 million jobs in this country in the last 4 years. When you compare that to the 20 million jobs created during the 1990s, there is a startling contrast in what is happening to America's economy.

I think it is critically important in these days that the American people be well informed factually about what is occurring as we make the difficult choices in the coming days about the leadership of this Nation.

Let me begin with the middle-income squeeze because I think it is important to know what is happening to families out there. We are watching a tremendous decline in household incomes. Household incomes have fallen about 3.4 percent during the last 4 years.

Let me put that in terms of dollars and cents.

To give you some idea of the median household income in the year 2000, the median household income was almost $45,000 a year--actually $44,853. Today, that median income is now $43,318. That is a decline of $1,500 in median household income. That is a drop in earning power.

If you have merely a decline in income and also a commensurate decline in costs, you would say that is not great, but certainly given the cost of essential items that middle-income families must acquire, those prices are going down, then the declining income would not be startling. But what is happening is quite the opposite.

We have watched median household income decline by $1,500, and simultaneously watched gas prices during the same period of time go up almost 20 percent in the United States. College tuition has gone up some 28 percent in that same 4-year period, and family health care premiums have risen 45 percent just in the last 2 years by 26 percent-- 11 percent in 1 year and 15 percent the next. So we are watching household median income decline by $1,500, and then we are watching college tuition, health care premiums, and gasoline prices soar. This is the squeeze. This is what is happening to average families in this country.

Also, as I mentioned at the outset, we are watching jobs not being created. We are short of well over a million jobs that we need in order to maintain a growing economy. But even these jobs are not coming back. We saw 144,000 new jobs created in the month of August. That is certainly vastly improved over the 32,000 new jobs created in July. Understand that just to keep pace with the new entries into the job market we should be creating about 220,000 jobs every month. That is what we need to do in an economy such as ours with a population of almost 300 million people: You have it produce about 220,000 new jobs every month just to stay even.

When we start talking about 32,000 jobs or 144,000 jobs, while certainly 133,000 is positive news, it still is well

below what we ought to be doing if we are going to keep people working at levels that will allow them to provide for their families.

As I mentioned a moment ago, we are watching incomes decline. This is even more true when you start talking about new entrants into the job market from people who have lost a job and then go back to work. They are making about $9,000 less a year overall, putting all incomes together, than they were before.

While we are creating some new jobs, the wages these jobs are paying and the benefits being provided are very different than they were with the previous jobs held by these very same people. This is tough news.

Again, there are choices that will be made in the next 45 or 50 days.

I point out for the purposes of discussion--sometimes it all gets lost--that there are those who are claiming there is nothing to worry about, that in fact our economy is good and strong.

I noted the other day that there was a speech the President gave in Michigan when he talked about how well our economy was doing. I think it was in Muskegon, MI. He was speaking just 2 days ago:

This economy of ours is strong, and it's getting stronger.

That was a speech given in Muskegon and Greenwood Village, CO.

Since the President has taken office, less than 4 years ago, the State of Michigan has lost 250,000 jobs. In Colorado, there has been a loss of 80,000 jobs.

I don't know how you square a statement of saying the economy is strong and getting stronger when a quarter of a million people in one of the most industrial States in the United States have lost work, and 80,000 jobs in the State of Colorado no longer exist. How is that a strong economy or a stronger growing economy? I don't see that. I don't think most Americans would.

John Kerry, our colleague, who is running for the Presidency, has promised to create 10 million new jobs during the first 4 years of his administration. We need job creation in this country. We need to be talking about creating tax cuts for middle-income families and smaller businesses. That is where real growth occurs when you provide the kind of stimulus to smaller businesses and industries. They need the relief financially to modernize, to buy new equipment, to make themselves more competitive in a global economy. We need more of that kind of economic thinking than what we have seen in the last few years which has contributed to the worsening economic program at home.

I am an optimist and believe we ought to talk about good things that can happen in our country. It is very difficult to go anywhere in this country and have that kind of a conversation when people are out there struggling every day harder and harder to make ends meet, watching their incomes decline and their costs rise, and wondering how they will deal with the issues.

There are an additional 1.2 million Americans who no longer have health insurance. That number is up to 45 million in our country; it was below 44 million, but in the last year or so that number has jumped by 1.2 million. Those people are working Americans who have lost their health care coverage because of the rising premium costs of smaller and midsized businesses. Their employers are not mean spirited. They just cannot afford to maintain the cost of the health care premiums and some are dropping their employees from this kind of coverage.

So now we have working Americans who have watched their health care premiums jump tremendously. The average home health care premium in 2000 was $6,351 a year. Less than 4 years later it has jumped to well over $9,000, almost $10,000. That is staggering. Employers just do not have the resources to pay these bills. So we find now 1.2 million working families in the ranks of the uninsured in our country. That adds to our problems.

I mentioned a moment ago child poverty. I will share with my colleagues my deep and growing concern about these numbers because this worries me. This is not the America that I was raised to believe in.

We are talking about a generation of kids coming along who will have to be the best educated, best prepared our Nation has ever produced. We are now in a highly competitive marketplace in the world. When kids grew up a generation or two ago you worried, if you were in Connecticut, that you might end up competing with a young person from New Mexico or you might compete with a person in Oregon. That was what it was like in this country.

Today, for a child growing up in New Mexico or in Oregon or Connecticut, their competition will be in Beijing, it will be in Moscow, it will be in Sydney, in Johannesburg, London. A global economy will be the challenge. How well prepared is this generation coming along?

We may be in the most unique position of any generation of Americans in watching a succeeding generation be less well off, less well prepared than we were as a generation. Every other generation throughout the more than 200-year history of our country has left their children and grandchildren in a stronger position. That has been our legacy as a nation. We are now precariously close to setting back for the first time in our history where a generation coming along may not be as well prepared, particularly when the challenges are going to be greater than ever before.

I worry very much when we see the jump, by 4.3 million, of Americans living in poverty over the last 3 years. In the year 2000, of the 300 million Americans, there were 31.6 million Americans living in poverty. Today that number is close to 36 million, up 4.3 million people living in poverty in the United States. Of those numbers, we have almost 13 million of that 36 million who are children.

While the overall child poverty rate is 17.6 percent, the poverty rate for children under 5 is 20 percent. That makes the fastest growing group among the poor today, families with children under the age of 5.

Those are the facts. That is the legacy of 36 months--not quite, almost 40 months of leadership here. We are finding ourselves in worse shape.

We are fighting tooth and nail to get some resources for child care, for nutrition, for WIC programs to try to do something to assist these kids and these families. It is like pulling teeth around here to get some help for the kids who, through no fault of their own, are living in poverty. Yet the children are the ones who will be asked to defend our country, to become well educated, to provide for the strength of America in the 21st century.

I am deeply alarmed about the trendlines. We are not spending enough time addressing and talking about what we might do. This is the largest annual increase in child poverty in 10 years that has occurred in our country. Overall child poverty increased by 5.4 percent in 2003 while children living in extreme poverty increased by 11.6 percent. In fact, extreme poverty for children under 5 increased by 16.2 percent.

According to the Census Bureau, over 40 percent of children under the age of 18 who are being raised by a single mom are poor. Over half of them live in extreme poverty. That is below the poverty level.

More than half of our children under the age of five who are being raised by a single mom are poor. And, 60 percent of them--three of every five poor 5 year olds being raised by a single mother--are living in extreme poverty.

I addressed the issue of the squeeze that is occurring on middle- income families, watching the incomes decline and the costs rise. They are dramatic over the last few years. I am worried about the crushing blow that is occurring to children and the level of poverty that is occurring.

I raise these issues because we are going to have to change direction. We cannot continue the path we are on and expect these numbers to change. Every indication we have is the numbers are going to get worse and not better if we do not take dramatic steps in a different direction. I raise them today, and I pointed out earlier, and these are not personal attacks, they are choices we have to make. The candidates for President have entirely different views on how we ought to address this.

I mentioned earlier our colleague, Senator Kerry, has talked directly about tax cuts and where they ought to occur--for middle-income people, for smaller businesses; a health care plan that would start taking people off the rolls of the uninsured, put people in insurance programs and relieve them of

the fear of a child or a loved one being caught with a crippling illness or accident and bankrupting a family overnight because of their absence of insurance protection; of seeing to it that people who work overtime get paid for the overtime instead of shutting them off and depriving them of the extra income they need; of raising the minimum wage instead of depriving people of the kind of increases they need to make ends meet.

The tax incentives make a difference. Those are choices. The President says the economy is strong and getting stronger. Tell that to the 250,000 people in Michigan or the 80,000 Coloradans who have lost their jobs. I think they will agree. This is hardly getting better.

We need a change. That change will be available to people in less than 50 days.

I yield the floor.

How long did the Senator from Connecticut speak?

That is a long time.

Mr. President, I congratulate one of my Connecticut constituents, George Brunstad, on an extraordinary achievement. A few weeks ago, George, a resident of Ridgefield, became the oldest person to swim across the English Channel.

George, who celebrated his 70th birthday on August 25, began his record-breaking swim three days later when he left Dover, England shortly after 9 a.m. on Saturday, August 28. He reached Sangatte, on the French coast, after midnight on Sunday, completing the 21-mile stretch in 15 hours and 59 minutes. Prior to George, the oldest person to swim the Channel was Clifford Batts, who was about 100 days shy of his 68th birthday.

Let me tell my colleagues a little about George Brunstad. He is a retired Air Force pilot who flew B-52 bombers. For 20 years, he piloted jumbo jets for American Airlines. Currently, he is a swim coordinator for children at the YMCA in Wilton, CT, where he is affectionately known as ``Grandpa George.'' George and his wife Judy are active members of the Wilton Baptist Church, where George serves as a Deacon. For 20 years, George has been associated with Pivot Ministries, a group that helps men who are recovering from drug and alcohol addiction.

While George was on the swim team in college, he had been away from the sport for 20 years before he saw a sign at the Wilton YMCA advertising competitive swimming for adults. That was 31 years ago, and George Brunstad hasn't stopped swimming since. He is a World Masters Open Water Swimming Champion and has won more than 100 national championship medals in U.S. Masters Swimming.

But George Brunstad's feat last month was much more than an athletic achievement. Last year, George and Judy traveled on a mission to the island nation of Haiti with their church. They were appalled by the incredible poverty that continues to afflict that nation. They were particularly saddened by the large numbers of homeless children they saw in Haiti. And they decided to do what they could to help those children.

George and Judy are founding members of the board of directors of the Center of Hope, an organization devoted to building an orphanage and school in the Haitian city of Hinche. Hinche has 80,000 people, most of whom are desperately poor and lack basic needs like clean water, shelter, medical care, transportation, and education.

George decided that his swim across the Channel would be a perfect way to raise money for the Center of Hope. In total, he managed to raise over $11,000. As someone who has been to Haiti numerous times, and as a Senator who

has done his best to try to direct our attention to Haiti's dire needs, I'm particularly pleased that George Brunstad chose to turn his moment of personal triumph into one that will help better the lives of some of the residents of an impoverished nation only a few hundred miles from our shores.

This coming weekend, the Wilton Baptist Church and the Center of Hope will be holding a special celebration in George's honor. I send George, Judy, their family, and all those who will be attending the celebration my best wishes, and my enthusiastic congratulations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending amendment aside.

Mr. President, I send an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Specter to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I am offering this amendment dealing with the SAFER Act. This is the No. 1 priority of the various firefighting organizations of the United States, whether they be paid firefighters, volunteer firefighters, fire chiefs organizations, and others. On behalf of Senators Specter, Levin, Harkin, Kennedy, Sarbanes, Daschle, Schumer, and myself, we offer this important amendment.

I want to take a few minutes, with the full recognition that my friend and colleague from Mississippi wants to move matters along. I will take as little time as I can to explain this amendment and what we are trying to do, why I think it is a worthwhile amendment, how we pay for it, and why I don't feel that the offset we are suggesting here in any way would be detrimental to the Department of Homeland Security.

Our amendment will help the 33,000 fire departments across America-- paid departments, volunteer departments, and combination departments. It will help them acquire the necessary personnel they need in order to fight fires and respond to situations all across the country, particularly terrorist incidents and other large-scale emergencies that may emerge.

Just yesterday, I spent a couple of hours with the fire department of Enfield, CT. I went out on one of the calls--a traffic accident. It turned out not to be a serious emergency, but the first vehicles to actually respond to the situation were the fire departments of Enfield. That happens every single day in this country. I think one firehouse in Enfield--one of five--has some 1,200 calls they respond to each year, to give you an idea of the magnitude of emergencies these departments are called upon to respond to every day of the year, all hours of the day and night.

Mr. President, this amendment is the single most important legislative priority of the International Association of Firefighters. It is also strongly supported by the International Association of Fire Chiefs and the National Volunteer Fire Council. If our colleagues support firefighters--and I know many, if not all, do--this is an opportunity to support bipartisan legislation that will make a huge difference in the personnel area of a fire department.

In particular, this amendment provides $100 million for the SAFER Act, which stands for Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response. It was enacted last year with significant bipartisan support as part of the fiscal year 2004 Department of Defense Authorization Act. In fact, the lead sponsors at that time were Senator Warner of Virginia, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, along with Senators Sarbanes, Daschle, Snowe, Clinton, Corzine, Durbin, Johnson, Kerry, Landrieu, Murray, Reed, and Schumer.

The House of Representatives also has championed very similar, if not exact, legislation. It has been supported by the Chairman of the House Science Committee, Sherwood Boehlert of New York; Republican Congressman Curt Weldon, a tremendous champion of firefighters for many

years; along with House minority whip Steny Hoyer, and Representative Bill Pascrell, a strong advocate of firefighters.

The $100 million our amendment provides is fully offset by reductions in management and administrative expenses in title I and title IV of the underlying bill. Even with these offsets, the accounts that will be affected will still receive an increase over last year's funding levels.

After all, this debate is fundamentally about priorities. Senator Specter and I strongly believe the need for additional firefighters on our Nation's streets far outweighs the need for increased resources devoted to administration and management in Washington, DC.

If I can, I will explain how this offset works because I know my good friend from Mississippi will want to address this. I know that my friend from Mississippi has a very difficult job trying to put a bill together that is balanced. I respect him immensely for having to wrestle with these important issues. Certainly, I would have supported a larger 302(b) allocation for homeland security, but that is a debate for another day.

Nevertheless, Senator Specter and I have chosen these offsets with a great deal of care. In no instance do they cut programs below last year's levels. They don't affect the intelligence community in any way. If anything, our offsets will respect the increases in the underlying bill but grant smaller increases. In addition, these offsets are from increases to administrative and management accounts. We believe it is more important to place new firefighters on the streets than new managers and administrators in Washington. I will mention specifically what we are doing.

The Office of the Undersecretary for Management in Title I, for example, received a significant increase in this bill over last year's level. Last year, we funded it at $130 million. This year, the Senate bill provides an increase to $245 million for the same office. That is an 88-percent increase over last year! If our amendment is adopted, the Office of the Under Secretary of Management would still receive a 35- percent increase over last year's bill.

It seems to me that if we were gutting the Office for Undersecretary for Management and making it impossible for it to operate, others could argue we don't have a good case. But in order to help put 75,000 new firefighters on the street over the next seven years, I think is a fair tradeoff.

Under title IV of the bill, the $30 million we offset only comes from management and administrative expenses. By the way, with that cut we are talking about, we still leave the level under title IV higher than what is in the House-passed bill.

We don't believe these offsets we found are in any way damaging to the underlying bill. They still allow for substantial increases in management and administrative costs, as well as leaving title IV in the same position it would be funded at in the House-passed legislation.

You don't have to take our word on the importance of the legislation and the need for increasing the number of people we have in our fire departments. The U.S. Fire Administration--not the firefighters, not the fire chiefs, but U.S. Fire Administration--and National Fire Protection Association found that fire departments throughout the Nation, rural America and urban America, lack sufficient personnel to adequately protect the public.

These concerns were echoed last year in the Council on Foreign Relations report, authored by our former colleague Warren Rudman. The report was entitled ``Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Drastically Underprepared.'' It noted that ``only 10 percent of fire departments in the United States have the personnel . . . to respond to a building collapse.'' It also found that ``two-thirds of our fire departments do not meet the consensus fire standard from minimum safe staffing levels,'' which is at least four firefighters per truck at the scene of an emergency.

If our colleagues are not concerned about these findings, they ought to be concerned about the Rudman report's conclusion. It said:

If the Nation does not take immediate steps to better

identify and address the needs of emergency first responders,

the next terrorist incident could have an even more

devastating impact than the September 11 attacks.

On Saturday our Nation commemorated the third anniversary of that tragic day three years ago. No American citizen will ever forget--no citizen in the world, for that matter, could ever forget--the heroism of the firefighters who were among the first on the scene that day and who charged the stairs, while everybody else was running out of these buildings.

Those 343 members of the New York Fire Department made the ultimate sacrifice that day in their efforts to save thousands of lives trapped in the World Trade Center.

After September 11, of course, we realized that firefighters face new and profound challenges. No longer do they just fight fires, promote safety, and inspect fire code violations. Firefighters still have those traditional responsibilities, but they are now called upon to do far more. They are now asked to respond to the threat of biological, chemical, and even nuclear terrorism. In other words, they are asked to confront what once seemed unthinkable on American soil. It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that the Nation's firefighters are now literally on the front lines of the war on terror, protecting our Nation from the very clear and present danger of future terrorist attacks.

In the past, the Congress has come to the aid of America's firefighters. We have provided substantial funds for the FIRE Act Grant Program, which I also authored with my good friend Senator DeWine of Ohio. FIRE Act grants have enabled fire departments, large and small, paid and volunteer, to purchase the necessary equipment and train firefighters. That assistance allows them to do a better job. In Enfield, CT, yesterday, I saw exactly the kind of equipment that can be purchased with a fire grant proposal. It has made a huge difference to that one department in a relatively small community in my home State of Connecticut.

While training and equipment are extremely important, they are meaningless, obviously, without the personnel needed to take advantage of it. After all, what good is a new breathing apparatus if there is no firefighter to use it? What good is new protective clothing if there is no firefighter to wear it? What good are new firetrucks if there are no firefighters to drive them? What good are new portable radios if there are no firefighters to communicate with each other?

We cannot lose sight of the human side of this important issue. It takes significant manpower to rush into burning houses and buildings, to save the life of a child, deliver emergency medical services and respond to an incident involving a chemical or biological agent. It is, therefore, this shortfall in firefighter staffing that this bipartisan, fully offset amendment that I am offering with Senator Specter and others addresses.

The manpower situation was not always this dire. Yet over the past two decades the number of firefighters as a percentage of the U.S. workforce has declined considerably. I am going to put up a chart that lays out exactly what has happened. This chart will give us a clear understanding of the problems that exist.

Only 11 percent of fire departments can handle, with local personnel, a building collapse with 50 occupants or more in it. That means 89 percent of our departments cannot respond to that. Only 13 percent of fire departments can handle a hazardous material incident with chemical or biological agents and 10 injuries. Again, 87 percent cannot respond to this in an adequate way. Forty percent of fire department personnel involved in hazardous material response lack formal training in these duties, and 60 to 75 percent of fire departments do not have enough fire stations to achieve widely used response time guidelines. That gives some idea just in a brief synopsis of how serious the problems are across our country as far as the lack of personnel.

In 1983, for example, there was 1 firefighter for every 212 of our citizens. In the year 2000, there was only 1 firefighter for every 260 Americans. To put it another way, the number of firefighters has declined by almost 20 percent, nearly one-fifth, over the last two

decades. In fact, we have fewer firefighters per capita than nurses and police officers.

The amendment I am offering with our colleagues, if it is approved today, will hopefully begin to reverse this disquieting trend. In fact, the fire chief at Enfield, CT, told me that when he joined the department, there was a waiting list in order to get on the fire department. Today they are out every single day seeking to find people who will make this a career choice. In fact, they are understaffed at that particular station house.

As to our volunteer departments across the country, particularly in rural America, the days when people would be able to serve in a volunteer fire department and work in the town they lived in is diminishing. More and more people are choosing to live in rural environments and work someplace else, and they are unable to be volunteer firefighters in the home communities. Thus, the number of hired personnel becomes more important. In rural and urban America, the problem is the same.

These numbers I have just cited have recently been exacerbated by the fact that many firefighters have been called to active duty in the National Guard or Army Reserves. According to a recent survey, the smallest fire departments are disproportionately affected by the call- up of military personnel, and I note the presence of the Presiding Officer who comes from the State of Wyoming, where again a lot of small rural communities have been disproportionately affected by the call-ups and are feeling it in a very significant way. We are told that these departments are the least able to absorb the loss of trained staff and will stand to benefit from assistance made available under this amendment.

Finally, making matters worse for the fire services are the budget crises that State and local governments are enduring. This amendment is not suggesting that this ought to be a permanent program where we assume the responsibility of paying for the personnel at local fire departments across America; it is saying that the U.S. Government ought to be a better partner. Just as we have been doing with the COPS program, we can be so doing with our fire departments--not at the same level, not even close to the same level--but being a better partner to help get this on the right track again. Then hopefully, as our economy improves, our State and local governments will take over the responsibility.

Over the next 5 or 6 years, stretching this out, not trying to do it in 1 year, we can make a real difference in putting some people on the ground who can make a difference and save lives in this country.

Across our Nation today, firefighter staffing is being cut, and fire stations are being closed because of State and local budget shortfalls. These events are occurring at the same time that threats to our Nation by terrorism are placing unprecedented demands on the Nation's fire services.

I need not remind our colleagues this morning that we are currently spending billions of America's tax dollars to reconstruct Iraq. Some of those very funds are being spent to hire and train Iraqi firefighters and build fire stations in that nation. If we can find the resources to hire firefighters and renovate fire stations in Iraq, I do not think it is outrageous at all to suggest that we might find some resources to make a difference in hiring some people to protect our own communities in this great Nation of ours.

Again, I want to emphasize that our amendment is fully paid for, with reductions in management and administrative expenditures, by allowing for an increase of 35 percent in those areas, reducing the increase from 88 to 35 percent, and still by allowing under title 4 the amount for administrative and management expenditures at levels above those included in the House-passed bill.

It also has the endorsement of every major firefighter organization in this country. This is their No. 1 bill. This is their No. 1 priority. If we are going to go back home and talk about the importance of homeland security and doing a better job, standing up for these men and women who put their lives on the line every single day for our country, then it seems to me the very least we can do is see to it that they have the necessary personnel to do the job, and that is what we are asking for with this amendment.

America's firefighters are always the first ones in and the last ones out. They risk their own lives to save the lives of others. They stare danger in the face every single day because they know they have a duty to fulfill. On the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks, where 343 firefighters lost their lives doing just that, first ones in and last out, I believe there is no better way for us to commemorate September 11 and recognize the contribution of those individuals than to respond to the very organizations who represented them, who have asked us to do a bit better under this bill to see to it that our firefighters have the necessary personnel they need in order to do their job.

I thought I had already done this, but if not, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton of New York be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

At the conclusion of these remarks, I ask unanimous consent that the letter of full endorsement of the Dodd-Specter amendment by Harold Schaitberger, general president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, be printed in the Record. I have mentioned already where the fire chiefs are on this issue. I also ask unanimous consent that the letter from Chief Robert DiPoli, who is the president of the International Association of Fire Chiefs, of full endorsement of this legislation as well be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

If I may briefly respond, let me thank my colleague again. As I

said at the outset, he has a difficult job. Everyone has different ideas. I understand he has to balance all these.

If I may respectfully challenge what he said on the offsets, because this is a critical question and obviously we have to pay for these initiatives. We took money from two different titles in this bill, Title I and Title IV.

In Title I, which is where the bulk of the money would come from for the amendment, it would still leave an increase in the account of 35- percent over last year. The offset reduces it from an 88 percent increase that is in the underlying legislation.

I should mention at the outset, and I don't want to confuse our colleagues, that there are two separate proposals. One is the FIRE Act grant initiative, which the committee has been very supportive of, and I appreciate that. The bill has funding for $700 million for the FIRE Act grant program, which provides assistance for training and equipment. This amendment, however, is about personnel, which is a different issue. Our argument is that you can get a grant for new equipment, but it is meaningless if you don't have the personnel to do the job. That is why the SAFER bill is a top priority for the fire organizations.

Second, when it comes to the Title IV offsets, you still leave the administrative and management dollars at a level higher than what is in the House-passed bill.

So it is not bare-bones budgeting at all in this area. In those three categories, we are leaving more money than was in last year's budget, and at least as much as in the House-passed bill in either case.

We did it very carefully with the full knowledge that you don't want to be robbing Peter to pay Paul, as the expression goes, or cut into other critical areas. So by reducing across the board in these management areas, bringing them down to levels that still are above what they were previously, we think we have come up with a very balanced approach that deals with a very serious problem, and that is the 20-percent decline in the number of personnel that is affecting paid and volunteer departments across the country. It is a glaring problem that even the U.S. Fire Administration, aside from what firefighters and fire chiefs are saying, believes is absolutely critical.

Again, I thank my colleague from Mississippi for allowing me to bring up the amendment by having a unanimous consent to set aside pending amendments. If need be, Senator Specter may also want to share some comments before we finally vote on the matter. Would that be permissible?

I understand that at a later time another Senator wants to talk on this before we actually vote. Would that be permissible?

I thank the Senator.

I yield the floor.