Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 4641 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I would like to call up amendment No. 4641, if I may, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, be added as an original cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, if the Chair would inform me when the Senator from Connecticut has consumed 15 minutes, I would appreciate it.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise this morning to offer this amendment that seeks to meet some of the domestic security needs of our Nation as demonstrated by a distinguished group of experts in public policy, national security, and public health. This is not an amendment that I have crafted on my own. Rather, this amendment reflects the tremendous work done by our former colleague, the Senator from New Hampshire, Warren Rudman, who authored this report under the auspices of the Council on Foreign Relations back in 2003, along with a very distinguished group of Americans who brought a wealth of talent to that report, making significant recommendations as to how we might strengthen the ability of first responders in this country to deal with the national security threats posed by terrorist organizations. Obviously, all of us here are more than aware of these threats not only because of the events of 9/11, when we were victimized by the attacks of al-Qaida, but because we have witnessed the tragic events in Madrid and London, and most recently, the train bombings near Mumbai, India, where terrorist attacks have taken the lives of innocents. Once again, we realize that we are very, very vulnerable. Warren Rudman has warned us of this vulnerability. A distinguished group of Americans, who I will identify in a moment, have warned us. I will be offering an amendment now for the fourth time since 2003 urging my colleagues to support an effort to put some very meaningful resources to bear when it comes to the needs of our first responders all across this country. As I mentioned, this is the fourth year I have offered my amendment, along with my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow. And I thank her immensely for her tireless efforts in this regard as well. The purpose of this amendment is very simple. It is to fund the urgent priorities of our Nations's firefighters, law enforcement personnel, emergency medical personnel, transportation systems, and critical infrastructure, such as our ports and chemical plants around the country. The amendment would pay for these vital priorities by lowering the tax breaks for individuals with annual incomes in excess of $1 million. Politics is always about choices. Choices are never easy. To pay for this, I have to come up with an offset. I realize that. But it seems to me if we cannot make the simple choice of asking those who are the most affluent in our society to reduce, for a period of time--not totally-- but just reduce, by a small amount, the amount of the tax break they would be getting over the next few years in order to fund the needs we have in our communities across this country--it is not a difficult choice to make. I suspect if we surveyed the Americans who are making this kind of an income, as to whether or not they would be willing to forego the size of the tax cut they would be getting in order to properly fund these efforts, I suspect those Americans, as patriots, would be more than willing to make that kind of a sacrifice, if you wish to call it such, in order to properly fund the efforts that have been identified by Americans who know what they are talking about when it comes to our national security needs. Four years ago, the Council on Foreign Relations--which I mentioned already--convened an independent task force to identify the challenges faced by our Nation in preventing and responding to acts of terrorism. This group was chaired, as I mentioned, by our former colleague, Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire. The task force, in June of 2003, issued a very comprehensive report entitled: ``Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared.'' That was the report issued in 2003. Senator Rudman was joined on this task force by a very distinguished group of Americans. Let me name some of them, not all of them: George Shultz, former Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Labor, and Director of the Office of Management and Budget; William Webster, former Director of the Centra Intelligence Agency; Charles Boyd, the chief executive officer and president of Business Executives for National Security; Margaret Hamburg, the vice president for biological weapons at the Nuclear Threat Initiative and former Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services; Donald Marron, former chairman of UBS America; James Metzl, former staff member of the National Security Council, the Department of State, and former staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University; and Harold Varmus, president and chief executive officer of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center--and on and on, just to give you some idea of who the authors of this task force are. All I have done is taken their recommendations and put them into legislative form. These are not Dodd proposals. These are proposals that our former colleague, along with the individuals I have just mentioned, have asked us to do. They told us 3 years ago the things we must do to be better prepared to deal with our threats. These are their ideas, not mine. I am just taking their ideas and putting them in legislative form, along with my colleague from Michigan, and asking our colleagues to get behind this and to pay for this by reducing, ever so marginally, the amount of the tax break that individuals making more than $1 million a year would otherwise be receiving. I have great respect for my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Judd Gregg--we are good friends--and Senator Byrd. They have a very difficult task, along with the other members who serve on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. It is not an easy job at all, and I recognize that. However, concerning the needs of our emergency responders and our critical infrastructure, I think we are faced with a problem that is far more significant than the budget cap requirements placed on these appropriations bills. I think we will come back and revisit this if we are faced with the kind of tragedies I think all of us know are out there, when we look back and ask why we didn't do what needed to be done when Warren Rudman and others warned us about what would happen if we didn't provide the kind of support we are asking for. We would be told at some later date: Well, you see, there was a budget cap here where we mandated we could not do any better than what the budget cap required of us. I think we will come back to rue those words. I think we will regret it deeply that we did not provide the kind of support being recommended by this distinguished panel of Americans. If the tragic events in Madrid and London, the alleged plot to destroy the Holland Tunnel, and most recently the train bombings in India say anything to us at all, it is that we must renew and redouble our efforts to prevent and respond to terrorism here at home. The Rudman report only underscores, in my view, the sense of urgency that we ought to have about protecting our country from the risk of terrorism. However, the needs of our communities far exceed the limited resources we have been given in this bill. Again, I have respect for Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd. They have a very difficult job. I will be the first to admit that. In fact, what I am asking for in this amendment is to spend $20 billion a year for 5 years, to hire, equip, and train first responders and to better protect our critical infrastructure from attack. This bill spends only roughly $4 billion a year, only about a fifth of what we are told by the Rudman report is urgently needed. Again, we are faced here with a point of order that I know will be raised against this amendment because it violates the cap. And I will be asking to waive that budget point of order when either my colleague from New Hampshire raises it or someone he designates does. But I am asking my colleagues, do not let yourself cast a vote here that I think we will come to regret down the road. How many more warnings do we need to have as a nation? We are not isolated in the world. We are not that well protected. What happened in India, what happened in Madrid, what happened in London, what happened here only 5 years ago will happen again. We need to provide the kind of protection that our constituents demand of us. The Rudman report must not become yet another report collecting dust on a forgotten shelf--and that is my fear--until once again we are struck and wonder why we did not take these steps called for in that report. Let me read, if I may, briefly, the conclusions of the report. Listen to their words. If my words do not move you, listen to the words authored 3 years ago by the people on this distinguished panel of Americans, authored by the Council on Foreign Relations. Listen to what they said 3 years ago. And I quote them. They, and Senator Rudman, said the following: The terrible events of September 11 have shown the American people how vulnerable they are because attacks on that scale had never been carried out on U.S. soil. The United States and the American people were caught under-protected and unaware of the magnitude of the threat facing them. He goes on to say: In the wake of September 11, ignorance of the nature of the threat or of what the United States must do to prepare for future attacks can no longer explain America's continuing failure to allocate sufficient resources in preparing local emergency responders. It would be a terrible tragedy indeed if it took another catastrophic attack to drive the point home. Madam President, I do not think any words can express the problem before us more clearly than those of Senator Rudman. It would be a terrible tragedy if it took another catastrophic attack to drive this point home. I would also like to quote from the foreword of this report written by Les Gelb, who is the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations. Listen to what he had to say at the conclusion of that report: As I sit to write this foreword, it is likely that a terrorist group somewhere in the world is developing plans to attack the United States and/or American interests abroad using chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or catastrophic conventional means. At the same time, diplomats, legislators, military and intelligence officers, police, fire, and emergency medical personnel, and others in the United States and across the globe are working feverishly to prevent and prepare for such attacks. These two groups of people are ultimately in a race with one another. This is a race we cannot afford to lose. Again, I can stand here for the next hour and a half or 2 hours. I don't think any words I can utter are going to be as serious as the ones authored by Warren Rudman or Les Gelb. These groups, those that are somewhere in the world as I am standing here on the floor of the Senate, are preparing to attack us again. I know that. Every one of my colleagues knows that is going on. And simultaneously, there are people in Alaska, Connecticut, and New Hampshire that are doing everything they possibly can to protect us. Two groups, one wants to attack us; the other is trying to prepare against that attack. It is a race, and we are being asked by people who know what is going on to provide adequate funding so that the group that defends us will have the means to protect us. I am asking for the fourth time in 3 years to break this cap and do what ought to be done to give our Nation the kind of protection it deserves. In October 2002, several months prior to the issuance of the Rudman report, the Council on Foreign Relations convened yet another task force, the Independent Task Force on Homeland Security, which issued the report ``America: Still Unprepared, Still in Danger.'' This task force was cochaired by Senator Rudman and another of our former colleagues, Senator Gary Hart of Colorado. They came to the general conclusion: America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The report further warned: America's own ill-prepared response could hurt its people to a much greater extent than any single attack by a terrorist [and] the risk of self-inflicted harm to America's liberties and way of life is greatest during, immediately, and following a national trauma. Here we have two seminal reports issued within 8 months of each other, essentially sounding an alarm to policymakers. We are the policymakers. We the ones who have to make the decision as to whether or not resources are going to be there. We hear the alarm further strengthened each year by our States, localities, and first responders who request more resources to adequately protect those to whom they are entrusted. Yet for all practical purposes, the vast bulk of these reports and requests continue to fall on deaf ears here in the U.S. Congress. The funding level I am proposing in this amendment is over $16 billion. It is a huge amount of money. I recognize that. It supplements the approximately $4 billion that the underlying measure devotes to emergency responders and infrastructure security. Together the bill and the amendment provide $20 billion in emergency responder funding over the next year. Again, this is not my recommendation. This is the recommendation of these individuals who have spent a lot of time looking at the issue and believe this is what is necessary. In fact, they might argue for more because that recommendation was made almost 4 years ago. So there is no factor built in for inflation or other costs that may have increased. I assume that number, if they were writing it today, may be larger. But I will still use the number from 4 years ago. I understand that the need for a budget resolution to set caps on appropriations bills. Effective budget resolutions are those that achieve balance. They curb reckless spending while providing sound investment in our domestic and foreign priorities. Unfortunately, I don't find the current budget resolution and the caps it has imposed as balanced at all. And while constraining our ability to invest adequately in our emergency responders and domestic security, the resolution is projected to increase the national deficit by $296 billion in the coming year, principally because it seeks to make permanent tax cuts that are way too generous and that benefit primarily the most affluent in society.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. I will take another 5 minutes, if I may. The report before us presents an uncomfortable reality that we have to face as a country. I certainly applaud the hard work that has been done, as I mentioned earlier. Yet as the tragedy in India vividly showed us on Tuesday, n nation, including ours, is invulnerable. We still possess weaknesses in our domestic security and our domestic infrastructure that must be strengthened. For over 3 years now we have possessed, in the form of the Rudman and Hart reports, a clear message from our most qualified experts that we need to do more to prepare ourselves. And while I recognize that this amendment is expensive, this cost will pale in comparison if we are hit and unprepared to respond to it. This cost will be minor. We all agree that $16 billion is a considerable sum. In fact, it represents roughly half the cost of the underlying bill. However, our country continues to spend between $4 billion and $5 billion every month in Iraq and Afghanistan, roughly a billion dollars a week. So we are talking about 16 weeks of investment, if you want to look at it in those terms, in Iraq as to whether or not we ought to be talking about similar investments here at the local level. This is funding that would not be wasted. The Rudman report clearly states the need for more resources. The demands we hear from our States and localities and first responders clearly state the need is there. Our ports have identified $8.4 billion to meet Federal security requirements. That is their assessment. Our transit agencies have identified $6 billion to make trains and buses and other forms of transit safer for passengers. Our firefighters and first responders demonstrate over $4 billion in needs annually so that they may perform their critical duties more safely. That is the conclusion coming from our transit agencies, port authorities, and firefighters. Those are their recommendations. Again, I have asked my colleagues in the past to be supportive. I have not succeeded when I have offered this. But I offer it again because of what happened just a few days ago, halfway around the world in Mumbai, India. How many more times do we have to be reminded of what can and is likely to happen here again and whether or not we will be prepared to respond to it. Warren Rudman and the people who worked with him to make these recommendations are serious individuals. These are Democrats, Republicans, people who have served as distinguished public policy setters over the last 25 years, from the Central Intelligence Agency to the Secretary of State to the national security agencies. These are not people who casually recommend the numbers they have. They studied the issue carefully. They believe it is the proper amount to request. I am taking their suggestions, their words, their numbers, and offering to my colleagues an opportunity to take a report that is serious in its intent, serious in its proposals, and asking my colleagues to endorse it by breaking down this cap and offsetting the cost by the means I have suggested. At the appropriate time, if a budget point of order is raised, I will move to waive that Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays so that my colleagues can be heard on this issue once again. I hope that on a bipartisan basis we can say to our colleagues who chair the committees and the subcommittees, my good friend from Washington, my good friend from New Hampshire--they do a tremendous job in this area--but I think the clear message from the Rudman report is that we need to do a better job. The American people expect nothing less. I will ask for a vote when that occurs. I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. DODD. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DODD. Let me quickly attempt to rebut my friend from New Hampshire on these issues. I didn't make up these numbers. These are from our States and localities. They are telling us these are their needs; it is not just in the Rudman report. Their request of 4 years ago, based on the cost of items they thought were necessary then, has obviously gone up. Our ports identified $8.4 billion. That is not my request. These are serious people who are running our ports across the country. They need $8.4 billion to meet Federal security requirements; transit agencies, $6 billion. That is what they are telling us they need; firefighters, first responders, an additional $4 billion. Even by the chairman's estimation, we are $10 billion short of what needs to be done. I expect they are certainly making an effort, but it falls way short of what we are being told are the needs across the country. Again, I am prohibited from getting too specific about this. My colleagues on the committee can make that decision. I think I am correct in that, but I suggest that if you were to ask patriotic Americans who have incomes of more than a million dollars a year whether they would be willing to forgo some of the tax break they are getting--not a tax increase but some of the tax break they are getting--to pay for this, they would agree. We are spending $1 billion a week in Iraq alone. This is calling for $16 billion--16 weeks of what is spent for the effort in Iraq--to make us more secure at home. I don't hear any great complaints about the billion dollars a week we are spending in that particular effort. Yet we cannot find the resources to make us more secure at home. I urge my colleagues to be supportive of the amendment. I ask unanimous consent to add my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, as a cosponsor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a bipartisan amendment which I introduced with my colleagues, Senators DeWine and Mikulski, that helps our Nation's firefighters perform their critical duties more safely. This amendment was passed earlier by unnanimous consent. I would like to thank the chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gregg, and the subcommittee's ranking member, Senator Byrd. Crafting legislation that meets the varied domestic security needs of our Nation is no easy feat and I thank Chairman Gregg, Senator Byrd, and all of my colleagues on the subcommittee for their hard work and support. This amendment increases funding to the Assistance to Firefighters Grants, which I initially authored in 2000 with my colleagues, Senators DeWine, Levin, and Warner. During the past 5 years, this initiative, which includes the FIRE and SAFER grants, has provided almost $2.5 billion in assistance to over 29,000 fire departments in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. These resources have enabled fire departments to obtain updated firefighting equipment, hire additional firefighters, and improve firefighter training--activities that are crucial toward ensuring that firefighters can protect American citizens safely and effectively in this post-9/ll world. Our Nation's firefighters are willing to do whatever it takes to perform their duties. We have first-rate firefighters throughout our Nation, but they continue to be under-funded, under-staffed, undertrained, and under-equipped to deal with the various emergencies that may arise and have already arisen in their jurisdictions. Very few people who are not firefighters stop and think about how much we continue to ask of our firefighters in today's world. They still perform their traditional duties of extinguishing fires, delivering emergency medical services, and ensuring that fire codes are inspected. However, refighters have also taken on homeland security responsibilities that include responding to and handling hazardous biological and radiological agents. The fact remains that cash-strapped municipalities across our Nation simply do not have the financial resources and personnel to assist their fire departments in fully meeting these enhanced responsibilities and, consequently, safeguarding their populations. According to the most recent needs assessment study of the U.S. Fire Service published in December 2002, most fire departments lack the necessary resources and training to properly handle terrorist attacks and large-scale emergencies. More specifically, the study found that, first, using local firefighters, only 11 percent of fire departments can handle a rescue with emergency medical services at a structural collapse of a building with 50 occupants. Second, using local firefighters, only 13 percent of fire departments can handle a hazardous material incident involving chemical and/or biological agents with 10 injuries. Third, an estimated 40 percent of fire department personnel involved in hazardous material response lack formal training in those duties. And finally, the study found that an estimated 60 to 75 percent of fire departments do not have enough fire stations to allow firefighters to respond swiftly to emergency calls. These statistics are startling and are not improving over time. A new needs assessment that is forecasted to be released in the coming months is expected to conclude that--despite the success the firefighter grants have achieved in individual departments--fire departments across the Nation continue to struggle to carry out their critical duties. The risks that firefighters are expected to face continue to outgrow the ability of municipalities fully to provide them with the resources they require. Therefore, it is imperative that the Senate continue supporting our firefighters and working to address their concerns. The amendment that I have offered increases funding for firefighters by $25 million--$1.5 million for the FIRE Act grant initiative and $12.5 million for the SAFER Act grant initiative. These increases bring the total arpount of funding for the FIRE Grant to $552,500,000 and the SAFER Grant to $127,500,000. While I thank Senators Gregg, Byrd, and their colleagues on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee for finding the resources necessary to support these important grant initiatives at levels slightly above last year's funding, I believe that more resources need to be dedicated to the FIRE and SAFER grants. The FIRE Act grant initiative has been one of the most successful homeland security grant initiatives in recent years. It is clear that the need for these competitive, merit-based grants continues to grow in all regions of our Nation. For fiscal year 2006 alone, there were over 18,000 applications submitted, totaling over $2.3 billion in grant requests. Unfortunately, less than $545 million in Federal funding was ultimately made available. Equally important as the FIRE Grant is the SAFER Grant--an initiative which provides critial resources for fire departments to hire and recruit personnel. Just as the FIRE Act provides the equipment and training resources for firefighters to do their job, the SAFER Act provides the human resources necessary to get those jobs done safely and effectively. Over the past three decades, the number of firefighters as a percentage of the Nation's workforce has steadily declined. Today two-thirds of fire departments in the United States lack adequate personnel. We have fewer firefighters per capita, one firefighter for every 280 people, than nurses and police officers. In fiscal year 2006 alone, 1,727 applications were submitted, totaling over $1.8 billion in grant requests. Unfortunately, less than $110 million in Federal funding was ultimately made available. Clearly, we must do more in order to ensure that fire departments are adequately staffed and trained to meet the needs of their communities. The amendment that I have offered is fully offset by reducing administrative funding for the Office of the Homeland Security Secretary and Executive Management and utilizing unused funding from last year for science and technology initiatives. These offsets still allow the Office of the Secretary to meet its obligations fully in the coming year and the Department of Homeland Security to develop new technologies that keep Americans safe. I would like to conclude by reminding my colleagues that the fiscal year 2007 authorization levels for the FIRE and SAFER Grants are $1 billion each. The appropriations in this bill for these initiatives are less than one-third the sums authorized. I am committed to working with my colleagues in the future to ensure that firefighters receive more critical resources they require. America's firefighters are always the first ones in and the last ones out. They risk their own lives to save the lives of others. They stare danger in the face every single day because they know they have a duty to fulfill. We must rcognize their contribution to our domestic safety and see to it that they have the necessary equipment and personnel in order to perform their critical duties safely and effectively.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. May I inquire of the Chair, what is the pending matter before the Senate?

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. I gather at some point the Senate will be asked to vote on the trade agreement; is that correct?

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this legislation effecting the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement is an important one. Implementing legislation for this agreement is currently pending before the Senate and will likely come up for a vote later this afternoon. Regrettably, I will be opposing this proposal. In the past, I have voted for many free-trade agreements. I think they are very important. If well constructed, free-trade agreements are essential if we are going to have a growing economy, and if the role of the United States is going to be a positive one in the 21st century. But too often these trade agreements neglect critical points when it comes to how they affect American workers, as well as workers in the country with whom we are entering into the agreement. As I said, I have been supportive of a number of free-trade agreements over the years. I have also opposed a number of them. I will explain why and why I think this particular agreement needs further work and consideration before it is to be adopted. Properly constructed, I believe that free trade agreements are in the long-term interests of the United States and our trading partners. Today's world is interconnected in ways we couldn't even imagine a generation ago--even 5 or 10 years ago. Faster and more efficient means of transport and communications have made it relatively easy to conduct transactions of all types and in all corners of the globe. Today, with Internet access, people in the most remote places are better informed about what is happening than ever before. Globalization has affected countries all around the world. From Latin America to India, Africa to China, no nation has escaped the impact of this process. The difference is that while globalization has helped lift some nations up, it has left others way behind. While it has helped certain entities in various countries, it has left many people in those same nations staggeringly behind in their chances to enjoy greater economic opportunity. The march toward a more globalized world has significantly affected our own Nation as well. On balance, I believe free trade has benefitted our country in many respects. But quite simply, we haven't done enough in many areas, especially during the past few years, to help ease the transition for many Americans who are struggling. I know the Presiding Officer comes from a part of the country where trade agreements can have a huge impact on major sectors of the economy, as in our Southern States where textiles have been a huge part of economic growth. If not handled properly, for people in these States, many of whom are working for businesses that not many years ago came from New England, trade agreements can have a very negative impact. Nor have we done enough to ensure a level playing field to ensure that American businesses and workers are protected from would-be violators of the rules. Ultimately, trade agreements should be designed to lift up people in both countries. I believe in free trade because in order to compete in the global marketplace, America has to keep up and adjust to the changes around us. We can't just sell goods and services to ourselves and expect to have a growing economy. It is critically important that we have access to these foreign markets. Barriers and tariffs that prevent goods and services from ending up on the shelves in those countries ultimately do great damage to our Nation. So free and fair trade is critically important to our own economic success. Job loss would be staggering, if we were not able to open up markets around the globe for U.S. products and services. But for free trade to be beneficial and worthwhile, our trade agreements must also adjust to changes that are occurring around the world. Much as I regret to say it, the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement does not reflect this reality. Although negotiators had a real opportunity to learn from the past, to raise the standards and to produce a better agreement, we can see in the agreement before us many of the same problems that plagued previous free-trade agreements such as CAFTA-DR. The issue of labor rights is one key example of how this agreement falls short. I have long been an advocate of vigorous enforcement of U.S. trade laws, especially with respect to those provisions that require our trading partners to respect internationally recognized rights of workers in their countries. Workers rights violations not only give other nations an unfair trade advantage, they also hurt U.S. workers by depressing wages here at home and causing American jobs to be shipped overseas. Certainly, Oman is not the egregious violator of workers rights that some of our other trading partners are. Indeed, Oman has ratified the International Labor Organization's Convention 29 on forced labor, Convention 182 on the worst forms of child labor, Convention 105 on the abolition of forced labor, and Convention 183 on minimum age of employment. Oman has also ratified the United Nations protocol to prevent, suppress, and punish trafficking in persons, especially women an children. On the surface, therefore, one might think that there is little to worry about with respect to this agreement, which requires Oman to enforce its labor laws. But this notion overlooks a simple fact--that Oman's labor laws and its enforcement thereof is lacking. Collective bargaining is still not legally enshrined in Oman, nor is the right to strike. Existing law dealing with forced labor is vague. So asking Oman to uphold its own laws is not holding that country to the high standards necessary to protect U.S. workers. While I understand that Oman is committed to improving its labor laws and enforcement, we should first see some significant action on their end to make sure that both United States and foreign workers are going to be protected. Or better yet, use the ILO standards, not domestic laws, as the benchmark for workers rights provisions in this and other free-trade agreements. Right now there is an October deadline that Oman has agreed to as a target for achieving some reforms. Besides the late date, I have serious doubts as to what incentives Oman will have to carry out these reforms once this agreement is in place. If this agreement passes before those reforms take place, as may be the case today, many of the incentives for Oman to reform will be gone. My colleagues should also be aware that we are not just talking about how Omani laws will protect Omani workers. The fact is that guest workers from impoverished Asian countries perform much of the labor in Oman. These guest workers need to enjoy the same worker protections as Omani citizens. To that end, we have learned in the last 2 months of rampant labor abuses of foreign workers in Jordanian sweatshops. I don't mean to malign our friends in Jordan. They have been wonderful allies, and very helpful on a number of issues that affect the United States in that part of the world. I am hopeful that abuses by unscrupulous employers in Jordan will be punished and prevented in the future because even the best intentioned countries can never prevent all occurrences of abuses. But given that the Oman Free Trade Agreement has much weaker labor provisions than the Jordanian agreement, the Oman deal certainly seems like it will be a recipe for similar abuses in the future. I also have concerns about a small provision included in the second annex to the Oman Free Trade Agreement, in the section governing U.S. rights and obligations. In that annex, it is stated that the ``United States reserves the right to adopt or maintain any measure . . . '' except ``landside aspects of port activities, including operation and maintenance of docks.'' Simply put, this raises questions as to whether the United States would be able to prevent Oman from acquiring companies that run U.S. port operations without essentially being sued in the World Trade Organization. Why are we including provisions such as that in a trade agreement and leaving ourselves vulnerable to legal action if we decide that it is in our own self-interest, because of our concerns about terrorism and national security, to prevent Oman from acquiring port operations in the United States? The only caveat to this section of the Oman Free Trade Agreement is that Oman must provide similar market access to the United States. Now, according to the U.S. Trade Representative, all of our trade agreements include an article on essential security which basically provides that nothing in the agreement can prevent us from applying measures that we consider necessary for the protection of our essential security interests. That is all fine and well and would seem to indicate that the President or the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States could still review proposed acquisitions. But why should our trade agreements contain language such as this that is legally confusing at the least and potentially opens us up to being sued, if we decide that something is in our national security interest? There are other issues I could raise about the content of the U.S.- Oman Free Trade Agreement, but I believe that the two issues I have mentioned are critically important and reason enough to oppose this agreement. Once again, the Bush administration had an opportunity to use fast- track authority to promote a trade agreement that would be in the best interest of our Nation, of our workers and businesses. I wish that this was the case when it comes to the Oman Free Trade Agreement. Unfortunately, we are instead seeing more of the same disregard for American workers in the pending proposal. As a result, I intend to oppose this agreement and urge my colleagues to review it very carefully, review the provisions dealing with labor standards and review the standards when it comes to port operation activities included in this free-trade agreement. I should mention as well, another reason why I support strong labor provisions in these agreements. It is critically important that our trading partners have enough people who can afford to buy the goods and services that we produce here in the United States. Even if countries open up their borders to our goods, what percentage of their population could ever afford our goods and services if they mainly receive low wages and little or no benefits? The only alternative to strong labor protections is that we drop the prices of our goods tremendously, which would obviously be disadvantageous to our future economic prosperity. The rationale for insisting that there be labor standards and decent wages provided to these people is a wealth creation idea. Labor protections, therefore, are not only about human rights, which is legitimate enough, but are also about enlightened self-interest. For those reasons, this agreement should not be approved. When the vote occurs, I will be urging my colleagues to vote against it. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the pending matter before us, S.J. Res. 12 which would amend the Constitution of the United States. There are only seventeen words in the amendment: The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. These seventeen words have great significance. I hold dear the great genius of our wonderful Constitution. I have carried this tattered copy with me every day for as long as I have been a Member of this body. It was given to me by my seatmate here, the senior Senator Bryd from West Virginia. I treasure this copy of that document for many reasons, not the least of which is because it was given to me by Senator Byrd, but also because I find myself referring to it almost on a daily basis. This copy includes not only the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but also the Declaration of Independence. It is a part of my daily wardrobe, be it weekends or during the week here. It is a reminder of how fortunate we are to live in a country that has, as its founding document, a set of words, language, that not only speaks to the hopes and dreams of all Americans, but even beyond the borders of this country, because the Founders, the Framers of the Constitution, spoke of eternal truths in this document. While the language applies to only those who live in this country, their words have, of course, inspired millions of other people all across the globe. It is not uncommon to read the constitutions of developing countries and find literally verbatim the language in our own U.S. Constitution. This is a great tribute to not only the Framers but to those who came after them. Those that have upheld, supported, and defended--as millions of Americans have, some with the ultimate sacrifice--their lives, to protect and defend this country and the principles and ideals on which it was founded. The Constitution has sustained itself now for the more than 200 years. Giving us the power to be free and independent people. So this great genius of our Constitution enshrines in it the words of the eternal aspirations of humanity. I believe that Alexander Hamilton laid out a framework for constitutional amendments and how we ought to think of this remarkable document that serves as the basis of all that we believe and hold dear when he said: The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power. It is a rather beautiful quotation that I think captures what many of us believe to be the case when we talk about our Constitution, talking about the hand of divinity itself helping scribe these words, that it is ``not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records'' but rather ``written, as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature.'' So it is important, when we consider this document and particularly the Bill of Rights, which speak to our personal freedoms, that we consider all and any proposal to challenge the words included in those 10 amendments. There have been over 11,000 attempts in the last 200 years to amend our Constitution. Throughout the years, there have been only a handful of those proposals that have actually been adopted, usually when there was a described constitutional crisis before us. We did so to extend the right to vote to women and we did so to abolish slavery. These are just two examples throughout our history when we have found it appropriate and proper to amend the Constitution, but always when we felt there was an underlying principle dealing with basic fundamental rights. Now, we all know that the horrible act of flag burning does occur. We have all seen the visions on television describing some group in some country or another that decides it is going to burn the American flag. We all know how we feel when we see that. But, of course, all my colleagues know--and I am sure the overwhelming majority of American citizens know--we can not change their behavior by altering the Constitution. As annoying as it is, as troubling as it is, and how I know we all react to it, we can not affect those particular acts of desecration. Today we are talking about these acts that occur in this country. Let me quickly say I think it is worthy to try to come up with some language statutorily to deal with this issue. But my hope is my colleagues, regardless of political persuasion, would think long and hard about what we are about to do here; and that is, to change the Constitution. A proposal similar to this one was offered in 1989, again in 1990, in 1995, and in the year 2000. In every single case, the proposals have been rejected. I do not question any of my colleagues over their dismay and horror in watching our flag be desecrated. Yet, in every single instance, we have found it appropriate to reject an amendment to the Constitution. I would hope that would be the case again today. Mr. President, I fly the American flag every day at my home in Connecticut when I am there. I take great pride in doing so. In fact, my neighbors can always tell when I am home. I live in a house, an old schoolhouse built in 1853. It was the successor schoolhouse to where Nathan Hale taught in Connecticut. The Nathan Hale Schoolhouse is about 150 yards from where I live in Connecticut. When that one-room schoolhouse became too small in the 1850s, they built a two-room schoolhouse that served the neighborhood where I live in East Haddam, CT, for almost 100 years until the 1940s. I bought that schoolhouse about 25 years ago, and it has been my family's home for a quarter of a century. My neighbors always know when I am home because I fly the American flag from that old schoolhouse. I take great pride in doing so. I don't just do it on Memorial Day or the Fourth of July or other national holidays, but every single day I am home. As a way of expressing my affection for what that flag means, what it stands for, and what it has meant to generation after generation of people in our great country. I will not take a back seat to anyone in my reverence for the flag, how important it is and what it means. But I also believe it is important to be a patriot, a true patriot, where we not only defend our flag but we also defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That is really what is at risk here today, when we talk about this resolution. It is not so much the flag that is at risk but our Bill of Rights, if we attack this document because the passions of some get aroused over the acts of those who would desecrate our flag. That really is the issue before us. Let us have a statutory law but let us not attack this wonderful Bill of Rights of ours. The proposed amendment is made up of 17 words, 17 words that would dramatically alter the importance of the Bill of Rights and diminish the freedoms provided by that document. I don't doubt the patriotism of any Member of this Chamber. I strongly believe we all love our country. We love our Constitution. We love our flag. In my view, desecration of the flag, as a symbol of our freedom, the Constitution, and our democracy, is deplorable and should not be tolerated. It goes without saying that every Member of Congress and the overwhelming majority of Americans consider flag burning to be offensive and abhorrent. That is to state the obvious. The question is not whether we deplore the desecration of the American flag but whether we are in some way going to desecrate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. To truly honor our Nation and the people who have given their lives for it, we must not only protect our flag but the principles of freedom and justice that it stands for. I have often said when students ask me about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and what it means, the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, which incorporates freedom of speech, really tests whether each and every one of us is willing to defend someone who would say something or do something we might find abhorrent. It is not whether we are willing to stand up and defend someone who says something we agree with but, rather, whether we understand the principles our Founders and Framers intended when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that we are willing to protect and defend the right of someone to say something that we totally disagree with and that we find offensive and abhorrent. That is the true test, not whether we are willing to stand up and applaud what someone says but whether our instincts are to deplore what they say but defend their right to say it. That is really what the first amendment is all about when freedom of speech is being invoked. Our Founding Fathers cautioned us to avoid situations like the one we are in today. James Madison advised that amendments to the Constitution should be limited to ``great and extraordinary occasions.'' Regrettably, some have not heeded Madison's cautionary words. Since 1789 when the Congress first convened, there have been over 11,000 proposals to amend the Constitution of the United States. Over sixty have been offered in this Congress alone. But the majority of our Nation's leaders have taken the words of Madison to heart, and they have not allowed this document to be altered. Since the ratification of the Bill of Rights, only 17 amendments have been successful. Moreover, despite all of the trials that this country has been through, no Congress has ever felt so compelled to doctor the Bill of Rights. It is remarkable when you consider the trials and tribulations we have been through. The act of burning our flag is unacceptable and condemnable. But the reality is that it is exceedingly rare as well. I did my best to find the reported incidences of flag burning throughout our history. I went back and examined as many possible cases as I could. We have found less than 200 cases since our Nation's founding and only a handful documented in the last few years. Where is the constitutional crisis? Where is the epidemic? Less than two hundred cases in more than 200 years. Yet I would suspect that if we end up adopting this constitutional amendment and amend the Bill of Rights, there will be those, as the Senator from Illinois pointed out, who will consistently try to press against the envelope of the language of these 17 words to prohibit desecration of the flag. With all the other issues we need to grapple with, such as health care, education, the quality of life of our military men and women, and whether we ought to be doing more to increase the opportunities of people in this country. With all of the legitimate debates that ought to occur, it is shocking that we are taking several days of the Senate's time to debate an amendment to the Constitution where there is hardly any incidence or examples of a problem today. As I said, there have been less than 200 cases of flag desecration in more than 200 years. Clearly, there is no extraordinary occasion, in my view, such that Madison spoke of warranting ratification of this amendment. We might feel disgusted by the act of flag burning, but we are clearly not faced, by any estimate, with a constitutional crisis. Proponents of this amendment say that tolerating even one burned flag is equivalent to acquiescence of such an act. I totally disagree. Our Nation is strong enough to tolerate a few errant acts, and this strength is the source of our democracy's greatness. It is the ability and willingness to tolerate acts like that on occasion that makes us a stronger and better people. Supporters of this amendment may believe this vote is a test of one's patriotism or love of country. On the contrary, the true measure of our faithfulness to the flag is our fidelity to the principles of freedom and justice that it represents. That is the ultimate test of one's patriotism. I would associate myself with the comments of a former colleague of ours, Bob Kerrey, Senator from Nebraska, who today is president of a fine university in New York. He is also a Medal of Honor winner for services as a Navy SEAL in Vietnam. I recall when this amendment was before us on several previous occasions, he would stand up and talk about what it meant for him to lose a limb in the uniform of our country defending our Nation, talking about how important it was to defend the Constitution. He articulated his opposition to this particular proposal in a recent Washington Post editorial in relation to September 11th with the following statement: Real patriotism cannot be coerced. Our freedom to speak was attacked--not our flag. The former, not the latter, needs the protection of our Constitution and our laws. There is no question in my mind that our flag will continue to serve as a symbol of our Nation's history--our founding principles of freedom, liberty, and justice--long after the conclusion of this debate on the floor of the Senate. Our former colleague, Senator John Glenn of Ohio, who served this Nation as a combat pilot in Korea, an astronaut, and as a colleague of ours in this body, put it very well: There is one way to weaken the fabric of your country, and it is not through a few misguided souls burning our flag. It is by retreating from the principles that the flag stands for. And that will do more damage to the fabric of our Nation than 1,000 torched flags could ever do. I believe history and future generations will judge us harshly, as they should, if we permitted those who would defile our flag to also defile our future and to defile the Bill of Rights. Let us leave the Constitution unsullied by proposals such as this which would needlessly restrict our liberties as a people. I will repeat again: The great genius of our Constitution is that it enshrines in word the eternal aspirations of humanity. We may try to amend it, but if we do so in a manner at odds with those aspirations, then we act at our peril and in folly. I repeat Alexander Hamilton's quote: The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power. In our quest to protect the flag, we must be careful not to undermine the principles that it stands for. Attacking the Bill of Rights, a document that has never been changed--not one comma, not one semicolon, not one word, since its ratification in 1791--undermines those principles. This is a time to bring our Nation together to focus on the important challenges we face today. We must face them as a nation, not as individuals, if we are going to prevail. At best, this amendment is another political stunt, I am afraid, aimed at dividing our Nation, inflaming the passions of our constituencies, make one party angry at another, one group of citizens angry at another. What worthwhile result has ever emerged from that kind of anger? What good has ever flowed from the passions provoked by appealing to the worst instincts in people? I have never seen a single benefit that has occurred as a result of that effort. Once again, we find ourselves inflaming passions over an issue that is nonexistent, the ``constitutional crisis'' of flag-burning. It is just not there. This would be a profound deviation from our past and chip away at our freedoms and liberties that we are working so hard to protect. Every generation is challenged with the responsibility of seeing to it that future generations will have the opportunities and benefits of our country. Those benefits and those opportunities flow very directly from the Constitution of the United States and, most particularly, from the Bill of Rights. I hope that we will be careful about this. We are not owners of this document, the Constitution; we are merely stewards of this document. We are charged with the responsibility during our tenure, on our watch, however long or brief it is, to see to it that these principles will be passed on to coming generations. To start fooling with them unnecessarily, I think, puts this document and what it stands for at risk. I hope our colleagues, when the vote occurs on this, will find it in their hearts and good conscience to leave the Bill of Rights alone. This is not a time that it needs to be amended. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my concerns about the amendment offered by my good colleague Senator Burns, regarding electronic voting technology to S. 2766, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. I understand that this amendment directs the Department of Defense, DOD, to continue the interim voting assistance system, IVAS, for uniformed service voters, overseas Defense Department employees, and dependents of such voters and employees, for all Federal elections through December 31, 2006. The amendment would not, as I understand it, extend the current program to nonmilitary overseas voters. Further, I understand that the amendment directs the DOD to submit two reports to Congress, one assessing the IVAS program during the 2006 Federal elections and the second detailing plans for an expansion of the IVAS program to all voters covered under the Uniform Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, UOCAVA, through November 2010. I commend my colleague from Montana for his efforts to protect the fundamental right to vote and for extending a critical program that facilitates electronic ballot access for our valiant overseas service men and women, their colleagues and families. I strongly support the goals of this legislation. However, I am deeply concerned that the amendment as drafted continues to withhold the benefits of new technology from millions of other nonmilitary overseas voters in a manner that is inconsistent with the purposes of UOCAVA. According to the language of this amendment, only those with an existing affiliation to DOD will continue to benefit from the IVAS program in contrast to the broader group of citizens covered by UOCAVA, including overseas voters who are not members of the military, employees of the Defense Department or a dependent of either group. As my colleague know, UOCAVA treats all overseas voters--military, civilian or otherwise--equally with respect to voting rights. Classes of voters under UOCAVA are not bifurcated. This approach ensures that the all voters are treated in a nondiscriminatory manner under UOCAVA. The number of overseas voters continues to make a difference in our Federal elections. The Federal Voting Assistance Program, FVAP, under the Secretary of Defense estimates that over 3 percent of the total vote in the 1996, 2000, and 2004 elections came from abroad. In addition, an umbrella coalition focused on military and overseas voters estimates that the number of Americans residing overseas have ranged from 3 million to 6 million, but generally put the global population somewhere around 4 million. The coalition's member organizations include the Federation of American Women's Clubs Overseas Inc, FAWCO, the American Citizens Abroad, ACA, the Alliance of American Organizations-Spain and Portugal, ALLAMO and the Association of Americans Resident Overseas, AARO. Overseas voters are important Americans who, under the goals of UOCAVA, must have the same opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted as their military counterparts. There is nothing more fundamental to the vitality and endurance of a democracy of the people, by the people and for the people, than the people's right to vote. Thomas Paine wrote in 1795 that, ``the right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected.'' This statement takes on an even more significant meaning to Americans when America is at war. As a former Peace Corps volunteer, I can offer testimony to the meaningful contributions made by overseas citizens who are not included in the covered classes under the amendment of my colleague from Montana. At a time when the image of the United States is receiving international scrutiny, the work of individuals such as Peace Corps volunteers is critical. The work of all our overseas citizens, whether they serve in the military to protect us back at home or whether they conduct businesses and raise their families overseas, must be honored with an absolute equal opportunity to vote in Federal elections. We should not take any actions to discourage our civilian overseas voters. We should not treat civilian overseas voters any differently than overseas military or DOD contract voters, and certainly not by erecting an artificial bifurcation barrier between military and civilian votes under UOCAVA. I appreciate the fact that this amendment recognizes the need to eliminate that bifurcation by requiring DOD to report specifically on expanding the use of electronic voting technology for all voters under UOCAVA. I look forward to that report and will continue to work to ensure that all American citizens living overseas have an equal opportunity to participate in our democracy through the ballot box. amendment no. 4241

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will my colleague yield on that point?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as I begin my remarks, by coincidence, I am following my good friend from Oregon, Gordon Smith. It is purely by coincidence that we are lined up to address our thoughts on this important and most critical issue facing our country. I say to my colleague from Oregon, my opening comments are exactly the Senator's closing comments. I plead with my colleagues during the remaining hours of this debate to try to stay away from the personal attacks and the mindless use of labels that we are tempted to gravitate to in order to impassion our constituencies. Such approaches do little to contribute to an understanding of the important subject before the Senate. The Senator from Oregon eloquently described the loss of Thomas Tucker and of Kristian Menchaca from Houston, TX, the insane and hideous loss of life, and how it occurred. These young men and the 2,500 others who have lost their lives, along with the 18,000 who have been permanently injured, deserve better than some of the rhetoric and some of the discussion I have heard over the last number of days in talking about this issue. I believe all 100 Senators in this Chamber care deeply about what happens to our men and women in uniform. I don't question for a single minute the patriotism of a single colleague. While we may disagree about how to successfully conduct our policies with respect to Iraq, we all deserve to give to our constituencies an intelligent discussion of these matters rather than resort to language of ``cut and run'' or ``lie and die'' or other such talk. It is that kind of rhetoric which causes most of our constituents to become disgusted with Congress. I may disagree with my colleague from Oregon over the Levin amendment. In fact, I am a cosponsor of this amendment, and I believe Carl Levin and Jack Reed have put us on the right track, which I am going to explain. I can fully respect those with a different point of view in all of this, while disagreeing with them. I do not question for a minute any Senator's goals or patriotism. I hope the rest of my colleagues over the remaining hours will conduct themselves accordingly. Before giving your speech, read the speech of Gordon Smith and then decide whether you are going to engage in the kind of talk you may have prepared in your remarks in this Senate. I thank Carl Levin, Jack Reed, and others who put this amendment together, which I have asked to be a supporter of. It is a major step in getting our Iraq policy headed in the right direction. I also thank our colleagues who met on numerous occasions over the last several weeks, to have discussions about how best to frame this amendment. They were thoughtful discussions which I was pleased to participate in with Senators Carl Levin, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Jack Reed, Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, and Russ Feingold. The Levin amendment is a consensus product of those conversations. Any one of us developing an amendment on this subject might have done it somewhat differently, emphasized some ideas more than others, included more specificity in the information we are seeking from the President with respect to benchmarks and a timeframe for the significant redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. But I believe that the amendment that emerged from that process is useful for a serious and important debate on the need to begin the process of redeploying our forces this year from Iraq and turning over full responsibility for governing that country to Iraq's democratically elected leaders. I believe very strongly that it is very appropriate we begin any discussion about Iraq by first commending our men and women in uniform who have served so nobly there. Whatever else your views may be, it is critically important that they know this great Senate respects and honors their service. Our men and women in uniform have performed with honor, bravery, and skill in attempting to bring order and stability into the post-Saddam Iraq. They have put themselves in harm's way, as I said a moment ago. More than 2,500 of our sons and daughters have given their lives serving our Nation. Thousands more have suffered life- altering injuries. The American people and the Iraqi people owe them, more than any other group, in my view, a great debt of gratitude for their service. We in Congress must continue to provide them with every resource to ensure they return home safely and as expeditiously as possible. Whatever disagreements may arise during the course of our debate about the administration's Iraq policy, those disagreements should in no way be interpreted as criticisms of our troops. Every one of my colleagues, as I said a moment ago, cares deeply and respects deeply the service of these men and women in uniform. Our disagreement with the President and his administration is that we believed we were misled in 2002 about the rationale for going to war in Iraq. There was hyped intelligence, cherrypicking of intelligence data to paint a picture of a threat, in my view, that did not exist at the time. That is and was unconscionable. After the war began, the President continued to mislead America about the course of the war, the adequacy of planning, the postwar reconstruction, and the bill the American people would be asked to pay for the cost of U.S. involvement. Key members of the administration played critical roles in disseminating information that was inaccurate. I have said on a number of occasions that if I had known then what I know now--namely, that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction--I would not have given the President my vote for a resolution to use force in Iraq. I doubt there would have been a vote had all Members been aware of the information we now know exists. Having said all of that, it is not possible to turn back the clock. We are where we are with respect to our involvement in Iraq. Sectarian violence has now outpaced that of foreign jihadists and ex-Baathists and insurgents as the greatest threat confronting American and Iraqi forces and Iraqi civilians. Ethnic mistrust, according to a recent cable from our Ambassador in Iraq to Secretary of State Rice, is increasingly ripping that country apart at the seams. That is from our Ambassador in Baghdad. According to that same cable from our Ambassador--and I am not quoting, but this is the substance--the Iraqi people largely blame, unfortunately, the United States for the current situation, seeing their own Government as a puppet of the United States and believing that much of the violence in Iraq is being allowed by the United States as a type of retribution for the problems we faced in our mission to Iraq. Those are not my views but the views expressed by the American Ambassador in Baghdad writing to the Secretary of State saying this is how we are perceived. I strongly object to that kind of conclusion, but that is the conclusion of our Ambassador. Iraq's economy is also in a shambles. Three years after major combat operations ended, the Iraqi infrastructure remains inadequate by every measure. Oil production, electricity generation, and the availability of clean water are all below prewar levels. Schools and hospitals lack adequate supplies and personnel. No matter how the administration tries to paint the picture, the reality which we all accept and know is that the chaos in Iraq is transparent and it is growing. Most importantly, Iraq's elected Government is now poised to function, but only after 5 months of political haggling over key Cabinet and sub-Cabinet posts. That is the reality, colleagues, that the U.S. policy must now address in Iraq. To be fair, there has been some good news. Over the last 10 days, particularly with the announcement that U.S. forces were able to detect and eliminate the Jordanian terrorist Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida's henchman in Iraq and the architect of the brutal attacks against U.S. military personnel and Iraqi civilians alike. We can be justifiably proud, and should be, of how the United States and Iraqi forces, together, carried out this extremely dangerous and important mission. It is also a positive development that the Iraqi Government is now as its full capacity, with all Cabinet positions filled, particularly the critical national security posts. That is the good news. It is important to cite that as well. Now that this Government of Iraq is a reality, it is also an important and appropriate moment for U.S. policymakers to take stock of our policy in Iraq and consider the next steps to turning over full responsibility to Iraq's democratically elected government. Let me remind our colleagues, last year, President Bush signed into law as part of the fiscal year 2006 Defense Authorization Act a provision that states: Calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. I commend, as I should have at the outset, the chairman of the committee, my good friend from Virginia, John Warner. He has done a wonderful job allowing debate in the committee, bringing witnesses forward, allowing dissent to occur where appropriate, and authoring this language last year in that Defense authorization bill which the President signed into law calling for this year to be a year of transition. Those words were important. They were not crafted in a cavalier fashion; they were put together carefully in a bipartisan fashion as a message to the American people and to the Iraqi people and their Government. This year--2006--would be a year of transition for Iraq's leaders to assume greater responsibility over security matters and other challenges facing their country. There have now been national elections in Iraq. A permanent broad- based government has been formed. It is important that the Iraqis now take on a significant role in establishing domestic security. Ultimately, a solution in Iraq will not be achieved through U.S. military action alone but, rather, through the political will and substantive action on the part of the new Iraqi Government to bring various factions in their country together. In short, the future of Iraq ultimately rests with the Iraqi people, not with U.S. military might, not with the size of our treasury, but on the resolve of the Iraqi people and their leaders. That is where their future rests. Let's be clear however about our role in that process. We should continue to assist this nascent Government in Iraq during these difficult times. But at the same time, we must also refocus the nature of that assistance if we are going to succeed and if Iraq is going to succeed. Iraq's problems are essentially political problems that call out for political solutions. It is becoming increasingly evident, I think to all of us, that a continuing substantial U.S. troop presence in and around Iraqi cities is not the answer at all. In fact, the road to any success in Iraq will be contingent on a lessening of U.S. military presence, if, in fact, the U.S. Ambassador is right in his message to our Secretary of State. And having visited Iraq on two occasions I believe he is right. We have won the larger war against Iraq's dictator but at no small cost. It has been a successful effort in that regard. Saddam has been toppled and is on trial. A new democratically elected Iraqi Government is now in place. Al-Zarqawi has been killed. Those are successes. The remaining mission, however, of stabilizing Iraq and bringing factions together is something that can only be done by Iraq's new Government and its citizens. An indefinite and prolonged U.S. troop presence in that country is quickly reaching a point of diminishing returns. I am a realist and an optimist. I recognize American involvement in Iraq and the gulf region will be required for years to come. It is a very important neighborhood in which we have very important interests. It is a dangerous neighborhood, as well. And we have vital national interests at stake there. But we have other important global interests, as well; among these combating the threat of global terrorism and terrorist organizations. Global terrorism is and remains our greatest threat. In that context, I don't think it is unpatriotic or otherwise inappropriate for the supporters of the pending amendment to ask President Bush to tell the American people, tell the U.S. Congress, when and how he plans to successfully conclude the U.S. military presence in Iraq so that U.S. forces can be redeployed to more effectively combat global terrorism and protect our vital national interests. Why was it reasonable and appropriate for the administration to set deadlines for Iraqis and unreasonable to set deadlines for itself? The Bush administration set a deadline for the establishment of an interim government, a deadline for writing a Constitution and for holding a referendum to approve it, and a deadline for holding elections for a permanent Iraqi government. Guess what. It worked. The Iraqi political leadership met the challenges. It wasn't always easy and the process wasn't perfect, but it produced results because we insisted upon those deadlines. In fact, I would argue had we not set deadlines, I believe we would be facing a very different picture in Iraq today. I believe U.S. interests in Iraq can be advanced by developing benchmarks and a timeframe for getting done what needs to be done to produce the success we all need and want in Iraq. I don't mean to suggest that U.S. forces should in any way be precipitously redeployed from Iraq next week or next month--that would be a mistake, in my view--but I do believe it is imperative for planning purposes to think about benchmarks and a realistic timeframe within which U.S. force levels can be significantly reduced below the current level of 130,000. The benchmarks are fairly obvious: a unity government that equitably represents the interests of and distributes resources to all sectors of Iraq; professionalism of Iraq's security and police forces; disbanding of sectarian militias; the creation of a gulf regional security umbrella to enhance stability and deter unwanted interference by Iraqi's neighbors; and greater international participation and resources in Iraq's reconstruction agenda. These are all obvious and necessary benchmarks. The more quickly the benchmarks are realized, the more hopeful we can be for Iraq's future. It is both realistic and, in my view, possible to achieve these benchmarks within the next 12 to 18 months. Whether we achieve them depends on the determination of the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people to assume responsibility for their shared future--not on the military might of the United States. And in conjunction with such progress, I think it is also realistic and possible to undertake the phased strategic redeployment of our forces from Iraq to other nations in the gulf and to other regions posing significant terrorist threats to our country. The details of any redeployment should appropriately be left to our military commanders on the ground to work out, in consultation with Iraqi leaders. This is a very critical and central point. Let me repeat it. The details of any redeployment should be appropriately left to our military commanders on the ground to work out, in consultation with Iraqi leaders. But we must no longer remain in an open-ended commitment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. DODD. If I could have 10 or 12 minutes, if that is appropriate.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking, again, my colleague from Massachusetts and others who have fought so long and hard over the last decade to have an increase in the minimum wage in our country, from the $5.15 that was adopted about a decade ago, to the suggestion today that we raise it by $2.10. To many, $2.10 is nothing more than a cup of coffee at a high-priced coffee shop today or a few sodas or a sandwich along the way, but it makes a difference, Mr. President. An increase in the minimum wage of $2.10, after nearly a decade, will add some $4,400 to the incomes of people who are depending upon the minimum wage to provide for themselves and their families. Remember whom we are talking about. The overwhelming majority of minimum wage workers are not teenagers, but are adults--working people trying to raise families, 60 percent of whom are women, many of whom are raising children on their own. So this $2.10 increase after nearly a decade, an additional $4,400 per year, means a great deal. We are told by those who do the math on all of this that the increase could buy as much as 15 months of groceries for that families, 8 months of rent, 20 months of childcare--an issue that I worked with our colleague on many years ago--the importance of having a decent childcare program. As you are saying to these people, you have to stay at work and you have young children, where do the children go? The average cost of childcare rises all the time for people in this country. How do you expect someone making a minimum wage of $5.15 per hour who has two or three young children to keep them in a safe place with that kind of an income level? That $4,400 would be a tremendous help at that income level. That is the kind of difference we are talking about. A group called America's Second Harvest has recently reported that they provide emergency hunger relief services to more than 25.3 million low-income people in the United States each year. That is an 18-percent increase since 1997. No other organization in our country does as much on a national level as Second Harvest does. The numbers are quite clear. Over the last 4 or 5 years, we have watched an increase in children living in poverty in the United States climb by 1.4 million. What we are talking about is some 13 million children today who are living in poverty. Of the 37 million in our country, 13 million children who, through no fault of their own, through the accident of birth, are born into difficult circumstances. Those poverty numbers are going up. They are not going down. What do we do about these children? How do we guarantee this child will get a good education? How do you learn anything in a school today if you are going to that school hungry? Talk to any grade school teacher in America in any community you wish and ask them the simple question: What is the difference between a child who has a decent meal in the morning and one who doesn't, in terms of their ability to learn, and they will tell you categorically that a child who is hungry doesn't learn. We talk all the time about making sure America is going to be strong and vital and economically competitive in the global marketplace of the 21st century. If we continue increasing child poverty at the rate it is increasing now, this country will have a very difficult time, in my view, of meeting the competitive challenges it will face in this century. So this proposal does make a difference--a huge difference--in the lives of people who struggle every day, good Americans out there who are trying to keep their families together. How does anyone expect a family today, particularly a family with two or three children, to live on a full-time salary of $10,700 a year? That is what you get with $5.15--$10,700 per year. I don't know of anyone who believes that you can meet your obligations of housing and food, of medical care you may need. You have to make terrible choices at that level. I am not suggesting that $7.25 is going to solve all of those problems. But the cost of living has gone up. Everyone knows that. What has happened to gasoline prices and energy prices over the last number of months? We have increased our salaries as Members of Congress by over $31,000 since 1997. Again, I have supported a number of those increases. How do we look in the mirror and say: A $31,000 increase for a Senator, a Congressman. Yet we can't provide a $2.10 per hour increase for someone making the minimum wage? How do we answer that question? We know the cost of living has gone up. We see it every single day. Minimum wage workers see it in a more painful way. So I hope my colleagues, in the next 45 minutes when we have a chance to vote on this issue, vote for the Kennedy amendment. Raise the minimum wage that $2.10 and give these people a chance. Let's bring these poverty numbers down. All of us, regardless of party, ideology or anything else, ought to be committed to see to it in the United States of America that child poverty doesn't go up, it goes down. These are innocents. They didn't do anything except be born into a circumstance not of their choosing. We owe them and we owe the future of this country a lot better than they are getting. After one long decade of increasing prices, $2.10 is very little to ask. Democrats and Republicans ought to be able to come together around that request. I hope that we can make that kind of difference. My colleague from Massachusetts and others want to be heard on this issue. I have great respect for my colleague from Wyoming who chairs our committee and does a terrific job, and we work together on many issues. But my hope is we accept the Kennedy amendment. I didn't go into the problems of the alternative proposal, but it would mean that millions of children will get a lot less than they will if you adopt the Kennedy proposal of $2.10. This is a time when we ought to be doing what we can to strengthen those in our country who need some help now. That is all we are asking. I have some 350,000 people in my State who show up at food shelters to get some assistance. That is in the most affluent State of the country on a per-capita basis, and even the State of Connecticut faces difficulties on this issue. I know my colleagues from less affluent States see the problem in a far more dramatic way. It is not lost on me that States that have the lowest minimum wage at the State level have the highest levels of child poverty. With all the money we spend here, this is little to ask. Small business is interested. A poll conducted among small businesses found that 86 percent of small businesses responded that an increase like this in the minimum wage is acceptable to them. In fact, studies in other countries have pointed out that their economies have not been adversely affected by this. If small businesses said an increase is warranted, we as Members of the Congress ought not be holding back. If people who pay this wage believe it is the right thing to do, Members of Congress ought to join with them. I urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy amendment--$2.10 to make life a little easier for people out there struggling every day to make ends meet. This is the United States of America. These children deserve better. Their families deserve at least an opportunity to get out from under the tremendous burdens they are facing every day. I urge adoption of the amendment when the vote occurs. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. The Senator has spent a lot of time on this issue over the years. We have modified the Fair Labor Standards Act several times over the last 40 years. In each of those cases, as I recall, we modified the law to expand the number of people who would be covered by the minimum wage and the overtime pay and equal pay for equal work. This would be the first time, as I understand it, that we would be taking the opposite direction; the very first time that we are going to shrink the number of people who would have the right to overtime pay, thus, excluding some 10 million people who would otherwise be covered by the minimum wage. Am I correct?

Mr. DODD. Every time we have modified the Fair Labor Standards Act, we were expanding the opportunity for workers. I believe this would be the first time in the history of our country that we actually go in the opposite direction. Those in poverty would be excluded from getting the overtime pay and protections for equal pay for equal work.

Mr. DODD. I move to lay the motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4376

Mr. DODD. The Iraqis are going to have to take responsibility for their future. This, in my view, is a strategy for success in Iraq. This is a reasoned and responsible approach. It is realistic. This is not cut-and-run. The alternative is for more of the same, in my view-- endless occupation, violence, instability, and the erosion of America's global leadership and national security. I do not underestimate the challenges facing the Iraqi people. They will need to make an extraordinary effort in the coming months and years to secure their future. But we have been giving them the necessary tools to do so. Let's not forget when the President signed the Defense authorization bill into law last year, again, those words: This should be the year of transition. We have given the Iraqis the necessary tools. Now it is up to them. The sage words of Benjamin Franklin, following the success of the 1787 Constitutional Convention come to mind in thinking about Iraq at this moment in history. When Franklin was approached by a Mrs. Powell of Philadelphia on the streets of Philadelphia and said to him: What have you given us?--Ben Franklin said to that woman: Mrs. Powell, we have given you ``a republic, if you can keep it.'' The Iraqi people are asking a similar question of us: What have we given them? We have given them a republic, if they can keep it. But it is up to them to keep it. I urge the adoption of the Levin amendment. It puts us on the right road for success. Mr. President, I yield the floor.