Floor Statements

Mr. President, first of all, I commend our colleague from Iowa for his effort on the overtime pay issue. Clearly, he has attracted the attention of the administration and others. We in Congress have, on two recent occasions rejected the administration's proposals that would modify the overtime rules crafted back, as the Senator from Wyoming pointed out, in the 1930s, with the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Over the years, we have changed the Fair Labor Standards Act when it comes to overtime. Those changes have historically expanded how overtime could be used or under what job categories it could be used. There has not been a single instance in the nearly 70 years since the act was written where there has been a constriction of the overtime provisions.

This is a historic moment. The Senate will vote in 30 minutes as to whether this Congress will, for the first time since the 1930s, limit the ability of people who work to collect overtime in more than 800 job categories. The Senator from New Hampshire said we apologize, we are going to take 55 job categories and we are going to exclude them from being adversely affected by the rules when it comes to overtime. As my colleague pointed out, in fact there were some 889 different job categories that could be affected by this rule.

Clearly, what we are talking about is restricting the ability of people who work more than a 40-hour week to be able to collect overtime pay. For people who do collect overtime pay, that money amounts to 25 percent of the income they take home. Who are we talking about? Clerical workers, nursery school teachers, cooks, and nurses to name but a few. These are the people who depend upon overtime pay in order to make ends meet.

You don't have to have a Ph.D in economics to know what is going on with families and their incomes today and their abilities to make ends meet. It was reported a few years ago how much of the income families earn can be put aside for savings, or that they could apply to college tuition for their children in the future. Today we know the ability of the middle-income family to save, put money aside, and purchase necessary items for their families has been severely restricted. This is yet one further attempt to make it more difficult for these families who need the extra overtime pay to make ends meet.

People who are stripped of these overtime protections would end up working longer hours for less pay. Does anybody believe this administration's Department of Labor is trying to expand overtime pay? That is not why the business community is supporting this rule change, because they want to expand overtime pay. The administration clearly wants to restrict it and redefine job categories that will allow them to do so.

Also, I suggest the rule works adversely in terms of job creation. The Fair Labor Standards Act was enacted nearly 70 years ago to create a 40-hour workweek and require that workers be paid fairly for any extra hours. Especially in times like these, it is an incentive for job creation because it encourages employers to hire more workers, instead of forcing current employees to work longer hours. So it creates jobs.

Obviously, if you don't have to pay overtime, you can get that one person to work longer hours for less pay. We should be trying to create jobs in this country--instead, we have lost nearly 3 million in the last 39 months; in fact, some 8 to 10 million people are out of work in this country. Further, this is vitally important to the 40-hour workweek. If employers no longer have to pay extra for overtime, they will have incentive to demand longer hours, and workers will have less time to spend with their families. People already know how difficult it is to balance work and family. Many single parents raising children, or two income earners are holding more than one job to meet the family's financial obligations.

This is a very important issue to working families and it is important for them to know this Congress will stand up for them on something as basic as the ability for them to earn overtime pay when they put in the extra hours. I also want to add that the job classifications being proposed by my friend from New Hampshire in his amendment are too vague and will invite litigation. My friend from Wyoming pointed out we ought to be trying to discourage litigation. I agree. But the adoption of the Gregg amendment, without the Harkin amendment, seems to do nothing but open up that door to litigation.

For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Harkin amendment and send a final message to the administration: Do not mess around with overtime pay. This Congress is going to stand up for workers' rights to get it.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum to be charged equally against both sides.

Mr. President, today, and over the weekend, more than 1,200 students from across the United States came to Washington to take part in the national finals of ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution,'' the most extensive educational program in the country developed to educate our youth about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education through the No Child Left behind Act, passed into law just 2 years ago.

I am proud to announce that a group of students from Trumbull, CT are in our Nation's Capital to represent my home State in this prestigious national event. These outstanding students, through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, won their statewide competition and earned the chance to come to Washington and compete at the national level.

Modeled after hearings in Congress, the ``We the People National Finals Competition'' gives students an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge of the Constitution and Bill of Rights before a panel of adult judges. Students evaluate, take and defend constitutional positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues, and are subject to a barrage of questions designed to further probe their depth of understanding as it relates to our ``founding documents.''

Last year, Russell Berg, a student from Trumbull, testified at a Congressional hearing on civic education mentioning his participation in the ``We the People'' program. Russell said that civic education ``is the key to comprehending, appreciating and eventually participating in our democratic process.'' I could not think of a greater endorsement for civic education in our schools. Clearly, an understanding of history and civics is critical to our ability as a nation to continue as a thriving, functioning democracy.

Our Constitution is a great document, but it is neither a simple nor self-implementing one. For it to work, it requires an educated populace, and a populace that understands that American citizenship brings with it both great benefits and great responsibility. If we want to ensure that our society remains faithful to democracy, and its underlying ideals, we must teach our children what those ideals are. ``We the People'' does just that.

I applaud the achievements of all the students who qualified for this year's competition and all of those students who participated in local and State rounds of competition. We should all be proud that these students are learning and advocating the fundamental ideals that identify us as a people and bind us together as a nation.

I yield to my colleague from Delaware. I know he has a comment he wants to make.

I propound a unanimous consent request regarding time. My colleague from Arkansas wishes to speak for 10 minutes on a subject unrelated to the matter before the Senate. I would like to follow her, if I might accommodate my Senator from Arkansas, on a subject matter unrelated to the matter before the Senate. I clearly know the priority is to get amendments up here. If I may, I make such a request, that the Senator from Arkansas be recognized for 10 minutes, and following her remarks I be recognized for 15 minutes to speak on a matter unrelated to the subject matter before the Senate.

Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, may I also make a unanimous consent request that at the conclusion of my remarks, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, be recognized for 20 minutes.

My remarks will be off the subject matter of the bill.

At the conclusion of my remarks, which are about 15 minutes off the subject matter of the bill, Senator Byrd of West Virginia be recognized for 20 minutes.

I do not know. I have not asked the Senator.

No, it is not. It is a tribute to a constituent.

Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Arkansas for her very eloquent remarks. While she addressed them to four specific individuals from her State, she could have been speaking for any one of our States in talking about any one of the several hundred young men and women who have lost their lives in Iraq over the last year. I thank her for the eloquence of her remarks, the sense of passion and commitment she brought to them. I know she is joined by all of us-- certainly this Senator--in expressing deep sorrow for the loss of these Arkansans. We will certainly keep them in our thoughts and prayers.

My remarks follow on a little bit with the remarks of my colleague from Arkansas. Later today or tomorrow, this body will be asked to vote on the confirmation of the first Ambassador to be sent to post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, John Negroponte. Presently, he is our Ambassador to the United Nations. Ambassador Negroponte has a very distinguished diplomatic career and is well suited to undertake what is surely going to be an extremely difficult and complex assignment, likely the most difficult one of his career, and certainly one of the most difficult in the history of the diplomatic corps, going back over the more than 200- year history of our Nation.

While we have had our differences from time to time, I happen to believe John Negroponte is eminently qualified to take on this post. I thank him for his willingness to assume this responsibility, if he is confirmed, and I believe he will be. I also thank his family for their willingness and understanding that our country needs John Negroponte's service at this critical hour.

During his nomination hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee, I stressed to Ambassador Negroponte

that it would be terribly important for him to be candid with this Congress and the American people about what is happening in Iraq and what is not occurring. As we send our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters in harm's way, as we have just heard our colleague from Arkansas so eloquently describe, the American people have every right to expect and demand that U.S. officials are telling them the truth about what is happening in Iraq because if they lose faith in what our government is telling them, the United States will not be able to sustain the long and difficult task we have undertaken in this faraway country. Ambassador Negroponte acknowledged his obligation to keep us informed. I am very confident he will do so.

While I intend to support Ambassador Negroponte's nomination when the Senate votes on this matter, I would not want that vote of support for him to be interpreted as an endorsement of the U.S. policy in Iraq, as it is presently being conducted. I am deeply troubled about the pace and direction of our policy in that country. The situation in Iraq could not be more volatile. Yet the Bush administration seems hell-bent to stick to the planned date of June 30 for the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi Government. Given the recent upsurge in violence in places such as Falluja and Najaf, given the absence of an effective Iraqi security force to deal with such acts, and given the inadequate numbers of U.S. and foreign troops in that country to restore and maintain stability, I wonder--and I assume others do as well--whether we are setting ourselves up for a catastrophic failure by rigidly adhering to this deadline of June 30.

This coming Saturday, May 1, will be the 1-year anniversary of President Bush's declaration of mission accomplished in Iraq. Recent events make it painfully obvious that nothing could be further from the truth; rather, our mission may be just beginning. Certainly the return of sovereignty to Iraq is a laudable goal which I support, as I assume most all of my colleagues do. It should and must be our end game. But a transfer of authority will not in and of itself be a panacea for all the problems Iraq faces. Moreover, if we do it prematurely, it could put our whole mission and the future of Iraq at risk.

This has been obvious to many of us for some time. But the Bush administration continues to plunge forward with the hope and prayer that everything somehow will work out after June 30. It does so without any clear sign that Iraq is ready for us to turn over authority or its institutions are at all capable at this juncture of successfully taking on this incredible responsibility. In fact, I would argue that all the evidence before us suggests that Iraq is not ready and will not be ready in the coming 62 days. Ironically, in light of recent events, with each step closer to June 30 we seem to be taking a step back in terms of our readiness to hand over control to the interim transitional Iraqi Government.

Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held three consecutive hearings on the situation in Iraq. I commend Senator Lugar and Senator Biden for holding the hearings. On Tuesday, the committee considered the nomination of Ambassador John Negroponte to be the first Ambassador to post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. Many questions were explored in the course of those hearings. Frankly, with respect to many of those questions, there were no or very few clear answers. However, we did receive some very excellent testimony from expert witnesses with very different backgrounds--from the U.S. military, from academia, from policing experience, and counterterrorism.

Despite their different expertise, all of the witnesses were in agreement on one thing: that is, a major course correction with respect to U.S. efforts in Iraq is badly needed, and needed immediately. I have come to a very similar conclusion. Let me be clear. This need for a correction in our policy is not because our men and women in uniform have somehow failed to do their jobs. Quite the contrary, these men and women have performed every task that has been asked of them with the highest degree of professionalism, patriotism, and heroism. Let there be no doubt about that in the mind of any single American. But it is now more than 1 year after the end of major combat, and arguably the dangers to our troops have never been greater 1 year later.

Why then are our troops in so much danger? I believe the answer, unfortunately, is quite simple. We have failed to craft and implement an effective stabilization plan for the nation of Iraq. This is not the fault of those in uniform; rather, it is the responsibility of top civilian officials in the Department of Defense and the White House who from the very beginning ignored--in fact, scoffed at and thwarted-- recommendations from leading uniformed officers, including GEN Eric Shinseki, that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to complete our mission in Iraq. In retrospect, it certainly seems that General Shinseki's judgment was right on the mark. More recently, military experts have concluded that we are likely, at least in the short term, to need an additional 50,000 U.S. troops if we are going to be able to secure the peace in that country.

We are also going to need a similar number from our European allies in NATO, and we need these reinforcements soon before events spin even further out of control than they already have.

Indeed, I wonder if last March we had sent a larger number of troops to Iraq--and had broad international participation--whether we would now be facing the same unacceptable lack of security throughout that country. I also wonder what effect increased security in Iraq would have had with respect to Iraqis' tolerance of a U.S. military presence in their country.

Unfortunately, this lack of security has been evident from the earliest days of the conflict, when it first became apparent that the administration had not paid sufficient attention to the security needs of Iraq. Museums were looted. Ordinary civilians took up arms to guard their neighborhoods. Lawlessness prevailed throughout much of the country. Most importantly, in that short period of time, we lost the confidence of the Iraqi people.

This isn't simply my observation. I was told very directly by an Iraqi during my trip to the nation back in December, well before the recent flareup in violence over the last several weeks--this Iraqi citizen is a Shiite, a moderate, a forward-looking individual. He very frankly told me that the lawlessness which followed the war negatively impacted Iraqis' confidence as to the intentions, preparedness, and capabilities of coalition forces to create a safe and secure Iraq.

His contention was reinforced by Hasan Zirkani, who in November 2003 listed the lack of law and order, rampant unemployment, and the lack of basic services as sources of Shiite unrest. I would note that Mr. Zirkani is a Shiite cleric who supports Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical leader who commands the loyalty of the group responsible for much of the recent violence and unrest in Iraq.

I also point to a February 2004 nationwide poll in Iraq, which showed that 64 percent of the Iraqi people consider regaining public security as their ``first priority'' over the next 12 months.

Disturbingly, the Bush administration has attempted to make up for its lack of security preparation in the same reactive and hasty manner as much of the planning for post-war Iraq was carried out. One example of this has been the assembling of the various Iraqi security forces, a process which most experts agree was done far too quickly, with little or no training, and with inadequate vetting. We all witnessed the consequences of these rushed activities during the recent upsurge in violence, when Iraqi forces collapsed in the face of armed resistance.

Insecurity in Iraq has also affected the ability of U.S. and foreign NGOs to perform the necessary humanitarian and reconstruction duties that would help them turn around the mood in the Iraqi streets. Unfortunately, due to the lack of security, many are unwilling or unable to operate in that country. In many places, reconstruction activities have come to a screeching halt. Contractors sit in hotel lobbies in Kuwait and Jordan, waiting for order to be restored so they can return to their projects.

The administration says we are on course for June 30. I ask: What is that course? Where is all this leading?

One thing is clear: From the very beginning, the Bush administration has done an inadequate job of preparing for the peace in Iraq. It has attempted to fix problems in shortsighted, often haphazard ways. It has only begrudgingly moved to adapt to the resulting strategic realities on the ground.

That is why I believe it is fair and responsible to question the administration's plans as they relate to the upcoming June 30 deadline. How much more complex will this situation be if we try to stand up an Iraqi authority prematurely--if we stubbornly adhere to this date? What happens if that authority crumbles?

I don't underestimate the problem of delaying the turnover. Clearly, if U.N. Special Envoy Brahimi were to announce that the turnover on June 30 is impossible, that would make our choice much easier. But we must recognize that the situation in Iraq is incredibly fragile. If this effort to build a stable and democratic Iraq is to succeed, it is going to need enormous international support. That support will not be forthcoming if the interim government in Iraq is not perceived as legitimate--both by the Iraqi people and the international community.

I emphasize again that I understand there will be a cost by delaying the June 30 date. My point is that whatever that cost is, the cost of adhering to that date, sticking to it prematurely I think would be far more precarious than whatever damage may be associated with delaying the date beyond the June 30 date. Indeed, for all the difficulties in delaying the turnover of authority in Iraq, they pale in comparison, in my view, to going forward and seeing the situation irreversibly spiral downward.

Equally troubling is that the administration is now saying that our handover of sovereignty to the Iraqis on June 30 will be ``limited.'' Mr. President, I don't quite understand what that means. I suspect the Iraqi people don't either. The law of administration for the state of Iraq, the so-called transitional law, which was drafted and approved earlier this year, calls for the establishment of a ``fully sovereign Iraqi interim government.''

Now it would appear that a yet-to-be-negotiated annex to that transitional law is going to spell out the limits of Iraq's sovereignty after June 30. Of course, nobody yet knows what that annex is going to look like--what concessions the administration will have to make to get the various Iraqi factions to sign off on the individuals who will make up the interim government, or whether those concessions, made in haste, in the long run will undermine our goal of a fully independent and democratic Iraq.

I don't pretend to have all the answers with respect to what needs to be done before sovereignty is handed back to the Iraqi people. But I will say that the rapidly deteriorating security situation, combined with the lack of legitimacy for the U.S. presence in Iraq, has created conflicting pressures on the administration with respect to the June 30 deadline.

Administration officials assert if we hand over authority to the Iraqis on schedule, the U.S. presence in that country will become less controversial. I disagree. The way to enhance U.S. legitimacy is to get the security situation turned around. That isn't going to happen by simply declaring Iraq a sovereign nation on July 1; it is only going to happen with a carefully planned and implemented stabilization program.

That stabilization program will require more troops on the ground-- our troops and troops from other nations sanctioned by a clear U.N. mandate. Whether that can be accomplished by June 30 remains to be seen. I think it is very unlikely.

As I mentioned earlier, we are only 62 days away from the turnover date. Yet, we still don't know who we are turning that authority over to. We don't know whether the individuals to be chosen by a U.N. special envoy will be acceptable to the Iraqi people.

What we do know is that virtually every day more Americans and more Iraqis are dying. Recent events have forced the Bush administration to acknowledge some of these realities. I do not think we should dismiss out of hand that a course correction may be called for that makes the primary focus of our efforts security; or that we put off, for a time, the standing up of an unelected interim government.

That would also give us additional time to make sure that when authority is transferred, it is transferred to a body that has legitimacy in the eyes of the international community and the Iraqi people. To help do this, we need to go to the U.N. and NATO before turning over authority, not after. The U.N. and NATO would be invaluable partners in tackling a task never before attempted from the outside: converting dictatorship into democracy. It would infuse our efforts with much-needed legitimacy.

There are roughly 9 weeks left before June 30. In the interim, a lot could be accomplished in Iraq that might make the turnover of sovereignty possible on the timetable the administration has laid out. We could have achieved, before that date, a clear and concrete U.N. mandate for nation building in Iraq. We could have a secured commitment for a significant NATO troop deployment in that nation. We could have deployed additional troops to address the security challenges of a growing insurgency movement--including troops from governments in the region. But we have not achieved any of those things yet. We need to be honest about that.

Mr. President, now is the time for a careful, informed debate in America about U.S. policy in Iraq, especially about the wisdom of our set deadlines--the pros and cons of moving forward as planned. After that debate, as June 30 draws nearer, we may in fact determine that sufficient progress has been made to go ahead as planned with the turnover of sovereignty. That may in fact be the right thing to do. But if on balance we conclude it is not, we in Congress need to say so publicly and on a bipartisan basis. The Bush administration needs to do so as well. Then we need to act accordingly.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas Freeman, recently sent an e-mail to some of his friends concerning the situation in Iraq. It was printed in the Washington Post about 2 weeks ago. He concluded with these comments:

Military triumph does not necessarily equate to a political

victory. Wars end only when the defeated accept defeat, not

when the victor declares victory. A victory that does not

produce peace can be much more costly than protracted

confrontation that accomplishes deterrence. Arrogant

daydreams that inspire military actions can become

humiliating nightmares that produce political debacles.

Before our daydreams for a free and democratic Iraq become our nightmares of a bottomless quagmire, let us do the sensible thing and at least honestly take a hard look at our decision to turn back authority to the Iraqi people on June 30--before we are sure that ``victory is going to produce peace.'' Once we have allowed the Iraqi people to govern themselves, it is going to be virtually impossible to take that sovereignty back without enormous loss of the blood and treasure of both of our peoples.

That is something no one wants to see happen. I urge the administration to think about the wisdom of moving forward on the June 30 date.

He is gone. He retired. He was not fired.

Clearly, the message was quite clear that he had stepped out of line by saying what he thought from a military standpoint--he had a distinguished career of many years in military service--that in order to be successful, that number of troops was necessary. He was, in a sense, penalized, at the very

least rhetorically for suggesting as such.

I recall that.

That is exactly what happened. He was also highly condemned for suggesting a number that now looks small in comparison to what the real pricetag is going to be.

That number I think is roughly correct. Most of those, by the way, have died since May 1 of last year.

I think by anyone's estimation to declare that the mission was accomplished was a mistake.

I do recall that statement he made.

Mr. President, if I may take 1 additional minute, my point is, I voted in favor of the authority. I believe it was the right thing to do. My concern is the June 30 date. I am concerned, and I realize there is a cost in changing it. We need to evaluate whether turning sovereignty over at that date is going to serve our interests. That was the sum and substance of my remarks.

I appreciate the questions my colleague from Nevada raised. I made comments regarding holding rigidly to a date that could turn out to be a mistake.

Mr. President, before the leader yields, I thank the leader. This was a very gracious thing to do. We don't do it often enough. I commend the Democratic leader for taking out a few minutes to recognize people who make such a difference here every single day. The leader does this repeatedly, and I commend him for it.

I associate myself with his remarks, and I wish to express our deep gratitude to Tom and his family for remarkable service to this country. I hope the people out there realize with all that happens within the view of a television camera, there are literally hundreds of people who make this government of ours, in spite of all of its inefficiencies, function remarkably well, and Tom certainly falls within that category. I thank the leader for taking a few minutes out to recognize him.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a truly singular figure in history, an individual whose very name has become synonymous with poetry and theater, William Shakespeare. This past week marked the 440th anniversary of William Shakespeare's birth in 1564.

Nearly four centuries after his death, William Shakespeare's impact remains a resounding one, here in America and around the world. His works range from uproarious comedies to tragedies that move audiences and readers to tears. He continues to remind us both of the greatness of which man is capable, and the frailties which too often prevent us from realizing our potential.

Shakespeare's prolific and outstanding career is virtually unmatched in the history of Western literature and drama. Perhaps the most telling illustration of the magnitude of Shakespeare's work is that the two books most often found in American homes are the Bible and the Complete Works of William Shakespeare.

I am pleased to note that my home State of Connecticut is home to a number of Shakespeare theaters and festivals. Shakespeare on the Sound in Norwalk will entertain 10,000 people over the course of this summer. The Elm Shakespeare Company in New Haven now draws about 30,000 people per production. And Stratford, named after the town where Shakespeare was born, is currently in the process of renovating its landmark Shakespeare theater, which will hopefully reopen this coming summer.

I would also like to recognize the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, an organization that works to perpetuate Shakespeare's legacy and to preserve his estates in Stratford-upon-Avon in the United Kingdom. Here in the United States, the American Friends of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust work to support the Trust's goals. Together with the Newington-Cropsey Foundation, located in Hastings-on-Hudson, NY, they have placed four of what will ultimately be eight bronze monuments by the sculptor Greg Wyatt in the ``Great Garden'' at New Place, where Shakespeare spent his last days and wrote The Tempest. Replicas of those sculptures, each of which represents a particular Shakespeare work, have been presented to the Folger Shakespeare Library here in Washington. The American Friends of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust also sponsor student summer sessions at Stratford for Columbia, Georgetown, and other American universities.

I applaud the American Friends of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust for all the work they do. And I salute all those in Connecticut and around the world who strive to keep the name and works of William Shakespeare alive and well today. With their help, Shakespeare's words, both in print and on stage, will continue to inspire millions for many, many years to come.

Madam President, it is with a great deal of sadness that I rise in memory of an outstanding journalist and a good friend, Mary McGrory, who passed away last night at the age of 85.

Mary was truly one of the most accomplished journalists of our time. She was a real news reporter--one who spent enormous amounts of time and energy getting to the bottom of a story, and then spent hours more putting it into the right words. With her trademark wit and Pulitzer- Prize winning prose, Mary McGrory helped millions of Americans understand some of the most significant events of the past 50 years-- from the McCarthy hearings, the Kennedy assassination, and Watergate to the attacks of September 11 and the buildup to the war in Iraq.

She began her career in journalism writing book reviews and other pieces for the Boston Herald-Traveler. In 1947, she transferred to the Washington Star, and it was there that she made her mark as a reporter. She remained at the Star until the paper shut down in 1981. From then on, she wrote for the Washington Post for over two decades. The only thing that could stop Mary from writing was the stroke she suffered a little over a year ago.

Mary's skill, integrity, and relentless effort won her tremendous esteem from her colleagues, as well as from the public figures whose lives and actions she detailed. Mary broke into a field that was very much a man's world, and she established herself as one of its giants. Her stature was clear to anyone who ever saw her during a political campaign, when fellow reporters and even the candidates themselves would literally carry her bags.

Mary came from the old school of reporting. During her later years, while many of her younger colleagues traveled with laptops, digital recorders, and cell phones, Mary made do with her pen and notebook.

Mary was never one to beat around the bush in her writing. You always knew where she stood. Her no-nonsense approach could delight those who agreed with her, and infuriate those who did not. But regardless of whether you were on her side or not, Mary McGrory earned your respect.

I was fortunate to experience not only Mary's writing, but her singular personality. She was truly someone who enjoyed life and tried to squeeze every last drop out of it.

I would like to share a few thoughts on Mary from some of her colleagues:

David Broder of the Washington Post said:

If you traveled with Mary, you watched a consummate

craftsman hard at work, an interviewer whose soft purr put

citizens at ease and disarmed the most hard-shelled old pols.

She talked with everyone, and everyone, great and small,

wanted to talk with her.

Leonard Downie, Jr., the Executive Editor of the Washington Post:

Mary was simply one of the best opinion columnists of her

time.

Maureen Dowd of the New York Times called Mary:

the most luminous writer and clearest thinker in the

business.

Finally, Brian McGrory of the Boston Globe, who is also Mary's cousin, described Mary's life as:

one of the most important, colorful, and enduring newspaper

careers that the American public has had the pleasure to

read.

I mourn Mary's passing. But I also celebrate her life. She was truly an outstanding reporter and writer, and a remarkable human being. We will all miss her very much.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Sgt. Felix Delgreco of the Connecticut Army National Guard, who was killed in action in Iraq on Friday, April 9, at the age of 22.

Sgt. Delgreco was the first Connecticut National Guardsman to be killed in Iraq. His unit, the C Company, 102nd Infantry, was based in Bristol and had been deployed in Kuwait since March. It had been in Baghdad for less than 3 days when Sgt. Delgreco was killed.

Felix Delgreco enlisted in the Guard in 1999, while he was still in high school. Before he went overseas this year, he had been deployed twice once on a peacekeeping effort in Bosnia in 2001, and once in 2003 to West Point for a homeland security mission.

Felix Delgreco was not ordered to go to Iraq. No one forced him to get on a plane. He volunteered. Felix Delgreco was an American patriot who wanted to serve his country and to help build a brighter future for the people of Iraq. He took it upon himself to make a difference in his community and in his world.

Felix Delgreco's friends say he was a friendly, outgoing young man who could fit in anywhere. He enjoyed writing poetry and playing music, and worked backstage during school plays at Simsbury High School. He was an Eagle Scout who took the values of leadership, service, and honor seriously. His cooking skills were well-renowned, both among his fellow scouts and among those who served with him in the Guard. He had dreams of one day running for President. From time to time, he would even plan out the details of his 2024 campaign with his friends.

Sgt. Delgreco was an individual whose warmth, enthusiasm, and spirit touched everyone around him. Perhaps his former scoutmaster, Richard Gugliemetti, put it best when he said, ``Felix Delgreco made us all better people.''

Felix Delgreco could have chosen many other paths in life. But he chose one of commitment, of duty, and of service. That was the kind of person Felix Delgreco was. And we are all forever in his debt for the tremendous sacrifice he made so that we can live in freedom and security.

I extend my deepest sympathies to Sgt. Delgreco's parents, Felix and Claire, to his entire family, and to everyone who was fortunate to know him.

Tyanna Avery-Felder

Mr. President, I rise in memory of U.S. Army SP4 Tyanna Avery-Felder, of Bridgeport, Connecticut, who was killed in the line of duty in Iraq. She was 22 years old.

Specialist Avery-Felder, who served as a cook with the Army's Stryker Brigade, based in Fort Lewis, WA, died on April 6, 2004, 2 days after her convoy

was hit by an improvised explosive device in Mosul, Iraq. She is the first woman from Connecticut to be killed in Iraq since the United States began military operations there in March 2003.

Tyanna Avery-Felder's death is a sobering reminder to all of us, and particularly to people in my home State of Connecticut, that the brave members of our Armed Forces who are risking their lives for us overseas are no longer simply sons, brothers, and fathers. They are daughters, mothers, and sisters, as well.

Specialist Avery-Felder was not the only soldier in her family. She was married to U.S. Army SP4 Adrian Felder. The couple met while they were both completing their basic training in Fort Lewis, and they were married on December 20, 2002, just a few months before the war in Iraq began. Both of them knew of the commitment, risk, and sacrifice inherent in military service. But it was Tyanna who was called to serve overseas in Iraq. And it was she who would make the most powerful sacrifice of all.

Tyanna Avery-Felder was a graduate of Kolbe Cathedral High School in Bridgeport, where she enjoyed playing basketball and singing in the gospel choir. She spent 1 year at Southern Connecticut State University before enlisting in the Army. She was determined to be a teacher for young children when she finished her military service.

Tyanna was a driven, goal-oriented young woman whose mind was hard to change once she made it up. And she was the kind of soldier who inspired her drill instructor at boot camp to compliment her on her toughness. But Specialist Avery-Felder also had a kind heart, and a loving relationship with her parents and her husband.

All of us in Connecticut and across America owe a deep and solemn debt of gratitude to Tyanna Avery-Felder and to her family for her service to our country. On behalf of the U.S. Senate, I offer my deepest condolences to Tyanna's husband Adrian, to her parents, Ray and Ilene, and to everyone who knew and loved her.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to an outstanding American soldier, BG Richard L. Ursone. General Ursone, a native of Stamford, CT, is retiring June 30, 2004 after 33 years of distinguished service in the United States Army Medical Service Corps.

General Ursone played a critical role in shaping and successfully executing the mission of the United States Army Medical Department. When brave men and women across our country commit to serving our country in the Armed Forces, our country also makes a commitment to them. And part of that commitment is to provide them with world-class medical care, both on and off the field of battle. Throughout his career, General Ursone has made invaluable contributions to the health and well-being of soldiers in the United States Army. Over the past three decades, General Ursone has served in a series of demanding assignments around the globe and in leadership positions of increasing responsibility.

Of particular note was General Ursone's service in combat during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. From 1990 to 1991, General Ursone, then a Lieutenant Colonel, served as commander of the 47th Medical Logistics Battalion. He successfully deployed and led his soldiers in supporting the war effort and the entire U.S. Army Central Command Theater of Operations with the delivery and replenishment of needed medications and medical supplies.

From 1994 to 1996, then-Colonel Ursone served as the commander of the U.S. Army Medical Materiel Center, Europe in Pirmasens, Germany. Through his leadership, he reengineered the center's business practices to ensure that our soldiers stationed in Europe and their families received medical supplies and medications quickly and efficiently. His hard work and many accomplishments were recognized with the prestigious Vice President Gore's Hammer Award.

In 2000, he was promoted to brigadier general. As a general officer he served in multiple senior positions and was also appointed as the fourteenth chief of the Army Medical Service Corps.

As the commander of the Europe Regional Medical Command, General Ursone led a health care system comprised of a medical center, two hospitals, and 27 clinics. This medical command supported operations spanning over three continents--Europe, Africa and Asia--while simultaneously providing healthcare to over 250,000 soldiers, family members, retirees and civilians from the Department of Defense. In subsequent assignments as the Assistant Surgeon General for Force Sustainment and the Assistant Surgeon General for Force Projection from June 2002 to June 2004, General Ursone's leadership was integral in preparing the Army Medical Department to serve our troops in their efforts against the new and unfamiliar threat of global terrorism.

As chief of the Medical Service Corps, General Ursone has unified the most diverse group of specialties in the Army. His commitment to leader development and mentoring of junior officers helped the Corps achieve annual increases in recruiting and retaining officers. General Ursone's vision and leadership have created opportunities for officers to serve our Nation while also achieving their own professional and personal aspirations.

Health care in the Army encompasses a staggering array of services, from basic medical and dental checkups to prescription medications to emergency care on the battlefield to vaccinations against biological and chemical threats. Officers serve as medical operations officers, healthcare administrators, medical logisticians, preventive medicine officers, allied scientists, behavioral science officers as well as optometrists and pharmacists.

To lead and manage such a wide and complex network, you need to be a special person--one who is able to think strategically and act appropriately for the time and circumstances. You need a leader who will take swift and decisive action in a crisis, like when General Ursone worked around the clock managing the evacuation and care of the victims of the USS Cole bombing. You need a compassionate leader capable of implementing Women, Infant and Child programs. Above all, you need a leader who recognizes that his decisions will have a tremendous impact on thousands and thousands of individual soldiers and their families. In each and every one of these critical areas, Richard Ursone has gone above and beyond the call of duty.

Brigadier General Ursone's service and contributions to fellow soldiers and our Nation are eloquent testimony to his loyalty, dedication, talents, and abilities. General Ursone is not a physician. However, it is difficult to imagine any individual who has done more to ensure that every single soldier, family member and retiree in the U.S. Army receives the most advanced, efficient, and compassionate health care. His commitment to the men and women of our Armed Forces is truly an inspiration to us all. I send him my best wishes on his well- deserved retirement. And on behalf of our Nation, I extend to him thanks and gratitude for a remarkable career of service.

Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate today to introduce legislation, ``The No Child Left Behind Reform Act.'' This legislation makes three basic changes to the No Child Left Behind Act which was signed into law in January of 2002.

The No Child Left Behind Act received the support of this Senator and 86 of our colleagues. Like most, if not all, of our colleagues who supported this bill, I supported it because I care about improving the quality of education in America for all of our children. I believed that this law would help to achieve that goal by establishing more rigorous standards for measuring student achievement, by helping teachers do a better job of instructing students, and last but not least, by providing the resources desperately needed by our schools for even the most basic necessities to help put the reforms we passed into place.

Regrettably, the high hopes that I and many others had for this law have not been realized. The law is being implemented by the Administration in a manner that is inflexible, unreasonable and unhelpful to students. Furthermore, the law is not only failing to help teachers do their best in the classroom, it reflects, along with other Administration policies and pronouncements, a neglect and even hostility towards members of the teaching profession.

Worse still, the Administration's promise of sufficient resources to implement No Child Left Behind's much needed reforms is a promise that has yet to be kept. Indeed, the current budget proposed by the Bush Administration underfunds No Child Left Behind by $9.4 billion. Since passage slightly over 2 years ago, the law has been funded at a level that is more than $26 billion below what was promised when the President signed the Act into law.

As a result of the failures of the current Administration to fulfill its commitment to our nation's school children under this law, those children and their teachers are today shouldering new and noteworthy hardships. Throughout the State of Connecticut, for example, students, teachers, administrators and parents are struggling to implement requirements that are often confusing, inflexible and unrealistic. And they are struggling to do so without the additional resources they were promised to put them into place.

As I have said on numerous occasions in the past, resources without reforms are a waste of money. By the same token, reforms without resources are a false promise--a false promise that has left students and their teachers grappling with new burdens and little help to bear them.

The legislation I am introducing today proposed to make three changes to the No Child Left Behind Act. These changes will ease current burdens on our students, our teachers and our administrators without dismantling the fundamental underpinnings of the law.

First, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act will allow schools to be given credit for performing well on measures other than test scores when calculating student achievement. Test scores are an important measure of student knowledge. However, they are not the only measure. There are others as well. These include dropout rates, the number of students who participate in advanced placement courses, and measures of individual student improvement over time. Unfortunately, current law does not allow schools to use these additional measures in a constructive manner. Additional measures can only be used as a measure of how a school is failing, not how a school is succeeding. This legislation will allow schools to earn credit for succeeding.

Second, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act will allow schools to target school choice and supplemental services to the students that actually demonstrate a need for them. As the current law is being implemented by the Administration, if a school is in need of improvement it is expected to offer school choice and supplemental services to all students--even if not all students have demonstrated a need for them. That strikes me as a wasteful and imprecise way to help a school improve student performance. For that reason, this legislation will allow schools to target resources to the students that actually demonstrate that they need them. Clearly, this is the most efficient way to maximize their effect.

Finally, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act introduces a greater degree of reasonableness to the teacher certification process. As it is being implemented, the law requires teachers to be ``highly qualified'' to teach every subject that they teach. Certainly none of us disagree with this policy as a matter of principle. But as a matter of practice, it is causing confusion and hardship for teachers, particularly secondary teachers and teachers in small school districts. For example, as the law is being implemented by the Administration, a high school science teacher could be required to hold degrees in biology, physics and chemistry to be considered highly qualified. In small schools where there may be only one 7th or 8th grade teacher teaching all subjects, these teachers could similarly be required to hold degrees in every subject area.

Such requirements are unreasonable at a time when teachers are increasingly hard to find. The legislation I introduce today will allow States to create a single assessment to cover multiple subjects for middle grade level teachers and allow states to issue a broad certification for science and social studies.

In my view, these changes will provide significant assistance to schools in Connecticut and other states currently struggling to comply with the No Child Left Behind law. I would hope that our colleagues would look with some favor on it.

Of equal if not greater importance is the urgent need to provide our schools with the additional resources they need to help our children learn. Obviously, funding this law is beyond the scope of this bill. I would note, however, that efforts to increase education funding to authorized levels have thus far been unsuccessful.

Earlier this year, I supported Senator Murray's amendment to fully fund No Child Left Behind by increasing the budget allocation by $8.6 billion. Unfortunately, Senator Murray's amendment was defeated purely on party lines. Clearly, funding for No Child Left Behind is not at the top of the Majority's priority list. I will continue to work to change this outcome. Clearly, our children deserve the resources needed to make their dreams for a better education a reality.

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

Madam President, what is the business before the Senate?

Madam President, I want to take a few minutes and talk about an issue off the pending matter, if I may, before the Senate. While it may not be germane to the subject matter before the Senate, the matter I want to talk about is extremely germane to the American public and what they are interested in. That is education. I particularly want to focus for a few minutes on higher education.

We are now coming into the months of April and May when students will be wrapping up their academic year and taking exams. Those who are in their last year will be graduating and going out into the private sector or graduate school.

As we focus on graduation and the termination of an academic year, I think it is important to take stock of the financial availability of most students to access higher education in this country, and what we are doing about it as we conclude this academic year. It is also important to ask what will be available next year to students who are either starting higher education or are continuing their higher education.

What are the economic challenges these individuals and their families face as it relates to affording college? I want to spend a couple of minutes describing what the present situation is as it relates to college cost, how important it is to have access to college, and where we are today in our ability to try to make college more accessible and more affordable.

In the 21st century we must have the best educated and best prepared generation of Americans we have ever produced if we are going to be highly competitive in a global marketplace and have a growing and expanding economy to produce goods and services of increasing value; that is, more technology and more sophistication to offer the 95 percent of the population which lives outside the United States all over this globe.

We have seen tuition and fees at public colleges and universities go up 26 percent over the last 38 months. Since President Bush took office on January 20 of 2001, tuition and fees at public colleges and universities has gone up more than 25 percent--close to 26 percent in 38 months.

Last year alone, on average, tuition at a public university rose 14 percent, and over 10 percent in my own State of Connecticut. The average total cost of attending a public 4-year college is now over $9,000, and for private colleges the average cost is $24,000.

As tuition rates increase, so does the portion of a family's income needed to pay tuition. On average, 29 percent of a family's income goes toward public university tuition and 41 percent goes toward private university tuition. Just think about that: almost 30 percent of a family's income paying a public college tuition and more than 40 percent to go to a private university or college. In comparison, a family's mortgage payment represents 32 percent of annual income. Education is now eating up more of a family budget than a home mortgage--the largest single investment most families ever make is owning their own home.

It is estimated that approximately 200,000 college-ready high school graduates will not pursue higher education this year because they do not have the resources to do it and don't have access to the various programs that may provide them some assistance.

Apart from initial affordability, students also often graduate with huge

amounts of debt. In Connecticut, the average student graduates in 4 years $15,000 in debt. The numbers are rather clear.

We are seeing a tremendous economic burden growing with each and every passing year, for families and individuals who wish to go on and get that absolutely critical higher education they need and we need them to have.

Pell grants are such a great cornerstone of the Federal financial aid system, but they are shrinking in value. Pell grants originally covered 80 percent of the cost of attending a public university. Today, at $4,050, they cover only 30 percent; and at a 4-year private college, 16 percent. Imagine that, from 80 percent down to 34 percent.

The maximum Pell amount remains stagnant at a time when tuition is going up, people are losing jobs and extra income, and when higher education is increasingly the ticket to a better life not only for the students but for us, as well.

Today, the average low-income student has an annual unmet need of almost $4,000 in college expenses, costs not covered by grants, loans, work, or family savings. These are the students that an increase in the Pell grant would most directly help.

What are we doing about this? The President's budget is clearly not in the best interest, at all, of serving this critical need that, by all accounts, we admit is necessary. I don't know of anyone who does not go back to their respective States and talk about the importance of education, the importance particularly of higher education, that people have the ability to earn that degree.

I am sure every one of my colleagues has said exactly the words I am about to share, or something similar: No one ought to be denied a higher education because they lack the financial resources. It goes to the depth of a person's drive, the depth of their character, the depth of their ambition. It ought not be the depth of their parents' or their pockets that determines whether someone can have access to a higher education. I am sure we all feel that way.

I am happy to yield to my colleague.

In response to my colleague, I very clearly remember supporting the senior Senator from Massachusetts and his amendment that would have increased the higher education budget, including, obviously, an increase in the Pell grants to meet exactly what the commitment of the President had been on this subject matter. We were unable to get that.

It is important to point out to people the effects. We have now had a freeze in Pell grants over the last 3 years, despite the President's campaign promise to raise them. I mentioned earlier that a Pell grant now pays about 34 percent of the cost of public higher education. It was at 80 percent when it was originally passed.

Let me also state what shrinking resources and rising costs have done. My colleague from Massachusetts has pointed out that the average student now finishes college in excess of $17,000 debt. As a result of freezing the Pell grant over the last 3 years, and the administration's proposal to raise freshman loan limits, we are now told that student debt could increase nationally by almost $5 billion. If we take student debt, that will now grow as a result of not having Pell grants trying to keep some pace with the increased cost of education, if students have to take out more loans, we will have student debt amount to $5 billion more nationally than presently is the case.

The President's budget also froze funding for work-study programs in addition to Pell grants. We watched, over the last 38 months, tuition costs go up at public universities 26 percent. Costs go up and the President's budget says: No, no, I am not going to give you a nickel more for Pell grants. Freeze work-study. Freeze Pell grants. Not a penny more for higher education despite costs going up and here is $5 billion more debt to shoulder as you leave higher education to go out and try to get a job, get into the workforce, raise a family.

I don't know of anyone who believes that is a sound investment in the 21st century. I thank my colleague for raising those points.

Madam President, the Senator, again, is exactly correct. As I noted earlier, we are talking about families who are middle-income families, who are lower middle-income families who are out there struggling to make ends meet. As I pointed out, the increased cost of a public education, as well as a private education, in 38 months has gone through the ceiling, outpacing the cost of anything else. Inflation has been relatively flat in the last number of months with the economy where it is. But yet in the midst of all that, we have seen a 26- percent increase in the cost of going to a private college or university, and a 14-percent increase to go to a public institution.

So we have seen this tremendous increase in a family's income going toward education and tuition. As I pointed out earlier, 29 percent of a family's income goes to pay for public university tuition; 41 percent goes to pay for private university tuition.

The debt these kids are faced with, their families are faced with, is an additional strain on families who are already paying so much to see to it their kids can get the education they need. And we know so clearly the importance of education. You find yourself almost wondering why you have to say this. I don't know of anyone who believes that for a single second this country's ability to maintain itself in a leadership position economically and politically can be sustained without the proper education. Thomas Jefferson said, 200 years ago this year, in 1804, any nation that ever expects to be ignorant and free expects what never was and what never possibly could be.

If you believe that had validity in 1804, you certainly must believe that in 2004 it has even more validity, not only in terms of embracing and supporting our constitutional principles, but also as to the importance of being able to get the education to produce the goods and services of high value which 5 percent of the world's population, which lives in this country, will be able to market to the 95 percent of the world's population which lives outside this country.

Anyone who believes for a single second that you can deny 200,000 young people, as you will this year--almost a quarter of a million young people--the opportunity to go on to higher education because we cannot come up with a few extra bucks to put into a Pell Grant Program or a Work-Study Program--if you think America benefits from that, then you are deluding yourself. This will be the first generation where the older generation is actually cutting back on its commitments in its attempts to provide access to higher education for people in this country.

I hope in the coming days as we move through the appropriations process and the like, our colleagues will find it possible to break this freezing of the budgets to make it possible for students who are completing this academic year and thinking about next year, or thinking about graduate school, or leaving high school and wanting to go on to college--that the Congress of the United States, the President of the United States, would stand up and say: We are going to do what we can. We are going to meet that promise I made in New Hampshire in the fall of 2000 when I promised I would increase Pell grants to more than $5,000 per child. I am going to meet that promise before this term is over.

My hope is we will achieve that particular result.

I see my colleague from Rhode Island.

Yes.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island. He very appropriately points out he succeeded Claiborne Pell, whom the Senator from Massachusetts and I had the great privilege of serving with. The Senator from Rhode Island knows the wonderful contribution he made to millions of young Americans, Americans of all ages, but particularly young Americans.

I was not aware of what my colleague from Rhode Island told me. I think that is extremely important information. I would hope, as I am sure he does, the conferees and the American public would let conferees and the leadership here in Congress know this shortfall must not be allowed to exist if we are going to have any hope at all of meeting some of the obligations we have.

I might ask my colleague from Rhode Island, give us some indication how that is working now. Does he believe that is going to be the case? And what would be the implications of that?

Madam President, I believe the Senator has the floor.

Madam President, I am responding to a question. Without yielding my right to the floor, I am asking my colleague from Rhode Island to respond to a question.

Yes.

Again, Madam President, I am very grateful to my colleague from Rhode Island for pointing out matters I had not addressed; that is, these other areas of higher education.

This is an assault on higher education. But more importantly, it is an assault on young people in this country who are going to provide the well-being. I always like to point out this

Nation historically, even during times of our most significant crises, has found a time and a place to support higher education. I have often pointed out one of the first acts of Congress in 1789, as we were still struggling to get on our feet, was the Northwest Ordinance, which set aside lands for education. It was a rather remarkable accomplishment. Think of all the things the first Congress had to deal with. Education was one of the top priorities on their list.

Then right in the middle of the Civil War--imagine the country divided, wondering whether we would survive as a nation--the Congress of the United States passed something called the Morrill Act, which was the land grant colleges. I believe the University of Rhode Island--I know the University of Connecticut got started as a land grant college, and I know colleges all across this country got their start because of the Morrill Act. Congress found the money during the great Civil War to fund higher education.

Even before the end of World War II, before the defeat of nazism and the Japanese empire, the Congress passed the GI Bill. And think, if you will, of the investment made in those years, coming off the war years, and how we have benefitted, when you consider a generation of Americans which was able to get an education and go on, and how we have been paid back a thousandfold by the contributions of a generation of young Americans who fought in World War II, who were able to get an education, and then provide the kind of innovation and creativity and jobs and incomes that has helped us grow to the great Nation we are in terms of economic strength.

So there was the Northwest Ordinance, the Morrill Act, the GI bill, generations that understood the importance of investing in education. Here we are in the 21st century, we have a President that not only doesn't have an idea about how to increase resources for higher education, he wants to cut back on what we have. How do you explain that to the American people when we are trying to increase the opportunities for higher education?

I thank my colleagues.

I would say to my colleague, he has hit the nail on the head in talking about elementary and secondary education, beginning with, obviously, Head Start and preschool efforts. He has cited the numbers, and he is absolutely correct. But more than the numbers, when you start to talk about the dollar amounts, I think you can probably see the eyes of even the most determined listener to glaze over. When I talk about an $8.6 billion shortfall to No Child Left Behind this year alone, shortchanged more than $26 billion since passage, I am disturbed. It is the children and the families themselves that feel the shortfalls. Families lacking the kinds of investments that we know make a difference in their children's educational lives.

We know categorically, after more than a quarter of a century of watching, the benefits of the Head Start Program. It gives them that even start. When they enter kindergarten or the first grade, it puts them on a level playing field with other children who come from slightly more advantaged situations than they may have.

We know that getting Title I money into our school districts has made a huge difference to schools, and certainly we need to be doing far better on special education. But to give some idea of what these shortfalls mean, this year alone over 7,500 school districts are going to see their elementary school funding cut this July. Millions of disadvantaged children will be left behind because of inadequate resources in Title I. More than 1.3 million children won't receive afterschool services because of funding freezes that have occurred. Teacher quality, English language acquisition, impact aid, rural education all have been frozen in this country despite the increasing demands that have occurred.

The President's budget eliminates 38 programs in areas such as arts education, school counseling, small school support, dropout prevention. You don't need to tell the American public about the importance of these things. They make a difference every day. The fact is that we are just decimating these significant efforts, many of which were achieved and were created through bipartisan effort and support.

I am deeply concerned about what is happening to these younger people as they enter the school system, where we want them to have an equal opportunity to learn, where they get uncertified teachers and old textbooks, some that say today maybe one day we will land a man on the moon. We actually have children using textbooks that predate 1969 when we landed a man on the moon. Imagine in 2004, you discover your child has a science book that says that. That happens today. Or that your child walks into a biology class or chemistry class in elementary school and almost 35 percent of them in poor rural districts and poor urban districts do not have a certified teacher who is teaching.

This is the United States of America. If you want us to grow and be stronger, you are going to have to make the investments.

I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for raising these issues about both elementary and secondary education as well as higher education. The American public needs to know this.

Madam President, I commit to my colleague and to others as well. This has been an ongoing effort. It will be a continuing one. Nothing is more important. I have often said, if you can only solve one issue, I would choose this one. I don't think there is any more important problem to solve. Not that others are not important, but if we fail to address the education question effectively, then we leave every other issue in jeopardy, to chance.

That goes to the heart of endorsing and supporting our constitutional principles, our values system, as well as our economic growth.

I am not minimizing other issues. I am often asked, as we all are, what is the single most important issue we have to deal with. Obviously issues of going to war, sending young men and women into harm's way, amending the Constitution, confirming a justice to the Supreme Court are high on that list. I would place education as the No. 1 priority, a substantive issue that ought to be on every one of our lists.

I thank the Senator for taking a few minutes out of today to talk about this. There will be other opportunities to raise these concerns and these questions, and I hope that before this session of Congress ends, we will have a more effective result for the American people.

Will the Senator from Utah yield for 1 minute?

I commend the Senator from California for her statement and comments. She has been deeply involved in this effort, as have many of us over the last number of months, if not years. She has made a very comprehensive set of suggestions, to which I think our colleagues want to pay serious attention. I know my colleague from Utah will. He is a fairminded individual who cares deeply about this legislation as well. But I commend her for her comments.

At an appropriate time, I say to the distinguished chairman of the committee, I will ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the Senator I may have some time, too. I don't know what the order is, but is such a request appropriate, Mr. President?

I ask unanimous consent at the conclusion of the remarks by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Utah, that the Senator from Connecticut be recognized for 30 minutes.

Mr. President, let me begin by, first of all, commending my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee. I am not a member of this distinguished committee. I had the good fortune of serving on the Judiciary Committee in the other body years ago, in the House of Representatives. I have great respect for my colleagues who serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee in either body because they deal with some of the most contentious issues before the American public.

It is not easy to be the chairman of that committee, regardless of which party is in the majority in the Senate. I have the utmost respect for my friend from Utah. He and I have spent many years serving in this body together. There have been countless pieces of legislation that we have worked on together that are the law of the land today. I have great admiration for him.

He is a legislator. I say that because there seems to be a shrinking number of legislators around here regardless of party affiliation. He is a legislator. That means someone who is willing to sit down and work out issues. I wish to begin by thanking and commending him for his efforts on this difficult subject matter, asbestos. This is an area in which I have had a longstanding interest, as many of my colleagues know, going back a number of years. This issue is of critical importance to my State of Conneticut, because it is the home of numerous small and large manufacturers, as well as several major insurance companies. They have a strong interest in the outcome of a resolution of this very perplexing problem of asbestos litigation and related issues.

I have a strong interest in trying to come up with a solution for, first and

foremost, victims of asbestos exposure. It is estimated that more than 27 million people who have been exposed to asbestos over the years.

Regrettably, we know there are many who will die prematurely because of their exposure to this product. In fact, last year alone, 10,000 people in this country died as a result of their exposure to asbestos. The numbers are truly staggering. We know there are over 600,000 past and pending cases involving over 6,000 businesses, that have been cited as defendants in these cases. And we know there are going to be literally millions of people who are going to suffer.

So we must attempt to provide a better answer than the present system which has clogged up our courts, which has denied too many victims-- seriously impaired victims--of the kind of compensation they deserve. I have had a longstanding interest in trying to come up with a solution. We have gotten very close to such a solution.

Let me begin by reporting on the progress that has been made. There is a tendency to only discuss the areas where there is still disagreement, and I think that only tells part of the story. People such as Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy, have worked tirelessly on this issue. The majority leader, Senator Frist, and the minority leader, Senator Daschle and their staffs have also spent a great deal of time on this legislation. Senator Daschle has always kept his door open, and repeatedly tried to see if we could proceed with a meaningful negotiation process. Such a process must occur in order to bring the various parties together around a resolution of this issue.

There are many others who have been critically involved in this issue. We heard from Senator Feinstein earlier and other members of the Judiciary Committee. Senator Nelson from Nebraska has also worked hard on this issue. Senator Carper has also worked on this issue. There are many others who care about this issue and have spent a great deal of time on it. Senator Specter has been performing an invaluable service in trying to work out the administrative structure of the proposed compensation fund. I am sure I am leaving some of my colleagues out, and I apologize for that, knowing, as I do, that almost every State, without exception, is affected by this lingering question. When there are over 600,000 total cases, every State and Senator is affected.

Seventy companies have already declared bankruptcy on this issue alone because of the judgments that have come in against them.

As a result of those 70 bankruptcies, over 70,000 jobs have been lost from these companies. This is a major economic problem, as well as a major health issue that needs and demands resolution.

The good news is this: There are about five or six major issues involved in the question of whether we can establish a bona fide trust that would allow for fair and equitable compensation to those who have been determined to suffer from diseases related to exposure of asbestos. The five or six major issues are the following:

One, can we establish medical criteria which would make it possible to determine who has been exposed and to what extent have they been adversely affected as a result of that exposure. I thought that issue would never get resolved. This has not been an easy task. Can you imagine trying to bring doctors together with organized labor, manufacturers, and insurance companies, all sitting down and agreeing on what the medical criteria for this legislation should be? I am pleased to announce that months ago we were actually able to reach an agreement on the medical criteria. Amazingly, the issue of medical criteria has been resolved.

The second issue is whether we could create an administrative system to process and review claims. This is also not an easy undertaking. Thanks to Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and thanks to his constituent, Judge Becker, and, by the way, the involvement of a number of our Senate colleagues under the auspices of Senator Specter's leadership--we have reached an agreement in this area we think is going to work.

Creating an administrative system is a major accomplishment. Many people thought we would never be able to resolve this issue. On two of the major five or six issues, we have already achieved results. But it took weeks to work out the details behind these agreements.

An asbestos compensation trust fund idea is complex. It is very complex. When we envision a trust fund that might have to last for 30 years or more, that must deal with thousands and thousands of cases of people who have been exposed to asbestos, it is a serious undertaking. Every comma, every period, every semicolon can and does mean something. So we have to be very careful in how we draft this legislation.

We have hundreds of manufacturers who have been, and continue to be affected by what we are doing. There are major insurance companies that clearly must be involved and will contribute to a trust fund, as the manufacturers will be. Organized labor, representing the hundreds of thousands of victims, must ensure that a trust fund is going to have adequate funding, and that monetary awards are fair and efficiently provided.

We have seen the consequences of the current system. In fact, in the Johns-Manville trust resolution, the trust that was established under the name of that particular company, is a example of the problems with the current system. They believed that the amount of money initially placed put into that trust was going to more than adequately provide for the victims who have been exposed under the Manville situation. As it turns out today, the Manville trust is only paying about 5 percent of the compensation victims should be receiving.

It went very wrong, not because the people who put it together planned it that way, but nevertheless that is what happened. No one I know of wants that to happen here, but it makes my point that this is a complex issue. And that getting this right is very important. We must be sure that this solution is going to work well. So it takes a little time--and in my opinion, it is time well spent.

I do not know why at this very hour we have this legislation before us. It is not ripe yet. It has not matured enough yet. There are still huge issues outstanding.

Obviously, one of the major open issues is the overall dollar amounts. I know it sounds like a lot of money--and there is a lot of money at stake here. But when we start talking about 25 or 30 years of a trust fund's existence, the difference is somewhere around $115 billion and $155 billion, give or take a billion here and there. As Senator Everett Dirksen said: A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money. This is real money. We are not talking about hundreds of billions of dollars difference. We are talking $20 to $30 billion or so over 30 years, spread among a large number a defendant companies and insurers who face greater losses and greater uncertainty under the current system.

It seems to me if we get actuaries together, and agree at the universe of potential claimants, and provide them fair compensation, we should be able to come up with a neutral number to satisfy the needs of expected claimants.

We have changed approaches from where we started at the outset of this debate. We initially tried to create a bill that was ``evergreen,'' that is, that it would be the complete solution to this problem for as far as the eye could see in the future. However, we began to realize the difficulties of creating a fund that lasts forever. Several factors caused us significant uncertainty. For example, we still import asbestos in this country. There is still asbestos being used, or at least people are being exposed to it even though we now know the problems that result from exposure. So the idea that we are going to have a final number in perpetuity, I think, was abandoned by all sides.

We have contended that this number is somewhere between $115 billion and $155 billion. If that does not end up being right at the end of the day, then we ought to resort back to the present tort system to solve the problem.

I just heard my colleague from Utah say his bill includes that provision. With all due respect, I must disagree with my friend from Utah because the provision in the bill being offered by the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Tennessee, the majority leader, has a 7- year gap between when the trust fund may run out of money and

when the tort system could be used by a victim.

Now, that is hardly reassuring to the victims and their families that the system that presently is in place which provides them some financial relief will be taken off of the table in the event that the trust fund becomes insolvent.

Let me quickly point out as well, that these numbers of 115 or 155-- if one takes the high end or the low end, are hardly unreasonable. The Rand Corporation, which is hardly an organization that identifies ideologically with the left or right or Democrats or Republicans, has estimated that the cost of the current problem is somewhere around $300 billion. So at the outset we are talking about a trust of only $155 billion.

While we disagree over actual dollar amounts at this point, I believe that people of good will, sitting down, can come to an honest compromise that would satisfy all parties involved in this debate.

Another open issue is the value of the claims themselves. If we are able to reach agreement on the medical criteria and able to reach agreement on an administrative system, it seems to me, again, that good people who care about this should be able to resolve this issue and provide fair compensation to victims of asbestos.

Another outstanding issue that needs resolution is what to do with pending claims. There are some claims that have been adjudicated. Some are completely adjudicated, others are only in the discovery process. I do not want to get too technical legally, but I think most people would understand there are some cases that are already mature in the judicial system. Determining at what point in the judicial process, should cases be abrogated and claimants directed into the trust fund is a difficult question. When is the judicial process allowed to be completed where those claims exist? I do not have an answer for that one today, but, again, I think people of good will who care about this issue and realize what a huge problem this is could come to some thoughtful, reasonable compromise on how to deal with pending claims.

That is not the complete universe of all the problems, but those are the major ones. Two of them we have solved. Three or four of them deserve additional time and effort to resolve. Certainly the intent of the amendments adopted in Committee by Senators Feinstein and Biden that addresses pending claims and returning back to the tort system in the event of insolvency are ideas that should be reconsidered and adapted. There may be others ideas that are also helpful.

The point is there are people making suggestions to resolve these questions. I do not understand why this body is being asked to make a definitive decision on this bill that none of us have seen because it was introduced only 2 or 3 days before the last senatorial recess. We are being asked to accept voting on cloture on this matter on Wednesday or Thursday of this week. I might point out that last November or early December we reached an agreement, a compromise, on how to proceed to the class action issue. I happened to be one of those involved in that negotiation. Why do we not bring up that bill? That bill is ripe and ready to go, not that many of my colleagues would support it. But for those of us who are willing to support a class action reform bill, we reached an agreement on that 4 or 5 months ago, and yet that bill is not being brought up. Why not? That bill is ready to go. This bill is not ready to go.

Why are we taking 3 days in a very abbreviated session of the Senate, when we do not have much time remaining, some 30 days, to bring up a matter where there is so much disagreement that could be resolved if we would spend the time doing it as Senator Specter has done, as Senator Daschle has done, and as Senator Leahy has done? I know Senator Hatch and his staff have also worked tirelessly on this topic.

Legislating on a matter like this is hard work. It is labor intensive. Any one of my colleagues, Republican or Democrat, who has been in the Senate for any length of time will say that on major legislation, particularly legislation that is precedent setting such as this is, people are required to roll up their sleeves and put in a tremendous amount of hours to resolve these matters. In my view, it cannot be done thoughtfully or carefully by engaging in open-ended floor debate with amendments flying around that no one really knows the implications of, some of which are passed 51 to 49, others defeated 51 to 49. When we are dealing with something as serious as this, where literally thousands and thousands of lives depend upon receiving adequate compensation, we know we are dealing with a very complex problem.

I urge that a cloture motion not be filed. I know one has not yet been filed, and my strong appeal to the majority leader would be please do not file this cloture motion. There is still time. This is only April. I presume we are going to be here until sometime in early October. Give us the chance, insist upon people meeting and trying to resolve these issues. It may come down that a few of these matters are not resolvable through negotiation, and the only way to resolve them is by having some floor votes on them. I accept that may be the final determination. But we ought not to jump to that when there still is an opportunity to resolve some of these outstanding questions.

I have spoken to organized labor, John Sweeney, and his representatives. They want a bill. It is their membership, many of them, who suffer from the exposure to asbestos. It is their membership that is losing jobs in companies that are declaring bankruptcy. They want a bill, but they want to make sure when they have a bill that the resources will be there to provide adequate compensation.

By and large, the insurance industry, with some exceptions, wants a bill because they realize that the current system is flawed and could cause untold economic hardships on some of these companies. It could cause some of them to collapse, and I am not exaggerating when I say that. They are very interested in getting a bill. I know the overwhelming majority of manufacturers, those that were either involved in the production or use of asbestos over the years, in most cases before anyone knew of the great harms caused by this product, they want a bill.

This is one of those unique situations where all of the parties, all of them, and including, I might add, many of the trial lawyers involved in this area, understand some different resolution of this issue is needed other than the present tort system. Obviously, that is not the view of everyone who is a trial lawyer, but many of them have already spoken out on this issue.

So we have a unique political environment where the major participants are anxious to get a bill. I rarely find that. Normally one finds people highly divided where labor or business is at complete opposite ends of the spectrum on a matter that is before us. Here, nearly all stakeholders want a bill. Instead of sitting down and keeping people at the table and working it out, we are prematurely bringing up something causing this bill likely to fail, and fall before we have an opportunity to resolve the differences. As I said a moment ago, why not bring up class action? Why not bring that up? That is ready to go. Where is the business community that has said to me over and over again: Why don't we get a class action bill here? We have been ready since November and December. Here it is April and nothing has happened on class action. Yet you bring up and consume 3 days of time on the floor of the Senate with a bill that everyone knows, if you invoke cloture or file a cloture motion on the motion to proceed, it is going to fail. And it should fail. It should fail. I say that with deep regret.

I have committed the time of staff members and my own time over the last number of years on this issue. I think to come this close to resolving a major issue affecting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and their families and attempt to address it in a premature fashion is a huge mistake.

So my appeal to my colleagues is: Sit back and work this out. It is hard, but it can be done. And, if we get near the end of the session and we have not been able to resolve everything, either wait until we get back in January or bring it up and leave a smaller number of issues out on the floor to be resolved

by votes on the floor and healthy debate. But don't jam this now, particularly when we know the outcome, taking up the valuable time of this body on the floor where the time can be better used to take up issues where there has been agreement, at least agreement by a significant majority of us to move forward on the legislation. That has been done now on class action.

Why doesn't the majority leader come over and move to proceed to that bill so we can vote on it? We have been ready for that now, as I said, since 3 or 4 or 5 months ago. There has been no action at all. No action. Why not? Why is that bill not on the floor right now, being debated and discussed?

Of course we have seen the same thing with medical malpractice. There is no effort to negotiate it out. There is a proposal on the Democratic side. It is different from what the majority has proposed, but not that different. You could bring those two sides together and resolve the issue. Doctors deserve better than they are getting. They are being told the Democrats are stopping everything. Why is it the majority refuses to even sit down and try to work out the differences?

I stand ready. My staff does. Again, I am not a member of the committee. Obviously, Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy, as I mentioned earlier, have done a tremendous amount of work on this and deserve a great deal of credit for trying their best at this.

The leader on this side, politically, is Senator Daschle. I have been with him on numerous occasions when we met with the manufacturers, met with the insurance industry. As Senator Daschle has said over and over again, his door has been open to do whatever it takes to try to get a bill done. I know from personal knowledge he has offered on numerous occasions to meet with the majority leader and others to try to figure these things out.

I mentioned Senator Specter already. Senator Biden, obviously, Senator Feinstein, and a number of others have been involved in this, trying to get this done. My hope is that the majority leader will not wait until Thursday. Listen to us over here. We can get this done. It could be a proud moment of this Senate's session, to have actually come up with an answer to a major problem in this country. We are getting very close to resolving it. It will take a little more work, in my view, over the next coming weeks, but it could be done.

My plea this afternoon would be that filing a cloture motion on the motion to proceed would be withheld, that we bring up other matters that are ripe and ready to go forward, and send the people back to work on this bill and let's see if we cannot draft a piece of legislation of which America can be proud.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the pension conference report that the Senate recently voted on.

I have long supported initiatives aimed at strengthening and protecting individuals' employer-sponsored retirement plans. Pension benefits are a critically important means of securing a measure of comfort and self-sufficiency for retirees, and we should do all we can to ensure that pension plans are secure and viable.

The intent of the Pension Funding Equity Act of 2004, H.R. 3108, is to provide temporary pension relief to businesses whose pensions have been hurt as a result of the economic downturn that began about 3 years ago. Understanding that companies were in need of relief, in January, by a vote of 86 to 9, the Senate passed H.R. 3108, which provided relief to single-employer plans, steel companies, the airline industry, and multiemployer plans. I supported this legislation.

Unfortunately, the pension bill was significantly weakened in conference, for no reason other than to single out multiemployer plans. In so doing, the conference report puts at risk 65,000 small businesses and their 9.5 million workers. To the best of my knowledge, more than 50,000 workers in Connecticut will be left without any relief under this conference report. Because of this exclusion, I was not able to support this conference report.

There is no sound policy reason to not provide multiemployer plans with relief. It does not cost the Treasury any money. The weak economic conditions plaguing our country have adversely affected multiemployer plans no less than single-employer plans. Since multiemployer plans are overwhelmingly used by workers who belong to a labor union, the only conclusion that I can draw for why the Republican conferees would not want to provide relief to multiemployer plans is to penalize union workers and the small businesses that employ them.

This is a regrettable and callous action by our Republican colleagues in this Chamber and the other Chamber. As we all know, conference reports cannot be amended. If they could, I would

eagerly support an amendment to ensure that multiemployer plans are covered.

This conference report primarily helps the Fortune 500 companies, which I am not against. In fact, that is one of the reasons I had supported the pension bill in January. I understand that employers across the country have faced extraordinary pension liabilities based upon the obsolete Treasury bond rate. And I supported providing these plans with relief. But the conference report leaves behind our small businesses. It excludes our construction workers, electricians, plumbers, service workers, and others, and I cannot pretend that that is OK.

This bill was supposed to be about maintaining the viability of pension plans, about doing what is right for our workers and their families, and for our small businesses. Instead, it unfairly left out thousands of our small businesses and millions of our workers, for no good reason.

I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that multiemployer plans are provided with relief so that we also can ensure the viability of these important plans.

Mr. President, I know that all of my colleagues have been reading the recent reports of increasing violence in Iraq. What once seemed to be a small insurgency could possibly be developing into a larger revolt. And this rapidly growing and violent opposition to the United States presence in that country is placing American service members at great risk. It is also threatening our goal of securing a stable and democratic Iraq. Taken together, I believe that this situation makes it all the more clear what many of us have been urging all along--that we need to internationalize our efforts in Iraq now. Today, I am submitting a Sense of the Senate resolution urging the President to do just that.

As my colleagues know, there are well over 100,000 United States servicemen and -women currently stationed in Iraq. And while our troops are going through rotations that are scheduled to leave this number somewhere around 100,000, I would point out that the recent upsurge in violence in that country has prompted U.S. Central Command Chief General John Abizaid to ask his military staff to examine options for sending more U.S. troops to Iraq.

Despite claims by some in the Bush administration that this is not a necessity, it is certain that with this increasing instability, the demands on our troops will continue to grow. That could very well mean that at some point we will need to send more troops to Iraq.

This is all coming at a time when arguably, the dangers to our troops have never been greater. Twelve Marines were killed in a single day of hostile action last weekend. Four American contractors were brutally slain and mutilated last week. And the situation appears to be getting worse.

Let me be clear. This is not a statement on the abilities of the United States military. Our troops--and I know there is complete consensus about this--have and continue to perform with the utmost professionalism, patriotism, and heroism. Nobody can dispute that. And this Senator, for one, remains committed to ensuring that they have every tool at their disposal, every resource that they need, to come home safely and as expeditiously as possible. My resolution, first and foremost, reaffirms these facts.

But with more than 600 U.S. service members killed and more than 2,988 wounded since March 2003, the time has come for us to be honest about our needs in Iraq. We need an international security presence in that country. NATO would be the ideal body to provide such an international presence. It has played an important role in efforts to restore and maintain order in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. And plain and simple, the presence of international troops would reduce the risk to U.S. military personnel. My resolution would urge the President to instruct the Secretary of Defense to begin consultations with NATO with this goal in mind.

My resolution would also urge the President to instruct the Secretary of State to begin consultations with the United Nations Security Council concerning a UN Security Council Resolution for Iraq. While NATO can help handle the security concerns in Iraq, we need a UN presence in that country with respect to efforts to build stable and democratic institutions.

After all, let's be honest, we have a serious lack of international credibility for being in Iraq right now. This lack of credibility is impeding our abilities to secure our political goals in that country. It is preventing the international community from rallying behind us in our attempt to build a stable and democratic Iraq--a goal that we all share. And it is preventing us from gaining the legitimacy we need among average Iraqis which is so vital to the success of our efforts.

Some might even argue that with the June 30th deadline approximately 12 weeks away, we are moving backwards in terms of our readiness to hand over control to an interim Transitional Iraqi Government.

This fear was illustrated perfectly by an official from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in an article in today's New York Times. Let me quote from that article, which occurs in the context of allied and Iraqi security forces' loss of control in the southern Iraqi cities of Najaf and Kufa: ``An official in the occupation authority said Wednesday that . . . months of efforts to win over the population with civil projects and promises of jobs have failed with segments of the population.''

That same official was quoted in the article as saying that ``Six months of work is completely gone . . . there is nothing to show for it.'' According to the same article, ``government buildings, police stations, civil defense garrisons, and other police installations built up by Americans had been overrun and stripped bare'' in those cities. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

This all highlights an important fact--that without getting the legitimacy we need to function in Iraq, we will be lacking the most basic foundations for ensuring the success of our efforts--efforts for which we have already allocated more than $110 billion American taxpayer dollars.

The answer for all of this is simple, and I believe that it has been from the beginning. We must engage NATO and the UN with the goal of their playing significant roles in Iraq. And we must do it now. NATO can help immensely with sharing the security burden. And a UN mandate will grant us the legitimacy we need to function in Iraq. It will also grant our long time allies, with whom we have been at odds over this war, the domestic legitimacy they need to play a part in building Iraq's future.

We now have a choice. We can continue to argue whether these steps should have been taken before the war. Or, we can join together in urging these steps be taken now. Our men and

women in uniform deserve it. The American taxpayer deserves it. The Iraqi people deserve it. And our national security and the security of the world deserve it.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise with a strong note of celebration in my voice on behalf of my small State. The presiding officer lives in the same region of the country I do, so I suspect there is a sense of collective regional pride as well.

I am sorry my colleague Senator Lieberman isn't here. He will be here tomorrow. Today is a religious holiday, so he could not be in the Senate today. I am sorry he is not here on one level; but on another level, every time one of the University of Connecticut teams wins, he does the UCONN cheer on the floor of the Senate, which causes his senior colleague a significant degree of embarrassment. He knows this, and I think he enjoys doing it when I am here. So, the one piece of good news I have is I won't have to listen to that cheer tomorrow because I myself will be away tomorrow.

I want to take a few minutes to recognize and celebrate a remarkable historical achievement that occurred both on Monday and Tuesday nights of this week. I speak of the men's and women's national collegiate basketball championships. Never before in history has a single university captured both of those titles in the same year, so my colleagues and others, I am sure, will understand the sense of pride we all feel in Connecticut for the tremendous historic accomplishments of these two wonderful teams--both the men's and women's teams. UCONN's achievement is stunning all the more because when you consider the previous four times in history a school sent both of its men's and women's teams to the Final Four in the same year, those schools failed to come away with so much as one national championship, let alone two in the same year.

Let me briefly recognize both of these teams. While it is certainly a university-wide celebration over the accomplishments of both, each deserves a moment of special recognition for their achievement.

I will begin with the men's team. Those who follow college basketball will recall on the cover of ``Sports Illustrated,'' the University of Connecticut men's team was predicted to win the national championship.

They were the No. 1 ranked team in the country. Shortly thereafter, in November, they faced, ironically, a Georgia Tech team which handed them a rather significant defeat. Ironic I say because it was Georgia Tech that the University of Connecticut faced on Monday night for the national championship.

All told, the UConn Huskies would lose six games all season. For most teams, that would be reason to celebrate, having won 33 games and losing 6. In the Huskies' case, with each loss, more and more people around the country began to doubt whether the University of Connecticut's team had what it would take to go on to win a national title.

To make matters worse, throughout the season, the Huskies' outstanding center, Emeka Okafor, was troubled with a series of back injuries and spasms and was unable to play at his full measure of capability. He was certainly the heart and soul of the team. He scored points, grabbed rebounds, and blocked shots. He is the leader in the country in that last category.

His accomplishments went far beyond his statistics. His mere presence on the floor was fundamentally enough to alter the game. He is that much of a leader.

Even more impressive than Emeka's athletic credentials are his academic ones. We fail to promote academic success. Emeka Okafor is not only the No. 1 basketball player in the country, but he is also the Big East Scholar-Athlete of the Year and the National Academic All-American of the year.

While he was putting up impressive numbers on the basketball court, Emeka was an all-star in the classroom as well. He earned his degree in finance in 3 years with a GPA in excess of 3.8.

A lesser team might have given up hope after losing a player of Emeka Okafor's ability, but a pivotal series was the Big East Tournament where he had to sit out two games. Ben Gordon, a very talented guard for the University of Connecticut, took over the leadership role, along with Rashad Anderson, Taliek Brown, and others. They went on to win six straight games and capture the national title.

One of the most important games, of course, was the Saturday night game in which by a margin of 1 point, UConn defeated the Blue Devils--a very heated rivalry going back a number of years--facing a remarkable Duke team under the leadership of Mike Krzyzewski. We are all very appreciative of his abilities and the teams he put together, but beating Duke has a special significance in the UConn-Duke rivalry. We are very proud of the men's team. They had a terrific season. They certainly deserve some special recognition. Jim Calhoun, who is a good personal friend of mine--I am very proud of Jim's accomplishments. My only regret is that on Monday he was not selected to be in the Hall of Fame. I think he deserved it.

If it was up to my vote, he would have had it. His accomplishments over the years, both at Northeastern and the University of Connecticut, more than qualify him for a special place in the Basketball Hall of Fame. Being only one of three active coaches at the collegial level to have won two national championships, Jim Calhoun deserves a spot in the Hall of Fame. I am

confident he will get one soon. I am sorry it did not occur on the day he won another championship, on Monday.

My congratulations to Jim for a wonderful season, a great leadership on that team. His assistant coaches, Tom Moore, George Blaney, and Clyde Vaughan--good friends of mine--and the players, Rashad Anderson, Hilton Armstrong, Jason Baisch, Josh Boone, Denham Brown, Taliek Brown, Justin Evanovich, Ben Gordon, Ed Nelson, I mentioned Emeka Okafor, Ryan Swaller, Ryan Thompson, Shamon Tooles, Charlie Villanueva, Marcus White, and Marcus Williams, all made significant accomplishments.

The women's team, of course, was also a great success. This is the third consecutive national championship they have won, really a remarkable record only having been achieved once before, ironically, by the Tennessee team they defeated last evening under the leadership of Pat Summitt.

Over the past decade or so, the UConn women's basketball team has become synonymous with excellence across the country. The numbers they have piled up are rather staggering: 5 national titles, 8 appearances in the Final Four, and a record winning streak of 70 consecutive games. Over the same period of time, women's basketball in America has experienced an enormous surge in popularity, and the University of Connecticut women are a major reason why. They have been an inspiration to young girls all across our Nation who dream of being basketball stars. Their combination of athletic skills, academic excellence, and good sportsmanship have made them role models for young men and young women across the country.

Things did not come easily for this women's team this year. Much like the men's team, the women's team had a tough run in the early days. On January 3, they lost a heartbreaker to Duke by 1 point. It was their first home loss in 4 years. For the second straight year, they were eliminated in the Big East Tournament. This year, when the seedings were announced for the NCAA Tournament, UConn received the No. 2 seed, meaning they were not even favored to make it to the Final Four. But as they have done so many times in the past, this wonderful team of talented young women exceeded all expectations. They were led, once again, by the outstanding All-American senior, Diana Taurasi, the National Player of the Year. She is a remarkable athlete, a remarkable person, not unlike Emeka Okafor. She is a presence on the floor. Anyone who watched the game last evening, a wonderful game between Tennessee and the University of Connecticut, could see this remarkable young woman and the leadership she brought to her team.

The team has gone 22-1 in tournament games under Diana Taurasi's storied career. She is only the fifth player to win two Naismith Player of the Year awards.

She has scored the second most points of any player in the women's NCAA Tournament history. She was also named Outstanding Player of the Year in the Final Four.

It was a great game last evening against Tennessee. It has been a wonderful rivalry. Unlike the University of Connecticut and Duke rivalry, the University of Connecticut and Tennessee rivalry is a great one.

My friend from Tennessee, the majority leader, I point out very graciously, about 8:15 last evening, about 15 minutes prior to the UConn-Tennessee game, called and offered a polite wager. I am somewhat disturbed by it. I appreciate it. He offered to wager that if UConn won the game that he would supply me with as many spareribs as I could eat. For a heart surgeon, who happens to be the majority leader, to offer a Democratic member of the Chamber a pile of spareribs makes me wonder what his ultimate goal may have been in that wager.

I have won the wager. I offered him a high protein, very low caloric Connecticut River shad, of which the Presiding Officer is well aware. The Connecticut River provides a border of his State.

Connecticut River shad is high in protein, low caloric, the kind of proposal one would think a heart surgeon would propose. No, he offered spareribs--thick, juicy, fat-loaded spareribs--for this senior Senator from Connecticut to consume. I will share those with any good Republicans I can find in my State as part of those winnings.

I conclude by congratulating the women's coach Geno Auriemma, who is a wonderful friend, as well as Jim Calhoun. He has had a wonderful career at the University of Connecticut, and has been a wonderful role model for players, coaches, and others. He is very active in our State, as is Jim Calhoun. It goes beyond their leadership of the basketball programs. He is very active in philanthropic programs throughout our State, and is always willing to appear at various events on behalf of worthy causes.

My congratulations to Geno Auriemma for the terrific job he has done, his assistant coaches, Chris Dailey, a wonderful assistant coach over the years, Tonya Cardoza, and Jamelle Elliott. And the players: I mentioned Diana Taurasi, Ashley Valley, Kiana Robinson, Maria Conlon from Derby, CT, Stacey Marron, Morgan Valley, Nicole Wolff, Ashley Battle, Willnett Crockett, Jessica Moore, Barbara Turner, Liz Sherwood, and Ann Strother. Ann played a wonderful game last night, as did Maria Conlon, and also the forwards on that team, Barbara Turner and Willnett Crockett, were terrific as well.

Congratulations to these two great teams. I have taken a longer time. When you have two national champions at the same university in the same year, I hope my colleagues will accept my apologies for taking more time than would normally be the case. We have to export our sport allegiance. We have no professional teams in my State. As my colleague knows, in Connecticut you can almost tell where somebody lives by asking them whether they are a Red Sox or a Yankee fan, a Rangers or Bruin fan, a Knicks or Celtics fan. Connecticut is equally divided in its sports allegiance.

So all my life I have had to embrace teams outside of my own State. This wonderful collegiate athletic performance by the University of Connecticut has given us a wonderful sense of pride in our State. In the midst of otherwise bad news coming out of other parts of the world, I thought I would offer this tidbit of good news from a small corner of our country called Connecticut, with great pride for these wonderful athletes and their coaches, and fans at the University of Connecticut and throughout our State.

I yield the floor.

If my colleague would yield, and I appreciate the comments and give congratulations, the Minnesota women's team is a great team. In fact, a mutual friend of ours, a former member of the other body and I, Rick Nolan, who my colleague knows very well, talked the other night, and after the game he told me that Geno Auriemma, coach of the women's team, was quoted extensively in the Minnesota newspapers and radio stations on commending the Minnesota team. He said it reminded him very much of an earlier UConn women's basketball team when they were starting out. I cannot tell the Senator how impressed I was with Miss Whalen and Miss McCarville. They are great players. I love their tenacity and emotion. Your coaches--you have had three coaches in 3 years--have had some difficult times to go through. I thought the game between Minnesota and Duke was one of the great women's basketball teams of all time. I suspect we are going to hear a lot more from Minnesota not only in hockey but in basketball as well.

I am glad my colleague mentioned title IX. I meant to mention it as well. Back in January, I invited a former colleague of ours, Birch Bayh of Indiana, to come to Connecticut to a women's basketball game. The reason I invited our former colleague and the father of our present colleague, Evan Bayh, was because in 1972, Birch Bayh was the author of title IX. There were a lot of other Members involved; I do not want to suggest he was the only one, but he was the principal author of title IX. I thought he might like to come and watch what a change he had made in America.

It was not solely because of Birch Bayh, but he certainly deserves to be recognized for authoring that bill. To give my colleague some idea, about 15 years ago a national championship game for the women's basketball game drew maybe 1,500 people. Last night, there were 19,000 people in New Orleans to watch the game. I suspect millions across the country were tuned in to watch Tennessee and the University of Connecticut play.

So we brought Birch Bayh to Connecticut on that day when the University of Connecticut was playing Notre Dame. We had about 15,000 people on hand that afternoon, and at halftime we had some of the leaders of the women's teams over the years. We had a group of younger women just starting out at center court. Birch Bayh received a standing ovation from 15,000 people in Connecticut because he made a difference in this sport.

As my colleague has said, to see fathers and daughters, fathers and granddaughters, young boys and sisters coming to watch these young, remarkable women athletes, created a change in our country for the better. I look forward to the day when we will gather at the White House--I am confident President Bush will do this again because of his great love of sport--when he invites the men's and women's basketball teams from the University of Connecticut. Let me go on record today inviting, as well, not only the women's hockey team from Minnesota but the men's hockey team from Minnesota.

I thank my colleague for his nice compliments about Connecticut.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I add my voice as well to my seatmate, if I may. I sit in this chair by choice. Senator Byrd sits in his chair by choice as well, but he makes the choice before I do. I wanted to find out where he was going to sit so I could sit next to him. I did that because I wanted to sit next to the best, to learn everything I possibly could about the ability of this institution to provide the kind of leadership I think the country expects of us.

Several thoughts come to mind. This is a day of obvious significance in the number of votes that have been cast, 17,000, but it is far more important to talk about quality than quantity. Quantity is not an insignificant achievement, but the quality of my colleague and friend's service is what I think about when the name Robert C. Byrd comes to my mind.

I carry with me every single day, 7 days a week, a rather threadbare copy of the United States Constitution given to me many years ago--I can't even read it well now; it is so worn out--I may need a new copy-- given to me by

my seatmate, Robert C. Byrd. I revere it. I tell people why I carry it because it reminds me of the incredible gift given to me by the people of Connecticut to serve in this Chamber, to remind me of the importance of an oath we all made, and that is to do everything we can to preserve, protect, and defend the principles upon which this Nation was founded. Robert C. Byrd, in my mind, is the embodiment of that goal.

It has often been said that the man and the moment come together. I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great Senator at any moment. Some were right for the time. Robert C. Byrd, in my view, would have been right at any time. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century. I cannot think of a single moment in this Nation's 220-plus year history where he would not have been a valuable asset to this country. Certainly today that is not any less true.

I join my colleagues in thanking the Senator from West Virginia for the privilege of serving with him. He has now had to endure two members of my family as colleagues. Senator Byrd was elected to the Senate in 1958 along with my father. He served with my father in the House. I have now had the privilege of serving with Senator Byrd for 24 years, twice the length of service of my father. That is an awful lot of time to put up with members of the Dodd family. We thank Senator Byrd for his endurance through all of that time.

There is no one I admire more, there is no one to whom I listen more closely and carefully when he speaks on any subject matter. I echo the comments of my colleague from Massachusetts. If I had to pick out any particular point of service for which I admire the Senator most, it is his unyielding defense of the Constitution. All matters come and go. We cast votes on such a variety of issues, but Senator Byrd's determination to defend and protect this document which serves as our rudder as we sail through the most difficult of waters is something that I admire beyond all else.

I join in this moment in saying: Thank you for your service, thank you for your friendship, and I look forward to many more years of sitting next to you on the floor of the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will my colleague yield before she yields the floor?

I commend my colleague from Washington. She has talked about this on numerous occasions. Again, she has very eloquently laid out a very thoughtful argument about exactly the problems which exist across the country when it comes to job creation. As someone who has spent an earlier part of her life in the private sector--very successfully, I might add--she brings a very special knowledge and awareness to these issues and this debate and discussion.

I wonder if my colleague has seen the most recent statistics. In fact, they were released today from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I do not believe my colleague referenced them, but they illustrate the point she is making.

According to them:

As of February 2004, 35 states have failed to get back to

their pre-recession employment levels. Furthermore, 49 states

have not created enough jobs to keep up with the natural

growth in the number of potential workers, as job growth has

lagged in working-age population since March 2001. As for the

unemployed, 43 states have higher unemployment rates than

when the recession began.

And, lastly, they go in and point out a projected job creation of 306,000 jobs per month. Obviously, we are way off those numbers.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which does not have a political ax to grind at all--national job creation has fallen over two million jobs short of that pace. . . .job growth projected for the Bush Administration's economic plan has fallen short in 49 of the 50 states as of February 2004. Thirteen states have actually lost jobs since the Administration's tax cut was supposed to start creating job growth.

I was not sure if my colleague was aware of those numbers. Don't they make the case even further? These are numbers released today, not going back 6 months. But they point out, once again, the sluggishness, to put it mildly, of job creation.

I wonder if my colleague has any statement on that?

If my colleague will yield for one additional question. I heard the objection expressed by the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee. Does my colleague from Washington have any indication when we might get a chance to actually vote on this matter? I think there have been 90,000 people a week, if I am not mistaken, who exhausted their unemployment benefits--90,000 of our fellow citizens. Yet we cannot even get a vote on whether or not we can extend these benefits.

Is there any indication my colleague has received or heard from the Republican leadership that we might get a chance to vote on whether we could extend these benefits?

I thank my colleague.

Will my colleague from Iowa yield--maybe we can work out a sequence. I know the Senator from Texas has some comments. I presume others do, too----

Absolutely. Even more.

Even 10.

Mr. President, there are three or four of us here. Maybe we should make a unanimous consent request. I plan on taking about 15 minutes. I would ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for 15 minutes. My colleague from Texas was next on the floor. I don't know how much time he would request, and then I know our colleagues from Wisconsin and from Delaware are here as well. Maybe we could set up a process so we will have predictability to proceed. May I ask my colleague how much time he would like?

And the Senator from Wisconsin?

And my colleague from Delaware?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, the Senator from Texas be recognized for 15 minutes, the Senator from Wisconsin be recognized for 20 minutes, and the Senator from Delaware for 15 minutes.

I have no objection to that.

Mr. President, before my colleague from Iowa leaves the floor, I want to express my gratitude to the Senator from Iowa, as I did yesterday, for his support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, and me on the childcare provisions. It was a significant vote: 78 to 20 was the final vote.

Certainly, the chairman of the Finance Committee, the Senator from Iowa, was tremendously helpful in that regard. I wouldn't want him to leave without once again expressing my sincere appreciation for his support. I have always been treated well by him. We have served together now for almost three decades in the Congress, and we have always had a strong and good relationship with each other.

I was disappointed by the position of the administration. To quote them from their bulletin:

In considering this legislation, the administration would

strongly oppose any amendment that increases funding for the

Child Development Block Grant fund.

``Strongly oppose'' is an indication of how they fail to understand what I think the Senator from Iowa pointed out--certainly the Senator from Maine did--the critical transition that is necessary from welfare to work, particularly considering the jobs these people are able to get. Most of them are very low-wage jobs. Having a strong childcare component is the lifeboat that will get them from one side of the shore of this raging river to the other, the side of the shore from welfare dependency to work.

If you cannot get across that gulf because you have young children, as many of these people do who are presently on welfare--trying to get to work, or those who work today barely holding on--then the likelihood they are going to succeed is very small.

There was a strong vote in this Chamber yesterday to support the effort to provide the assistance for literally thousands of young children who are on waiting lists in 24 States that we know about, some 600,000 who will need that kind of assistance.

I am terribly disappointed the administration strongly opposes childcare assistance. My hope is the position of this body will prevail in the conference, if we get there.

I also want to comment briefly on the issue of the minimum wage. I thank our colleagues from California and Massachusetts who have raised it. The better description of this might be called a livable wage. We talk about the minimum wage, but what we are really looking for is a livable wage. It is a standard we have embraced for years. Administrations, regardless of party, have always embraced the idea of setting a floor of what ought to be a livable wage. It is hardly livable when you consider the poverty level for a family of three is $15,700 and we are talking about people making $10,700 a year working full time making minimum wage. That is $5,000 below the poverty level. I can't even imagine anywhere in the United States one could live today as a family of three with a gross income of $10,700. And that is what we are talking about.

There are 34 million people who are living in poverty in the United States. In a nation of 280 million people, 12 million are children living in poverty. Obviously, we are not going to solve that problem simply by raising the minimum wage level, but we certainly want to give people a chance to be hired for a little more than $5 an hour in the 21st century. As we begin trying to move people from welfare to work so they at least have a chance, once they get that job, to hold on and then move into more independent living, they must be able to earn a livable wage.

So I am terribly disappointed again that we have not been able to have a vote on this matter. I don't think it is terribly complicated. A livable wage in the United States, certainly in light of what happened since the last time we raised it, is in order--considering that every administration, from the most progressive to the most conservative, has found time and space in which to increase the minimum wage. This is one of the longest periods of time we have ever gone without increasing that. It has been 7 years since we have actually raised the minimum wage.

During that same time, by the way, this body found room to increase our salaries six different times; six times we have raised our salaries. Yet, in 7 years, we have not increased the minimum wage. I have not objected to salary increases for Congress. I understand that. The point is, when we find time to debate and vote on matters that allow us on six different occasions to raise our salaries and not on one occasion have we been able to raise the minimum wage or the livable wage for people living in the levels of poverty they do, this is something I find rather distressing, to put it mildly.

The great majority of welfare payments go to single mothers. Unfortunately, the kinds of jobs women leaving welfare find are often minimum wage jobs, making it very difficult, if not impossible, to sustain a family and meet the demands of raising children. Life is precarious for low-income people, particularly for single mothers raising children. In the U.S., regardless of whether they have been on welfare or not, for them, survival is a daily goal. If they work hard enough and their hours are long enough, maybe they can make ends meet, but only barely. They don't have time for their families because they are working tremendous hours, sometimes a couple of jobs to make ends meet. They are not buying homes, going on vacation, going to the theater, or symphonies, or buying extra clothes. They are trying to hold their families together. The idea of buying gifts for children, taking them on special trips, that is not part of the family's agenda if you are part of the 34 million people in this country living in poverty. We are trying to get that minimum wage after 7 years to a point that makes it possible to at least make it a little easier to meet the daily goal of survival. We must stop asking families to do it alone. They are working too many hours for too little pay.

Often these children who are being raised in this environment are not entering our school system--particularly well prepared to learn. Talk to any teacher in any rural area where there is poverty, or to a teacher who works in our inner cities where poverty exists. Without exception, regardless of their politics, teachers will tell you children who are not getting the attention and time and care needed are starting their lives way behind.

Ultimately, we pay a price in this country for that. I will not suggest to you the minimum wage solves all of those problems. But should we not in this great country, after 7 long years, provide an extra couple of dollars an hour so people might have a little bit more income to provide for their children. We need to help raise wages for these families so they can make ends meet and improve the quality of their lives. One of the best first steps is to ensure the work pays a fair, livable wage. The real value of the livable wage has fallen dramatically over the past 30 years. The livable wage workers are being left further behind every year. Working families have waited long enough. Minimum wage employees work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, and earn $10,700. That is if you work every week. Forget that 2 weeks vacation or even 1 week of vacation--you earn $10,700.

This is the 21st century. In America, what community can you live in with a family of 3 on $10,700? I don't think you are going to find one. The poverty level is approximately $15,000 for a family of 3. We must raise the minimum wage to $7 an hour, and I think we can do it.

Under the proposed bill, we go from $5.15 to $5.85 to, one year later, $6.45, and the year after that, to $7. That is what we are proposing. I suspect some negotiation might happen in order to get something done. But, we cannot even vote on the issue.

Today, more than 34 million people live in poverty, including 12 million children. Among full-time, year-round workers poverty has doubled since the late 1970s, from 1.3 million then to 2.6 million in 2002. An unacceptably low minimum wage is a key part of the problem we are trying to solve. Every day the minimum wage is not increased, it continues to lose value and workers fall farther behind.

Minimum wage workers have already lost all of the gains of the 1996- 1997 increase, 7 long years ago. Today, the real value of the minimum wage is more than $3 below what it was in 1968. To have the purchasing power it had in 1968, the minimum wage would actually have to be closer to $8.50 an hour than to $5.15, which is where we are today.

In the past 7 years, salaries of lawmakers have gone up by $23,400, giving ourselves 6 raises, while minimum wage workers continue to earn $10,700 a year. Nearly 7 million workers would directly benefit from the proposed minimum wage increase 35 percent are their family's sole earners and 61 percent are women. Almost one-third of those women are raising children. An increase to $7 an hour for a full-time, year-round worker would add $3,800 to their income.

What does that buy? If you are living in affluence, not much. But $3,800 for a minimum wage worker and their families means buying more than a year of groceries; 9 months of rent; a year and a half of heat and electricity in their homes; or full tuition for a community college degree. I know there are those who object to this increase and believe it is going to slow economic growth in the country. That is not true.

Ever since there has been a minimum wage increase, there has been no ill effect on economic growth in the country. I suggest by doing this, there is a greater likelihood we are going to keep people in the workforce--even if they are minimum wage jobs--and allow them to provide the bare survival needs of their families, so they don't fall back into a dependency situation of one kind or another.

I think we all become winners if we give these people a chance to have a higher standard of living than that which they are presently getting with the $5.15 an hour wage.

I know it is not the job of the chairman of the Finance Committee to set the agenda. But somebody has to set the agenda around here. We have been debating other issues of almost total irrelevancy. I guess at some point we are going to debate gay marriage. Well, that is a compelling issue for the vast majority of people who are trying to make ends meet. Or we will debate medical malpractice where you cannot even negotiate what comes out of it. We can debate whether the gun manufacturers ought to be excused from any liability. Heaven forbid we take an hour or two and debate whether we increase the minimum wage a few dollars more than $5.15 an hour.

I will emphasize to you again $10,700. That is what the minimum wage provides today. I don't think anyone believes that is a condition or a circumstance, economically, in which you can expect a family of 3 to survive. You cannot make it, no matter how determined you are. I believe we ought to be able to take care of this issue and do it promptly. It would be a great piece of economic news for millions of Americans and not just for those living in poverty. I think for millions more who don't live in poverty and see people doing it every day there would be a sense of gratification that we are doing something for people. We are doing something for people who make the effort every day not to fall back into dependency, but to provide an opportunity for their families, to stay independent, become self-sufficient, and raise a family. I have often said that the best social program ever envisioned was a decent paying job. The second thing you and I ask a person we meet for the first time after their name is: What do you do?

Everybody I have ever met wants to take pride in what they do. By giving people a livable wage, we allow them to be able to say to their children and families and neighbors: I do something. I have value. I have worth.

Providing an additional $3,800 over 2 or 3 years is not asking too much. I would hope we could adopt the Boxer-Kennedy amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.