Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, it is my understanding that the Senator from New York is going to offer an amendment.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DODD. I will wait until you make the point of order.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will, if I may, take a few minutes in support of the amendment by my colleague from New York. I am a cosponsor of this amendment. As she very graciously pointed out, over a number of years, a number of us have worked on this issue. But my colleague is much too humble. The fact that she has only been in this Chamber a little short of her first term belies her interest in this subject matter, which goes back years. As she pointed out, she was a lawyer working with the Children's Defense Fund. I know our mutual friend, Marion Wright Edelman, has had this issue on the agenda for years and years and years. While the Senator from New York is a relatively new Member of this Chamber, she is not a newcomer to this issue. I am delighted she is taking the lead on this issue this year to highlight the importance of this issue. She made all the important arguments. Again, I think the Senator from New York and I both agree, saying to our friend from Pennsylvania: We don't want you to go anywhere. We like the fact you are the chair. You won't mind if the Senator from New York and I might prefer that Senator Harkin were the chairman of the committee and you were the ranking member of that committee. You will appreciate our desire to be in the majority, not in the minority, on these issues. But we appreciate immensely the deep commitment of the Senator from Pennsylvania on these issues, not just intellectually but passionately as well. And that is understood. But, certainly, as you understand and we understand the situation you are in, you must understand, as well, the position we feel so strongly about; and that is, the people who rely and count on us to come up here and raise these issues to try to see if we can't do a bit better. I know within the Budget Act the restraints are there. But we all know as well that we can make choices here in this Chamber. We can make choices about revenue raising, about different priorities within our overall budget. I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that it is impossible for us to do this. It is not impossible for us to do this. If the will of a majority here exists--or in this case a supermajority to overcome the Budget Act--we can do this. It is a matter of choices we all get asked to make every single day. They are not easy choices--I understand that--from time to time, although I think the case for special education is so profoundly clear that it ought not be that difficult. We all appreciate the position the manager of the bill is in when he offers, as he must, a point of order because what we are suggesting does break the ceiling. But that should not be a restraint on anyone else who has the opportunity to make a choice about whether they think this issue has merit. The Senator from New York has pointed out there has been a number of people over the years--Republicans and Democrats--who have supported increasing funds for special education. The Senator from New York rightly goes back and talks about a not too distant history--this is not ancient history--when millions of our fellow citizens, merely because they were confined to a wheelchair, because they had a physical disability, had a learning disability, were deprived the opportunity to receive an education in our country. It was only 30 years ago we decided it was important we provide an opportunity for every child--every child--to reach his or her potential and that our educational system ought to be able to accommodate those children, and to see to it they have the opportunity to become as independent and as successful as their God-given talents would provide them. That has been a great success in our country. Back not that many years ago, only 20 percent of children with disabilities ever got an education. Imagine that. It is not that long ago. The Senator from New York has pointed out how she met children, when she was doing her work early on, who were in wheelchairs, children who were blind. My oldest sister Carolyn--whom many of my colleagues have met; I know my colleague from New York has met--was born legally blind. She just retired after 41 years of teaching. She holds two masters degrees in early childhood development. She ran and taught in Montessori schools, and taught, in the late 1950s, in the Whitby School in Greenwich, CT, with Nancy Rambusch, for those who follow Montessori and educational issues. But for the financial situation of my family and my parents, who could go out and provide an opportunity for my sister Carolyn who was born in the 1930s, I would hate to think what might have happened to my sister under different economic circumstances. What I also regret, as well, is what those children over those 41 years would have lost from a remarkable human being who taught them. Today, many of these children across our country who have a physical disability, a learning disability, can go out and achieve great success. I know, for instance, a great new airline in the country-- JetBlue, I think it is called--the man who started that company lives in my State of Connecticut. He has nine children. He is dyslexic. Nelson Rockefeller, who presided over this Chamber as Vice President of the United States, who was a former Governor of the State of New York, which my colleague who has offered this amendment represents, was dyslexic. He had a difficult time reading a speech. Yet think of the achievements he reached. Again, economic circumstances gave him opportunities. What we are saying today is we do not want to deprive these families, these individuals, of the opportunity to achieve their potential and to serve our country, not just themselves because we have all benefited as a result of the last 30 years of educational opportunities. My colleague from New York makes a very good point. I have often said if you go back to any community, any county in the United States today and ask them: What could we possibly do to be of help to you?--now, there are unique circumstances. There may be a road or a bridge or a dam or some special project. But I promise you, I don't care whether you go from New Hampshire to Pennsylvania to South Dakota to New York, walk into a county or small town and ask, What are the things we can help out with, and you will hear about No Child Left Behind. That may come first. But I will tell you what is either first or second, unless there is some special need that exists in that community. It is special education, and particularly if you go to rural communities, small towns. I know in my own State, if you go to meet with the first selectman or selectwoman and ask, What is the cost, you may find that you have one or two special needs children whose educational costs distort the local budget. And it can throw their budget all out of whack. What it does, unfortunately, as well, is it sort of singles out these families and children as if somehow they are culpable for creating financial difficulty to their community or their county. We made a promise 30 years ago. We made a promise that we would pick up the cost of 40 percent of the special educational costs. We are now at about 18 percent. What the Senator from New York offers us would get us to a little more than 24 percent, for 1 year, by the way. This is not an amendment that provides the funding in the succeeding years. It would result, without any question, I can tell you, in rural communities in my State, in lowering property taxes, without any question whatsoever. I suspect that would be true in larger communities as well, but certainly in smaller communities, in rural areas in the country, if we could begin to meet our obligation. We are not creating an obligation here. We are merely fulfilling one. We could actually make a huge difference in a tax that is very onerous to most people in the country--rising property taxes. That occurs because of, primarily, education costs, in most areas. It is the education budget that drives the property tax increases more than anything else. So if you are interested in reducing some of the taxes on our people, particularly on one that affects middle-income and lower income people, who could really use the break, then you ought to be supporting the amendment offered by the Senator from New York; not to mention, of course, the advantage and the benefit that our country receives because we are providing an opportunity for children who can make such a difference in our society. The other day I was talking with my colleague, Senator Isakson. I think Senator Isakson made this point. If he didn't then I stand corrected. But I believe it was Senator Isakson. We were talking about special education and the importance of these programs, and I was recalling that not that long ago I went to a program in Connecticut where there is an effort to integrate special needs children with mainstream children. Part of the day these children are also in special classes. Seeing special needs children interacting with their peers was a wonderful thing to see.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to ask a question of my colleague from Iowa, in support of the amendment being offered by the Senator from West Virginia. It was only a few years ago that I offered an amendment, during the authorizing bill, to fully fund title I. That amendment carried with over 70 votes to fully fund title I in this Chamber. It was only a matter of months ago. That was an authorization bill. It was not the appropriations bill. All of us are certainly adults, and we know the authorizing levels do not always meet with the appropriations. But we have gone on record supporting this. I wish to underscore the point the Senator is making and the Senator from West Virginia made; and that is, I hear it. My State, in fact, has filed a lawsuit on the No Child Left Behind Act because of restrictions being required of them. Now, again, similar to the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from West Virginia, I have great respect for this law because it is a civil rights bill, in my view. It says we should no longer tolerate social promotions of children. We ought to be insisting there ought to be accountability at every single level. The essence of the bill Senator Kennedy and others drafted, that we were a part of, I think is sound. I think history will prove it to be such. The great shortcoming is not the failure of the law. The law is sound. It is sensible. It makes sense. The failure is as the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from West Virginia pointed out; and that is, we have not lived up to the commitment we made.

Mr. DODD. We turned around and voted overwhelmingly for that law. President Bush wanted it. The Department of Education wanted it. The Congress wanted it. We said: This is what we will do. Yet month after month, since enactment of that legislation, we have failed to meet that obligation. That is the great tragedy in all of this, not the No Child Left Behind law, but the failure of the Congress and the President to say to the people of our respective States: This is what you must do. And by the way, we will be here to see to it the funding is there to support those efforts. We have gone on record in this body, and we are now denying our own record if we turn down this amendment offered by Senator Byrd. I wish to reinforce the point made by the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we discussed this amendment sometime ago. In the past, I have offered amendments to fully fund Head Start. This amendment does not do that. This amendment adds $153 million specifically to deal with the inflation that will affect the cost of the 19,000 Head Start Programs across the country. There are 900,000 children in Head Start. If this amendment is not adopted, the estimates are that 20,000 to 25,000 children will be dropped from the Head Start Program across our country. We all know that a Head Start child is more likely to finish school, less likely to end up in the juvenile justice system, less likely to be a substance abuser, less likely to become a teenage parent. We know it is not perfect, but after 40 years, Head Start works. This is not to expand the program, but let us not lose the children today who are part of that program. I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to two fellows in my office, Elizabeth Hoffman and Regan Fitzgerald, during consideration of this legislation.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, over the past several weeks, Congress has taken great efforts to address the disruption that Hurricane Katrina, followed by Hurricane Rita, have inflicted on the good people of our gulf coast region. While Congress is acutely aware of the need for funding for food, clothing, shelter and medical care for the evacuees and residents of this region, we are only now becoming aware of some of the longer term needs of these devastated communities. All of the States impacted by these hurricanes, including not just those directly hit by the storms but also the numerous States which have come to the aid of evacuees will be holding Federal elections in just a few short months. The displacement of nearly 1.5 million people raises a somewhat unique continuity of government issue for our democracy: how to ensure that the citizens of these States are able to participate in the upcoming Federal elections next year, as well as in numerous State and local elections between now and then. It is simply not acceptable that a loss of one's home may mean a loss of one's access to the ballot box. And yet, many of these States are facing unknown hurdles in ensuring that their displaced residents can vote in the next Federal election. The Rules Committee, under the very capable leadership of the Chairman, Senator Lott, has already begun meeting with the election officials of these affected States to determine what they will need to ensure that all eligible citizens will be able to participate in the 2006 Federal elections, regardless of the condition of their community or the location of their evacuated citizens. Under the auspices of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, efforts are underway to identify Federal resources and assistance that is already available to the States to replace voting systems, polling places, and to assist in facilitating absentee voting. However, at this point, many of these impacted States simply do not know the extent of the damage to election records or how to reach out to displaced citizens to ensure that they have access to absentee ballots or alternative polling facilities. While we are hopeful that the majority of the needs will be met through existing resources, I remain concerned that these States, and those who have stepped up to the plate to receive evacuees, will face additional expenses in ensuring the right to vote for the citizens of the gulf coast region. The Election Assistance Commission, EAC, is charged with serving as a national clearinghouse and resource of information and procedures with respect to the administration of Federal elections and with distributing over $3 billion in Federal funds to the States to implement the requirements of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, HAVA, of which I was honored to be the primary Senate author. I applaud the efforts of the EAC to spearhead the efforts to identify and respond to the needs of these States in administering our Federal elections next year. However, I remain concerned that without additional resources, these States will face significant hurdles to ensuring that all eligible citizens have an equal opportunity to vote and have their vote counted. While Congress has appropriated over $3 billion to date to implement the requirements of the Help America Vote Act, Congress has underfunded the authorization by over $800 million. At least one of the impacted States has already notified staff that they are short in funding to implement the HAVA requirements and face additional unmet need due to the impact of Hurricane Katrina. While I am hopeful that sufficient other Federal resources will be identified and made available to these States for conducting the Federal elections next year, it will not be acceptable if citizens of the Gulf Coast States are disenfranchised because their States and localities simply do not have the resources to replace destroyed voting systems, provide alternative polling places, print absentee ballots or reconstruct lost voting registration records. As the ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee which has oversight jurisdiction over Federal elections, I intend to ensure that these States, and these citizens, are able to fully participate in the Federal election next year. Our distinguished Chairman, Senator Lott, whose State was in the path of both hurricanes, is keenly aware of this situation and I commend him for his leadership and attention to this issue. I know he shares my concern that as we learn the full extent of this problem, the Committee will act to ensure these communities and citizens can exercise their fundamental right to vote.

Mr. DODD. I thank our Chairman, and my good friend, and commend him for his leadership on this issue. I look forward to working with him to ensure that, no matter the devastation of this natural disaster, all eligible citizens will be able to continue to participate in this democracy through the ballot box.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with my colleague Senator Smith to introduce bipartisan legislation to improve important tax relief to volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders. Congressman John Larson of Connecticut has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives. Seventy-five percent of firefighters and emergency first responders in our country today are volunteers. Statistics show that the number of volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders has declined in past years. Since 1983, the number of volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders has declined anywhere between 5 and 10 percent. Meanwhile, the number of emergency calls made to these volunteer services has increased sharply. Many municipalities across the country, including those within the State of Connecticut, offer stipends and property tax abatements to volunteer firefighters, search and rescue personnel, emergency medical technicians, paramedics and ambulance drivers. These incentives have helped local fire departments and emergency first responder services recruit and retain volunteers. In 2002, the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, ruled that property tax abatements to volunteers should be treated as wages and income. This ruling significantly diminished the net value of tax abatements for volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders. The legislation that Senator Smith and I are introducing amends the Internal Revenue Code to exclude property tax abatements and stipends for volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders from the definition of income and wages. This bill would allow State and municipal governments to continue providing these incentives to their volunteer fighters and emergency first responders without any adverse federal tax implications. I have long believed that our country should do more to encourage Americans to volunteer in their communities. A modest tax break is not a large repayment for the great services that volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders provide to our communities. They literally risk their lives daily for others. The least we can do is allow States and municipalities to offer these modest incentives to serve. The current IRS rule--while on one level understandable--nevertheless complicates the good intentions and creative efforts of many states and municipalities. If our State and municipal governments are willing to forgo their local tax revenues in order to ensure that they have enough volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders to protect their communities, then our country should in my view support those State and local efforts. In so doing, our country will be acting to encourage and award volunteers. I hope that our colleagues will join us in supporting this bipartisan legislation so that our national government can join with State and local governments to design and implement recruiting and retention initiatives that benefit not only volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders, but also the communities they protect. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with my colleague Senator Smith to introduce bipartisan legislation to improve important tax relief to volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders. Congressman John Larson of Connecticut has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives. Seventy-five percent of firefighters and emergency first responders in our country today are volunteers. Statistics show that the number of volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders has declined in past years. Since 1983, the number of volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders has declined anywhere between 5 and 10 percent. Meanwhile, the number of emergency calls made to these volunteer services has increased sharply. Many municipalities across the country, including those within the State of Connecticut, offer stipends and property tax abatements to volunteer firefighters, search and rescue personnel, emergency medical technicians, paramedics and ambulance drivers. These incentives have helped local fire departments and emergency first responder services recruit and retain volunteers. In 2002, the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, ruled that property tax abatements to volunteers should be treated as wages and income. This ruling significantly diminished the net value of tax abatements for volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders. The legislation that Senator Smith and I are introducing amends the Internal Revenue Code to exclude property tax abatements and stipends for volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders from the definition of income and wages. This bill would allow State and municipal governments to continue providing these incentives to their volunteer fighters and emergency first responders without any adverse federal tax implications. I have long believed that our country should do more to encourage Americans to volunteer in their communities. A modest tax break is not a large repayment for the great services that volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders provide to our communities. They literally risk their lives daily for others. The least we can do is allow States and municipalities to offer these modest incentives to serve. The current IRS rule--while on one level understandable--nevertheless complicates the good intentions and creative efforts of many states and municipalities. If our State and municipal governments are willing to forgo their local tax revenues in order to ensure that they have enough volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders to protect their communities, then our country should in my view support those State and local efforts. In so doing, our country will be acting to encourage and award volunteers. I hope that our colleagues will join us in supporting this bipartisan legislation so that our national government can join with State and local governments to design and implement recruiting and retention initiatives that benefit not only volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders, but also the communities they protect. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr President, I speak on the subject of full funding for the payments to State governments in order to comply with the requirements mandated on January 1, 2006, under the Help America Vote Act of 2002, HAVA. On October 16, 2002, over 3 years ago, the Senate overwhelmingly adopted the conference report for this bipartisan landmark legislation by a vote of 98-2. The House of Representatives adopted the conference report by a vote of 357-48 on October 10, 2002. President Bush signed HAVA into law on Oct. 29, 2002. At the White House signing ceremony, surrounded by a bipartisan group of congressional members, President Bush said in a brief speech: When problems arise in the administration of elections, we have a responsibility to fix them. . . . Every registered voter deserves to have confidence that the system is fair and elections are honest, that every vote is recorded and that the rules are consistently applied. The legislation I sign today will add to the nation's confidence. I agree with the President. We must follow the American tradition of fixing problems that occur in our national elections system. HAVA began a new era in election law--one where the Federal Government works with State and local governments, in conjunction with civil rights, voting rights and disability organizations, to conduct fair, free and transparent elections in our Nation. HAVA is our colective promise to the American people to fix the problems in our Federal elections. After the 2000 November elections, Americans recognized that real election reform changes must be made to ensure the integrity and security of our democracy. Congress made a commitment to the States, and to the voters of this Nation, that we would be a full partner in the conduct of Federal elections. Congress accomplished much with the passage of HAVA; but two years later in the November 2004 general election, some voters faced both old barriers to ballot access that HAVA promised to remove and new ones. We can do better and we must do better. Full funding of HAVA will ensure America does better in conducting Federal elections by ensuring both ballot access and ballot integrity. Building democracy and freedom for every American must begin at home in the United States. In the wake of the October 15, 2005 province-by- province election on the Constitution in Iraq, it is critical that Americans take stock of our own decentralized elections systems. In light of the continuing barriers and irregularities that Americans faced at polling places across this Nation in 2004, we cannot fail to fully fund HAVA to fix these problems. Our ability to successfully do so goes directly to ensuring the integrity of elections and ensuring the confidence of the American people in the final results of those elections. America's ability to promote free societies abroad is inextricably linked to our ability to expand and secure transparent elections at home. At a time when we are spending billions of dollars to ensure the spread of democracy across the globe, we must ensure the primary right to vote for all eligible voters, regardless of race, ethnicity, age, disability, or resources. For the first time in our Nation's history, Congress acknowledged the responsibility of the Federal Government to provide leadership and funding to States and local governments in the administration of Federal elections. First, Congress codified the Federal role in HAVA by entering into a partnership with States to restore the public's confidence in the final results of Federal elections and to ensure that every eligible American had an equal opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted. Next, Congress required States to conduct Federal elections according to minimum Federal requirements for voting system standards, provisional balloting and Statewide voter registration lists, including new requirements to prevent voter fraud. Finally, Congress refused to impose unfunded mandate on States and authorize nearly $4 billion in payments to States over 3 fiscal years to implememt the HAVA requirements and disability access grants and services. January 1, 2006, is the effective date for two of the most important Federal requirements mandated by HAVA: the voluntary voting system standards and the Statewide computerized voter registration list. Both requirements are expected to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat by providing an equal opportunity for every eligible voter to cast a vote and have that vote counted, as well as providing important antifraud requirements to protect and preserve the integrity of our decentralized elections systems. In order to comply with HAVA, States must timely implement both requirements, which are expected to cost millions in both Federal dollars for the 95 percent portion and State dollars for the 5 percent portion of the expenditures. To date, the President's budget, for the second year in a row, while providing millions in funding for democratic elections in foreign countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, assumes no funding for requirements or disability access payments to the States. Congress also failed to fully fund HAVA 2 years in a row. HAVA is underfunded by a total of $822 million. In addition to the $600 million authorized in fiscal year 2005, but not appropriated Congress underfunded HAVA by $222 million over the last 3 fiscal years, from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2005. As a result, HAVA currently has a total funding shortfall of $822 million in federal funds, $727 million for election administration requirements and $95 million for disability grant payments. The absence of the $727 million for requirements payments will likely impede the Statewide implementation of the two most critical election reforms, the voting system standards and the Statewide voter registration lists in time for the 2006 congressional elections. No civil right is more fundamental to the vitality and endurance of a democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people, than the people's right to vote. HAVA has been acknowledged as the ``first civil rights law of the 21st century.'' Full funding of HAVA enjoys the support of a broad coalition of organizations representing the civil rights communities, voting rights groups, disabilities groups, and State and local governments, spearheaded by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the National Association of Secretaries of State. I am grateful to LCCR and NASS for their consistent leadership in ensuring that Congress fulfills our commitment to fully fund the HAVA reforms. I applaud the nonpartisan work of the LCCR/NASS Coalition and look forward to continuing to work with them to see this commitment come to fruition. The organizations have submitted a letter, dated October 20, 2005, in support of full funding in the amount of $727 million for HAVA implementation in fiscal year 2006. The letter, and I quote, states that: The states and localities need the remaining authorized funding to implement the requirements of HAVA and the federal EAC needs to be fully funded to carry out its responsibilities as well. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. DODD. If we fail to honor commitment now and only appropriate partial funding, we may jeopardize the ability of the States to implement these historic and comprehensive election reforms. We will also miss an opportunity to ensure the integrity and security of Federal elections and the confidence of the American people in the final results of those elections. While I will not offer an amendment today to provide for this additional funding, I am serving notice that as the States proceed to complete implementation of the HAVA requirements, I will continue to monitor this situation and as the needs of the States become more clear, I will come back to my colleagues for prompt action to ensure that the States do not face an unfunded mandate. Exhibit 1 Make Election Reform a Reality--Fully Fund the Help America Vote Act October 20, 2005. Dear Senators: We, the undersigned organizations, urge you to support full funding for the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) and include $727 million in the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006. This figure represents the authorized HAVA funds for federal requirements that remain unappropriated. HAVA, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, includes an important list of reforms that states must implement for federal elections. State and local governments have been working on such reforms as improving disability access to polling places, updating voting equipment, implementing new provisional balloting procedures, developing and implementing a new statewide voter registration database system, training poll workers and educating voters on new procedures and new equipment. To help state and local governments pay for these reforms, HAVA authorized $3.9 billion over three fiscal years. To date, Congress has generously appropriated $3 billion between FY03 and FY04. Unfortunately, while HAVA authorized funding for states for FY05, none was appropriated. The states and localities need the remaining authorized funding to implement the requirements of HAVA, and the federal EAC needs to be fully funded to carry out its responsibilities as well. States and localities are laboring to implement the requirements of HAVA based on a federal commitment that HAVA would not be an unfunded mandate. State officials have incorporated the federal amounts Congress promised when developing their HAVA implementation budgets and plans. Without the full federal funding, state and local governments will encounter serious fiscal shortfalls and will not be able to afford complete implementation of important HAVA mandates. According to a state survey, lack of federal funding for HAVA implementation will result in many states scaling back their voter and poll worker education initiatives and on voting equipment purchase plans, both of which are vital components to making every vote count in America. We are thankful that you have seen the importance of funding the work of the Election Assistance Commission in FY06. States, localities and civic organizations look forward to the work products from the EAC that will aid them in their implementation of HAVA i.e., the voting system standards, the statewide database guidance, and the studies on provisional voting, voter education, poll worker training, and voter fraud and voter intimidation. We thank you for your support of funding for the Help America Vote Act, and we look forward to working with you on this critical issue. Should you have any questions, please contact Leslie Reynolds of the National Association of Secretaries of State or Rob Randhava of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, or any of the individual organizations listed below. Sincerely, Organizations Representing State and Local Election Officials Council of State Governments Election Center International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials and Treasurers National Association of Counties National Association of County Recorders, Election Officials and Clerks National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund National Association of Secretaries of State National Conference of State Legislatures Civil and Disability Rights Organizations Alliance for Retired Americans American Association of People with Disabilities American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial Organizations Americans for Democratic Action APIA Vote Asian American Justice Center Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund Common Cause FairVote--The Center for Voting and Democracy Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Leadership Conference on Civil Rights League of Women Voters of the United States Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund National Association for the Advancement of Colored People National Council of La Raza National Disability Rights Network National Federation of the Blind National Voting Rights Institute Project Vote The Arc of the United States United Cerebral Palsy United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries USAction

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I cannot underscore enough what my colleagues have already stated--that this is a one-time, emergency aid program. All of the authors of the bill have agreed that next school year, in terms of assistance to nonpublic schools, we will go back to the way things are done today. We are reaching out to all of the students affected by Katrina here, no matter what type of school they attend, because it makes sense under these extraordinary conditions, because it gets kids back on their feet as quickly as possible. In no way is this bill meant to undermine or amend current law or set any type of precedent for future legislation.

Mr. DODD. Of course.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I support the Hurricane Katrina Elementary and Secondary Education Recovery Act introduced by myself, Senator Enzi, Senator Kennedy and Senator Alexander. This bill will provide much needed relief to the children, families and schools devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Hundreds of thousand of children have been displaced by this disaster. Schools across the country are taking students in offering them some sense of normalcy in an otherwise abnormal situation. We have heard stories of schools all over the country that have opened their doors to new students, including schools in Connecticut. These collective examples point to our education system as an integral part of our communities. Better than any other entity, schools know that children need a safe place to develop and learn in the wake of disaster. Among the provisions today, is one that will provide financial assistance for displaced students regardless of where they go to school. Public and nonpublic schools will receive assistance that can be used to pay for additional personnel, curricular materials, portable classrooms and even health and mental health services as long as the services provided are secular and neutral in nature and are not used for religious instruction, indoctrination or worship. This is not a voucher bill. Through a number of mechanisms, this bill maintains public control of public dollars. This bill prohibits Federal dollars from going to religious instruction. And, this bill preserves civil rights protections. Most important, this bill is temporary in nature. The bill provides temporary emergency impact aid for displaced students. It is temporary in that it sunsets at the end of the current school year, emergency in that it is necessary because of the extraordinary circumstances that we have been presented with, and impact aid as it is assistance for those schools that have been impacted as thousands of children and their families have left the devastated areas. I cannot underscore this enongh--the provisions in this bill are a departure from Federal law but they are a temporary departure in light of extraordinary events. Next school year, in terms of assistance to nonpublic schools, we will go back to the ways things are. We are reaching out to all students here, today, because it makes sense, because it gets kids back on their feet as quickly as possible. We are not changing the generic laws. As we explicitly state in the bill, the level of assistance we are providing to nonpublic schools is being authorized solely because of the unprecedented nature of the crisis, the massive dislocation of students, and the short duration of the assistance.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, may I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow the Senator from Illinois? I ask unanimous consent that I can speak for 7 or 8 minutes following the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking our colleague from Massachusetts for, once again, offering this amendment. As he has pointed out already, this is a pared-down version of what was offered before. It is hard to comprehend how anyone, let alone a family can make ends meet on $5.15 an hour. How do you pay for housing, food, clothes and other staples? I have often said--and it has been repeated by others--the best social program ever created was not by an act of Congress. It was not created by a regulation or rule. The best social program ever created was a job. Think of all the benefits, the intangibles, that accrue as a result of having a good-paying job. Here we are saying to people: Work hard and make only $5.15 per hour. You cannot even begin to provide for the basic needs of your own family. What bothers me a great deal is how things have changed here in the Senate. In my 24 years in the Senate, I recall with great vividness the real discussions we had. I won't bore my colleagues going back to the Roosevelt administration, although it is not insignificant to talk about it. But just in more recent years, the minimum wage battles were not battles. They were resolved in a bipartisan way. My colleague from Massachusetts can tell you chapter and verse how it was done. What has happened to us? What is wrong with this Congress, in these days, that we are incapable of raising the minimum wage to meet even the level of inflation for poor people in this country? Increasing the minimum wage was never a divisive battle. That was done by almost unanimous consent. We would work it out, come up with an amount that we could afford that made sense for people, and enact it. These are familiar examples, as shown on this chart, going back to the Roosevelt administration, when the minimum wage was enacted, going through the Clinton administration, where we were actually able to get those kinds of agreements between Republicans and Democrats. And here we are now, for the last 5 years, still battling over whether we can get a modest increase in the minimum wage. I am really stunned by it. This increase of $1.10, gets you to $6.25. It provides for some additional groceries and rent, 1 year of childcare. That would be an additional $2,288 if we adopted the Kennedy amendment. There are so many examples that can be cited about what this means and what people are going through. The Senator from New York raised this earlier. Senator Kennedy has, as well. This is that chart that shows where the minimum wage is. As shown here, this is the poverty line. The black line is the poverty line. We have been without these increases in the minimum wage. People are literally staggering at the bottom with a little more than $12,000 a year. Here is the poverty line. How do you explain to people, good people, what we are doing in this Congress when we cannot even get this number up even close to the poverty line for people to make ends meet? What has happened? This never was a debate that caused great friction--to talk about making sure people out there working hard would be able to provide for their family. Now, we would turn around and say: You are not even going to get the kind of level of support that makes it possible to make ends meet. I would hope that, No. 1, we would adopt this amendment. Let's get back to the days when we were able to come to agreement on something that would take people who are struggling and give them a chance to make ends meet. I have one more chart that highlights the importance of all of this. Consider what is going to happen as heating oil prices go up by more than 30 percent. We are talking about the minimum wage actually going down in excess of 8 percent in terms of its ability to help people make ends meet. We have the Bush economic plan that is going to have rising energy costs with a declining minimum wage. What in the world do we think people are going to do? How are they going to make ends meet? How does that get done? What happened to compassionate conservatism? What happened to the days of the first Bush administration, and the Reagan administration as well, when we were able to come to agreement about the minimum wage?

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. In response, the Senator makes a very good point. We have a tendency to think about raising the minimum wage as being a cost to society. What the Senator from Massachusetts is pointing out is quite the contrary. Raising the minimum wage is an overall benefit. In fact, the Senator is absolutely correct. In Great Britain, in fact, in no small measure because they have actually raised the minimum wage, the economy of that nation has improved. In the years since we have not increased the minimum wage in this country, we have watched millions more of our fellow citizens fall into poverty. There is a direct correlation. We now have some 13 million children in America living in poverty. What is the 21st century going to offer if we are raising a generation of so many of our children living in poverty? Overall, 37 million Americans are living below the poverty level. In fact, more than 5 million Americans have fallen into poverty in the last 5 years. In Great Britain, as the Senator points out, as a result of increasing the minimum wage, people have actually been lifted out of poverty and the economy of their country has improved. What the Senator from Massachusetts is offering today is substantially less than proposals he made earlier. This increase would be to $6.25, if we can get it approved. We ought to come together around this. What a great day it would be in America for the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, to support this modest increase in the minimum wage. With all due respect to my good friend from Wyoming, his amendment is some 80 pages long. I suggest to my colleagues, in the hour you have left before we vote, that you read this amendment carefully. I think you will be stunned to discover the impact of this amendment. I ask my friend from Massachusetts, on page 17 of the Enzi amendment, correct me if I am wrong, as I read line 7, subsection 5 of this amendment, it says: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no State may impose a civil penalty on a small business concern, in the case of a first-time violation by the small business concern of a requirement regarding collection of information under Federal law, in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of this subsection. That is a license, in my view, to go off and do anything, notwithstanding any other provision of law. It could wipe out all other Federal laws. Do my colleagues know which laws are being eliminated, notwithstanding any other provision of law? You could lie and cheat and steal. Am I reading this correctly?

Mr. DODD. Again, we are looking at an 80 page amendment. This is only one provision that I happened to read quickly. Do my colleagues know what they are voting for? It literally could wipe out all the Federal laws that a State would have to protect its people. That is ridiculous. With all due respect, this amendment ought to be defeated. I know very little time remains. I urge my colleagues to consider this modest request to increase the minimum wage and reject the Enzi amendment. That amendment goes beyond raising the minimum wage and requires far more work than we can do in a 1-hour debate. Its implications may only be discovered weeks or months from now. This ought to be rejected if for no other reason than I don't think we even know all that is in it. I urge adoption of the Kennedy amendment and the rejection of the Enzi amendment. I yield the floor.