Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, the Claire Collier Social Security Disability Insurance Fairness Act, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent to do that.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DODD. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Inouye, Senator Leahy, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Kennedy. I thank Senator Inouye and his staff for helping us craft this amendment. As I understand it, this amendment has been cleared on both sides for consideration. I will be asking for a vote on this amendment at the appropriate time, but I am not going to take a long time here because the substance of this amendment was discussed last evening when it was offered--part of this was offered by Senator Stevens, along with Senator Inouye--and then earlier today Senator Reed of Rhode Island and I had a discussion here on the floor about this issue, of what is occurring in terms of the equipment our military needs to operate effectively, the gap that exists, that we worry about here, in terms of the failure to provide the necessary support for our men and women in uniform, in the Marine Corps, the Army particularly, but also in the National Guard. The Senator from Alaska offered an amendment last evening, as I mentioned a moment ago, to address critical capital equipment shortfalls long identified by the Army and Marine Corps. As my colleagues know, Army Chief of Staff General Schoomaker has said that $17 billion would be needed to begin repairing and replacing our fleets of trucks, tanks, and aircraft. Last night's amendment contained an additional $7.8 billion for the Army to add to the $2.5 billion in the underlying bill. It also contained $5.3 billion for the Marine Corps. But the amendment still leaves a $6.7 billion shortfall within the $17 billion figure identified by the military's top uniformed officers. I am offering this amendment, along with Senator Reed and others, to make this remaining $6.7 billion available to our military if it needs it. This is what we call a ``soft mark.'' If the money is not needed, the resource would come back to the Treasury. But rather than waiting until next spring sometime when a supplemental might be asked for, we don't want to deprive our military leadership of the resources necessary if they can use them to replace and repair the deteriorated equipment being used in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere. This amendment is a soft amendment, if you will, in that regard. It will not detract from other defense priorities, and it will not contribute further to the deficit. It is part of our budget-neutral, if you will, proposal. All my amendment does is say that the Army is allowed at its discretion to use this appropriation for any available unobligated funds. Up until now, the cost of war in Iraq has been mainly measured in the number of lives lost, which is tragic, and the U.S. Treasury spent--and rightly so. In Iraq, 2,578 of our fellow citizens have been killed, and Congress has approved more than $437 billion, with another $50 billion now soon to be considered by this body. But there is another cost of this war that needs to be addressed, one we cannot afford to ignore. That is military readiness. For months now, the Army's uniformed leadership has been sounding the alarm about the growing readiness gap, as it is called. In March, Army Deputy Chief of Staff LTG James Lovelace testified to Congress that since the Iraq war's beginning, the number of Army units fully equipped for combat has steadily declined. According to General Lovelace and his Marine counterpart, LTG Jan Huly, military units have increasingly become less prepared for combat as they have seen their stock of functioning vehicles, aircraft, and equipment decline. Last month, Army Chief of Staff GEN Peter Schoomaker put the problem in budgetary terms--the President's proposed 2006 supplemental request was $4.9 billion short to address the equipment shortfalls caused by combat losses and wear and tear in Iraq. In the administration's 2007 budget request, there was an even larger $12 billion shortfall, according to the leadership of our uniformed services. Today we are announcing our commitment to meeting those generals' calls to address one of the most pressing challenges of the U.S. military--the growing readiness gap. We must find resources necessary to repair and replace our military's critical equipment. This is a matter of the most urgent priority. By some accounts, these equipment shortfalls are leaving up to two-thirds of the U.S. Army's combat brigades unfit to perform basic combat duties. I do not know what could be more alarming, particularly as the United States confronts growing threats to peace and security throughout the globe, from the Korean Peninsula to the Middle East, and elsewhere. While the sheer size and scope of the U.S. Army readiness remains classified, one thing is certain: Our military hardware is stretched thin and our fleets of aircraft, tanks, and trucks are wearing out. Those are facts--not ones I concluded on my own, but our uniformed services have warned us about this since very earlier this year. Early this year in Iraq, U.S. tanks were being driven over 4,000 miles per year--5 times the expected annual usage of 800 miles. Army helicopters are experiencing usage rates up to roughly two to three times their otherwise planned usage. The Army's truck fleet is experiencing some of the most pronounced problems of excessive wear, with usage rates of five to six times their peacetime rates, further exacerbated by the addition of heavy armor. This increased use shortens the life of equipment and demands larger investments in maintenance and procurement. On top of that, our equipment is being further degraded by sand, extreme heat, rocket-propelled grenades, and explosive attacks. Certainly, our military personnel's bravery and valor can never be exhausted. We know that. But the same could not be said of the fleets of humvees, trucks, and aircraft they depend upon. We owe it to them and to the American people to make certain that the U.S. Armed Forces are outfitted with the equipment they need to get the job done. On three or four other occasions over the last several years, I have stood on this floor to offer amendments to deal with equipment used by our men and women in uniform. At one point, we were offering the necessary dollars to make certain that our service men and women were getting hydration systems, basic needs of a soldier going into combat. We lost those amendments, and we came back and offered a different idea--to reimburse the men and women in uniform, some of whom, by their own accounts, were scraping around in dumps in Iraq to find the hardware to armor up their humvees and equipment. Whatever our politics may be on the issue of the war in Iraq, all of us believe we should never send a soldier into harm's way without giving them the equipment they deserve and need when they are in those kinds of situations. Those situations are important. This situation I have described here today outstrips the importance of those issues. This has to do with the very ability of our people to defend themselves and to prosecute their efforts successfully, and we are coming up woefully short. I appreciate the leadership of this committee, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, for supporting these additional funds we talked about here which Senator Reed and I are offering. We think it is critically important that the uniformed services have the tools necessary to make sure the men and women in uniform are going to have the kind of equipment they deserve and need to have under these circumstances. I am very grateful to the leadership for supporting this amendment. I will ask at the appropriate time for the yeas and nays on this amendment. In fact, I will ask for the yeas and nays at this point.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I do not know when we want to schedule these votes. Are we ready to go to a vote? I withhold moving that at that moment until the chairman of the committee has a chance to determine how they will proceed. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. And no second degrees in order.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD. I commend my colleague from Rhode Island for raising this issue, particularly the point he raised about how long we have known about this. I commend to my colleagues a report dated March 28 of this year, Army Equipment RESET Update to HAC-D. I further ask my colleague, just to make the point, this has been known for some time. The fact that the Commander in Chief did not send up a budget, including the necessary resources knowing exactly what my colleague from Rhode Island has described, is troublesome. I commend him in joining our colleagues who offered the amendment last evening, although I would still suggest we are still in excess of $6 billion short of what our uniformed services are telling us they need. It might be appropriate here to have an amendment that would include a soft mark that would allow the military, if they are able to do it, have the resource capability to fill in the gaps that are necessary. The amount we are talking about here, based on what we presently know, would allow them to meet what they can do with the money that has been appropriated, yet there is a significant shortfall still, but to make sure the units are going to be combat ready. Lord forbid they are called upon to respond to a crisis in the Korean Peninsula or elsewhere. I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Rhode Island. I will have some comments myself, and then discuss the possibility of an amendment that might require the soft mark that would not require the spending to occur, but if the military could use those resources, we ought not to deprive them of the cash they need if the units are ready. I do not know if he has any additional comments to make.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes, if I can, and speak on similar subject matter. I appreciate the comments of the distinguished Senator from Alaska and my great friend from Hawaii who brings a wealth of knowledge and information, including his personal experiences, of the importance of adequate equipment. America's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are courageously waging wars on two fronts against terrorism and militant insurgents, with 19,000 U.S. servicemembers still engaged in combat in Afghanistan and 132,000 of our troops in uniform in Iraq, as we speak this morning on the floor of the Senate. No other military service bears the brunt of these military operations more than the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. And no other Americans are sacrificing more in these wars than the soldiers, marines, and their families involved in these conflicts. It is therefore critically important, as Senator Reed from Rhode Island has pointed out, and my colleagues on the floor--Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens--that we pay particular attention to their uniformed leadership when these leaders speak out about equipment shortfalls that they warn could jeopardize our missions and our military's overall combat readiness. When the U.S. Army's Chief of Staff repeatedly sounds the alarm in testimony before Congress--repeatedly--that the budgets drawn up by the civilian leaders at the Pentagon and the White House have left them with a $17 billion shortfall in vehicles and equipment they need, then we should take heed and listen to what they are saying. And when our Army and Marine Corps' top leaders are telling us such shortfalls are so severe that major portions of their forces are unprepared for combat duty, then I think we need to take action. I am deeply concerned, as I think others are, that we are not meeting our obligations to these men and women in uniform. Amendments may serve as a first step toward addressing the needs of our soldiers and marines. Out of the $17 billion identified by the Army Chief of Staff that is needed to address equipment shortfalls, the amendment that was adopted last evening would add $7.8 billion on top of the $2.5 billion that is also included in the underlying bill, and another $5.3 billion for the Marine Corps. Nonetheless, I remain concerned, as I hope my colleagues are as well, that there remains almost a $7 billion shortfall of what we are being told by the uniformed military leaders we need to address the Army's outstanding requirements, as expressed by GEN Pete Schoomaker, the Army's top general. As the Senator from Rhode Island has pointed out, these shortfalls have been known for months. The report that I included in the Record a moment ago is dated March of this year. They were not suddenly discovered last evening or in the last few days. I have a slide presentation that the Army provided to the House Appropriations Committee on March 28 of this year that specifically identifies all of these shortfalls without exception. And yet, despite that briefing in March, the administration and Congress did little or nothing about it. Today, I do not think we can stand by--in the remaining days of this Congress--and allow this Congress to proceed further without addressing our Nation's major and most pressing needs, particularly as our men and women in uniform continue to defend America in combat operations each and every day. We are not talking about arbitrary budget numbers that we pulled out of thin air. These are very specific allocations requested by our top leaders in uniform--leaders such as General Schoomaker and his deputies: LTG James Lovelace and LTG David Melcher. They have testified repeatedly--repeatedly--that the Bush administration has once again proposed a Defense budget that falls far short of what our troops need. As far as this Senator is concerned, the days of sort of nickel and dimming our national defense needs should be over when it comes to these soldiers in uniform. We can no longer afford to continue down the path the Bush administration has brought us. Regrettably, this is not the first time we have had to address the administration's poor budget planning for this war. But I hope it might be the last. I have come to the floor to try to address, in the past, some lacking resources for our military's essential equipment needs from the very first year of this conflict. In 2003, the Army identified $322 million in shortfalls in critical health and safety gear--ranging from body armor, camelback hydration systems, and combat helmets, to equipment for deactivating high explosives--all of them are listed as priorities that the Rumsfeld Pentagon and Bush administration failed to provide in their initial budgets. I offered an amendment, in 2003, to the emergency appropriations bill to resolve those problems. Unfortunately, the administration opposed this legislation, and the amendment was defeated, despite the fact that our top uniformed military leaders were asking otherwise. In 2004, we tried a different approach, in an amendment I offered requiring the Department of Defense to reimburse military personnel who bought equipment for their military service in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Rumsfeld Pentagon had failed to provide. This time, despite ardent objections from the Secretary of Defense, Congress approved the legislation. And in October 2004, the President signed that bill--the larger bill which included those amendments--into law. We approved similar legislation last year because the Pentagon did not act on them, despite the fact that Congress had voted overwhelmingly in support of those provisions and the President signed them into law. And on the very day I offered a new amendment, I received a call from the Pentagon saying on that day--a year later-- they were beginning to implement the legislation as required under law. This year, the difficulties associated with equipment shortfalls pose a far more serious problem. The ones I identified earlier, which my colleagues will recall--having servicemen stand up and admit they were rummaging--rummaging--through garbage dumps in Baghdad to provide equipment to up-armor their humvees and other equipment because they were not getting it from the Pentagon. These were not some dissidents, some activists outside complaining. These were our men and women in uniform telling us what they had to do in a theater of war to protect themselves because they were not getting it from the Pentagon Well, today the problems are more serious. The ones that Senator Reed has identified are real. And the concerns are being expressed by our top military leaders. It is disgraceful it takes an amendment being offered on the floor of Congress to try to provide for these needs rather than coming from the leaders at the Pentagon, the civilian leadership or out of the White House. We are not talking today about a shortage of flapjackets or gun scopes. Today, the challenge is that our Army's entire fleet of tanks, aircraft, and vehicles are wearing out. And we are not doing enough about it. Recent media accounts have indicated that the administration's failure to fund the replacement and repair of this critical hardware is greatly affecting America's overall military readiness. The Associated Press reported on July 26 that up to two-thirds of the Army's combat brigades are not ready for wartime missions, largely because they are hampered by equipment shortfalls. In other words, if America does not finally heed the warnings of the U.S. military's top generals, and fully fund our equipment needs, the Armed Force's ability to respond to future challenges to America's national security--whether on the Korean Peninsula, the Middle East or elsewhere in the world--could be harmed, to put it mildly. Maintaining a wartime military is very different from business as usual--something I am afraid that the Rumsfeld Pentagon does not seem to entirely understand, after 5 years of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Having 16 to 18 combat brigades deployed in combat at one time over the last year 3 years, in addition to other U.S. forces, has placed tremendous stress on the military's equipment. In Iraq, U.S. tanks are being driven over 4,000 miles per year--five times the expected annual usage of 800 miles. Army helicopters are experiencing usage rates up to two to three times their planned usage. The Army's truck fleet is experiencing some of the most pronounced problems of excessive wear, with usage rates of five to six times the normal rates, further exacerbated by the addition of heavy armor. This increased use, obviously, shortens the life of equipment and demands much earlier and larger investments in maintenance and procurement. On top of that, our equipment is being further degraded by the sand and extreme heat in that part of the world, which harm the mechanical and electronic systems, not to mention rocket-propelled grenade and explosive attacks that are causing grave harm and loss of equipment at an alarming rate. As this chart I put up shows, just a few years in combat will age military equipment dramatically. These statistics are coming from the U.S. Army. They are not ones I made up. So my colleagues can appreciate what we are talking about here. For example, the Abrams tank, listed up here--it may be hard to read on the TV screen--but the first item here, the Abrams tank, usually has a lifespan of 20 years before it needs to be overhauled. It is seeing its lifespan being cut short to just over 5 years because of where they are. The flatbed truck, which we have listed here as well--this item here--normally has an expected lifespan of 20 years. It is getting 3.3 years today--substantially less than would normally be expected to be the case. The humvee has a 15-year normal, expected lifespan. And 2.5 years is what we are getting here. The semitrailers and trailers--all 20 to 15 years--but the actual numbers they are getting is in the range of 2.5 to 3.3 years This is what we are being told and have been told repeatedly. These numbers didn't pop up yesterday or the week before. We have been told repeatedly by top military leaders that this problem has persisted and is growing. Recently, Army officials testified before Congress that it will cost $36 billion to fully reset the force due to this situation. But this estimate assumed that the United States would fully draw down its forces by the end of 2007. Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker conceded that if the Army continues to operate in Iraq at its current pace, the reset cost will total over $72 billion and will eventually require steady reset expenditures for a full 2 years after the U.S. military withdraws from Iraq. These estimates do not even take into account the Marine Corps' reset requirements. In the meantime, the Army intends to leave over 280,000 major items in theater and will not redeploy this equipment to be reset until forces draw down in Iraq. The situation in the Army National Guard, which my colleague from Rhode Island who is knowledgeable on these matters has pointed out, is particularly alarming. In late 2003, the Army began to direct redeploying Guard units to leave their equipment in theater for use by deploying forces. Under current regulation, the Pentagon requires the Army to replace equipment transferred to it from the Guard. But under Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership, the Army has not tracked much of the Guard equipment left in theater nor prepared to replace it. The National Guard and Reserves comprise 40 percent of the forces now fighting in Iraq. If you consider that the National Guard began the Iraq war with less capable equipment than the Active Force to begin with, it only seems reasonable to assume that they have lost ground as the occupation has continued. The Army claims that the National Guard has been directed to transfer more than 75,000 pieces of equipment, valued at $1.7 billion, to the Army. But the Army does not have a complete accounting of these items. An independent analyst at the Government Accountability Office put the cost of resetting the Guard at $20 billion. Since much of the stay-behind equipment is relatively old, I presume it will never return to the United States. The drawdown of the National Guard equipment in the United States to support the war effort is so extensive that it raises doubts about preparedness for homeland defense. As the Senator from Rhode Island pointed out, we are now going into the hurricane season and the problems that can ensue there. I don't think the National Guard is going to be ready to respond to those situations because of the situation we are in today. For that reason, I am joining my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, in supporting an amendment he will be offering to provide necessary funding for the National Guard that for too long has been neglected by this administration. On Tuesday of this week, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, LTG H. Steven Blum, admitted that more than two-thirds of the Army National Guard's 34 brigades are now not combat ready due largely to the vast equipment shortfalls that will take as much as $21 billion to correct. General Blum addressed the situation this way: I am further behind or in an even more dire situation than the active Army, but we both have the same symptoms, I just have a higher fever. In spite of all the administration's rhetoric that we have turned a corner, I think many of us believe that the insurgents are not in their last throes, as the Vice President said only a few months ago, or that the mission is accomplished, as others have suggested. Our military commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq have only grown, as we are hearing now additional requests for troops to protect the Baghdad area, to the point that our forces are now larger in number in these countries than they were when we started the wars in 2001 and 2003. And there is some indication that our forces in Iraq may increase even more. Now it seems that the effect on our own forces has been devastating. Our forces are stretched thin. Our fleets of aircraft, tanks, and trucks are wearing out. But the administration's only answer for Iraq and Afghanistan is to stay the course. I can tell you, with today's situation, that is not an option. If we are going to maintain America's edge in the war on terrorism, retain the ability to respond to other future threats, then we need to provide some relief to our Armed Forces and start putting critical investments into rebuilding these forces. During two Presidential election campaigns, the Bush-Cheney team sold its candidacy to the American people as a solution to all of our Nation's security needs. A vote for that ticket, we were told, would shore up our Nation's vulnerabilities at home and keep us on the offensive overseas. Sadly, I submit, the policies of this administration have only left our Nation weaker, as the administration shortchanges the needs of our Armed Forces and fails America's National Guard personnel. The 2000 campaign disparaged President Clinton' stewardship of the Armed Forces, and it was leaked that two of the Army divisions were rated C-3 and C-4, the lowest levels of preparedness and readiness, the lowest category, according to the Army's own scale, decrying that ``two Army divisions could not report for duty.'' The then-Governor of Texas pointed out that he promised help was on the way. Instead today, as a result of the administration's strain on our forces, the situation is dramatically worse. According to the Army's own accounts, our forces are being drained of critical resources to meet our homeland security needs in the United States and to stay prepared to address our military threats in the future. While the sheer size and scope of U.S. Army readiness remains classified, one thing is for certain, our military hardware is stretched thin. Our fleets of aircraft, tanks and trucks are wearing out. Those are the facts. The military leaders are telling us that in clear, uncomplicated voices. U.S. military experts and media reports have long been sounding the alarm about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and their impact on military readiness. The Washington Post recently said the following: The unexpected heavy demands of sustained ground combat are depleting military manpower and gear faster than they can be fully replenished. Shortfalls in recruiting and backlogs in needed equipment are taking a toll, and growing numbers of units have been broken apart or taxed by repeated deployments, particularly in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. That was from a year and a half ago. Things have only gotten worse since then. The administration's failures are literally breaking the back of the U.S. Armed Forces. I am worried about it. I know my colleagues are. In addition to the amendment we have adopted, and while the Senator from Alaska is correct, the amount of money they can receive and actually spend is constrained. But I am hopeful our military leaders will be able to do a better job. I ask them to consider the possibility of what we might call a soft mark that would provide the resources now, not wait until next spring, and that if our military leaders can find the way to expend the dollars to increase the readiness of this equipment, we ought not wait another almost year to do so. If they can't spend the money, then it doesn't get spent. It comes back to the Treasury. But I wouldn't want them saying we could have used the money, but you didn't appropriate it on an emergency basis for us. So while I appreciate the amendment that was adopted last night, as I pointed out, we are still $7 billion short, according to the military leaders testifying before Congress in the last number of months. I think it is not only appropriate but required of us here to provide those resources, put them in place. And if they can be spent, they ought to be spent to make sure this equipment we are falling so short on is going to be replenished and repaired so that our units can be combat ready, not only for the present crises but also for future ones we may face. Again, my compliments to the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii, who historically have placed the needs of our military very high on their agenda. My criticism is not focused on them. It is focused on the fact that the Secretary of Defense and the Commander in Chief should have been having these numbers in the budget coming up here, not requiring us to ask them to do a better job. That is what the two Senators did last night. They should have been telling us how the leadership of the Pentagon and the White House put the numbers in and that we were supporting them, not requiring an amendment to be adopted out here to fill the needs. I am urging my colleagues to take a look at some additional funding we may need in order to meet these requirements.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Melissa Babin and Claire Vinocur, interns in my office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on the Defense appropriations bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today the Senate will be voting on S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006. I regret that I cannot support this bill for a number of reasons. First, I am deeply disappointed that the majority leader used parliamentary maneuvers to prohibit any Senators from offering amendments to the bill before us today. While I did vote last week to allow for the consideration of this legislation, I did so with the hope that Senator Frist would allow both Republicans and Democrats to offer amendments that are important to our energy security. In fact, I am a cosponsor of a number of bipartisan amendments that were scheduled to be offered to S. 3711. But unfortunately, the bill before us today is the only energy bill that the Senate will debate this summer. That is not in the best interest of the American consumer, the economy, or our long-term energy security. I have long advocated a more balanced approach to solving our energy problems. Any serious solution to our energy crisis must involve increasing efficiency, expanding our conservation efforts, and committing to renewable forms of energy. Unfortunately, however, the sole focus of S. 3711 is oil and natural gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. Contrary to what supporters of the bill contend, this legislation does nothing in the short term to rein in the soaring fuel and energy prices because of the lag time it will take to extract the allowed oil and gas. Further, this bill redirects some of the revenues from Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, drilling from the Federal Treasury to just four States. For more than 25 years, most of the coastal areas of the country have been under either a Presidential moratorium on OCS drilling due to expire in 2012 or a congressional moratorium enacted annually through the appropriations process. Under this bill, for the first time, one State--Florida--is given statutory protection from offshore drilling through 2022. No similar statutory protection exists for the Atlantic or Pacific coasts. In fact, there are some Members of Congress who would like their States to be able to opt out of any future moratorium. While this provision is not included in S. 3711, it is included in the House- passed bill that likely will be conferenced with S. 3711. If we adopt a fractured system and allow drilling in adjacent States, I am concerned that our fragile coastal ecosystems and economies could be threatened by pollution associated with drilling and unforseen incidents due to the drilling activity, weather, and possible terrorist attacks. Let us remember that our coastal waters flow freely and what happens in the waters off one state may have serious repercussions up and down the coast. I deeply regret that in considering the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act we were not able to debate meaningful bipartisan amendments to address many of the serious energy concerns facing our Nation. It is my fear that in the dwindling days of this session we will not again have the opportunity to revisit these critically important issues and consumers and businesses will continue to struggle to meet their energy needs. Mr. President, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act truly represents a missed opportunity.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am here today to support the reauthorization of an education bill designed to ensure the competitiveness of our country's workforce, the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, Perkins. Essential to strengthening the workforce, Perkins not only prepares youth and adults for the careers of today, it prepares them for the careers of tomorrow. It is the first line of defense in ensuring America's competitive advantage worldwide. We have heard a lot lately about American students losing their competitive edge. In math and science Americans score near the bottom of all industrialized nations on international exams. Our college drop- out rate is one of the highest in the world. We have dropped from first to fifth in the percentage of young adults with a college degree. Singapore has displaced the United States as the leading economy in information technology competitiveness. And the number of patents awarded to Americans is declining. All of this is having a detrimental effect on our global competitiveness. Clearly, we need to increase our competitiveness from within. The conference agreement before us will help us to do that. This reauthorization does a number of important things. First and foremost, it emphasizes accountability and improved results. Second, it improves monitoring and enforcement. Third, it disaggregates performance goals and report information by special populations so no one will fall through the cracks. And fourth, it strengthens the ties between industry, high schools, and higher education by ensuring that teachers are well-trained, students are academically ready for college, and high schools are training students for the actual needs of their communities. The premise of this legislation is that high schools, industry, and higher education institutions need to work together to provide our workforce with the skills they need in order to achieve and compete in the 21st century. This bill works to ensure that American students are not just getting a world class education, but the best education in the world. I would be remiss in my remarks if I did not mention the President's proposed elimination of the Perkins program in his annual budget for the second year in a row. I hope that the administration understands that our decision to move this legislation forward reflects our unwavering commitment to career and technical education. We will not let this program fall by the wayside. Perkins will not be eliminated. We often hear the pledge that we will leave no child behind. May I suggest that we also make every effort to ensure that we leave no career and technical education student behind? Passage of these important provisions today will go a long way toward ensuring that career and vocational education students are not left behind in the classroom, that they are being held to high academic standards, that their teachers are provided with the training they need to keep up to date with the latest industry needs, and that high schools, industry and higher education work seamlessly together to provide our workforce with the skills that they need to maintain America's economic dominance in the 21st century. Career and technical programs are an essential part of keeping students in school and helping our nation train its workforce. And while I would not consider the conference agreement before us perfect, I am confident that it will go a long way in helping another generation of Americans succeed, and in doing so, strengthen the American economy and increase our competitiveness worldwide.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join with my colleague Senator Lieberman to introduce the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act to designate certain segments of the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created by Congress in 1968 to create a ``Hall of Fame'' for exceptional rivers. Eligible rivers or river segments must meet two criteria; first, the river corridor must be free flowing and, second, it must contain at least one outstanding remarkable resource deserving special recognition, such as a prominent natural, cultural, scenic, or recreational resource. Over the course of the past few years, the National Park Service has responded to interest and inquiries from local advocates and town officials regarding a potential Wild and Scenic River designation for the Eightmile River located in south central Connecticut. While a local management plan has been developed, studies have shown that fifteen miles of the Eightmile River and its East Branch through the communities of Lyme, East Haddam, and Salem, CT, were already included on the National Park Service's Nationwide Rivers Inventory of potential Wild and Scenic River segments. Both segments have great recreational value and are included on the inventory for outstanding scenic, geologic, and fish and wildlife values. More than 80 percent of the Connecticut River watershed is still forested, including large tracts of unfragmented hardwood forests that are home to a diverse assemblage of plants and animals including bobcats, great horned owls, red foxes and roughly 180 other species of birds, plants, fish, and reptiles. The impetus for gaining wild and scenic designation of segments of the Eightmile River originated locally in 1995 when local officials and citizens began working on protection efforts. A variety of local, State, and Federal watershed protection programs were considered, and a Wild & Scenic River study and designation were determined to be the best way to achieve the local vision of a protected watershed. It was found that six special ``resource values'' are present in the Eightmile River Watershed. These resource values are: Watershed hydrology, water quality, unique species and natural communities, geology, the watershed ecosystem, and the cultural landscape. Preserving and enhancing these values is the basis of the Eightmile River Management Plan and ultimately the pursuit of wild and scenic designation. Earlier this year I joined with residents of East Haddam, CT, to endorse the management plan. Connecticut is a small State in area, but it is densely populated and it is essential that balance is achieved between conservation and economic growth. As one of the most diverse and thriving ecosystems in the lower Connecticut River Valley, it is essential that we work to preserve this river while all parties, local, State and Federal, are willing and able to support this ecosystem. The Eightmile River, like many other rivers in America, can still be stewarded for future generations of Americans as both a recreational treasure and an unblemished ecological haven. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join with my colleague Senator Lieberman to introduce the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act to designate certain segments of the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created by Congress in 1968 to create a ``Hall of Fame'' for exceptional rivers. Eligible rivers or river segments must meet two criteria; first, the river corridor must be free flowing and, second, it must contain at least one outstanding remarkable resource deserving special recognition, such as a prominent natural, cultural, scenic, or recreational resource. Over the course of the past few years, the National Park Service has responded to interest and inquiries from local advocates and town officials regarding a potential Wild and Scenic River designation for the Eightmile River located in south central Connecticut. While a local management plan has been developed, studies have shown that fifteen miles of the Eightmile River and its East Branch through the communities of Lyme, East Haddam, and Salem, CT, were already included on the National Park Service's Nationwide Rivers Inventory of potential Wild and Scenic River segments. Both segments have great recreational value and are included on the inventory for outstanding scenic, geologic, and fish and wildlife values. More than 80 percent of the Connecticut River watershed is still forested, including large tracts of unfragmented hardwood forests that are home to a diverse assemblage of plants and animals including bobcats, great horned owls, red foxes and roughly 180 other species of birds, plants, fish, and reptiles. The impetus for gaining wild and scenic designation of segments of the Eightmile River originated locally in 1995 when local officials and citizens began working on protection efforts. A variety of local, State, and Federal watershed protection programs were considered, and a Wild & Scenic River study and designation were determined to be the best way to achieve the local vision of a protected watershed. It was found that six special ``resource values'' are present in the Eightmile River Watershed. These resource values are: Watershed hydrology, water quality, unique species and natural communities, geology, the watershed ecosystem, and the cultural landscape. Preserving and enhancing these values is the basis of the Eightmile River Management Plan and ultimately the pursuit of wild and scenic designation. Earlier this year I joined with residents of East Haddam, CT, to endorse the management plan. Connecticut is a small State in area, but it is densely populated and it is essential that balance is achieved between conservation and economic growth. As one of the most diverse and thriving ecosystems in the lower Connecticut River Valley, it is essential that we work to preserve this river while all parties, local, State and Federal, are willing and able to support this ecosystem. The Eightmile River, like many other rivers in America, can still be stewarded for future generations of Americans as both a recreational treasure and an unblemished ecological haven. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is with a great sense of pride and privilege that I rise today in strong, strong support of H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. In my view, of all the values which underpin a democracy, none-- none--is more essential than the right of a citizen to participate in the election of those who will govern and represent them. Voting is the participatory voice of our form of democracy. It is imperative, in my view, that we reaffirm this fundamental principle by expeditiously reauthorizing this fundamental voting rights legislation. It is for this reason that I will vote in favor of the Voting Rights Act extension. America must overcome its legacy of discrimination in voting. Let me, first of all, applaud our colleagues, if I may, the leaders of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, Senator Leahy, and Senator Kennedy for their extraordinary efforts to develop a truly bipartisan piece of legislation that has been brought to the floor here today. I feel very strongly about the need to reauthorize this law, and I commend our colleagues for the leadership they have shown in marking up a bill that I gather passed unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee and is before us today. It was about 40 years ago when I was sitting up in these Galleries, watching the U.S. Senate as it engaged in an impassioned debate among our predecessors in this Chamber about whether to extend to all Americans equal rights at the polling place. I was a college student at the time. I listened to one U.S. Senator say: Freedom and the right to vote are indivisible. That U.S. Senator was my father, Thomas Dodd of Connecticut, speaking about the Voting Rights Act in that year. As I watched my father and his colleagues engage in a very heated debate, I was proud of how many Members of this body, on both sides of the aisle, worked to end discriminatory voting practices, Republicans and Democrats alike coming together. It was following this debate, in 1965, that Congress took up and passed the Voting Rights Act--the first being the Civil Rights Act--as a response to the pervasive and explicit evidence of disenfranchisement of African-American and other voters in several States in our country. The Voting Rights Act was designed, of course, as we all know, to protect and preserve the voting rights of all Americans. Since 1965, this act has been the cornerstone of voting rights in our country, and its success is a tribute to those who have labored to create it. I would be remiss if I did not pay tribute to those that this act is named for: Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King. Many may recall, it was Fannie Lou Hamer who once commented that she was ``sick and tired of being sick and tired.'' In 1962, Mrs. Hamer, the youngest of 19 children, daughter of sharecroppers, and granddaughter of slaves, attended a voting registration drive held by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. There she learned that African Americans indeed had the constitutional right to vote. She was the first to volunteer for a dangerous mission to the Indianola, MS, courthouse to register to vote. Courageously, she declared: [T]he only thing they could do to me was to kill me, and it seemed like they'd been trying to do that a little bit at a time ever since I could remember. When Mrs. Hamer reached the courthouse, she and her companions were beaten and jailed. But she was not deterred. She went on to travel the country to encourage others to vote and later founded the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party to challenge the all-white Mississippi delegation at the Democratic Convention--not in the 19th century, not in the early part of the 20th century--but in 1964. The Voting Rights Act was signed into law a year later. In my view, if Mrs. Hamer had not risked her life and limb in order to register to vote, the plight of minority voters shut out of their own democracy may have continued, unfortunately. Rosa Parks was another pioneer of the civil rights movement. As a seamstress in Montgomery, AL, she famously challenged the Jim Crow laws of segregation in 1955. Mrs. Parks once recalled that as a young child: I'd see the bus pass every day. . . . But to me, that was a way of life; we had no choice but to accept what was the custom. The bus was among the first ways I realized there was a black world and a white world. Her historic refusal to give up her bus seat to a white passenger led to her arrest, and sparked a citywide boycott of the bus system, which triggered two Supreme Court decisions outlawing segregation on city buses. In my view, her silent protest launched the modernday civil rights movement. And we owe her a great deal of debt for her courage. In describing this incident, Mrs. Parks later recalled: People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in. For more than four decades, Mrs. Parks dedicated herself to the fight for racial equality. I strongly believe that if Mrs. Parks had not refused to give up her seat and had gone to the back of the bus that day we would not be here today considering this historic legislation. Let me mention the third individual for whom this act is being named today. Coretta Scott King, of course, the wife of Dr. Martin Luther King, joined her husband and thousands of others to march from Selma to Montgomery, AL, on Sunday, March 7, 1965. That march, of course, galvanized the core political will behind the civil rights movement and served as a catalyst for the Voting Rights Act. These three women worked for a better life and an inclusive society for not only themselves and their children, but also for future generations of Americans. They selflessly and nonviolently challenged the laws and customs they believed were wrong. And they were right. Their ability to speak ``truth to power'' became their legacy. All three are iconic in the fight for the right to vote and a better life for all Americans. Let me go on to point out here--I will not go into the specific sections of this bill. I know others have talked about that, why these sections are necessary to be continued for another 25 years. Let me, if I can, address some of the concerns that were raised in the other body in objections to the Voting Rights Act, if I may--those who question why divisions of a 41-year-old law deserve to be reauthorized. And while I agree, progress has certainly been made--and we are all grateful for that--we still have many obstacles to overcome in the conduct of our elections. Progress cannot be left to just serendipity. It must be guided by the rule of law. A little more than 5 years ago, we had an election in this country that forced us to confront the harsh reality that millions of Americans continue to be systematically denied their constitutional right to vote. Every citizen deserves, of course, to have his or her vote counted as well. There are legal barriers, administrative irregularities, and access impediments to the right to vote which adversely and disproportionately impact voters according to their color, economic class, age, gender, disability, language, party, and precinct. That is wrong. It is unacceptable. It is un-American. And it needs to be changed. It was unacceptable in 1965, and it is reprehensible in the year 2006. Congress must now reauthorize the expiring portions of the Voting Rights Act to continue to protect and preserve the voting rights of all Americans. I have been closely following the reauthorization process in both Chambers. I was apprehensive when House Republicans attempted to amend the Voting Rights Act to undermine some of its very key provisions-- essentially weakening this very important and fundamental law. They tried to repeal the current formula of section 5 in order to exempt States with historically discriminatory voting practices from continued coverage. They wanted to expedite the ``bailout'' process overriding the sensible framework for jurisdictions to demonstrate that they should not be subject to continuing section 5 coverage. They wanted to require us to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act in only 10 short years. Finally, in what I think is the most alarming attempt to weaken this vital law, House Republicans wanted to strike section 203 which ensures that all American citizens, regardless of language ability, are able to participate on a fair and equal basis in elections. I believe all Americans who are voting should learn to speak the English language. It should be our goal that all American citizens who vote should be able to understand an English language ballot. That is something we are wrestling with all the time. But we also recognize there are many here who are in the process of transition. Many of our citizens speak only one language as they are learning English. That makes them no less deserving, if they are citizens, of the basic rights and liberties which all Americans should expect and are entitled to. Section 203 must be retained or its unique ability to remove barriers to this fundamental right to vote and to help promote meaningful participation among all segments of our society will be in jeopardy. I am grateful that the civil rights groups, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, the AFL- CIO and others, have worked so closely with Democratic Members of the House of Representatives to prevail over this adversity and were able to defeat every single one of these amendments. Central to the foundation of our democratic form of government is, of course, the right to vote. The Voting Rights Act today facilitates and ensures that right. In a representative democracy, voting is the best avenue, of course, by which voters can gain access and influence lawmakers in Federal, State, and local governments. Voting gives the people a voice. We must protect their ability to be heard and to speak. Yesterday, I had the great privilege of meeting with 40 representatives from the Connecticut chapter of the NAACP about this important reauthorization. Their message was clear: the critical protections offered by the Voting Rights Act must be extended. We are not on the Floor today to reauthorize the right to vote. That right is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Instead, we are here to provide tools to enforce that right for all Americans. While it is critical that the Senate act to reauthorize these expiring sections of the Voting Rights Act today, it is important to recognize that this action alone will not secure the franchise for all Americans. Much more is needed to be done to ensure that every eligible American voter has an equal opportunity to vote and have their vote counted. In addition to the obstacles that the Voting Rights Act is designed to address, too many Americans still face impediments to voting. The Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 are replete with examples of such obstacles, including: too few polling places or too few voting machines to serve the turnout; eligible voters' names not on the registration list; errors in the registration lists; malfunctioning machines and machines that produce no audit trail; eligible voters turned away at the polls; disabled voters unable to cast a secret ballot; voters unable to correct mistakes on ballots or even receive a new ballot if their ballot was spoiled, to name only a few. Congress addressed some of these impediments in the landmark legislation enacted following the debacle of the presidential election in 2002 in the Help America Vote Act, or HAVA, which I was pleased to author in the Senate. That legislation established Federal minimum requirements that all States must have in place by the Federal elections this year. Those requirements include allowing any voter who is challenged at the polls to cast a provisional ballot, which is set aside and counted after eligibility, is confirmed. States must also meet new Federal minimum standards for voting systems, including providing second-chance voting, ensuring disability access, and providing for a permanent paper record for auditing purposes. And States must implement a statewide, computerized registration list to serve as the official registration list for Federal elections. Congress has not fully funded HAVA. The States are $724 million short in the promised Federal funds for requirements grants and an additional $74 million short in disability access grants. It is my intent to offer an amendment to the Treasury-Transportation-HUD Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007 to fully fund the requirement grants to States under HAVA, when that bill comes to the Senate floor for debate. But even the HAVA minimum requirements are only a first step to addressing the continuing impediments faced by voters across this Nation. To address additional election administration deficiencies, I introduced legislation in January of last year, S. 17, the Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights Act of 2005, or the VOTER Act. The Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights Act of 2005, or the VOTER Act, builds on the reforms begun by HAVA, and adds to those reforms, by including the following: providing every eligible American, regardless of where they live in the world or where they find themselves on election day, the right to cast a National Federal Write- In Absentee Ballot in Federal elections: requiring States to provide for election day registration; requiring States to provide a minimum required number of voting systems and poll workers for each polling place on election day and during early voting; requiring States to count a provisional ballot for Federal office cast within the State by an otherwise eligible voter, notwithstanding the polling place in which the ballot is cast; requiring that all States provide voters a voter-verified ballot with a choice of at least 4 formats for recording their verification: a paper record; an audio record; a pictorial record; and an electronic record or other means which is fully accessible to the disabled, including the blind and visually impaired; requiring States to provide public notice of any registration list purges not later than 45 days before a Federal election; allowing voters to attest to their citizenship and age on voter registration forms; and providing additional Federal funds to States to implement these new requirements. Once Congress has completed its action on the Voting Rights Act, it is imperative that the Senate turn its attention to these further election administration reforms. As the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, which has jurisdiction over election reform issues, I look forward to that debate and the action of the Senate to ensure that every eligible American voter has an equal opportunity to cast a ballot and have that ballot counted, regardless of color or class, gender or age, disability or native language, party or precinct, or the resources of the community in which they live. I am very grateful to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the NAACP. They were such strong supporters of the Help America Vote Act. That bill passed the Senate by a vote of 92 to 2 after a lengthy debate. We authorized close to $4 billion to the States to allow them to improve voting systems. It is not a perfect bill, but it is a major step forward. In the coming weeks, when we will have appropriations matters before us, and as I said, I will be offering amendments to fully fund the HAVA bill and other such changes as I have offered in separate legislation to strengthen that particular effort. But it was important on this bill that we not complicate this important piece of legislation with modifications to the HAVA bill or additional ideas to improve voting access in this country. But we need to continue to work at it. It is unfortunate that in our country in too many of our elections the right to vote and have your vote counted depends upon the economic circumstances of the county in which you reside. That must change when it comes to Federal elections. My hope is we made a major step forward with the HAVA bill, and we continue to work at this on a bipartisan basis. As was said many years ago by Thomas Paine, the right to vote is the right upon which all other rights depend. If we don't get this one right, then all the other rights we depend upon as American citizens are in jeopardy. The Voting Rights Act speaks to that claim more than two centuries ago, that the right to vote is the right upon which all other rights depend. What a great message that would be to the American public that we still understand this Nation has yet to achieve the perfection that its Founders designed, but each generation strives to make it a more perfect union. Passage of this bill today will be a step in that direction. I urge my colleagues to join me in achieving a unanimous vote to reauthorize the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years. In 1965, a bipartisan coalition of Senators came together to pass this historic bill for the first time. Today, passage of this act is vital to bring about the day for America envisioned by those for which it is named. Coretta Scott King, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and countless others worked tirelessly to guarantee the ability of all Americans to exercise their right to vote. Mr. President, we honor their work today by passing this important legislation. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Maryland for those kind words.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank the majority leader immensely for his generosity. I know we are about to close out this debate, and I am appreciative of him allowing me this time to express my strong support for this legislation. I commend the majority leader, along with my colleagues from Pennsylvania and Iowa, Senator Specter and Senator Harkin, and others who have championed this issue. I commend the other body for passing this legislation, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, over a year ago and by a fairly substantial majority vote. My hope is that my colleagues, in a significant vote, will endorse and support what has already been done in the House. Then we can finally deliver on promising stem cell research that may one day provide relief to the more than 100 million Americans suffering from Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal cord injury, ALS, cancer, and many other devastating conditions for which there is still no cure. This is controversial, there is no question about it. But as the distinguished minority leader, the Democratic leader, pointed out, we are talking about embryos that would otherwise be discarded but can now be used to one day make a difference in the lives of literally millions and millions of Americans. I am the godfather of a child with juvenile diabetes. I cannot begin to state how my friend's family in Connecticut feels about legislation. I don't know what their politics are on this. I know they are a family with deep values and a deep sense of support for their church. They are also a family whose child's life could be made profoundly different if it were possible to examine embryonic stem cells thoroughly so that one day we can find a cure for juvenile diabetes. But, obviously there are others diseases, including Parkinson's, ALS, cancer, and other devastating conditions we can make a difference on. With the passage of this bill, we can say to these children and these families we can make a difference. I emphasize, again, these 400,000 embryos would otherwise be discarded. Strict ethical requirements apply to the use of these embryos. In fact, I believe these ethical requirements are one of the most essential provisions of the bill. Since the HELP Committee first began consideration of the President's policy on embryonic stem cell research in 2001, I have maintained that the pursuit of scientific research that may benefit millions of Americans and their families was as important as ensuring that science did not outpace ethics. Under this legislation, the only embryonic stem cells that can be used for federally-funded research are those that were derived through embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics that were created for fertility treatment purposes and were donated for research with the written, informed consent of the individuals seeking that treatment. Any financial or other inducements to make this donation are prohibited. Their embryos will never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise have been discarded. The ethical requirements contained in this bill are stronger than current law. In fact, it's possible that some of the twenty-one stem cell lines currently approved for federally-funded research, the so-called ``NIH-approved lines,'' may not meet the strict ethical criteria contained in this bill. I have heard some of my colleagues who oppose this legislation argue that this legislation allows, even encourages, taxpayer-funded destruction of human embryos. That is totally false. An amendment is attached to every annual Labor-HHS appropriations bill prohibiting any Federal funds from being used to destroy human embryos. This amendment, referred to as the ``Dickey amendment,'' is not affected by this legislation. Federal funds can be used to study stem cell lines that were derived from human embryos that meet the ethical requirements I just laid out, but the derivation process itself cannot be funded using Federal dollars. I have also heard some of my colleagues who oppose this legislation argue that embryonic stem cell research is unnecessary given the advances in adult stem cell research. Let me quickly say, with respect to adult stem cells, I am strongly supportive of moving aggressively in that area. I am a strong supporter. In fact, I authored the legislation which is now law advancing bone marrow and cord blood stem cell collection for use in adult stem cell transplantation. For both of my young daughters, we took the umbilical cord blood from the children at birth and it is being stored. My hope is that stem cells from cord blood will prove to be tremendously valuable to coming generations of Americans. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting full funding for this important law--which passed unanimously in the Senate--in the upcoming Labor-HHS appropriations bill. The fact remains that there will always be limits to the use of adult stem cells when compared with embryonic stem cells and that is why the legislation before us is so important. Our Nation's best scientists, including many Nobel Laureates, believe that embryonic stem cell research has a unique potential to ease human suffering and that is because embryonic stem cells, unlike adult stem cells, can become any cell in the body. Embryonic stem cells can become heart cells, lung cells, brain cells, among others, and that property--called pluripotency--is unique to their embryonic state. Let us not lose this opportunity. I urge the President to reconsider, to listen to the majority leader, listen to Senator Specter, Senator Harkin, and others who have spent countless hours examining this issue and see if he would not be willing to change his mind on this issue to avoid a Presidential veto. My hope is we will get strong bipartisan support on this bill. I intend to support the Fetal Farming Prohibition Act and the other legislation being offered. I think those bills are unnecessary, but nonetheless I will be glad to support them. But let's also pass the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act by a strong vote.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security appropriations bill. The Senate passed this measure yesterday unanimously and I voted in support of it. I would like to begin by thanking the principal authors and managers of this legislation: Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd. It is no easy task to write a bill that provides for our domestic security needs. I commend both of our colleagues and their staffs for the hard work they put into crafting this legislation. The bill that passed the Senate funds our country's homeland security activities at $32.8 billion for the upcoming fiscal year. These activities include port security, rail security, truck security, aviation security, emergency first responders, customs and border patrol, immigration, the Coast Guard, and counterterrorism research. Taken together, these initiatives form the foundation upon which our country depends for its internal security. In an age when terrorism continues to be a growing threat to our Nation, one would think that the Congress of the United States would be doing everything it could to shore up that foundation--to make it as impregnable as possible against those who wish us harm. Yet when we look at the legislation passed by the Senate, I do not believe it does enough to protect our people from terrorism. We are simply not investing the resources that are required to make this Nation as safe as possible. Instead of filling in the gaps that continue to exist within our homeland security foundation, we are letting those gaps and cracks grow in several critical respects. One does not have to look further than protecting our critical infrastructure and funding our emergency first responders. These two areas arguably form the backbone of our efforts to prevent and effectively respond to terrorist attacks at home. They encompass protecting our ports, our railroads, our transit systems and our commercial vehicles. They encompass quickly and effectively responding to real or perceived threats in all parts of our country. The bill that passed the Senate spends roughly $4 billion to protect our critical infrastructure, equip our first responders, an assist local governments in planning and coordinating their homeland security activities. While this may seem like a large number to many Americans, it has been cited by numerous national security and public health experts, along with first responders themselves, as being wholly inadequate to meet the homeland security demands of the 21st century. Furthermore, the number is actually less than what has been provided in the past. While on par with what was provided last year, it is approximately $500 million less than what was provided 2 years ago and approximately $700 million less than 3 years ago. Clearly, we are heading in the wrong direction--doing less to protect our country adequately when we ought to be doing more. As we have seen in Madrid 2 years ago, in London last year, in India earlier this week, and in Iraq almost every week, terrorists have become adept at exploiting weak points in critical infrastructure, particularly transportation systems. I question what it will take for us to realize that we need to be investing more in our domestic critical infrastructure and in our first responders. Although we have taken steps to boost our homeland security since the attacks on September 11, our critical infrastructure remains largely exposed and our emergency first responders are spread too thin. Our port authorities have identified $8.4 billion for meeting Federal security requirements; transit agencies have identified $6 billion for making trains and buses safer for passengers; and firefighters have identified over $4 billion for performing their critical duties safely and efficiently. As the Senate considered this legislation, I was offered an amendment that increased resources to our Nation's firefighters by $25 million above the bill's allocation of $655 million. This amendment was cosponsored by colleagues, Senators DeWine, Mikulski, and Snowe, and was agreed to by unanimous consent. I also offered an amendment that would have increased critical infrastructure security and first responder funding by $16 billion to a total of $20 billion. My amendment would have codified a recommendation made 3 years ago by a task force chaired by our former colleague, Warren Rudman, along with a distinguished panel of national security, intelligence, military and public health officials. Regrettably, this measure--along with other measures I supported seeking to raise resources for critical infrastructure protection and first responders--were not adopted. Members who spoke in opposition to these amendments argued that we could not afford the extra cost. Ironically, many of the Members who opposed these amendments have supported permanent tax cuts for the most affluent of Americans--tax cuts that have been projected to cost $1 trillion over the next 15 years. If we can afford to give such a generous tax break to the few thousand wealthiest Americans, then why can we not afford adequately to safeguard 281 million Americans from terrorist attacks at a mere fraction of that cost? We are living in extraordinary times. Never before in our history has there been a prolonged period of time when the threat of harm to Americans on their own soil has been so high. While it has been almost 5 years since terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, the more recent attacks in Madrid, London, and Mumbai tell us that we must remain vigilant about our domestic security. They tell us that we must renew and redouble our efforts to prevent and respond to terrorism here at home. On balance, I voted for this legislation because the funding it appropriates does take important steps towards meeting our domestic security needs. However, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming years to find and provide the necessary resources that can make our Nation as safe and strong as it can possibly be.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me, first of all, say to my colleague from Kansas, I am always delighted to hear his comments and thoughts. I wanted to be here earlier to discuss with our colleague and friend from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, the growing problem we are all hearing about from our constituents all across this country, and that is the ever-rising cost of gasoline and petroleum-related products. There has been a staggering increase in the price of oil and gasoline which is having a huge impact on working families in this country. Their weekly earnings have risen less than one-half of 1 percent over the last 5 years, yet the cost of gasoline has more than doubled over that same period of time. These charts and graphs give an indication of what has happened to the price. Beginning in 2000, it was $1.47. Just last week, in my hometown in Connecticut, the price ranged from $3.15 per gallon to $3.35 per gallon, depending upon the quality of fuel you were buying, and the national average is creeping closer to $3.00 per gallon. We have seen the price of oil soar from just over $30 per barrel in 2001 to an excessive $75 per barrel this week. Most of us are aware, with the existing product from previously dug wells around the world, large profits can be made at $30 and $40 per barrel. So when you start talking about $75 per barrel, you get some indication of the level of profits that are being made. I mentioned what it is like for people out there who are struggling to make ends meet and hold their families together. Weekly earnings have risen only .4 percent since 2001, adjusted for inflation, while gasoline prices have risen 130.5 percent since that same year, adjusted for inflation. When you start talking about people on fixed incomes or people earning the minimum wage, the problem becomes more pronounced. We have gone 9 years now with no increase whatsoever in the federal minimum wage. We tried here only a few weeks ago, prior to the Fourth of July recess, for a $2.10 per hour increase in the minimum wage over the next several years, from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour. That is a very modest increase in that minimum wage, but it would make a huge difference for people out there who are trying to make ends meet. Again, we have a limited time to talk about this, but Senator Dorgan and I are once again going to ask our colleagues to consider the idea of a rebate going back to people who are trying to make ends meet. We ask, when you have profits in excess of $40 per barrel, to either invest those profits back into the development of new product or new technologies or rebate part of those profits back to consumers. I know the Presiding Officer cares deeply about this issue and has lectured us on numerous occasions about the importance of supply. I don't fault the industry for trying to make a profit. What I would like to know is, are the companies investing in production, alternative sources of energy, and new technology? I would like to know they are going to do something, in addition to making a profit, that will actually increase our domestic supply. We wake up today to find the region of the world on which we depend tremendously for our supplies is literally aflame, a tinderbox that is exploding while we are gathered here. Yet we sit around here almost pretending that nothing is wrong as we continue to watch oil and gasoline prices skyrocket and oil companies record huge profits. One of the major oil companies, in its 2004 annual report, told its shareholders: We achieved the highest net income in our history, $18.2 billion. This was 48 percent higher than in 2003, as a result of higher oil and gas prices. So they recognize themselves that their profits are occurring because of these skyrocketing prices. Why not put some of those resources into developing alternatives, or doing a better job to see to it we become less dependent on the Venezuelas and the Middle East for our supplies? And if not, why not rebate some of the profits back to people who are struggling to make ends meet? Senator Dorgan and I are asking the leaders to provide us a limited amount of time to debate oil and gasoline prices and other energy issues. Nothing has captivated the attention of our public as has this issue. I don't know why we can't find some time to talk about ideas to provide relief to people we represent. We spent more time in the last couple of weeks talking about gay marriage and flag burning. How about gasoline prices? How about saying to the American public: Listen to the ideas we have to reduce the pressure you are feeling economically. That would be a welcome surprise to most Americans, to hear us talk about something they deeply care about. At the appropriate time, the Senator from North Dakota and I will be offering some language, once again asking our colleagues to join us in a bipartisan way to see if we can't encourage the industry to do something more than just brag about its profits. I yield the floor.