Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Will the Chair repeat his statement?

Mr. DODD. I hear no objection, Mr. President. Since no one is on the floor, obviously, that makes it easier. Marriage Protection Amendment

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I can, I wanted to spend a couple of minutes on a matter that this body voted on this morning. I was unavoidably absent this morning at a family matter in Rhode Island, so I was not here for the vote. But I wanted to just take a minute or so here to say to my colleagues and to others that had I been present this morning, I would have voted no on the motion for cloture, and had cloture been invoked, I would have voted against the amendment. I am speaking of the proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriages. Like many of my colleagues who have spoken on this matter, I believe this is a matter that belongs in the States. This is not a matter that ought to be a part of the Constitution. I have been here for a number of years in the Senate, and over the history of this great country of ours there have been over 11,000--more than 11,000 proposed constitutional amendments. The Congress and the Nation in its wisdom over the years have adopted only a handful of those proposals--27 is the number of amendments that have been adopted since the formation of our country. The reason for that, of course, is the Founders insisted that it be not an easy matter to amend the Constitution and that we ought to amend the Constitution to correct problems in the governmental structures or to expand the category of individual rights such as the first 10 amendments achieved in our Nation. Our Nation's constitutional history clearly demonstrates that change to our Constitution is appropriate on only the rarest occasions-- specifically, to correct problems in the government structure or to expand the category of individual rights such as the first 10 amendments which compose the Bill of Rights. Notably, the amendment to establish prohibition is the only time that the Federal Constitution was amended for a reason other than those I just mentioned. It was repealed 13 years after its enactment and has been judged by history to be a failure insofar as it sought to restrict personal liberty. The Framers deliberately made it difficult to amend the Constitution. They did not intend it to be subject to the passions and whims of the moment. Time has proven their wisdom. Since 1789, when the first Congress was convened, there have been 11,413 proposals to amend the Constitution. Sixty-four have been offered in this Congress alone. Luckily, only 27 have been successful. If all or even a substantial fraction of these proposed amendments were adopted, our founding document would today resemble a Christmas tree, a civil and criminal code rather than a constitution, and the United States would be a very different Nation. It is unfortunate that the majority leadership of the Senate does not share James Madison's view that the Constitution should only be amended ``for certain, great, and extraordinary occasions.'' Supporters of this proposed amendment would like you to believe that there is currently an ``assault'' on traditional marriage by some American couples and families that warrants Federal action in the form of a constitutional amendment to ``protect'' the institution of marriage. They have utterly failed to marshal even a minimal degree of credible facts to support such a claim. Indeed the facts suggest that there is no such crisis. The Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, was enacted in 1996 to provide a federal definition of marriage and to stipulate that no state should be required to give effect to a law of any other State with respect to a definition of marriage. There has been no successful challenge to the DOMA in the decade since its enactment. Courts have never identified a Federal right to same-sex marriage. States have never been forced to recognize an out- of-state marriage that is inconsistent with its own laws. And no church, temple, mosque, or synagogue has been forced to perform marriages inconsistent with the beliefs of those who worship in them. For Congress to step in now and dictate to the States how they ought to proceed in this matter thus runs counter to the facts. It also runs counter to the principles of federalism and personal liberty that many proponents of this constitutional amendment claim to hold dear. I am disappointed that we find ourselves spending valuable time on the Senate floor debating this issue. Less than 2 years ago, the majority leader brought the same measure to the Floor. It failed by a vote of 48 to 50. There is no reason to think that it will not fail again. It is no coincidence that approximately 5 months before the upcoming midterm elections the Senator floor is being held hostage by the majority's misguided priorities. I fear that some of those leading the charge on this legislation are more interested in dividing Americans for partisan gain than uniting the country to solve problems. Make no mistake: married couples are under considerable strain these days. But the cause of that strain is not the conduct of other American couples going about their daily private lives. Instead, married couples and all Americans are feeling the strain of high gas prices, soaring health care costs, schools in need of reform, a sluggish economy, and a war in Iraq in which American men and women are fighting with courage. Yet this administration and others in this body have little to offer to relieve these strains. Instead, they seek legislation that will only divide and distract Americans from the common challenges we should be facing together. This proposed constitutional amendment is not the best use of our time. We should be addressing the real needs of American families. We should be legislating. That is what we are elected to do--to address issues like autism, underage drinking, the growing problem of obesity among our nation's children, and the threat of terrorism. But today we have not been afforded that opportunity. Instead, today feels like Groundhog Day. It is another election year and we are here discussing another issue that has nothing to do with the great challenges of our time. Only on one occasion did we deviate from that practice and that was the adoption of the amendment dealing with the prohibition of the consumption of alcoholic beverages. That was a complete deviation from the two situations in which the Founders intended that we would amend the Constitution of the United States. I might point out that it was only a few years after the adoption of the amendment on prohibition that it was repealed by the Congress of the United States and the people across this country. It would be a mistake, in my view, to repeat another error like that which was committed in the early part of the 20th century when we adopted the prohibition amendment. Supporters of this amendment like to say that this debate is about an assault on the institution of marriage. I do not believe that to be the case. I do believe, however, that there is currently an assault on families. I am disappointed this body is not spending the time allocated for this debate talking about the important issues families today. For example, we could be talking about the bill dealing with autism that my colleague from Pennsylvania and I have authored and we are trying to get attention on. Obviously the issues of energy prices, education, health care--there are any number of issues I can think of that we might have spent time discussing. We should be trying to come up with some answers rather than debate a question which has marginal significance and minimal importance for most people and which ought really to be left to the States. Let me also suggest that the motivations behind this may not be helping families but instead inciting a political debate for the elections coming up this fall. What worries me more than anything else, however, is I think it is designed to make people angry, to divide us as a country. I am deeply concerned about the growing divisions occurring in our Nation. This is a time when we ought to be coming together, when our leadership ought to be asking us to sit down and try to come up with answers on some of the overwhelming problems we face-- not problems that are so overwhelming we can't answer them. Instead, we are spending that valuable time on a matter that is clearly designed to do nothing more than inflame the passions of people in this country rather than appealing to calm, to rationality, to common sense, to good discourse as a way of addressing the underlying issues. This is a great disappointment. Again, I would have voted no on the motion to invoke cloture. I am pleased my colleagues from both parties, in a bipartisan way, rejected that cloture motion. It was a good conclusion reached here, and I regret I was not able to be here to cast a vote along with my colleagues who expressed a similar point of view. The Estate Tax If I may, I wish to turn to the matter at hand; that is, the debate regarding the estate tax. The last time this body was scheduled to consider legislation to repeal the estate tax, the majority leader decided to postpone consideration of this bill in the wake of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina. The general consensus was it was unseemly for us to be talking about having one-half of one percent--and that is what we are talking about, one-half of 1 percent of the population of this country--receive a bonanza, if you will, by repealing the obligation to share part of their estates to contribute to the growth and benefit of our Nation. The decision was it would be unseemly. In fact, my good friend from Iowa, the chairman of the Finance Committee, for whom I have a great deal of respect, said, ``It's a little unseemly to be talking about doing away with or enhancing the estate tax at a time when people are suffering.'' I agree with my colleague from Iowa. I agreed with him then; I agree with him now. If it was unseemly to be talking about enhancing the wealth of the wealthiest in our society at a time when the Nation was suffering from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina only a few short months ago, I suggest that problems have not abated so substantially that we can now make the case that it is no longer unseemly, if you will, to use his language, to adopt a provision here that would make it far more difficult for us to address all of our other priorities as a Nation. I hope our colleagues will agree and join with others in voting against cloture on the motion to proceed to what I consider to be irresponsible legislation. Today's discussion is about priorities, as it always should be. I have supported lower taxes for working Americans, including responsible estate tax reform. I think it is wrong to have excessive estate taxes imposed on ordinary farmers and small businesses owners out there who try to leave those businesses or land to their families. Because of the modest incomes most people in these groups make, they could find it impossible to do so under an excessive tax. I note the presence of my good friend from Arkansas on the Senate floor who speaks eloquently about the farmers in her State who have been left, generation after generation, farms and land for succeeding generations to continue their great traditions. The Presiding Officer comes from a State with a strong agricultural tradition. All of our States have strong small business components, and all of us understand the importance of allowing those families to pass on to succeeding generations the ability to continue those efforts. But I hope my colleagues agree as well, that talking about the total elimination of this estate tax is, I think, irresponsible. It goes too far when we start talking about providing such a massive benefit for only the largest one-half of 1 percent of estates. I represent the most affluent State in the United States on a per capita basis. I presume as a percentage of my population I have a larger number of estates that would benefit from total repeal than most of the other members of this body, with the exception of my colleague, Senator Lieberman. I can tell you that the few estates that can benefit as a result of the distinction we are making between reform of the estate tax and total repeal seems to go too far, considering the revenue loss it would mean to our country. We are talking about a revenue loss on an annual basis that exceeds the entire amount of money we commit to elementary and secondary education. Think of that. The entire amount of money in the Federal budget toward elementary and secondary education would be lost as a result of the complete and total repeal, rather than a modest, intelligent, thoughtful, rational reform of this estate tax. We should not bankrupt our Nation's future for a measure that would deliver no benefit to anyone outside a few extremely wealthy estates. I might point out that some of the most wealthy Americans, people who would benefit the most from this total repeal, have been the loudest, clearest voices urging us not to do so. We ought to take note that the Gates family, people like Warren Buffett, people like John Kluge, people who have made great fortunes in this country and made those great fortunes in their own time, through creative work, not inherited wealth, are urging us, despite the fact that they would benefit to the tune of billions of dollars with a total repeal--listen to the Warren Buffetts, the Bill Gateses, the John Kluges, when they tell you this would be an unwise decision to make to just completely repeal a tax that is so important for continuing our ability to meet our obligations. Let's not forget we are a nation at war, with American troops fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, at a terrible human and monetary cost. Repealing the estate tax will cost some $776 billion over 10 years, which would fully be applied beginning after 2011. Not a penny of this cost would be offset. It would all be added to our Nation's debt, which is already now at $8.4 trillion. I made the case a few weeks ago--how big is $8.4 trillion? If we were to go out on the Capitol steps out here and hand out a hundred-dollar bill every single second, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, how long do you think it would take to pay off $8.4 trillion? I will tell you the answer. It would take more than 2600 years--24 hours a day, 7 days a week, a one-hundred-dollar bill every second, handing it out. It would take 2,635 years. That is the amount of debt we have accumulated over the last few years, and now we are about to add to that to the tune of almost another trillion dollars here if you take what the revenue loss would be and the added interest cost of some $213 billion. That would be the revenue loss that would result from repealing the estate tax. More than a trillion dollars that would benefit no one at all outside the largest one-half of 1 percent of the estates in the United States; 99.5 percent of the estates in the United States would not gain at all by the proposals to have a modification or reform of the estate tax. Each year of repeal on average would cost roughly the same in today's terms as everything the Government now spends on homeland security and education. Over the past 5\1/2\ years, the current administration has radically altered our Nation's economic and social well-being, in my view. Median incomes have stagnated, poverty rates have risen, and more and more people are living without health insurance. Our troops have struggled with inadequate body armor and other necessities of battle. Farmers, workers, and small business owners are contending with rising interest rates, higher energy and health care costs, and growing global competition. While these problems have grown, the administration has severely reduced our Nation's ability to meet them by driving our Federal budget from surplus into deep deficit. Since the current President took office, the Federal budget has declined from a surplus of $128 billion to a deficit of more than $300 billion. The national debt has risen to $8.4 trillion. In just 5 and a half years, the administration has added more debt from foreign creditors than every other President in the history of the United States combined--in the last 5 years. Repealing the estate tax would make these problems far worse, not better, and further hurt America's ability to address our most pressing issues. A few months ago, the administration and the majority of this body enacted a budget reconciliation bill, the so-called Deficit Reduction Act. This bill made deep cuts to health care, childcare, and education, with the burden falling most heavily on working Americans--in particular on low-income parents and children, the elderly, and people with disabilities. The American people were told these cuts were necessary because of the deep budget deficits our country was facing. Yet here we are today, having been told only a few months ago that this great budget reconciliation act was necessary, despite the fact that we are going to ask those who are the least capable in many cases of providing for their needs, feeling the tremendous pressure they are, here we are today only a few weeks later being told that we can afford to take $1 trillion out of the budget to serve one-half of 1 percent of the estates in this great country of ours. Where is the logic in that? Mr. President, 99.5 percent of the estates in our country would not be adversely affected by what we are talking about. They would not pay an estate tax. Only one-half of 1 percent would. Yet $1 trillion gets lost as a result of that decision, over the next 10 years, at a time, as I mentioned earlier, when we are not paying for the war and we find ourselves in tremendous need if we start talking about education, health care, and homeland security, just to mention two or three items. Some proponents of the estate tax repeal have propagated the myth that the estate tax disproportionately harms farmers and small businesses by forcing them to sell their family farm or business in order to pay the tax. This just is not true. It is a scare tactic used by those who will benefit from repeal to create support for their cause. In reality, when the New York Times asked the American Farm Bureau Federation for real-life examples of a family farmer forced to sell by the estate tax, not a single example could be found. Not a single one. Contrary to the misinformation that has been spread, no one but the very largest estates would ever pay this tax on inherited wealth. This year, an individual can pass on as much as $2 million and a couple can pass on as much as $4 million to their heirs, completely free of any taxation whatsoever. With these exemptions, 99.5 percent of all the estates in the United States would owe no tax at all. Those that will owe, only owe on the value of their estate that exceeds the $2 or $4 million that I just mentioned. With the exemption levels scheduled to rise in 2009 to $3.5 million for individuals and $7 million for couples, the percentage who will owe a single cent in estate tax falls to a mere 0.3 percent of the population that would pay any estate tax at all. So 99.7 percent of the American population would have no obligation whatsoever. Yet we are about to enact legislation here that would repeal this altogether. I do not understand that at all. How do you explain to people today that your child or your spouse serving in Iraq or Afghanistan? We are being told we don't have enough money for body armor or to up-armor the vehicles they drive, or that homeland security has to be cut because we don't have the revenues to support it. Yet we turn around and do something like this? Where is the logic in this? Under these rules, the number of Americans affected by the estate tax has declined dramatically already under current law, from 50,000 people in 2000 to only 13,000 today, and by 2009 the number will fall to 7,000. Out of a nation of 300 million people, 7,000 people in our 50 States would not be obligated to pay any estate tax at all. Seven-thousand out of three hundred million, yet we lose $1 trillion in revenue. Again, where is the logic or common sense in a proposal like that given the damage it would do? As I said, my State of Connecticut ranks consistently year after year at or near the top of the Nation in per capita income and other such measures. In my State and across America, people of all incomes have worked hard, obviously, to get where they are. I don't like class warfare. I don't like drawing those distinctions. Many of these people I mentioned, pay taxes and have worked hard, and I respect that. I urge my colleagues to listen to some of the men and women who have accumulated the greatest wealth as a result of their ingenuity and hard work. What are they saying about this in terms of the benefit to the country and the cost it would have? In my State, I probably have a greater percentage of constituents than almost any other State in the country who would benefit if there is a total repeal. I stand here today, telling you that an overwhelming majority of the very people who would benefit from this, think it goes too far; that we are going too far with this proposal. I urge my colleagues to join those who have urged us to be more modest, to have a more commonsense approach than repeal or near-repeal. Again, it would be a major failure to lose the revenue equal to that which we spend on all of the education for elementary and secondary school students, all of the spending on homeland security, to once again drive us further and further into debt. I think it is a great tragedy to be passing that on to the coming generations, to say we want to give a tax break only to the top five-tenths of 1 percent, or three- tenths of 1 percent of the population. That is an indictment that future generations will look back on and ask: What were they thinking at the beginning of the 21st century that they would take such a significant step as to deprive this Nation of the ability to have the revenue we need in order to meet our obligations? When the vote on cloture on this matter occurs, I urge Members to vote no. There is a way to do this, and I think many of us are willing to support responsible reform in the estate tax area. But the notion of total repeal, I think, is highly irresponsible. I urge my colleagues to join in the condemnation of that suggestion. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank these families for sharing their personal experiences with me, and for following me to share their experiences publicly. More importantly, I commend their tenacity in facing the challenges they face each and every day in caring for their children. Their stories, along with the stories I have heard from other families in Connecticut and elsewhere in the country, have fueled my belief that child and adolescent mental health needs to be a top priority. Recognizing the fragmentation of the Nation's mental health delivery system, Surgeon General Satcher's report concluded that one fundamental way to meet the mental--health needs of children and adolescents is to ``. . . move towards a community-based mental health delivery system that balances health promotion, disease prevention, early detection, and universal access to care.'' The report further stated eight goals to ensure the resiliency of children and adolescents. These goals were: first, to promote public awareness of children's mental health issues and reduce stigma associated with mental illness; second, to continue to develop, disseminate, and implement scientifically-proven prevention and treatment services in the field of children's mental health; third, to improve the assessment of and recognition of mental health needs in children; fourth, to eliminate racial, ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in access to mental health care services; fifth, to improve the infrastructure for children's mental health services, including support for scientifically-proven interventions across professions; sixth, to increase access to and coordination of quality mental health care services; seventh, to train frontline providers to recognize and manage mental health issues, and educate mental healthcare providers about scientifically-proven prevention and treatment services, and; finally, to monitor the access to and coordination of quality mental health care services. In 2002, President Bush established the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health to study three obstacles identified by the President that prevent Americans with mental illness from getting the care they require. These obstacles were identified as the stigma that surrounds mental health care, a lack of mental health parity, and the fragmented mental health delivery system. In 2003, the President's New Freedom Commission issued a report that made a series of recommendations on how the Nation's mental health system could be transformed for the better. Like Surgeon General Satcher's report, this publication also set forth a series of goals. They were: first, to ensure Americans understand that mental health is essential to overall health; second, to ensure that mental health care is consumer- and family-driven; third, to eliminate disparities in mental health care services; fourth, to ensure that early mental health screening, assessment, and referral services are common practices; fifth, to ensure that excellent mental health care is delivered and research is accelerated, and; finally, to ensure that technology is used to access mental health care and information. I describe these two reports because the legislation I am introducing today seeks to address the recommendations they espouse. My legislation, the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Resiliency Act of 2006, authorizes $210 million in an effort to meet five principal objectives. The first objective is to increase access to, and improve the quality of, mental health care services delivered to children and adolescents. My legislation seeks to meet this objective in several ways. First, it authorizes a new grant of $50 million for States to develop and implement a comprehensive mental health plan exclusively for children and adolescents that provides community-based mental health early intervention and prevention services and relevant support services, such as primary health care, education, transportation and housing. The plan would have to meet a set of core operational and evaluative requirements and would have to be developed through extensive outside consultation with children and adolescents, their families, advocates and health professionals. Second, my legislation authorizes two matching grants of $22.5 million each for community health centers--many of which primarily serve low-income populations and primary health care facilities, such as a pediatrician's office, to provide community-based mental health services in coordination with community mental health centers and/or trained mental health professionals. Third, my legislation authorizes a new grant of $22.5 million for States, localities and private nonprofit organizations--e.g., school districts--to provide community-based mental health services in schools appropriate mental health training activities to relevant school and health professionals. Fourth, my legislation authorizes a new grant of $20 million for States, localities and private nonprofit organizations to provide community-based mental health services specifically for at-risk mothers and their children. Fifth, my legislation authorizes a new grant of $10 million for States, localities and private nonprofit organizations to provide community-based mental health services for children and adolescents in juvenile justice systems. Sixth, my legislation authorizes $10 million for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish, run and evaluate a demonstration project that improves the ability of local case managers to work across the mental health, public health, substance abuse, child welfare, education, juvenile justice and social services systems in a State. Finally, my legislation requires States to meet their statutory obligations to fund fully mental health screening services under the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment Services Program. It also requires current successful initiatives, such as the Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children with Serious Emotional Disturbance Program, the Community Mental Health Services Performance Partnership Block Grant, the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant, and the Jail Diversion Program, to expand their scope with respect to certain reporting, evaluative, and service activities. The second objective my legislation seeks to meet is ensuring greater public awareness and greater family participation in mental health services decision-making. Towards this end, my legislation does the following: First, it authorizes a new grant of $10 million for States, localities and private nonprofit organizations to develop policies that enable families of children and adolescents with mental health disorders to have increased control and choice over mental health services provided and received through a publicly-funded mental health system. Second, it authorizes a new grant of $10 million for private nonprofit organizations to provide information on child and adolescent mental health disorders, services, support services and respite care to families of children and adolescents with or who are at risk for mental health disorders. Third, it authorizes a new grant of $10 million for private nonprofit organizations to develop community coalitions and public education activities that promote child and adolescent resiliency. In addition, my legislation authorizes $10 million to establish two new technical assistance centers. These centers are designed to collect and disseminate information on mental health disorders, mental health disorder risk factors, mental health services, mental health service access, relevant support services, reducing seclusion and restraints, and family participation in mental health service decision-making-- exclusively for children and adolescents with or at risk of mental health disorders. The third objective that this legislation seeks to meet is for the Federal Government to develop a policy specifically designed to meet the unique mental health needs of children and adolescents. The legislation authorizes $10 million for the establishment of an interagency coordinating committee consisting of all Federal officials whose departments or agencies oversee mental health activities for children and adolescents. Modeled after language in the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, my legislation requires the coordinating committee to consult with outside parties, develop a Federal policy exclusively pertaining to child and adolescent mental health, and report annually to Congress on specific challenges and solutions associated with comprehensively addressing the mental health needs of children and adolescents. The fourth and final objective that this legislation seeks to meet is increasing the amount of research into child and adolescent mental health. Only through intensive research can we develop evidence-based best practices that allow us to develop services that fully meet the mental health needs of our children. Towards that end, my legislation authorizes a new grant of $12.5 million for States, localities, institutions of higher education and private nonprofit organizations to identify and research current service, training and information awareness gaps in mental health delivery systems for children and adolescents. My legislation also authorizes $12.5 million to enhance comprehensive Federal research and evaluation of promising best practices, existing disparities, psychotropic medications, trauma, recovery and rehabilitation, and co-occurring disorders as they relate to child and adolescent mental health. My colleague on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Chairman Enzi, has indicated a desire to bring up the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reauthorization measure soon. It is my hope that this legislation can contribute to that reauthorization effort. I would like to conclude by saying that this legislation, while comprehensive, is a first step--not a complete solution--towards fully meeting the challenge of ensuring the resiliency of our children and adolescents. We need to continue working together--young people, families, doctors, counselors, nurses, teachers, advocates, and policymakers--since we all have a stake, either professional or personal--in this issue. Only by working together can we develop effective and compassionate ways through which every young person in this nation is given a solid foundation upon which to reach his or her dreams in life. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that seeks to meet the mental health needs of children and adolescents. I believe that the task of ensuring the emotional well-being and resiliency of our young people is one of paramount importance. We all know that mental health is a critical component contributing to a child's general health and ability to grow--both intellectually and physically. Yet, the task of ensuring the mental health of children and adolescents is not an easy one. In fact, it is arguably one of the most difficult and largely unspoken tasks facing our Nation today. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, one in ten children and adolescents suffers from mental health disorders serious enough to cause some level of impairment. Out of these young people, only one in five receives the specialty mental health services they require. These startling statistics prompted former Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher to convene a conference in 1999 that examined the mental health needs of children. The conference--composed of some of the Nation's leading experts in mental and public health--published a seminal report that concluded that `` . . . the burden of suffering experienced by children with mental illness and their families has created a health crisis in this country.'' The report further concluded that ``. . . there is broad evidence that the Nation lacks a unified infrastructure to help children suffering from mental illness.'' I would like to submit for the Record personal testimony offered by three families in Connecticut. I believe their words and experiences speak most directly to the ``burden of suffering'' described in Surgeon General Satcher's report--a burden endured by millions of children, adolescents, and then families nationwide. I ask unanimous consent that this testimony be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that seeks to meet the mental health needs of children and adolescents. I believe that the task of ensuring the emotional well-being and resiliency of our young people is one of paramount importance. We all know that mental health is a critical component contributing to a child's general health and ability to grow--both intellectually and physically. Yet, the task of ensuring the mental health of children and adolescents is not an easy one. In fact, it is arguably one of the most difficult and largely unspoken tasks facing our Nation today. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, one in ten children and adolescents suffers from mental health disorders serious enough to cause some level of impairment. Out of these young people, only one in five receives the specialty mental health services they require. These startling statistics prompted former Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher to convene a conference in 1999 that examined the mental health needs of children. The conference--composed of some of the Nation's leading experts in mental and public health--published a seminal report that concluded that `` . . . the burden of suffering experienced by children with mental illness and their families has created a health crisis in this country.'' The report further concluded that ``. . . there is broad evidence that the Nation lacks a unified infrastructure to help children suffering from mental illness.'' I would like to submit for the Record personal testimony offered by three families in Connecticut. I believe their words and experiences speak most directly to the ``burden of suffering'' described in Surgeon General Satcher's report--a burden endured by millions of children, adolescents, and then families nationwide. I ask unanimous consent that this testimony be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. I thank these families for sharing their personal experiences with me, and for following me to share their experiences publicly. More importantly, I commend their tenacity in facing the challenges they face each and every day in caring for their children. Their stories, along with the stories I have heard from other families in Connecticut and elsewhere in the country, have fueled my belief that child and adolescent mental health needs to be a top priority. Recognizing the fragmentation of the Nation's mental health delivery system, Surgeon General Satcher's report concluded that one fundamental way to meet the mental--health needs of children and adolescents is to ``. . . move towards a community-based mental health delivery system that balances health promotion, disease prevention, early detection, and universal access to care.'' The report further stated eight goals to ensure the resiliency of children and adolescents. These goals were: first, to promote public awareness of children's mental health issues and reduce stigma associated with mental illness; second, to continue to develop, disseminate, and implement scientifically-proven prevention and treatment services in the field of children's mental health; third, to improve the assessment of and recognition of mental health needs in children; fourth, to eliminate racial, ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in access to mental health care services; fifth, to improve the infrastructure for children's mental health services, including support for scientifically-proven interventions across professions; sixth, to increase access to and coordination of quality mental health care services; seventh, to train frontline providers to recognize and manage mental health issues, and educate mental healthcare providers about scientifically-proven prevention and treatment services, and; finally, to monitor the access to and coordination of quality mental health care services. In 2002, President Bush established the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health to study three obstacles identified by the President that prevent Americans with mental illness from getting the care they require. These obstacles were identified as the stigma that surrounds mental health care, a lack of mental health parity, and the fragmented mental health delivery system. In 2003, the President's New Freedom Commission issued a report that made a series of recommendations on how the Nation's mental health system could be transformed for the better. Like Surgeon General Satcher's report, this publication also set forth a series of goals. They were: first, to ensure Americans understand that mental health is essential to overall health; second, to ensure that mental health care is consumer- and family-driven; third, to eliminate disparities in mental health care services; fourth, to ensure that early mental health screening, assessment, and referral services are common practices; fifth, to ensure that excellent mental health care is delivered and research is accelerated, and; finally, to ensure that technology is used to access mental health care and information. I describe these two reports because the legislation I am introducing today seeks to address the recommendations they espouse. My legislation, the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Resiliency Act of 2006, authorizes $210 million in an effort to meet five principal objectives. The first objective is to increase access to, and improve the quality of, mental health care services delivered to children and adolescents. My legislation seeks to meet this objective in several ways. First, it authorizes a new grant of $50 million for States to develop and implement a comprehensive mental health plan exclusively for children and adolescents that provides community-based mental health early intervention and prevention services and relevant support services, such as primary health care, education, transportation and housing. The plan would have to meet a set of core operational and evaluative requirements and would have to be developed through extensive outside consultation with children and adolescents, their families, advocates and health professionals. Second, my legislation authorizes two matching grants of $22.5 million each for community health centers--many of which primarily serve low-income populations and primary health care facilities, such as a pediatrician's office, to provide community-based mental health services in coordination with community mental health centers and/or trained mental health professionals. Third, my legislation authorizes a new grant of $22.5 million for States, localities and private nonprofit organizations--e.g., school districts--to provide community-based mental health services in schools appropriate mental health training activities to relevant school and health professionals. Fourth, my legislation authorizes a new grant of $20 million for States, localities and private nonprofit organizations to provide community-based mental health services specifically for at-risk mothers and their children. Fifth, my legislation authorizes a new grant of $10 million for States, localities and private nonprofit organizations to provide community-based mental health services for children and adolescents in juvenile justice systems. Sixth, my legislation authorizes $10 million for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish, run and evaluate a demonstration project that improves the ability of local case managers to work across the mental health, public health, substance abuse, child welfare, education, juvenile justice and social services systems in a State. Finally, my legislation requires States to meet their statutory obligations to fund fully mental health screening services under the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment Services Program. It also requires current successful initiatives, such as the Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children with Serious Emotional Disturbance Program, the Community Mental Health Services Performance Partnership Block Grant, the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant, and the Jail Diversion Program, to expand their scope with respect to certain reporting, evaluative, and service activities. The second objective my legislation seeks to meet is ensuring greater public awareness and greater family participation in mental health services decision-making. Towards this end, my legislation does the following: First, it authorizes a new grant of $10 million for States, localities and private nonprofit organizations to develop policies that enable families of children and adolescents with mental health disorders to have increased control and choice over mental health services provided and received through a publicly-funded mental health system. Second, it authorizes a new grant of $10 million for private nonprofit organizations to provide information on child and adolescent mental health disorders, services, support services and respite care to families of children and adolescents with or who are at risk for mental health disorders. Third, it authorizes a new grant of $10 million for private nonprofit organizations to develop community coalitions and public education activities that promote child and adolescent resiliency. In addition, my legislation authorizes $10 million to establish two new technical assistance centers. These centers are designed to collect and disseminate information on mental health disorders, mental health disorder risk factors, mental health services, mental health service access, relevant support services, reducing seclusion and restraints, and family participation in mental health service decision-making-- exclusively for children and adolescents with or at risk of mental health disorders. The third objective that this legislation seeks to meet is for the Federal Government to develop a policy specifically designed to meet the unique mental health needs of children and adolescents. The legislation authorizes $10 million for the establishment of an interagency coordinating committee consisting of all Federal officials whose departments or agencies oversee mental health activities for children and adolescents. Modeled after language in the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, my legislation requires the coordinating committee to consult with outside parties, develop a Federal policy exclusively pertaining to child and adolescent mental health, and report annually to Congress on specific challenges and solutions associated with comprehensively addressing the mental health needs of children and adolescents. The fourth and final objective that this legislation seeks to meet is increasing the amount of research into child and adolescent mental health. Only through intensive research can we develop evidence-based best practices that allow us to develop services that fully meet the mental health needs of our children. Towards that end, my legislation authorizes a new grant of $12.5 million for States, localities, institutions of higher education and private nonprofit organizations to identify and research current service, training and information awareness gaps in mental health delivery systems for children and adolescents. My legislation also authorizes $12.5 million to enhance comprehensive Federal research and evaluation of promising best practices, existing disparities, psychotropic medications, trauma, recovery and rehabilitation, and co-occurring disorders as they relate to child and adolescent mental health. My colleague on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Chairman Enzi, has indicated a desire to bring up the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reauthorization measure soon. It is my hope that this legislation can contribute to that reauthorization effort. I would like to conclude by saying that this legislation, while comprehensive, is a first step--not a complete solution--towards fully meeting the challenge of ensuring the resiliency of our children and adolescents. We need to continue working together--young people, families, doctors, counselors, nurses, teachers, advocates, and policymakers--since we all have a stake, either professional or personal--in this issue. Only by working together can we develop effective and compassionate ways through which every young person in this nation is given a solid foundation upon which to reach his or her dreams in life. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to briefly state my reasons for opposing the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to serve as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court. I must say at the outset that I regret having to cast this vote. Throughout my tenure here in the Senate, I have supported the vast majority of presidential nominees--regardless of the party to which a president has belonged. With regard to the current administration, I have joined with my colleagues in voting to confirm the overwhelming majority of its judicial nominees--including those with whom I differed on matters of legal and public policy. I had assumed that, when nominated, Mr. Kavanaugh would likely be among this large group of judicial nominees to receive broad bipartisan support. After all, he has a commendable academic background, and served as a law clerk to two Circuit Court judges and one Supreme Court Justice. However, it appears--that after emerging from a confirmation process where his conduct can be described as disappointing at best, and dismissive at worst--Mr. Kavanaugh has practically invited opposition to his nomination. In my view, there are few duties more important to the Senate than the consideration of the nomination of article III jurists. Other than considering a declaration of war or an amendment to the Constitution, nothing is more important than deciding on a judicial nominee. The reasons for that view are practically self-evident: article III judges are appointed for life, and they are appointed to lead and populate an entirely separate branch of government. Our entire constitutional framework rests on an act of faith, first taken by our Founders, that is in some respects as audacious as it is vital: that the President will nominate, and the Senate will confirm, only those judicial nominees who demonstrate the temperament, intellect, experience, and character to stand independent of the executive and legislative branches of government and hold those branches accountable to the law. If a nominee does not demonstrate those qualities during the nomination process, if he or she does not show a capacity to render independent judgments and uphold the principle of equal justice under law, then the outcome of a vote on that nomination is, in this Senator's view, a foregone conclusion: the nomination must be opposed. During Mr. Kavanaugh's two confirmation hearings, he failed to demonstrate the requisite qualifications for the high position to which he has been nominated. He failed to provide meaningful responses to many of the questions put to him. After his first hearing, he delayed providing any answers at all to written questions for seven months. It was not until after the 2004 elections that he finally decided to provide those answers. When asked the reason for this delay, he offered only a feeble rationale, saying he took responsibility for what he termed a ``misunderstanding''. I found this explanation to be implausible, to say the least. As Associate White House Counsel, one of Mr. Kavanaugh's responsibilities was to prepare judicial nominees to successfully navigate the confirmation process. So for him to say he had a ``misunderstanding'' about the need to promptly answer questions put to him by Senators strains credulity. Mr. Kavanaugh also failed to provide full and candid answers to important questions about his role and views in helping to shape some of the administration's most controversial policies--from the development of legal rationales for torture to the drafting of Executive orders to reduce the public's access to presidential records. He also refused to tell the committee on what types of matters, if any, he would recuse himself if such matters came before him as a judge. This refusal to be forthcoming with the Judiciary Committee--and by implication, with the Senate as a whole--bespeaks a dismissive attitude toward the confirmation process that I find highly troubling. We have seen in recent years a growing tendency of candidates to treat the confirmation process more as a game of hide-and-seek than a profoundly serious process designed by the Senate to provide Senators with the information that they need to make careful, reasoned decisions about nominees. If candidates do not provide vital information about their background and their views, they make it impossible for Senators to adequately discharge their constitutional duty to advise and consent with respect to article III nominees. I would be remiss if I did not also mention two other facts about this nomination that make it highly unusual. One is that the American Bar Association, ABA, downgraded its rating of the nominee, from ``highly qualified'' to ``qualified''. Six of the eight members of the ABA committee who voted previously on this nomination voted to downgrade his nomination based on new information about his ability to act independently and his sparse record as a judge and legal practitioner. It also bears mentioning that this nominee, if confirmed, would be one of the least experienced judges to have served on this particular court. Only former Judge Kenneth Starr had less experience. For these reasons, I must oppose this nomination. I hope that, if confirmed, this nominee will prove me wrong by growing into a wise, independent, and fair-minded jurist. But regrettably, at this time, he has given the Senate paltry and insufficient facts on which to believe he is prepared for the high office to which he has been nominated.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about the nomination of General Michael V. Hayden to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I regret that I was not able to vote to confirm his nomination at this time, and I would like to take a few minutes to explain my vote. As my colleagues may know, I voted to confirm General Hayden when he was nominated to be the Deputy Director of National Intelligence, DNI. I stand by that vote for two reasons. First, General Hayden is obviously qualified on paper to fill the position. Second, he was serving as Deputy to the current DNI, John Negroponte. So there was a clear line of authority. But today when the Senate voted on his nomination to be Director of the CIA, these two circumstances were significantly different. First, issues like the potentially illegal wiretapping of American citizens' phone lines by the National Security Agency--a program which General Hayden reportedly designed and ran--have come to light. And second, he will no longer be serving as a deputy but as head of one of our Nation's premier intelligence agencies--yet he is not resigning his commission as a uniformed officer. That raises the question of whether and to what degree he will be independent from decisions made at the Pentagon. Some of my colleagues have insisted that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will no longer be in the chain of command overseeing General Hayden in his position at the CIA. Certainly, there is precedent for uniformed officers serving as head of the CIA. However, when we look at this precedent we also have to realize that circumstances have changed. A not insignificant part of the reason that we invaded Iraq is because our Nation's intelligence was politicized, and because intelligence activities were manipulated to justify a predetermined conclusion--that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Much of this intelligence manipulation was performed by intelligence bureaus within the Pentagon, under the supervision of Secretary Rumsfeld, who has been steadily expanding the Pentagon's role in U.S. intelligence activities. It would seem to this Senator that given Secretary Rumsfeld's track record, concentrating intelligence in his hands would be unwise to say the least. The truth is that we don't really know how much independence General Hayden will show with respect to the Secretary of Defense. After all, he is a military officer, with an active commission. And the record is mixed with respect to predicting how the cards will fall. On one hand, there are reports that he stood up to Secretary Rumsfeld and other political appointees in the President's Cabinet on certain occasions. On the other hand, he reportedly designed and strongly supported a program to wiretap the homes of American citizens, whose legality is in question. If he was just following orders, these circumstances raise serious questions about his ability to exercise independence as Director of the CIA. If, as is widely believed, he was the driving force behind the NSA's wiretapping program, then I question his ability to balance the important need to defend our Nation from threats with the equally important need to protect constitutional rights of all Americans. I frankly think it is a shame that Congress didn't take a few more days, or even a couple of weeks, to more deeply probe these fundamental issues of security and liberty. Indeed, if this body had taken sufficient steps to get answers about the NSA's wiretapping program, and if General Hayden had considered leaving his role as an active military officer during his tenure as CIA Director, then it is possible that the concerns I mentioned might have been alleviated. I also regret the fact, however, that President Bush didn't pick somebody who was equally qualified but not tied in to controversial programs such as collecting telephone information and listening in to conversations between American citizens. Because in this time of difficulty for the CIA, we don't just need someone who is qualified, we also need someone who is credible. While the extent of General Hayden's involvement in these activities is as yet unclear, I am concerned that his role could potentially undermine his ability to carry out his duties as head of the CIA. Mr. President, despite some opposition, General Hayden was confirmed earlier this morning by the Senate. At this juncture, I can only hope that he proves my concerns to be unfounded. I wish him only the best in pursuing a goal that I know we all share--the safety and well-being of American citizens in this time of war.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will the manager withhold? Mr. President, I rise today to share my views on the work that the Senate has undertaken over the last several weeks on a very difficult and complex issue--comprehensive immigration reform. Before I start, I would like to acknowledge the work of many of my colleagues, who have spent years attempting to address various aspects of this issue and who have worked in good faith to get us to the place we find ourselves as we conclude debate on the legislation before us. Last month when the Senate first began consideration of this matter, the process fell apart rather suddenly because of procedural issues regarding which and how many amendments would be offered. These were legitimate concerns, since nearly 400 amendments were introduced, and since many of those amendments were intended to gut that measure. In order to get this reform right, we need to address all three components of immigration--border security and enforcement, guest worker programs and, for undocumented workers who are currently in the U.S., a path to ``earned'' citizenship. We need to also reconcile the fact that we are nation of immigrants with ongoing legitimate economic, social and national security concerns related to the undocumented individuals currently within our borders and the impact of continuing to welcome newcomers to our Nation has on those concerns. But let me be clear from the outset. Immigration reform must first and foremost be about protecting America's national security, economy, and citizens from the myriad challenges we face in the 21st century. We must have no higher priorities than these. Fundamentally protecting our national security means securing our borders. I believe that the bill before us, with all the additions we have made as the Senate has worked its will on this measure, is an imperfect document, but probably the best we are going to achieve given the polarizing nature of many of the issues that have been debated, adopted and rejected. On a positive note, the bill does set the stage for the United States to greatly increase control over our borders and help prevent individuals from illegally entering our country. Among other things, it would provide advanced border security technologies to assist those tasked with protecting our borders. And it would improve our ability to enforce our immigration laws by making structural reforms and increasing personnel and funding levels where they are needed most. It would also double the size of the border patrol over 5 years, adding 12,000 new agents to patrol our borders. It would expand the number of interior enforcement officers by 1,000 per year over each of the next 5 years. It would utilize advanced technologies to improve surveillance along the border, creating a ``virtual fence'' to detect and apprehend people who are illegally attempting to enter this country. And it would create new and increased penalties for individuals trying to subvert our borders with tunnels, or who attempt to smuggle people into the U.S. These are all critical measures. I support them. Other measures adopted in the name of better controlling our borders, will in my view have less than optimum results. I am thinking of the vote that occurred last week to unilaterally construct a 370-mile fence in border areas in California and Arizona. I believe that no fence or wall or other barrier is going to stop desperate people from entering our country unless we do something about the conditions on the other side of the border and the historic unwillingness of Mexican authorities to take steps to dissuade its citizens from illegally crossing the border. That is why I opposed this initiative and have sought to strengthen the likelihood that we will get more rather than less cooperation from Mexican authorities by proposing an amendment to require advance consultations at the federal, state and local levels of government on both sides of the border before fence construction moves forward. I am grateful to the managers for their willingness to accept this amendment. Securing our borders, while necessary is only one part of the bigger immigration equation. Were we to deal with that issue, while ignoring two other goals--bringing 11 to 12 million undocumented workers out of the shadows, and putting in place limited and carefully regulated guest worker programs to fill jobs when no Americans are available or willing to take them, we would not have fundamentally confronted the national security implications of immigration. In my view, turning our backs on this reality is the same as turning our backs on real and lasting immigration reform. I would say the following with respect to the 11 to 12 million undocumented individuals living within our borders. These are predominantly hardworking individuals, who are not here to flood the welfare rolls or collect our charity. They are here to work and to contribute. They want what all of our families wanted when they came to the U.S.--a piece of the American dream. However, I understand the concerns of those who rightly state that these undocumented workers came here illegally. The pending bill recognizes that fact. And so it wouldn't give them a free ride. Instead, it would penalize illegal immigrants by requiring undocumented workers to pay fines. It would require them to pay all back taxes, submit themselves to background checks, and learn English. And for those who are eligible, this process would take an average of 11 years. Yet even with these tough measures, it provides an incentive for undocumented workers to come out into the open. Frankly, we need to be honest with ourselves that they're not going to come out of the woodwork if they face deportation. No rational person would do that. Why is getting them to come out into the open so important? Because the presence of so many individuals without documentation in our country creates enormous challenges for law enforcement and undermines worker protections. It is bad for our security, bad for the American worker, and bad for undocumented immigrants themselves. But not all people seek to come permanently to the U.S. Many seek temporary work here and desire to return home when that work is complete. The pending proposal contains extensive provisions related to guest workers. There are legitimate concerns that temporary workers might displace American workers who are available and willing to take a job. That should never be the case. American jobs should always be filled first and foremost with American workers. Only after serious efforts to find American applicants to fill vacancies have been exhausted are guest worker programs justifiable. Much has been done in the course of consideration of this legislation to ensure more due diligence on the part of employers to look first to Americans to fill jobs. Moreover, we need to be judicious when it comes to determining the number of guest worker visas that are needed. This shouldn't be an excessively high number that increases automatically every year. Instead, it should match actual needs. That's why I supported a number of amendments by my colleagues to place certain caps on the number of guest worker visas that are granted. As I've already said, the numbers of visas should match needs. If at any point in the future the U.S. government determines that needs aren't being met, then we can always change the numbers to reflect the facts on the ground. But we need to turn to American workers first, not foreign workers. Some of my other concerns with the outlines of the guest worker programs have been addressed in the course of our consideration of the bill. Worker portability and the right to unionize were key deficiencies that have been remedied during the amendment process. These fixes were important, because if done incorrectly, guest worker provisions could produce a permanent underclass and downward pressure on wages for American workers. I remain concerned about a number of the provisions that have been adopted in the course of consideration of this legislation--some by very close votes. Among these are conflicting provisions on the nature and role of the English language, one of which could result in some of our own citizens being denied full participation in our society and opportunities to improve English proficiency. The other amendment recognizes the importance of the English language as a unifying force in our society without eliminating the many safeguards in law to ensure that those Americans with imperfect language skills can still participate in society. Before concluding, I would like to speak briefly of two provisions in the bill which have gotten very little attention but which are very important and constructive additions to the overall package. First, I am pleased that it includes provisions of the DREAM Act. I've long supported the DREAM Act, which in my view is a common sense measure, allowing undocumented students under the age of 16--who were brought into this country illegally through no fault of their own--a chance to complete higher education. Qualifying students, however, will have had to live in the U.S. for at least 5 years prior to the date of enactment of this legislation. If they earn an advanced degree or serve our country in the Armed Forces, they would then be granted permanent status and allowed to petition for citizenship. Every student deserves a chance to learn and to serve a cause greater than him- or herself. This measure will give many deserving children that opportunity. The second provision would establish programs to help our neighbors to the south, including Guatemala and Belize to fight human smuggling and gain control of their tenuous borders. It would also encourage strategic coordination across the hemisphere to fight the growing problem of gang violence. In my view, these are critically important areas because in reality we can-not solve our problems here without also addressing the roots of the problems abroad. It remains to be seen what will happen to this bill when Senate conferees sit down with our House colleagues to work out the considerable differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. Speaking as one Senator, the measure as it has passed the Senate is a very delicate package of compromises that just barely makes it acceptable. Any significant diminutions from the Senate package will make this measure unacceptable to me, and I suspect, to many of my colleagues. I urge the Senate conferees to stand fast to the Senate position.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President I listened to the remarks of Senator Kyl concerning the inclusion in the managers' package of the holding of consultations at Federal, State and local levels on both sides of border before fence construction occurs. I think I know something about this issue because it was my amendment. Senator Kyl suggested in his remarks that consultations would give the Mexican Government veto power over the building of a fence. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and nothing in that amendment would impede the ability of the U.S. Government to construct a fence in manner the of our choosing. But it is simply common sense and common courtesy to consult those individuals in our own communities and in affected communities on the other side of the border before constructing a fence. Why? Because the fence alone is not going to stop the flow of illegal immigration into the United States. It is going to take a cooperative effort between the United States and Mexico. My amendment seeks to foster the kind of cooperation that is vital if we are going to once and for all secure our borders. I thank the President for the opportunity to clarify this matter.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am glad our math is good here this morning. I appreciate that early in the day. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his leadership on this bill and his eloquence this morning on this amendment being offered by our colleague from Kentucky. I commend our colleague from Illinois as well for his eloquent comments about the problems associated with this amendment. Very bluntly and very squarely, if the McConnell amendment is adopted in the next 20 minutes, then roughly 142 million people in our country would have to have a new--a new--photo identification, one which does not exist yet, that complies with REAL ID by the elections in 2008. Otherwise, you could not vote a regular ballot in the 2008 Federal elections without this new identification. My colleague cites polling data that indicates that 62 percent of Americans believe a photo identification may be necessary. They were not asked whether or not they knew they would have to have a completely new identification, which I presume they would have to pay for, and if they don't have it with them by election day 2008, then they would not be allowed to show up and vote a regular ballot in person for presidential and other federal candidates across the country. So 142 million people could be disenfranchised by this amendment if we end up requiring a new photo identification. Now, it has been said over and over again this morning--it needs to be repeated--it was Patrick Henry who said, more than 200 years ago: The right to vote is the right upon which all other rights depend. It is the essential right. The idea we would somehow exclude people who are elderly or disabled or people who, for a variety of reasons, do not have or cannot get this new photo identification from having access to the ballot because of some anecdotal evidence that people may show up and pretend to be someone else--because that is the only set of circumstances we are talking about here. Absentee ballots present a unique set of problems. This does not cover the absentee ballots. It does not cover the situations where people mail in votes under a different set of circumstances in some of our States. This amendment only addresses the situation in which someone shows up to vote claiming to be someone else, when, in fact, they are a different individual. So I would hope our colleagues, recognizing the tremendous problems this amendment could afford us, would reject this amendment. We had this debate 4 years ago when we adopted the Help America Vote Act. What we said is, if you register by mail, then the first time you show up at the polls, you need some form of identification, and, in fact, a photo identification may be one of them. But it is not the only thing that can be a source of identification for first time voters who registered by mail. There may be a variety of other criteria that States would adopt. In a sense, we are going to nationalize and Federalize every single State by this approach. States, as we have historically said, determine the specific requirements of registration. Some States require very little. That is their judgment. Other States require more. We stayed away from dictating to States exactly what they had to do in the Help America Vote Act. If you adopt this amendment, why not consider an amendment for national registration? Many advocate that. I think it may be a sound idea to move to a national registration. The HAVA bill moved from local registration to Statewide registration, which is a major step forward. But here we are saying you are going to have to have one size fits all, one identification, and we do not even know what it looks like yet--it does not exist at all--which has to comply with the REAL ID requirements between now and election day 2008. And if you do not have it, then you could be refused a regular ballot and forced to vote provisionally. Obviously, access to the ballot has been critical for us. We have balanced that right to try to ensure, to the extent possible, that the ballot is going to be secure. But if we err on any side of that equation, it has been historically to err on the side of access to make sure people are encouraged to participate. Thus, the reason, in the HAVA bill, why we have provisional balloting--for the first time that will exist--it is so that if you show up and there is a contest as to whether or not you have the right to vote, the law says you should be able to cast a provisional ballot, so that after the election, after the ballots are cast, or the polling places are closed, if, in fact, you, the voter, were right, the ballot counts. If you were wrong, obviously, it does not, but you have a right to find out why it was not counted in order to be able to correct the problem. Provisional ballots are making it possible for people to vote who believe they have the right to vote, to cast a ballot. That right has not existed in the past. That is the direction we are heading in as a country, not going backwards, not retreating, and not creating obstacles and hurdles to cast those ballots. That, unfortunately, would be the outcome if the McConnell amendment were adopted. Every major civil rights organization, every leading organization defending the disabled and the elderly are opposed to this amendment and are very worried about what it could mean if it were adopted. So I urge my colleagues, at this early hour in the morning: Please, when you come here, this is not the place for this amendment on an immigration bill. There is a time and opportunity to go back and revisit election issues. I hope we do that at some point. But to cherry-pick a provision that would set us back decades would be a mistake. The right to vote is one of the most fundamental civil rights accorded to citizens by the United States Constitution. The right of all Americans to vote, and to have their vote counted, is the cornerstone of our democratic form of government. It is at the heart of all we do here, and precedes other rights because it is the means by which we choose those who represent us. The free and unencumbered exercise of the franchise is a core pre-condition of a government that is of the people, by the people and for the people. This amendment would jeopardize efforts to balance the traditional requirements of ballot access and ballot security; impinge unnecessarily on those fundamental rights; create a disparate impact on whole classes of our citizens; and effectively impose a new form of poll tax on millions of American voters. Public confidence in the integrity of final election results is likely to be judged to a large extent by how well our laws balance the twin goals of expanded ballot access and enhanced ballot security, a fact that should remain foremost in our minds as we move forward on this debate in the coming days. This amendment would dangerously undermine that delicate balance. Where difficult questions on these issues arise, my bias has always been to err on the side of expanded ballot access for all eligible voters. That should be no surprise to anyone who has been in the Senate or watched its deliberations in recent years, including the debate three years ago on the Help America Vote Act. We must do all we can to ensure that the fundamental right to vote can be exercised freely, even while taking appropriate precautions to prevent usually isolated acts of individual voter fraud. The McConnell amendment before us would effectively mandate a one- size-fits-all voter identification solution for every voter, every State, and the territories regardless of their circumstances, resources or preferences. Every American citizen who is eligible to vote today in a Federal election would be effectively rendered ineligible to vote in the Presidential election of November 2008 by this amendment. Under this amendment, even those Americans who were born in this country and have been voting in every election since they turned 18 would be unable to vote in the November 2008 Presidential election, unless they first obtain a new REAL ID/citizenship card, or its equivalent. This is a sea change in the rules of access for voters to every polling place in the United States. Under this amendment, everyone, every voter would have to present a REAL ID/citizenship card to vote a regular ballot at the polls. My colleagues may remember the stories of dogs and dead people voting in the 2000 Presidential election. To respond to individual fraud in election registration, Congress adopted a measured, two-part response: a new identification for first time voters who register by mail and a computerized statewide voter registration system. Under HAVA, the States must have the computerized voter registration system in place this year. And the States are working diligently to accomplish that. But this amendment goes much farther and without any justification, without any evidence of widespread fraud, effectively disenfranchises every single American voter who is eligible to vote in Federal elections today. The only fraud that this amendment purports to address is the situation in which a voter appears, in person, at the polls and claims to be someone else. During all of the hearings that the Rules Committee held on election reform following the debacle of the 2000 Presidential elections, including the hearings held by my distinguished friend, the author of this amendment--who was Chairman of the Rules Committee at the time--not one witness testified to widespread fraud by individuals appearing in person at the polls claiming to be someone they were not. And Congress isn't the only body which failed to find more than anecdotal evidence of such fraud. Just last year, the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, also failed to find the fraud that this amendment is designed to address. Let me quote from the September 2005 Carter-Baker Commission Report: There is no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections or of multiple voting, but both could occur, and it could affect the outcome of a close election. So even though neither Congress, nor the esteemed private Carter- Baker Commission, could find the type of fraud that would justify a national citizenship voting card, this amendment would literally jeopardize the voting rights of every single American citizen in order to combat this phantom fraud. And yet the fraud that the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission was concerned about--that of fraud committed through absentee balloting--is not even addressed by this amendment. Again, quoting from the 2005 Carter-Baker Commission Report: Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud. But does this amendment apply to absentee balloting or vote by mail? No--it applies only to those American citizens who make the effort to get up on election day and go to the polls, stand in line--sometimes for hours--and publicly present themselves to vote. This amendment would change the law to effectively federalize what has always been a State and local determination. It would establish a one-size-fits-all Federal REAL ID/citizenship card, based on a law that has itself not been fully implemented. It mandates that every State implement a system which uses these new cards by May 11, 2008--less than two years from now, and during a period when we will almost certainly face a hotly contested Presidential election. If this amendment is adopted, the resulting chaos will undermine the results of the 2008 Presidential election to the point that not even the Supreme Court will be able to determine the winner. No one in this Chamber can say with any certainty how this is going to work, if at all, or that it will not further disenfranchise vulnerable voters. In my view, it almost certainly will. This is not the time, nor the vehicle, to be debating election reforms that will most assuredly disenfranchise American citizens, particularly the poor, minorities, the elderly, and the disabled. These voting issues are important, and as I have said, I would welcome a full and comprehensive debate on how to expand access for all Americans to enable them to more effectively and easily register and vote in Federal elections, while preserving ballot security. I have introduced legislation on that issue in this Congress, and would like to have it considered soon. We could and should have a full debate on how best to balance the twin goals of expanded ballot access with appropriate ballot security. But now is neither the time nor the place for that debate. This is not what we should be doing on this bill. I am also concerned about amending HAVA now. I intend to oppose any amendment that would open up the Help America Vote Act before the law is fully implemented in time for the fall Federal elections in 2006. We have already had over 10 primaries and we are less than six months prior to the general mid-term elections. States are working hard to come into compliance with the new requirements of accessible voting systems and statewide voter registration list. Voters are working hard to understand the new circumstances and new technologies they will be facing in the 2006 elections, and are being educated on how to exercise their rights to ensure an equal opportunity for all to cast a vote and have that vote counted. Many of us know that no single law is the comprehensive and perfect fix for a number of problems which have existed for decades in our decentralized election system. HAVA was a landmark law, the next step in a march which included the Voting Rights Act, NVRA legislation, and other measures. HAVA made appropriate changes to the law in the wake of the 2000 election debacle, and did so with broad, bipartisan support. And I am sure there are a host of improvements that could be made to HAVA. I have some in mind myself. But HAVA deserves to be fully and effectively implemented before taking the next steps toward broader reform. If this Senate wishes to debate election reforms, I am prepared to do so for days to come. There are numerous reforms which the Senate should be considering. If we are prepared to impose a universal voting ID on Americans, then we should also establish a universal Federal registration requirement for voting. If we are going to preempt the rights of States to determine who is eligible to vote in a Federal election, then perhaps we should preempt the rights of States to decide whether or not they will count that Federal ballot. If we are going to federalize identification requirements for voting, then perhaps we should federalize eligibility requirements for absentee voting. If we want to ensure that the vote of every eligible American citizen has equal weight, then maybe we should federalize the administration of Federal elections. But that is not the approach that my colleague, Senator McConnell, and I took in developing the bipartisan Help America Vote Act. And that is not the approach that the Congress and President Bush took in passing and signing into law the Help America Vote Act. And nothing in the intervening 3\1/2\ years has changed to suggest that either HAVA isn't working, or that the American people support the kind of sea change that this amendment creates. HAVA was a carefully crafted balance between the twin goals of making it easier to vote and harder to defraud the system. This amendment destroys the necessary balance between ballot access and ballot security--a balance that is key to ensuring the integrity of Federal election results. If we are equally concerned about both access to the ballot box and potential fraud, then we should not enact an amendment which, by operation of its provisions, will potentially prevent every single eligible citizen from voting in the 2008 Presidential election. And if we are truly concerned about potential voting fraud, then we should give the States the opportunity to complete implementation of HAVA and allow that new law to work before we enact a new requirement which on its face will disrupt the delicate balance HAVA created. HAVA needs to be allowed to work. And for that reason, a broad Coalition of civil rights and voting rights groups, and organizations representing State and local governments, oppose this amendment. This Coalition letter makes clear that in their view, the six-month period prior to Federal mid-term elections, as we are implementing HAVA, is not the time, nor is the immigration bill the vehicle, to attempt to make highly controversial changes to the way voters qualify for access to the ballot box. Specifically, the Coalition letter rejects this amendment because, and I quote: The amendment raises voter identification issues without deliberation, further complicates unrealistic implementation deadlines for the REAL ID Act, creates a mandate for an identification tool not yet available, and undermines the continuing efforts of the States to enfranchise every eligible voter through the Help America Vote Act of 2002, ``HAVA''. Mr. President, any amendment which attempts to impose additional new Federal election reforms must include proposals which balance the competing goals of expanded ballot access and ballot security. My hope is that the Senate will make clear that effective election reform is not just about one of those aspects, but must address both. Some in this body have maintained a continuing misplaced emphasis on security at the expense of access. It is the duty of this Congress to ensure that both goals are protected and preserved for all Americans. I urge rejection of the McConnell amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me again quote from the Carter-Baker commission report regarding the very proposal that is before us: There is no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections or of multiple voting. It could occur and it could affect the outcome, but there is no evidence that exists today. What is true is if this amendment were adopted, there are clearly people who will show up to vote who will not be allowed to vote a regular ballot because, under this legislation, in May of 2008, if you don't have this nonexisting voter card, you will not be allowed to vote. I don't care how long you have lived here, how many elections you have participated in, this is a national requirement that will exist in May of 2008. And out of 142 million people who have a right to vote, there is likely to be a substantial number who would be disenfranchised. This is the wrong direction to be going based on an anecdotal piece of evidence about people who show up to vote and claim to be someone else. And that is why the Carter-Baker Commission recommendations on voter ID included a number of other reforms to provide a failsafe against this result. These additional components of the voter ID recommendation include allowing affidavit voting, with signature verification, until 2010. Thereafter, the Commission recommends that voters who did not have their ID could return to the appropriate election official within 48 hours of voting and provide the ID. But those failsafe provisions are not included in the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky. Absentee balloting is an area that could take some work when it comes to addressing fraud, but even the Carter-Baker Commission concluded that fraud could not be documented in the case of in-person voting. To take this immigration legislation we have worked months to craft, and include the consideration of this ID proposal--and we rejected it only 4 years ago--to open up just this part of the Help America Vote Act, disregarding everything else, is the wrong step to take on an immigration bill. Again, I emphasize, every civil rights organization, every group representing the elderly and disabled is urging colleagues to reject this amendment. This would be a major step backwards when it comes to election reform. At the proper time I will offer a motion to table. My colleague from Kentucky wants to be heard.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from State and local coalitions and civil rights groups be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to table the McConnell amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with the distinguished Chairman of the Rules Committee, legislation to ensure that the blind and those with disabilities continue to have free access to electronic editions of periodicals and newspapers. This service is an extension of the existing authorization for the Library of Congress to provide Braille books, recordings, sound reproduction equipment, musical scores, and other materials to the blind and physically disabled individuals. Currently, the National Federation of the Blind provides these services through its NFB-NEWSLINE program which has been funded by the Library of Congress through its Books for the Blind program. The NFB- NEWSLINE program is a telephone-based electronic audio newspaper service serving our Nation's 1.3 million blind Americans by providing 23 million minutes of on-demand service in response to 2,600 calls per day at an average cost of 2.7 cents per minute. Congress established the Books for the Blind program within the Library of Congress in 1931. The program is administered by the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, NLS, which continues to be the primary source of Braille and audio books and magazines for blind adults today. However, until development of the NFB-NEWSLINE program, it was not economically feasible for NLS to provide timely access to newspapers for the blind. Under current production methods, it would require several weeks for NLS to prepare and deliver a single copy of a daily newspaper. The NFB-NEWSLINE program, however, is designed for real time rapid distribution of the electronic text of newspapers. Under this program, the blind can access daily newspapers on the day of publication through telephone access to the digital text. The funding for this program has been provided by a public-private partnership between NFB-NEWSLINE, state sponsors, including public libraries, rehabilitation agencies, and several affiliates of NFB, and the Library of Congress. Newspaper and magazine content is contributed by many participating news organization and publishers. The bill Senator Lott and I are introducing today will ensure the continued Federal share of this partnership so that NFB-NEWSLINE can continue to serve as the multi-state provider of this service. Currently, NFB-NEWSLINE provides some level of service to all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico by providing local dialing numbers for the blind and disabled to use to access newspapers and periodicals. The annual telecommunications costs for this service is approximately $750,000 which serves approximately 40 percent of the eligible readers. This bill will enable NFB-NEWSLINE to continue to serve existing readers with improved services while at the same time expanding services to more readers. The bill authorizes $750,000 for this service in fiscal year 2007 and such sums as are necessary in fiscal years 2008-2011. This is a very efficient program that for a very small Federal investment will allow the blind and disabled to more fully participate in their communities through access to the daily news. With the current state of technology, it is simply unacceptable that the blind and disabled do not have real time access to daily newspapers and periodicals. I commend NFB-NEWSLINE for developing this public-private partnership to serve the needs of the blind and disabled individuals and I pleased to introduce this legislation to ensure the continuation of this program.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with the distinguished Chairman of the Rules Committee, legislation to ensure that the blind and those with disabilities continue to have free access to electronic editions of periodicals and newspapers. This service is an extension of the existing authorization for the Library of Congress to provide Braille books, recordings, sound reproduction equipment, musical scores, and other materials to the blind and physically disabled individuals. Currently, the National Federation of the Blind provides these services through its NFB-NEWSLINE program which has been funded by the Library of Congress through its Books for the Blind program. The NFB- NEWSLINE program is a telephone-based electronic audio newspaper service serving our Nation's 1.3 million blind Americans by providing 23 million minutes of on-demand service in response to 2,600 calls per day at an average cost of 2.7 cents per minute. Congress established the Books for the Blind program within the Library of Congress in 1931. The program is administered by the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, NLS, which continues to be the primary source of Braille and audio books and magazines for blind adults today. However, until development of the NFB-NEWSLINE program, it was not economically feasible for NLS to provide timely access to newspapers for the blind. Under current production methods, it would require several weeks for NLS to prepare and deliver a single copy of a daily newspaper. The NFB-NEWSLINE program, however, is designed for real time rapid distribution of the electronic text of newspapers. Under this program, the blind can access daily newspapers on the day of publication through telephone access to the digital text. The funding for this program has been provided by a public-private partnership between NFB-NEWSLINE, state sponsors, including public libraries, rehabilitation agencies, and several affiliates of NFB, and the Library of Congress. Newspaper and magazine content is contributed by many participating news organization and publishers. The bill Senator Lott and I are introducing today will ensure the continued Federal share of this partnership so that NFB-NEWSLINE can continue to serve as the multi-state provider of this service. Currently, NFB-NEWSLINE provides some level of service to all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico by providing local dialing numbers for the blind and disabled to use to access newspapers and periodicals. The annual telecommunications costs for this service is approximately $750,000 which serves approximately 40 percent of the eligible readers. This bill will enable NFB-NEWSLINE to continue to serve existing readers with improved services while at the same time expanding services to more readers. The bill authorizes $750,000 for this service in fiscal year 2007 and such sums as are necessary in fiscal years 2008-2011. This is a very efficient program that for a very small Federal investment will allow the blind and disabled to more fully participate in their communities through access to the daily news. With the current state of technology, it is simply unacceptable that the blind and disabled do not have real time access to daily newspapers and periodicals. I commend NFB-NEWSLINE for developing this public-private partnership to serve the needs of the blind and disabled individuals and I pleased to introduce this legislation to ensure the continuation of this program.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask my colleague for a couple minutes, if I may.

Mr. DODD. In relation to matters before us on this bill.

Mr. DODD. Four minutes.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman very much. I just want to make some brief comments, if I may, not about the matter of this amendment right before us, but about a vote that occurred yesterday regarding the construction of the fence along the southern border. I was 1 of 16 people who voted against that amendment, and I wanted to take a minute or so to explain my concerns. Primarily, my concern is because the decision to place this fence down here without any other additional consultation with local communities in the United States or with our neighbors to the south is something that worries me. There are implications of that. I firmly believe that any discussion about immigration policy must begin with border security. If there is a failure to do that, I don't think you have much of an audience. My concern is if we unilaterally do this without seeking the cooperation of the communities involved and the Nation next to us that we are dealing with primarily on this issue, we may have absolutely the opposite effect. In fact, there are implications of this decision. So at some point, in consultation with the managers of this bill, I may offer an amendment that would require some consultation with the U.S. communities involved, as well as with the Mexican Government, so that we are not unilaterally placing a fence here. Believe me when I tell you this. I have spent a lot of time in this region, as my colleagues know. There will be political implications. There is a national election in Mexico in about 6 weeks, and I will guarantee this issue will be a major issue in that debate. And who wins those elections will have a huge implication in terms of how much cooperation we get on dealing with immigration policy. My colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, and I spent a weekend with our colleagues from Mexico about 4 months ago. To their credit, the Mexican Congress, along with all five Presidential candidates, adopted unanimously in their legislation provisions regarding immigration policies. At the very top of those lists were border security issues. That had never happened before, Mr. President. It was a major change in how Mexico is looking at immigration policy. My hope is, as we talk about matters we think are important for securing our borders, we will do so in consultation with our neighbors. I am not suggesting we give them veto power, but if you are going to put up a fence of some 3 to 1,000 miles long, first of all, there is a question of whether that will work, but I guarantee you it will not work if we don't have the cooperation of the very government we are seeking cooperation from, if we impose this fence without dealing with them, talking with them, asking their advice, working with them. That is true among neighbors in communities as well as nations that are neighbors. So my hope is we can draft some language that would be endorsed and supported unanimously. It would certainly then cause me to have a very different attitude about the vote yesterday. But I caution my colleagues. I know the frustration levels. I understand the frustration of the communities along these border areas, but we are not going to succeed with this policy if we don't have a neighbor to the south that is going to work with us. So while it is frustrating, and certainly Mexico has not been as cooperative as they should have been over the years, I think that has changed and we ought to encourage that change rather than take a step backwards. So again, at an appropriate time, we could try to craft some language that would at least encourage the kind of cooperation we are going to have to have if we are going to succeed with the kind of border security issues that are included in the bill. I thank the chairman of the committee for giving me a few minutes to explain my concerns.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if my colleague would yield, we have an amendment that I think has been agreed to, and I am prepared to take 5 or 10 minutes tonight and get through it. I will leave it up to the leaders how they want to handle it.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me express my gratitude to my colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar, and his colleague from Indiana, Congressman Pence, and his colleague, Congressman Boucher of Virginia, who are drafting similar legislation and propose similar legislation in the other body and, of course, Senator Specter, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, and the Presiding Officer for their work on pulling together this bill which is a very sound proposal. As the Senator from Pennsylvania has explained, it deals with an issue that many were concerned about, and that is the national security question. The point I would like to make is that while this is about journalists and the collection of information and revealing stories that might otherwise not be told, the real winners of this proposal are not journalists or news media outlets, television stations, or the like. The real winners are the people we represent, our constituents, and the consumers of information. This is most important for them. It is really not that significant. If it were only about journalists, frankly, we might have second questions about it. Jefferson, of course, said it better than anyone many years ago when he said if he had to choose between a free country and a free press, he would select the latter. Madison, on the same subject, talking about freedom of information, freedom of the press, had this quote: Popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce, or tragedy, or perhaps both. Today, that fundamental principle--that a well-informed citizenry is the cornerstone of self-government--is at risk in a manner in which it has not been at risk previously. In the past year alone, some two dozen reporters have been subpoenaed or questioned about their confidential sources. Most of theme face fines or prison time. Seven have already been held in contempt. One has been jailed. Another was found guilty of criminal contempt for refusing to reveal a confidential source and served 6 months under house arrest. Why? Because they received information from confidential sources and pledged to protect the confidentiality of those sources. In other words, they have committed the ``offense'' of being journalists. These actions by our Government against journalists are having a profound impact on news gathering. For example, in testimony last summer before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Norman Pearlstine, the editor in chief of Time, Inc., said this about the fallout from the Justice Department's efforts to obtain confidential information from a Time reporter: Valuable sources have insisted that they no longer trusted the magazine and that they would no longer cooperate on stories. The chilling effect is obvious. Confidential evidence may be just the tip of the iceberg. We have no way of knowing for certain the number of journalists who have been ordered or requested to reveal confidential sources. We can only speculate as to how many editors and publishers put the brakes on a story for fear that it could land one of their reporters in a spider web spun by the Federal prosecutors that could include prison. If citizens with knowledge of wrongdoing could not or would not come forward to share what they know in confidence with members of the press, serious journalism would cease to exist, in my view. Serious wrongs would remain unexposed. The scandals known as Watergate, the Enron failure, the Abu Ghraib prison photos--none of these would have been known to the public but for good journalists doing their work. That scenario is no longer purely hypothetical. It is, in some respects, already a reality. When journalists are hauled into court by prosecutors and threatened with fines and imprisonment if they don't divulge the sources of their information, we are entering a dangerous territory for a democracy. That is when not only journalists, but ordinary citizens, will fear prosecution simply for exposing wrongdoing. When that happens, the information our citizens need to remain sovereign will be degraded, making it more and more difficult to hold accountable those in power. When the public's right to know is threatened, then I suggest to you that all of the liberties we hold dear are threatened, as well. Again, I thank Senator Specter for working out this compromise, and I emphasize that the issue of national security, which was a very legitimate concern, has been handled by this proposal. The underlying issue is the right of citizens to have access to important information that might otherwise never become available were it not for the ability to have confidential sources share that information and the ability of these journalists to protect the confidentiality of those sources. Thirty-nine States have provisions dealing with the shield law. I think 10 States have regulations regarding the same matter. I think it is long overdue that the Federal Government have a similar piece of legislation to protect the kind of information we seek. I commend my colleagues for their efforts in this regard. I am happy to join them.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me express my gratitude to my colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar, and his colleague from Indiana, Congressman Pence, and his colleague, Congressman Boucher of Virginia, who are drafting similar legislation and propose similar legislation in the other body and, of course, Senator Specter, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, and the Presiding Officer for their work on pulling together this bill which is a very sound proposal. As the Senator from Pennsylvania has explained, it deals with an issue that many were concerned about, and that is the national security question. The point I would like to make is that while this is about journalists and the collection of information and revealing stories that might otherwise not be told, the real winners of this proposal are not journalists or news media outlets, television stations, or the like. The real winners are the people we represent, our constituents, and the consumers of information. This is most important for them. It is really not that significant. If it were only about journalists, frankly, we might have second questions about it. Jefferson, of course, said it better than anyone many years ago when he said if he had to choose between a free country and a free press, he would select the latter. Madison, on the same subject, talking about freedom of information, freedom of the press, had this quote: Popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce, or tragedy, or perhaps both. Today, that fundamental principle--that a well-informed citizenry is the cornerstone of self-government--is at risk in a manner in which it has not been at risk previously. In the past year alone, some two dozen reporters have been subpoenaed or questioned about their confidential sources. Most of theme face fines or prison time. Seven have already been held in contempt. One has been jailed. Another was found guilty of criminal contempt for refusing to reveal a confidential source and served 6 months under house arrest. Why? Because they received information from confidential sources and pledged to protect the confidentiality of those sources. In other words, they have committed the ``offense'' of being journalists. These actions by our Government against journalists are having a profound impact on news gathering. For example, in testimony last summer before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Norman Pearlstine, the editor in chief of Time, Inc., said this about the fallout from the Justice Department's efforts to obtain confidential information from a Time reporter: Valuable sources have insisted that they no longer trusted the magazine and that they would no longer cooperate on stories. The chilling effect is obvious. Confidential evidence may be just the tip of the iceberg. We have no way of knowing for certain the number of journalists who have been ordered or requested to reveal confidential sources. We can only speculate as to how many editors and publishers put the brakes on a story for fear that it could land one of their reporters in a spider web spun by the Federal prosecutors that could include prison. If citizens with knowledge of wrongdoing could not or would not come forward to share what they know in confidence with members of the press, serious journalism would cease to exist, in my view. Serious wrongs would remain unexposed. The scandals known as Watergate, the Enron failure, the Abu Ghraib prison photos--none of these would have been known to the public but for good journalists doing their work. That scenario is no longer purely hypothetical. It is, in some respects, already a reality. When journalists are hauled into court by prosecutors and threatened with fines and imprisonment if they don't divulge the sources of their information, we are entering a dangerous territory for a democracy. That is when not only journalists, but ordinary citizens, will fear prosecution simply for exposing wrongdoing. When that happens, the information our citizens need to remain sovereign will be degraded, making it more and more difficult to hold accountable those in power. When the public's right to know is threatened, then I suggest to you that all of the liberties we hold dear are threatened, as well. Again, I thank Senator Specter for working out this compromise, and I emphasize that the issue of national security, which was a very legitimate concern, has been handled by this proposal. The underlying issue is the right of citizens to have access to important information that might otherwise never become available were it not for the ability to have confidential sources share that information and the ability of these journalists to protect the confidentiality of those sources. Thirty-nine States have provisions dealing with the shield law. I think 10 States have regulations regarding the same matter. I think it is long overdue that the Federal Government have a similar piece of legislation to protect the kind of information we seek. I commend my colleagues for their efforts in this regard. I am happy to join them.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kennedy, Reed, Clinton, Sarbanes, Akaka, Lautenberg, Kerry, Landrieu and Menendez to introduce the Student Bill of Rights. This bill would ensure that every child in America has an equal opportunity to receive a good education. The Student Bill of Rights would achieve this goal by providing America's children with the key components of a solid education. These components include highly qualified teachers, challenging curricula, small classes, current textbooks, quality libraries, and up-to-date technology. Currently, Federal law requires that schools within the same district provide comparable educational services. The Student Bill of Rights would extend that basic guarantee of equal opportunity to the State level by requiring comparability of resources across school districts within a State. Over 50 years ago, Brown v. Board of Education struck down segregation in law. Over 50 years later, we know that just because there is no segregation in law does not mean that it does not persist. Today, our education system remains largely separate and unequal. All too often, whether an American child is taught by a high quality teacher, has access to the best courses and instructional materials, goes to school in a new, modern building, and otherwise benefits from educational resources that have been shown to be essential to a quality education still depends on where the child's family can afford to live. In fact, the United States ranks at the bottom among developed countries in the disparity in the quality of schools available to wealthy and low-income children. This gap is simply unacceptable, and it is why the Student Bill of Rights is so important to our children's ability to gain the skills they need to be responsible, participating citizens in our diverse democracy, and to compete and succeed in the global economy. Of course, factors besides resources are also important to academic achievement--supportive parents, motivated peers, and positive role models in the community, just to name a few. But at the same time, we also know that adequate resources are vital to providing students with the opportunity to receive a solid education. This bill is entirely consistent with America's historical commitment to equal opportunity. That is why 42 Senators voted for similar legislation in the 107th Congress. On the other hand, it would be inconsistent with America's principles to tolerate an educational system that provides meaningful educational opportunities for just a select few. The quality of a child's education should not be determined by his or her ZIP code. The Student Bill of Rights will help ensure that each and every child gets a decent education, and in turn, an equal opportunity for a successful future. Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the Student Bill of Rights and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.