Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. If he would yield, this sentence in this letter suggests that this Senator--because I am the one who asked the question--crossed the line. Let me read my whole question.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for doing so. Let me preface my question to him by telling him how much--as I said to Senator Rockefeller, I have great admiration and respect for the work the chairman and the ranking member do.

Mr. DODD. I am the only one who asked the question that day.

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield before he leaves the floor?

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield for just one additional point. I agree with respect to General Hayden as well. I noted because I watched the hearing--our colleague from Michigan is here and participated in the hearing--when General Hayden, in his confirmation hearing, was before the Armed Services Committee, there was a rather extensive discussion with General Hayden about the whole issue of intercepts. General Hayden was very forthcoming in that discussion about it. I have great respect for him as well. About the Web site here, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Web page for the National Security Agency, the page headed, ``Signals Intelligence.''

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague and I appreciate again his comments. I will be very brief in my comments this afternoon. I notice there are other Members here. I saw my friend from Virginia, Senator Allen, in the Chamber. Senator Coleman of Minnesota has already spoken, but he may want to speak. I think Senator Levin of Michigan may be coming over shortly. I will reserve for tomorrow further discussion of the nominee himself and the reasons for my objection for this nomination going forward, but, rather, I will focus in these brief minutes, if I may, on where we are and the procedural situation in which we find ourselves. I say to my colleagues it is awkward. We have just come through a rather contentious period in the history of the Senate over the last number of days dealing with how we deal with executive branch nominees. It would not have been my choice to have this matter come up in the midst of all this or in the wake of all of this. I would have preferred we had dealt with judicial nominations, which I thought was the primary rationale for the crisis we ran into over the extended debate rule. However, it is clearly the choice and the right of the majority, in my view, to set the agenda. As such, they have set the agenda to bring Mr. Bolton's nomination up before the Senate rather than additional judicial nominations before the Memorial Day recess. I have been asked and objected to a unanimous consent request that would have allowed for an up-and-down vote on Mr. Bolton at some point tomorrow afternoon. I have said to the majority leader and the minority leader, it is not my intention at all to filibuster this nomination. That is not what I want to have occur at all. I have suggested we ask the administration, once again, would they be forthcoming and give us this information about the National Security Agency intercepts to go just to Senator Rockefeller, Senator Roberts, Senator Lugar, and Senator Biden for review to determine what, if any, information in those 10 intercepts involving 19 names of American citizens that might have some relevancy to the nomination of Mr. Bolton. That request has been rejected since April 11, basically, and there have been numerous requests. The second request involves a request that Senator Biden has expressed a strong interest in detailed information regarding testimony of the weapons of mass destruction in Syria that was to be the subject of congressional testimony by Mr. Bolton. That information is also being sought. I commend and thank the majority leader, by the way. Earlier today in my conversations with him, I expressed that I had no desire to filibuster this nomination but would he transmit the request--I am not suggesting he support the request--but would he transmit the request to the appropriate personnel at the State Department or the White House regarding this information. Graciously, the majority leader has said he would do so, and I presume he has. No cloture motion has yet been filed, but it is my understanding, because it is the way I framed the request, that I would not insist upon a normal period of time to expire before a cloture motion could be invoked, or could be raised, nor would I insist that there be an adequate amount of time after the cloture motion, if it were invoked, be required, the 30 hours of debate; but, rather, we would truncate all of that some time tomorrow afternoon to give everyone an exact time to express themselves on either the motion to invoke cloture or on the nomination itself. If we are unable to get this data, information, which has been requested now for 6 weeks, I will urge my colleagues not to invoke cloture. I would do so most reluctantly, and I urge my colleagues, regardless of feelings about the nominee. This is what I want to address. We all have had strong views on Mr. Bolton. I see my friend from Virginia. He has been eloquent in his defense of Mr. Bolton, as has my friend from Minnesota. I listened to the remarkable speech given by our colleagues: Senator Voinovich of Ohio, Senator Biden, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Rockefeller, and others. There are strong feelings about this nomination. But put aside your strong feelings about the nominee and think for a minute about what we are asking for as an institution; that is, data that pertains to this nomination. I noted with some interest earlier today that one of the newspapers that covers Capitol Hill reported that a House Appropriations Committee, obviously under the control of the Republicans--the majority--was expressing a similar problem in getting information out of the administration on matters they thought were important. I do not think this desire to deprive the committees of information on Mr. Bolton is unique. I believe it is a pattern that we, as Members of this coequal branch of Government, must defend ourselves on, that if the administration--this administration or any administration--believes they can successfully deprive legitimate requests for information pertaining to a matter that is before us, particularly one that invokes as much debate as this nomination has, then we all suffer. Whether you are for Mr. Bolton or against Mr. Bolton is not the point. The point is, we ought to have a right to have information given to us, under controlled circumstances--not to the availability of every Member under every circumstance but we have set up mechanisms which allow us to have information to determine its relevancy to something such as this. Consider, if you will--I am speaking hypothetically now, obviously-- that the administration deprives us of this information, the Senate invokes cloture, and there is then a vote to confirm Mr. Bolton and in a matter of days or weeks we discover that the very information requested is so damming that every Member of this body would have been against the nomination had they known the information at the time of the vote. There is the possibility of that, I would suggest to my colleagues, or I would not have requested the information. How would we feel institutionally at that point if we did not stand up for ourselves as Senators in insisting that this administration--or any administration when there was a legitimate request for information pertaining to a nomination such as this--ought to be forthcoming, and we ought not to have to go through the parliamentary procedures and debates and invoking various tactics in order to put pressure, in order to get this information? It seems to me that ought to be forthcoming. For those reasons, I am grateful to the majority leader for transmitting the request. I have also said, just to complete this, that if, in fact, cloture is invoked, that then I am prepared to vote immediately thereafter on the Bolton nomination. To make my point, I am not anxious for an extended debate or filibuster beyond cloture. Obviously, if cloture is not invoked, then my assumption would be the matter would go over until after the Memorial Day recess, in which case we might have some additional time to solicit the information we are seeking. My preference would be we get the information. We still have time. It is only 5:30 in the evening tonight. If the administration would say: Listen, we can give you this information--even if we do not get it until tomorrow morning, there ought to be adequate enough time, from tomorrow morning to the afternoon, by the appropriate committees to go over the unredacted versions of this--by the way, not crossing out the names of the very people we want to know--who they are--in addition to the rationale for the request, so we can make a determination as to whether those intercepts, and the requests of them, have pertained to Mr. Bolton's determination to punish certain people in the intelligence branch of the State Department because of their analysis that Mr. Bolton had some difficulty with. Also, of course, there is the request that Senator Biden is calling upon; that is, whether there was some effort here to cook up the books regarding the weapons of mass destruction or the allegation of weapons of mass destruction in Syria. That is not going to be that hard. It could be done in a matter of hours, and we could then vote on Mr. Bolton's nomination by tomorrow afternoon, up or down, one way or the other. I would hope my colleagues would join in this effort. If we tell the administration as a body that we have a right to this information, I would wage anything to my colleagues that the administration would be forthcoming with it. It is because they believe there are more than 40 Senators here who will vote to invoke cloture that they will not provide the information. The minute they think we might insist upon seeing it, I think the information will be forthcoming. There are those who have told me, by the way, as a general matter that while this was an extraordinary request in some sense, in others it may not have been an extraordinary request. I am thinking about Mr. Bolton's request now. So there may very well be there is nothing in these requests that should cause any of us any concern. It may be true, as well, regarding the Syria allegations. If that is the case, then there is nothing to fear by any of this to bring it up. But in the meantime, institutionally, in my view, as Senators representing a coequal branch of Government, when there is a legitimate request for information and an appropriate and proper means by which we receive and handle that information, it ought to be forthcoming. When we fail to insist upon that, in any administration, we weaken the ability of this place to do its job. That is really what is at stake in the debate here more than anything else at this moment. Now, there will, obviously, be further debate about Mr. Bolton. We all know that. We have been through it. Those of us who serve on this committee have had hours of debate on this issue. I suspect my friends from Virginia and Minnesota could quote my remarks about Mr. Bolton, as I could theirs. We have listened to each other for countless hours about this issue. Our colleagues will soon get the benefit of these remarks as we repeat them again in the next 24 hours or so. That is not the issue tonight for this Senator. The issue for this Senator tonight is, does the Senate, as a body, when there is a nomination before it--when there is critical information that serious Members of this body believe is pertinent to the debate before us-- should we have the ability under controlled circumstances to access that information? If my colleagues believe the answer is no and the administration is not forthcoming, then you ought to invoke cloture. If you believe we ought to have a right to this information, even though you support the nominee, as a matter of principle, as U.S. Senators charged under the Constitution to be responsible for the confirmation of high-level Federal employees and nominees, then it seems to me our answer, despite our views about the nominee, ought to be yes and to say with one voice: We support the nominee--if we do--but, Mr. President, in your administration, it is appropriate that you be forthcoming on the request. There is the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the ranking member, and there is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and the ranking Democrat--four Senators. For them to get the unredacted versions of these intercepts and the information regarding Syria is not some breach of intelligence. Remember, Mr. Bolton and his staff had access to this information. They could read those names. They know what is in it. Does some Under Secretary of State have more rights than the Senator from Virginia or the Senator from Minnesota or the Senator from Connecticut or the Senator from Kansas? I don't think so.

Mr. DODD. It is a very difficult committee and I respect immensely my colleagues' efforts there. I note in my friend's letter which he has provided and read in detail to us, there was a reference--and to be quite candid, I think I am the Senator the Senator is referencing here because I am the Senator who raised the question during the Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing of Mr. Bolton. Here my colleague says, and I am quoting now from page 4, the last paragraph of the Senator's letter to Senator Lugar, and I am getting down near the end of it, maybe the last sentence of that paragraph: It is for this reason that I was a bit surprised and dismayed when a member of your committee--speaking of this Senator-- broached this issue in the course of your public confirmation hearings. Normally intelligence sources and methods are discussed only in closed session. I will ask unanimous consent that the transcript of the question I raised to Mr. Bolton at that particular time be printed in the Record. The question was basically a very simple one. The question was: I want to know whether you requested to see NSA information about other American officials? That is the question. There was no reference to sources and methods. A simple question: Did you request to see this information, yes or no? And he went on to answer the question. Now, I ask the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, is that an inappropriate question to ask of a nominee? It was a simple question: I want to know whether you requested to see NSA information about any other American officials? Mr. Bolton's answer is: Yes, on a number of occasions I can think of, and he goes on to talk about it. My point of your letter is, there is a discussion that this Senator was acting inappropriately because I was seeking methods and sources. The only question I asked of Mr. Bolton in that public hearing was: Did you make such a request? Does my colleague believe I was violating some procedures regarding the gathering of intelligence by asking that simple question?

Mr. DODD. That was my second question. Was that available to the ranking member and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wanted to take a second to say to my friend and colleague from Ohio, I have been through a lot of this debate over the last several weeks and months. A lot of things are going on today, but I hope my colleagues and others--if they have not had a chance to listen to my colleague from Ohio--will read his comments. They are heartfelt. I know the feeling. I remember several occasions, but there was a time when I was one of two Democrats to support John Tower many years ago, when he was being considered for the nomination as Secretary of Defense. I supported John Ashcroft to be Attorney General from the previous administration. I know when you are being different and standing up and going against the tide from people on your own side, it can be a lonely moment. I know what it feels like to be there. If you do it out of conviction and belief and because of how important these issues are, then I think all of us, regardless of where you come out on the issue, appreciate the courage and the determination of a Member who does it. I am comfortable with my colleagues' remarks, with his position. As I told him the other day, I have been here a long time now--24 years in the Senate--and there are moments like this when I am deeply proud to serve with my colleagues. George Voinovich and I don't agree on a lot of issues. We are of different political persuasions and parties. But my respect for him as a Member of this body is tremendous. Whether you agree with George Voinovich or not, this is a Senator.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will conclude just by saying I would hope my colleagues would consider this, and rather than get to the point tomorrow night of having to invoke cloture, would they not even quietly ask the administration to be forthcoming? We do not need to go through this. We could have a vote on Mr. Bolton up or down tomorrow afternoon, one way or the other, and avoid this precedent-setting circumstance where legitimate information is not forthcoming. That is the point I wanted to make this evening. I thank the Chair and thank my colleagues.

Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD. Let me thank my colleague from West Virginia who holds the very difficult position, along with Senator Roberts, of being the ranking member and chairman, respectively, of the Intelligence Committee. It is a very difficult job. For those who have served some time, we appreciate immensely the tremendous difficulty of trying to manage and handle the information that comes their way. I am particularly grateful to my colleague for his comments here today regarding the issue of the intelligence analysts and the handling of very delicate information. As my colleague from West Virginia knows, and I state this in the form of a question, Senator Biden, obviously, and Senator Lugar, going back to April 11, have requested information regarding the intercepts that the Senator from West Virginia has just described, along with other information from the State Department regarding testimony that Mr. Bolton was to give before a House committee dealing with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We have been unable the last number of weeks to get the necessary information from the administration regarding these allegations. As such, we are asking the administration today if they would not be forthcoming with that information, to give the chairman and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee unredacted versions of these intercepts, along with the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee--not all members of the committee, not all Members of the Senate. I believe this is the normal operating procedure when matters like this arise, that requests are made of the administration for information and they go to selected, designated members to review, to determine whether there is something that as Members of this body we ought to be aware of in the consideration--relevant information in the consideration of a nomination. My question is, Is this an inappropriate request from the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Indiana, to get unredacted versions, to go to the Intelligence Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee for them to be able to review, to determine whether they would be relevant to this nomination?

Mr. DODD. Let me further ask my colleague, if I may, as I understand it, when a policymaker requests of the National Security Administration the raw data on an intercept, there must be a written explanation for why the policy center or policymaker is seeking that information; is that not correct?

Mr. DODD. I appreciate the Senator's comments. I ask unanimous consent that entire paragraph I quoted from the chairman be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. I agree with my colleague.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I raise this point. I appreciate his point. Obviously, there is a disagreement between the ranking member and chairman, unfortunately, which is not a healthy thing to see coming out of the Intelligence Committee. The point I am trying to make here is, with all due respect to the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the ranking member, it was, in fact, the very names involved which could be the very names we are talking about that have been redacted from the document that would be terribly revealing. If, for instance, there is the name--we have called him ``Mr. Smith'' to protect his identity at the CIA. If there is overwhelming evidence that Mr. Bolton tried to have ``Mr. Smith'' dismissed as an intelligence analyst, and if one of the names being sought by Mr. Bolton was Mr. Smith, it seems that ought to send red flags up to everybody. Why? It is Mr. Bolton requesting to know who Mr. Smith was and what he said, an individual he was trying to have dismissed from the CIA. We don't know whether Mr. Smith's name is on there because the name was redacted. The chairman and ranking member cannot read that name. Without knowing the name of the individual, you cannot get to the point. Obviously, the people at the State Department--it is the same thing. Without knowing the names, without the identities, I don't know how you can draw the conclusion that it wasn't relevant. That is my point.

Mr. DODD. I am the only one who asked the question of Mr. Bolton. I asked the question in this way: I want to read the question because I want to make sure I do not overstep a line here, and then I asked the question: Did you . . . My concern is that there is a suggestion, as the one who asked the question, that I had somehow--and I do not disagree with my colleague, by the way.

Mr. DODD. It is on public document and goes on at some length. I am not sure, my colleague may want to look at this. Maybe the agencies might be more careful about what it says here as well. The point all along here is the simple question whether access to these records will be granted to the appropriate Members here in the Senate. I appreciate immensely what my colleague said here today. He's a remarkable Senator who does a terrific job, and I thank him for engaging with me a bit in this colloquy, but I was concerned when I saw that line as somehow being singled out about raising the question about whether or not Mr. Bolton made a request. That is all I asked that day. I knew it was an important matter, and it ought to be dealt with not in a public setting, that that ought to be done behind closed doors with the Intelligence Committee to go into further detail about what actually went on. That is why I tried to word it very cautiously and caution myself not to go over a line in asking the question.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Cochran, Levin, Kennedy and Akaka to introduce The International and Foreign Language Studies Act of 2005. In recent years, foreign language needs have significantly increased throughout the Federal Government due to the presence of a wider range of security threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the globalization of the U.S. economy. Likewise, American business increasingly needs internationally experienced employees to compete in the global economy and to manage a culturally diverse workforce. Currently, the U.S. government requires 34,000 employees with foreign language skills across 70 Federal agencies. These agencies have stated over the last few years, that translator and interpreter shortfalls have adversely affected agency operations and hindered U.S. military, law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic efforts. Despite our growing needs, the number of undergraduate foreign language degrees conferred is only one percent of all degrees. Only one third of undergraduates report that they are taking foreign language courses and only 11 percent report that they have studied abroad. At a time when our security needs are more important than ever, at a time when our economy demands that we enter new markets, and at a time when the world requires us to engage in diplomacy in more thoughtful and considered ways, it is extremely important that we have at our disposal a multilingual, multicultural, internationally experienced workforce. The Dodd-Cochran International and Foreign Language Studies Act attempts to do this in a number of ways. The Dodd-Cochran International and Foreign Language Studies Act will increase undergraduate study abroad as a means to enhance foreign language proficiency and deepen cultural knowledge. The bill will reinstate undergraduate eligibility for Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships. The bill will encourage the Department of Education to engage in the collection, analysis and dissemination of data on international education and foreign language needs so that we know and understand exactly what our needs in this area are. Within the Institute for International and Public Policy, the bill provides scholarships and creates an ``expert track'' for doctoral students in critical areas, disciplines and languages. And, most importantly, the Dodd-Cochran bill will demonstrate our nation's commitment to increasing the foreign language proficiency and international expertise of our citizens by increasing the amount appropriated to international education, including international business education, to allow for more opportunities for more students. The Higher Education Act authorizes the Federal Government's major activities as they relate to financial assistance for students attending colleges and universities. It provides aid to institutions of higher education, services to help students complete high school and enter and succeed in postsecondary education, and mechanisms to improve the training of our emerging workforce. This bill will help fulfill that mission. Foreign language skills and international study are vital to secure the future economic welfare of the United States in an increasingly international economy. Foreign language skills and international study are also vital for the nation to meet 21st century security challenges properly and effectively, especially in light of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. I hope our colleagues who are not cosponsoring this bill will give it serious consideration. By working together, I believe that the Senate as a body can act to ensure that we strengthen our Nation's security and economy by capitalizing on the talents and dreams of those who wish to enter the international arena.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Cochran, Levin, Kennedy and Akaka to introduce The International and Foreign Language Studies Act of 2005. In recent years, foreign language needs have significantly increased throughout the Federal Government due to the presence of a wider range of security threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the globalization of the U.S. economy. Likewise, American business increasingly needs internationally experienced employees to compete in the global economy and to manage a culturally diverse workforce. Currently, the U.S. government requires 34,000 employees with foreign language skills across 70 Federal agencies. These agencies have stated over the last few years, that translator and interpreter shortfalls have adversely affected agency operations and hindered U.S. military, law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic efforts. Despite our growing needs, the number of undergraduate foreign language degrees conferred is only one percent of all degrees. Only one third of undergraduates report that they are taking foreign language courses and only 11 percent report that they have studied abroad. At a time when our security needs are more important than ever, at a time when our economy demands that we enter new markets, and at a time when the world requires us to engage in diplomacy in more thoughtful and considered ways, it is extremely important that we have at our disposal a multilingual, multicultural, internationally experienced workforce. The Dodd-Cochran International and Foreign Language Studies Act attempts to do this in a number of ways. The Dodd-Cochran International and Foreign Language Studies Act will increase undergraduate study abroad as a means to enhance foreign language proficiency and deepen cultural knowledge. The bill will reinstate undergraduate eligibility for Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships. The bill will encourage the Department of Education to engage in the collection, analysis and dissemination of data on international education and foreign language needs so that we know and understand exactly what our needs in this area are. Within the Institute for International and Public Policy, the bill provides scholarships and creates an ``expert track'' for doctoral students in critical areas, disciplines and languages. And, most importantly, the Dodd-Cochran bill will demonstrate our nation's commitment to increasing the foreign language proficiency and international expertise of our citizens by increasing the amount appropriated to international education, including international business education, to allow for more opportunities for more students. The Higher Education Act authorizes the Federal Government's major activities as they relate to financial assistance for students attending colleges and universities. It provides aid to institutions of higher education, services to help students complete high school and enter and succeed in postsecondary education, and mechanisms to improve the training of our emerging workforce. This bill will help fulfill that mission. Foreign language skills and international study are vital to secure the future economic welfare of the United States in an increasingly international economy. Foreign language skills and international study are also vital for the nation to meet 21st century security challenges properly and effectively, especially in light of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. I hope our colleagues who are not cosponsoring this bill will give it serious consideration. By working together, I believe that the Senate as a body can act to ensure that we strengthen our Nation's security and economy by capitalizing on the talents and dreams of those who wish to enter the international arena.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President. I am pleased to rise today, together with my colleague Senator Lieberman, to introduce The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005. The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005 will put an end to legal doctrine that unfairly penalizes thousands of workers in Connecticut and in other States throughout the country whose only offense is that they sometimes work from home or from a local office of their employer. Technology has changed the way business is conducted in America. With the use of cell phones, lap-top computers, email, the Internet, mobile networking, and many other telecommunication advancements of the 21st century, Americans have a greater flexibility in where they can work, without compromising productivity. Many citizens now choose to work from home or alternative offices when their physical presence is not necessary at their primary place of work. Telecommuting provides enormous benefits for businesses, families, and communities. It helps businesses lower costs and raise worker productivity. It reduces congestion on our roads and rails, and in so doing it lowers pollution. It helps workers better manage the demands of work and family. And last but not least, it can mean lower income taxes for working men and women. Yet, the many benefits to workers of telecommuting are today placed in jeopardy because of current law in New York and a few other States. Today, New York State requires that workers pay income tax on income even if it is not earned in the State through their ``convenience of the employer'' rule. While there are several States that have the ``convenience of the employer'' rule, no other State applies it with the same rigor as New York. New York's ``convenience of the employer'' rule requires that by working for a New York employer, all income earned from that employer must be declared in New York so long as the worker ``could'' perform his or her duties in New York. A worker for a New York employer who works part-time from home in Connecticut or another State is still subject to taxation by New York on 100 percent of his or her income. At the same time, the work done by that worker in a State outside New York is subject to taxation by that State. This unfairly subjects many workers who telecommute from their homes or from satellite offices outside of New York to a double tax on that part of the income earned from home. According to Connecticut's Attorney General, thousands of Connecticut residents alone are affected by this unfair double taxation. However, it isn't only Connecticut residents that are affected. Thomas Huckaby is a Tennessee-based computer programmer that telecommuted for a firm in Queens, NY. In 1994 and 1995, Mr. Huckaby spent 75 percent of his time working in Tennessee and the remaining 25 percent working in the Queens office and attempted to apportion his income accordingly. New York, however, sought to tax 100 percent of his income and was successful due to it's ``convenience of employer'' rule. On March 29, 2005 the New York Court of Appeals upheld New York's rule in a 4 to 3 decision. Currently, Mr. Huckaby is in the process of petitioning the Supreme Court. A similar story involves Arthur Gray, a New Hampshire resident who worked for the New York Company Cowen & Co. as an investment counselor from 1976 through 1996, and paid New York State income taxes during that time. In 1997, Arthur Gray, per his employer's request, opened and managed an office from his home in New Hampshire. Several times during the year, Mr. Gray worked in New York, but most of his days were spent in New Hampshire. When paying his taxes during this time, he paid New York State income taxes for the days he was in New York, but not for the days he worked in New Hampshire. New York, however, sought to tax 100 percent of his income and was successful due to this ``convenience of the employer'' rule. These are only two examples of the far-reaching consequences of this ``convenience of employer'' rule. There are thousands of individuals across the country who are adversely impacted by this rule. Most, however, but most lack the time, money, or energy to take their case to court. This potential for double taxation is not only unfair, it also discourages workers from telecommuting when we should be doing the opposite. Legislation is needed to protect these honest workers who deserve fair and equitable treatment under the law. The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005 accomplishes this by specifically preventing a State from engaging in the current fiction of deeming a nonresident to be in the taxing State when the nonresident is actually working in another State. In doing so, it will eliminate the possibility that citizens will be double-taxed when telecommuting. Establishing a ``physical presence'' test--as this legislation would do--is the most logical basis for determining tax status. If a worker is in a State, and taking advantage of that State's infrastructure, the worker should pay taxes in that State. Some suggest that the double-taxation quandary can easily be fixed by having other States provide a tax credit to those telecommuters. However, why should Connecticut, or any other State, be required to allow a credit on income actually earned in the State? If a worker is working in Connecticut, he or she is benefiting from a range of Services paid for and maintained by Connecticut including roads, water, police, fire protection, and communications services. It's only fair that Connecticut ask that worker to help support the services that he or she uses. This is not just an issue which deals with a small group of citizens from one small State. Rather, this is an issue which affects workers throughout the country. It will only grow more pressing as people and businesses continue to seek to take advantage of new technologies that affect the way we live and work. I hope our colleagues will favorably consider this legislation. 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, together with my colleague Senator Lieberman, to introduce The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005. The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005 will put an end to legal doctrine that unfairly penalizes thousands of workers in Connecticut and in other States throughout the country whose only offense is that they sometimes work from home or from a local office of their employer. Technology has changed the way business is conducted in America. With the use of cell phones, lap-top computers, email, the Internet, mobile networking, and many other telecommunication advancements of the 21st century, Americans have a greater flexibility in where they can work, without compromising productivity. Many citizens now choose to work from home or alternative offices when their physical presence is not necessary at their primary place of work. Telecommuting provides enormous benefits for businesses, families, and communities. It helps businesses lower costs and raise worker productivity. It reduces congestion on our roads and rails, and in so doing it lowers pollution. It helps workers better manage the demands of work and family. And last but not least, it can mean lower income taxes for working men and women. Yet, the many benefits to workers of telecommuting are today placed in jeopardy because of current law in New York and a few other States. Today, New York State requires that workers pay income tax on income even if it is not earned in the State through their ``convenience of the employer'' rule. While there are several States that have the ``convenience of the employer'' rule, no other State applies it with the same rigor as New York. New York's ``convenience of the employer'' rule requires that by working for a New York employer, all income earned from that employer must be declared in New York so long as the worker ``could'' perform his or her duties in New York. A worker for a New York employer who works part-time from home in Connecticut or another State is still subject to taxation by New York on 100 percent of his or her income. At the same time, the work done by that worker in a State outside New York is subject to taxation by that State. This unfairly subjects many workers who telecommute from their homes or from satellite offices outside of New York to a double tax on that part of the income earned from home. According to Connecticut's Attorney General, thousands of Connecticut residents alone are affected by this unfair double taxation. However, it isn't only Connecticut residents that are affected. Thomas Huckaby is a Tennessee-based computer programmer that telecommuted for a firm in Queens, NY. In 1994 and 1995, Mr. Huckaby spent 75 percent of his time working in Tennessee and the remaining 25 percent working in the Queens office and attempted to apportion his income accordingly. New York, however, sought to tax 100 percent of his income and was successful due to it's ``convenience of employer'' rule. On March 29, 2005 the New York Court of Appeals upheld New York's rule in a 4 to 3 decision. Currently, Mr. Huckaby is in the process of petitioning the Supreme Court. A similar story involves Arthur Gray, a New Hampshire resident who worked for the New York Company Cowen & Co. as an investment counselor from 1976 through 1996, and paid New York State income taxes during that time. In 1997, Arthur Gray, per his employer's request, opened and managed an office from his home in New Hampshire. Several times during the year, Mr. Gray worked in New York, but most of his days were spent in New Hampshire. When paying his taxes during this time, he paid New York State income taxes for the days he was in New York, but not for the days he worked in New Hampshire. New York, however, sought to tax 100 percent of his income and was successful due to this ``convenience of the employer'' rule. These are only two examples of the far-reaching consequences of this ``convenience of employer'' rule. There are thousands of individuals across the country who are adversely impacted by this rule. Most, however, but most lack the time, money, or energy to take their case to court. This potential for double taxation is not only unfair, it also discourages workers from telecommuting when we should be doing the opposite. Legislation is needed to protect these honest workers who deserve fair and equitable treatment under the law. The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005 accomplishes this by specifically preventing a State from engaging in the current fiction of deeming a nonresident to be in the taxing State when the nonresident is actually working in another State. In doing so, it will eliminate the possibility that citizens will be double-taxed when telecommuting. Establishing a ``physical presence'' test--as this legislation would do--is the most logical basis for determining tax status. If a worker is in a State, and taking advantage of that State's infrastructure, the worker should pay taxes in that State. Some suggest that the double-taxation quandary can easily be fixed by having other States provide a tax credit to those telecommuters. However, why should Connecticut, or any other State, be required to allow a credit on income actually earned in the State? If a worker is working in Connecticut, he or she is benefiting from a range of Services paid for and maintained by Connecticut including roads, water, police, fire protection, and communications services. It's only fair that Connecticut ask that worker to help support the services that he or she uses. This is not just an issue which deals with a small group of citizens from one small State. Rather, this is an issue which affects workers throughout the country. It will only grow more pressing as people and businesses continue to seek to take advantage of new technologies that affect the way we live and work. I hope our colleagues will favorably consider this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children and Family HIV/AIDS Research and Care Act of 2005. This bipartisan legislation is similar to a bill that was introduced last year. This legislation will address the special needs of children and youth with HIV/AIDS--needs that are too often overlooked, both domestically and internationally. It recognizes the, simple fact that when it comes to HIV prevention, research, care, and treatment, children and youth are not just small adults. To give them a chance for a healthy future, we must ensure that their unique needs are met. I want to thank my good friend Senator Bond of Missouri for joining me in introducing this important legislation. I am very pleased to work with him to move this bill forward. Children's growing bodies are especially susceptible to the rapid advancement of HIV infection. Because their immune systems are still immature, the disease typically progresses more rapidly and differently in children than in adults. For example, children with HIV infection are more prone to neurological abnormalities and certain opportunistic infections than adults. In addition, because children's bodies are growing and developing, HIV/AIDS can have profound effects on children's physical growth and ability to reach developmental milestones such as crawling, walking and learning to talk. While research has definitively shown that initiating drug treatment in children in a timely manner promotes normal growth and development, and prolongs life, treating children with HIV/AIDS presents particular challenges. Appropriately formulated and dosed HIV/AIDS drugs are urgently needed to ensure that children receive optimal care. Currently, liquid formulations that young children can swallow are not always readily available. In addition, pediatric dosing and safety information for these powerful drugs is often lacking, particularly for younger children. This lack of information puts children at risk; too much medication can be toxic and too little will not effectively suppress the virus. Over time, under-dosing can lead to drug resistance, a particularly serious concern for children who will need to use these medications for years, if not decades. Appropriate HIV/AIDS care and treatment for children and youth also requires that special attention be paid to their social development needs. Children and youth have unique concerns regarding disclosure and stigma that may be exacerbated by frequent absences from school and social activities, and the onset of sexual maturity. Working with schools and other social and community institutions is imperative to promoting a sense of normalcy. Because children are not typically medical decision-makers, developing long-term care partnerships with parents and other caregivers is also crucial to successful care and treatment. At the same time, maximizing each child's own ability to take active participation in different aspects of his or her own care can increase a child's sense of ownership over treatment, improving adherence and overall health. By reauthorizing and expanding Title IV of the Ryan White CARE Act this legislation will help to ensure that the unique care and treatment needs of children are addressed. This program is a lifeline for more than 53,000 women, children, and youth affected by HIV/AIDS served annually by Title IV-funded projects. Through 91 grants in 35 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, Title IV projects provide medical care, case management, support services, mental health, transportation, child care, and other crucial services to families affected by HIV/AIDS. Title IV is the smallest of the four main titles of the Ryan White CARE Act, yet reaches the highest proportion of minorities. Key to the success of Title IV projects is the model of ``family- centered care.'' This model of care treats the whole family as the client, whether several family members are infected by HIV, or just a parent or child. The family-centered care model is crucial to developing strong partnerships between consumers and providers, leading to better health outcomes for women, children, and youth. By allowing affected family members to receive services, as well as the infected individuals, Title IV projects promote health at the family level, thereby prolonging life, improving quality of life, and saving money by keeping people out of the hospital. I would like to take a moment to recognize the work done by the Children, Youth and Family AIDS Network of Connecticut, which provides Title IV services to more than 500 children, youth, women, and families affected by HIV/AIDS in my home state. Just earlier today, I had an opportunity to meet with some of these individuals. They made it clear just how important these services are to their quality of life. While recommitting the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to family-centered care and the unique work of Title IV, this legislation will also expand the innovative strategies Title IV projects have used to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission. Since 1994, when the administration of preventive drug interventions was shown to significantly reduce perinatal HIV transmission, the number of newborns infected with HIV has decreased dramatically. Yet mother-to- children transmission does continue to occur, largely due to missed opportunities for identifying HIV-positive pregnant women and providing the supportive services needed to ensure adherence to recommended treatment regimens. We propose to fund demonstration grants to assess the effectiveness of two strategies in reducing mother-to-children transmission: (1) increasing routine, voluntary HIV testing of pregnant women and (2) increasing access to prenatal care, intensive case management, and supportive services for HIV-positive pregnant women. In addition, this bill will encourage research into key care and treatment questions affecting the pediatric populations. These include: the long-term health effects of preventive drug regimens on HIV-exposed children; the long-term health, psycho-social, and prevention needs for children and adolescents perinatally HIV-infected; the transition to adulthood for HIV-infected children; and safer and more effective treatment options for infants, children, and adolescents with HIV disease. Since history suggests that a vaccine may prove to be the most effective, affordable, long-term approach to stopping the spread of HIV, this legislation will also ensure that children are not an afterthought when it comes to the development of an HIV vaccine. Currently, some of the populations hardest hit by the pandemic--infants and youth--are at risk of being left behind in the search for an effective vaccine. Because we cannot assume that a vaccine tested in adults will also be safe and effective when used in pediatric populations, it will be important to ensure that promising vaccines are tested in infants and youth as early as is medically and ethically appropriate. Failure to begin planning for the inclusion of these groups in clinical trials could mean significant delays in the availability of a pediatric HIV vaccine, at the cost of countless thousands of lives. This legislation will ensure that we begin now to address the logistical, regulatory, medical, and ethical issues presented by pediatric testing of HIV vaccines so that children can share in the benefits of any advances in vaccines research. I want to thank several organizations for lending their expertise to the development of this legislation, in particular the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth and Families, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, all of whom endorse this bill. HIV/AIDS is the single greatest health care catastrophe facing the world today. We need to do much more to seek effective treatments and, eventually, a cure for this horrible illness. This legislation is by no means sufficient to reach that goal, but it is a step towards ensuring that children are not left behind as we make progress, and then when we do finally eradicate HIV/AIDS once and for all, children and youth are able to benefit immediately. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children and Family HIV/AIDS Research and Care Act of 2005. This bipartisan legislation is similar to a bill that was introduced last year. This legislation will address the special needs of children and youth with HIV/AIDS--needs that are too often overlooked, both domestically and internationally. It recognizes the, simple fact that when it comes to HIV prevention, research, care, and treatment, children and youth are not just small adults. To give them a chance for a healthy future, we must ensure that their unique needs are met. I want to thank my good friend Senator Bond of Missouri for joining me in introducing this important legislation. I am very pleased to work with him to move this bill forward. Children's growing bodies are especially susceptible to the rapid advancement of HIV infection. Because their immune systems are still immature, the disease typically progresses more rapidly and differently in children than in adults. For example, children with HIV infection are more prone to neurological abnormalities and certain opportunistic infections than adults. In addition, because children's bodies are growing and developing, HIV/AIDS can have profound effects on children's physical growth and ability to reach developmental milestones such as crawling, walking and learning to talk. While research has definitively shown that initiating drug treatment in children in a timely manner promotes normal growth and development, and prolongs life, treating children with HIV/AIDS presents particular challenges. Appropriately formulated and dosed HIV/AIDS drugs are urgently needed to ensure that children receive optimal care. Currently, liquid formulations that young children can swallow are not always readily available. In addition, pediatric dosing and safety information for these powerful drugs is often lacking, particularly for younger children. This lack of information puts children at risk; too much medication can be toxic and too little will not effectively suppress the virus. Over time, under-dosing can lead to drug resistance, a particularly serious concern for children who will need to use these medications for years, if not decades. Appropriate HIV/AIDS care and treatment for children and youth also requires that special attention be paid to their social development needs. Children and youth have unique concerns regarding disclosure and stigma that may be exacerbated by frequent absences from school and social activities, and the onset of sexual maturity. Working with schools and other social and community institutions is imperative to promoting a sense of normalcy. Because children are not typically medical decision-makers, developing long-term care partnerships with parents and other caregivers is also crucial to successful care and treatment. At the same time, maximizing each child's own ability to take active participation in different aspects of his or her own care can increase a child's sense of ownership over treatment, improving adherence and overall health. By reauthorizing and expanding Title IV of the Ryan White CARE Act this legislation will help to ensure that the unique care and treatment needs of children are addressed. This program is a lifeline for more than 53,000 women, children, and youth affected by HIV/AIDS served annually by Title IV-funded projects. Through 91 grants in 35 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, Title IV projects provide medical care, case management, support services, mental health, transportation, child care, and other crucial services to families affected by HIV/AIDS. Title IV is the smallest of the four main titles of the Ryan White CARE Act, yet reaches the highest proportion of minorities. Key to the success of Title IV projects is the model of ``family- centered care.'' This model of care treats the whole family as the client, whether several family members are infected by HIV, or just a parent or child. The family-centered care model is crucial to developing strong partnerships between consumers and providers, leading to better health outcomes for women, children, and youth. By allowing affected family members to receive services, as well as the infected individuals, Title IV projects promote health at the family level, thereby prolonging life, improving quality of life, and saving money by keeping people out of the hospital. I would like to take a moment to recognize the work done by the Children, Youth and Family AIDS Network of Connecticut, which provides Title IV services to more than 500 children, youth, women, and families affected by HIV/AIDS in my home state. Just earlier today, I had an opportunity to meet with some of these individuals. They made it clear just how important these services are to their quality of life. While recommitting the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to family-centered care and the unique work of Title IV, this legislation will also expand the innovative strategies Title IV projects have used to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission. Since 1994, when the administration of preventive drug interventions was shown to significantly reduce perinatal HIV transmission, the number of newborns infected with HIV has decreased dramatically. Yet mother-to- children transmission does continue to occur, largely due to missed opportunities for identifying HIV-positive pregnant women and providing the supportive services needed to ensure adherence to recommended treatment regimens. We propose to fund demonstration grants to assess the effectiveness of two strategies in reducing mother-to-children transmission: (1) increasing routine, voluntary HIV testing of pregnant women and (2) increasing access to prenatal care, intensive case management, and supportive services for HIV-positive pregnant women. In addition, this bill will encourage research into key care and treatment questions affecting the pediatric populations. These include: the long-term health effects of preventive drug regimens on HIV-exposed children; the long-term health, psycho-social, and prevention needs for children and adolescents perinatally HIV-infected; the transition to adulthood for HIV-infected children; and safer and more effective treatment options for infants, children, and adolescents with HIV disease. Since history suggests that a vaccine may prove to be the most effective, affordable, long-term approach to stopping the spread of HIV, this legislation will also ensure that children are not an afterthought when it comes to the development of an HIV vaccine. Currently, some of the populations hardest hit by the pandemic--infants and youth--are at risk of being left behind in the search for an effective vaccine. Because we cannot assume that a vaccine tested in adults will also be safe and effective when used in pediatric populations, it will be important to ensure that promising vaccines are tested in infants and youth as early as is medically and ethically appropriate. Failure to begin planning for the inclusion of these groups in clinical trials could mean significant delays in the availability of a pediatric HIV vaccine, at the cost of countless thousands of lives. This legislation will ensure that we begin now to address the logistical, regulatory, medical, and ethical issues presented by pediatric testing of HIV vaccines so that children can share in the benefits of any advances in vaccines research. I want to thank several organizations for lending their expertise to the development of this legislation, in particular the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth and Families, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, all of whom endorse this bill. HIV/AIDS is the single greatest health care catastrophe facing the world today. We need to do much more to seek effective treatments and, eventually, a cure for this horrible illness. This legislation is by no means sufficient to reach that goal, but it is a step towards ensuring that children are not left behind as we make progress, and then when we do finally eradicate HIV/AIDS once and for all, children and youth are able to benefit immediately. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.