Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to reflect on an important and meaningful anniversary that is being commemorated worldwide this week. Two days from now, January 27, 2005, will mark 60 years since the liberation of Auschwitz, the concentration and death camp at which over 1.1 million innocent men, women, and children were murdered at the hands of the Nazis. As many of my colleagues know, I have long felt a very deep and personal connection to the tragedy of the Holocaust. My father, who would later serve two terms in this body, was the Executive Trial Counsel at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals. He left this country for Nuremberg when I was only 1\1/2\ years old, and he spent the next two years poring over documents and conducting interviews that revealed to him the shocking, staggering process by which over 6 million people were systematically killed. He found himself face to face with many of the men who had planned and carried out Hitler's ``Final Solution.'' He found himself asking, wondering how so many human beings many of whom had loving families of their own, had been educated in universities, had enjoyed the fine arts how could they possibly conceive and execute a mass murder on an unimaginable scale? How was it that only a tiny sliver of a minority in Europe stood up against a plan to wipe out that continent's entire Jewish population, as well as Gypsies, the disabled, and homosexuals? And how was it that the United States and its allies failed to act in time to save millions of innocent lives? When my father came home from Europe, he didn't have answers to those questions. Indeed, we have continued asking these questions for the past six decades. What my father did bring back from Nuremberg was an unyielding and firm conviction to teach what he learned to as many people as he could, beginning with the members of his own family. From an early age, I can remember learning from my father names of people like Goebbels, Mengele, and Eichmann, and places like Auschwitz, Majdanek, and Treblinka. As an Irish Catholic boy growing up in Connecticut, my early education in the history of the Holocaust was something of an anomaly. Fortunately, this is no longer the case today. Yet there are still communities, here in America, and even more so around the world, where far too little is known about the Holocaust. More shockingly still, there are those individuals and groups which question or deny the very existence of the Holocaust a charge that is often interwoven with the very same poisonous anti-Semitism that led to this human tragedy. On this anniversary, therefore, it is critical not only to remember those who perished, but to redouble our efforts to enhance and increase awareness of the Holocaust. This is particularly important today, as each day there remain fewer and fewer living witnesses to the Holocaust those who themselves wore the yellow star and still have prisoner numbers tattooed on their arms. In the effort to keep the memory of the Holocaust alive, we have an invaluable resource located just a few minutes from here, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. That museum represents a steadfast commitment by our Nation to ensure that the Holocaust will never, ever fade away into the mist of history. I imagine that most, if not all, of my colleagues have already visited the museum. I would certainly urge any of my colleagues who might not have done so to visit, and to encourage their staffs and their constituents who visit our Nation's Capital to do the same. Finally, it is crucial that on this anniversary, we take meaningful steps to address acts of genocide in our own time. Today, in the Darfur province of Sudan, tens of thousands have already died as a result of a murderous ethnic cleansing campaign by the government-supported Janjaweed militias. It is estimated that as many as 350,000 could die in the coming months if action is not taken. Certainly, the sheer magnitude of the events in Darfur does not approach that of the Holocaust. On a fundamental level, however, the world is facing the same choice we did over 60 years go: do we respond to heinous crimes against humanity, or do we ignore a growing tragedy until it is far, far too late? This is the challenge that confronts us today, as we commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz and the other Nazi death camps to ensure that the cry of ``never again'' does not ring tragically hollow. In closing, Mr. President, I would like to note that in addition to the anniversary that we are commemorating this week, today's date marks a special occasion in the Jewish calendar. Today is the holiday of Tu B'Shvat, the traditional New Year for trees. It heralds the coming of the spring, and is an occasion for celebrating renewal, transition, and hope. It is my hope that as Americans and people around the world reflect on the 60th anniversary of liberation, we can seize this solemn occasion to look towards the future, and to plant new seeds of hope, tolerance, and justice among all of humankind.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak in memory of Howard Liebengood, who passed away on January 13. The majority and minority leaders and other Members of this body have already spoken in Howard's memory. In addition to associating myself with their remarks, I would like to offer a few brief words of reflection on behalf of myself and my wife Jackie, who knew Howard well through her work for Senator Jake Garn of Utah. As someone who essentially grew up in this institution, I have always had a great deal of respect and affection for the United States Senate. While some today may dismiss the notion as quaint, I continue to regard the Senate as a family--one where personal friendships can transcend ideological beliefs, and one that in its finest moments can rise above party differences to truly make a difference in the lives of the people whom we serve. It is in that spirit that I speak today in memory of Howard--a vital and well-respected member of this family for over 3 decades. Howard served here in a number of capacities--as minority counsel to the Watergate Committee in the 1970's, where he worked closely with Senator Howard Baker; as Sergeant at Arms from 1981 to 1983; and finally, as chief of staff to Senator Fred Thompson and majority leader Bill Frist. He also maintained his relationship with the Senate for many years working in Government relations for a variety of clients. I came to know Howard in 1981 when I entered this body as a freshman Senator, and he began his term as Sergeant at Arms. I gained an immediate and lasting appreciation for Howard--not only as Sergeant at Arms, but as a human being. The Sergeant at Arms in the Senate is a position that encompasses enormous responsibilities--from security, to printing and graphics, to technology, to recording, to financial operations. To put it quite simply, the day-to-day business here in the United States Senate depends on the Office of the Sergeant at Arms, and on the service of people like Howard. Howard Liebengood was a man who loved this institution and who loved our country--and that love was reflected in the way he approached his work. Howard was a good and decent man whose humor, calm, and patience were well-known to all of us who were fortunate to know him. He was an individual who worked well with Senators and staff from both parties. Howard always impressed me as someone who cared more about the Senate, and the role it plays in our democracy, than he did about advancing any particular party's agenda. In all the positions he occupied in the Senate, he always cared deeply about the things that unite us as Americans, rather than those that divide us along partisan political lines. He understood that the strength of the Senate as an institution and its significance in shaping our history reside in the ability of its Members to reconcile differences for the good of our Nation. This institution and our Nation are indebted to Howard for his years of service. I offer my deepest sympathies to Howard's wife Dee and their three children.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am glad our colleague from Tennessee has remained. People may assume I am fulfilling some collegial courtesy to extend comments about the experiences of the members of the committee, but as Senator Enzi has just said, we are very fortunate to have Lamar Alexander as a Member of this body and as a member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The Senator from Wyoming touched on the experiences that Senator Alexander has had, except one, and that was as a Presidential candidate. He spoke eloquently, throughout those months in which he sought the highest office in the land, about the importance of education. So, we are fortunate to have him on our Committee. I can't tell the Chairman of the Committee how much I look forward to working with him as well. I am optimistic about the work we can do on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I will support the nomination of Margaret Spellings as Secretary of Education. The mission of the Department of Education is ``to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence for all Americans.'' If we succeed in making our education system as good as it can be, there is no national priority that will not benefit. If we do not succeed, we leave things to chance. So I believe that the Secretary of Education is one of the most, if not the most, important positions in the President's Cabinet. Ms. Spellings comes to the Department of Education with strong credentials as a policymaker in the area of education. She currently serves as the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy. In that role, she is responsible for the development and implementation of White House policy on education, health, labor and other elements of the President's domestic agenda. Prior to her White House appointment, she worked for 6 years as one of Governor Bush's senior advisers, a role in which she had responsibility for the development and implementation of his education agenda. Many of the initiatives she worked on were incorporated into the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLBA. In fact, Ms. Spellings was one of the administration's primary architects of the No Child Left Behind Act, working with Members of this body, and others, to craft this law. As Ms. spellings said at her hearing, there is no more important obligation each of us has to the American people than to educate our citizens. Like her, I believe that a high-quality education must be available to each and every American regardless of where they live, their economic status, whether they attend urban, rural or suburban schools, and whether they are a first or fifth generation American. I was impressed at her nomination hearing by the breadth of her knowledge and her ability to respond to a wide range of questions on so many aspects of education policy. Her intimate knowledge of No Child Left Behind will be the key to successful future implementation of this law, and I am hopeful that she is up to the task of working with this body to ensure that a greater degree of reasonableness is taken into account in implementing it. I do not in the least question this nominee's qualifications or commitment. She is in these respects truly impressive. I do, however, question the policies of the administration she is duty-bound to represent. I had high hopes when this administration came to office. I supported what is widely touted as this administration's landmark education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act. I supported No Child Left Behind because I care about improving the quality of education in America for all of our children. I believed that this law would help to achieve this goal by establishing more rigorous standards for measuring student achievement, by helping teachers do a better job of instructing students, and by providing the resources desperately needed by our schools for even the most basic necessities to help put the reforms we passed into place. Regrettably, the high hopes that I and others had for No Child Left Behind have not been realized. The law is being implemented by the administration in a manner that is inflexible, unreasonable, and unhelpful to students. Worse still, the administration's promise of sufficient resources to implement No Child Left Behind's much-needed reforms is a promise that has yet to be kept. Currently, the law is underfunded by $9.8 billion. As a result of the failures of the administration to fulfill its commitment to our Nation's schoolchildren under the Law, children and their teachers are shouldering new and noteworthy hardships. Students, teachers, administrators, parents, and communities, are struggling to work with requirements that are often confusing, inflexible, and unrealistic. And they are struggling to do so without the additional resources they were promised to put them into place. As I have said on numerous occasions in the past, resources without reforms are a waste of money. By the same token, reforms without resources are a false promise--a false promise that has left students, their teachers, and taxpayers, grappling with new burdens and little help to bear them. Just last week, the President announced a new education initiative that would expand No Child Left Behind testing at the high school level. New testing, combined with new requirements already scheduled over the next 2 years--including the deadline for teachers to be highly qualified--will require a great infusion of resources. And yet, we have recently been told that one-third of the States will see a decline in No Child Left behind funds this coming year. No Child Left Behind is not the only law which remains underfunded. Today, the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, IDEA is funded at less than half of the 40 percent we committed to provide when we passed the law 30 years ago. This means that States continue to bear more than their fair share of responsibility for meeting disabled students' needs. States that, mind you, are facing astronomical deficits as a whole. States that often have no choice but to pass these costs on to municipalities which then pass them on to everyday, average American taxpayers through their local property taxes. Just as disheartening is this administration's lack of support for student financial aid. Since coming into office, it has done little to help the average American taxpayer send their children to college. The maximum Pell Grant award remains frozen at $4,050 for the fourth consecutive year, enough to pay just 34 percent of the average annual cost of attending college. In the meantime, public college tuition has gone up 35 percent over the last 4 years. A college graduate earns close to double the amount of an individual who has only graduated from high school. Without additional financial aid in the form of loans--and more importantly, grants--many American students may not be able to afford a college education. Prohibitive costs may be keeping some of our best minds from fulfilling their dreams of a higher education. And yet, this administration has done virtually nothing to make college more financial accessible. Qualified students with the will to achieve should be given the change to do so. Until recent announcements of expanding the Pell Grant program, this administration has done little if anything to give these students that chance. And while I am happy to hear that higher education is receiving long over due attention, I am concerned by indications that the administration may pay for new initiatives simply by cutting others. Outside of funding, I am concerned about President Bush's proposal to move Head Start from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Department of Education and to change the program's focus to reading. I do not object to exploring innovative ways to help children read. However, it is the comprehensive nature of Head Start that makes a difference for poor children. Head Start is just as much about ensuring that children have proper health care, dental care, vision and hearing screening, as well as screening for developmental delays. Head Start is about the social, emotional, physical, and cognitive development of children. To focus only on cognitive development would ignore the other pillars of school readiness. We need to be cautious about changing a program that does so much good for so many children and families. Our focus need to remain in the development of the ``whole'' child. I sill support Margaret Spellings' nomination because she is well- qualified for the position and has demonstrated seriousness of purpose. However, my concerns about the nominee are not her personal qualifications but the policies of the administration she represents. I pledge my best effort to work with her and others to find common ground. But, by the same token, I will respectfully dissent where this administration pursues policies that I believe are harmful to our Nation's children. Again, even though I am supportive of this nomination, it does not mean that Ms. Spellings is going to agree with the Senator from Connecticut on everything. I suspect she will not. But I know when I make a call to her, I have somebody on the line who will listen and will consider sound arguments about why or why not we ought to do certain things. I very much look forward to working with her and this committee in the coming months. I have often quoted Thomas Jefferson who made the comment just over 200 years ago that any nation that ever expects to be ignorant and free expects what never was and what never possibly could be. That was his statement at the beginning of the 19th century. It is just as true today. That is why the nomination before us is of the utmost importance. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Thank you, Senator Lott. President and Mrs. Bush, Vice President and Mrs. Cheney, fellow citizens, the Vice President of the United States will now take the oath of office. His wife, Lynne, and their daughters, Elizabeth Cheney Perry and Mary Cheney, will hold the family Bible. I now have the honor to present the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Honorable J. Dennis Hastert, to administer the oath of office to Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney. Mr. Speaker. (Applause.)

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend and thank our colleague from California who, as a result of her objection, has allowed us to have a couple of hours here to debate and discuss the events that occurred on election day this year. I thank her for doing that. Whatever occurred during the day, I think it is important that this body take a moment now and review what has occurred since election 2000 and this election as well. I recognize we are still operating under a very imperfect system when it comes to the Federal elections in this country. I thank the distinguished minority leader, Senator Reid, for commending this body for its support of the Help America Vote Act that we adopted almost unanimously in this body a couple of years ago, through the work of Senators McConnell and Bond and others. It was certainly not a perfect piece of legislation, but it was the first time in the history of this country, outside of the Voting Rights Act, that this body, the Congress of the United States, spoke comprehensively about the conduct of Federal elections. I point out to my colleagues that while certainly things need to be done to improve even that effort, there were 119,000 provisional ballots cast in the State of Ohio that never would have been counted had we not adopted provisional ballot requirements. There are certainly legitimate questions about what does and doesn't constitute a ballot. I am drafting for my colleagues' approval a comprehensive piece of legislation that deals with the shortcomings in the HAVA bill itself. The fact is we are going to have access to statewide voter registration. The fact is we are making it possible for 20 million disabled Americans to cast a ballot independently and privately. I know personally what this is like, having watched a sibling of mine having to cast a ballot with the help of someone else, despite two master's degrees and being a teacher for 40 years. We also put into HAVA the requirement that every voter have the right to see his or her ballot before actually casting their ballot. HAVA required that all voters who are challenged, for any reason, have the right to cast a provisional ballot. The Federal Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit of the United States affirmed the absolute right to receive a provisional ballot, without any additional requirements. We have made great progress here. More needs to be done, clearly, if we are going to make a Federal election system exist where every vote will be counted and every eligible person will have an equal opportunity to vote. I appreciate the opportunity here to talk about this. My hope would be that we would build bipartisan support, just as we did 2 years ago in adopting the Help America Vote Act, in both bodies, and get the kind of bipartisan support necessary so the conduct of elections, Federal elections, will have a system that has the confidence of the voters of this country. I think it was Thomas Paine who, more than 200 years ago, said the right to vote is the right upon which all other rights depend. If you don't get this right, every other right is in jeopardy, and that is the business we need to be about. Obviously events in Ohio and elsewhere raise legitimate and serious concerns. In this country we are still operating Federal elections on the basis of a voluntary work, pretty much, of local people. It worked pretty well for many years. It doesn't work any longer. It has to be changed. We have to do a better job. It is important that this body, the Congress of the United States, say to the American public we are going to do everything we can to see to it that you have an equal opportunity to vote and that your vote will be counted, and we are going to have the people, the technology, and the resources in place to make that happen. We have made great strides. More needs to be done. The Senator from California has given us an opportunity today to highlight the importance of this. I regret that the Senate finds itself in this situation today where we find that the American public still lacks confidence in the legitimacy of the process and the results of our presidential elections. But as painful as this debate today may be, this discourse is necessary to ensuring the American public that we, here in Congress, hear their concerns and frustrations, and will continue to fight to see that their most basic of all democratic rights--the right to vote--is secure. Sadly, the concerns we are hearing expressed today are all too familiar to those we heard exactly 4 years ago following the debacle of the 2000 presidential election. Following the 2000 presidential election, Congress responded to the problems which arose in Florida and other states by enacting bipartisan legislation, the Help America Vote Act, which I was pleased to coauthor. The goal of that bill was to ensure that every eligible American would have an equal opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted, regardless of race, gender, disability, language or party or precinct; and, that it would be easier to vote, but harder to defraud the system. The Help America Vote Act--or HAVA--had the support of countless civil rights, disability, language minority and voting rights groups, and organizations representing state and local governments. HAVA has been hailed as the first civil rights law of the 21st century and I am committed to ensuring that it is fully implemented as such. While the results of the 2004 presidential election may not have been contested in the same manner as those of the 2000 election, the jury is still out on whether HAVA successfully addressed all the problems that arose in the 2000 election. While I believe there is still much work to do to ensure the franchise for all Americans, I am confident that without HAVA, thousands of eligible American voters would not have been able to cast a vote, nor have their vote counted, in the November 2004 presidential election. It is important to remember that HAVA is not yet fully implemented. In some respects, the most important reforms have yet to be implemented by the States. These reforms include: mandatory uniform and nondiscriminatory requirements that all voting systems provide second-chance voting for voters; full accessibility for the disabled and language minorities; a permanent paper record for manual audits; uniform standards for what constitutes a vote and how such a vote will be counted for each type of voting system used by a State; and a computerized statewide voter registration list which must contain the name and registration information for every eligible voter in a State and be electronically available to every State and local election official at the polling place on election day. Had these additional reforms been in place on election day this November, many of the Election Day problems that arose across the country could have been avoided or resolved at the polling place. But one of the HAVA reforms that was in place this November did make a difference: the requirement that all States provide a provisional ballot to voters who are challenged at the polls, for any reason. This requirement ensured the franchise for thousands of Americans on November 2 last year. In Ohio alone, 155,000 voters cast provisional ballots, of which an estimated 77 percent were counted. That represents over 119,000 American voters who otherwise might not have been able to cast a vote or have their vote counted, but for HAVA. Some States, including Ohio, attempted to restrict the right to a provisional ballot, but were ultimately unsuccessful. The Federal Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit of the United States affirmed the absolute right to receive a provisional ballot, without any additional requirements, in the decision of Sandusky vs. Blackwell decided on October 26, just one week prior to the election. More importantly, that decision upheld the right of an individual voter to seek judicial redress of the rights conferred by HAVA and upheld HAVA as a civil rights law enforceable as such in the courts. As with any comprehensive civil rights legislation, HAVA's reach and effectiveness will have to be hammered out by the courts. As that process plays out, coupled with the States' implementation of the remaining HAVA reforms, we will be in a better position to assess whether this landmark legislation hit the mark or needs further reform. But it is already clear, based on the November election, that it will take further reform to ensure that all eligible Americans have an equal opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted. We already know that States are implementing the provisional ballot requirements in significantly differing manners. It is simply unacceptable that a Federally-guaranteed provisional ballot, cast for President of the United States, may not be counted simply because of the local precinct that the otherwise eligible voter was standing in at the time he or she voted. We know from the November elections that election officials did not provide sufficient numbers of machines to ensure that all voters could vote in a timely manner. We also know that many voters, such as those in Ohio, were still forced to vote on antiquated equipment such as the punch card which disenfranchises minority voters at greater rates than other voters, or use ballots that are confusing. And we know that some states still insist on purging voters based on inaccurate lists and refuse to reinstate the voting rights of felons, even after they have completed their debt to society. It is time to consider whether, for Federal elections, there is a national responsibility to ensure that no matter where and how a ballot is cast for the office of the President of the United States, all Americans will have confidence that their vote was cast and counted in a uniform and nondiscriminatory way. I will be introducing comprehensive election reform legislation when we reconvene which will build on HAVA and address these and other issues. My proposal will: require states to provide enough machines, and ensure they are geographically distributed; ensure that the provisions of HAVA that require that voters have a chance to verify their ballot before it is cast and that an audit trail exists to establish that such ballot was counted are implemented; require states to offer extended voting times to ensure that single parents, the disabled, and those who simply cannot get to the polls on the one day can still cast their vote; ensure that only eligible voters can vote, but that no voter who is eligible will be barred from the polls simply because he or she did not check a box on a form; and require the reinstatement of felons for the purpose of casting a Federal ballot. And my legislation will provide the Federal funds necessary to ensure that the states can timely implement the reforms. The Help America Vote Act is an historic landmark legislation that comprehensively defines, for the first time in this Nation's history, the role of the Federal government in the conduct of Federal elections. It was an important first step, but our work is not done. The real test, however, will be not so much on how we vote in the next few minutes on some resolution here, but whether in the coming days we are willing to pass legislation to fill in the gaps that are left vacant as a result of our inability to get more done with the HAVA bill. I believe we can do it. We did it in the last Congress. We ought to do it in this one, so we never again have questions raised about the legitimacy of the election process or results, in any State, of a Federal election. I look forward to working with my colleagues, and the civil rights, disability, language minority, and voting rights communities, as well as State and local election officials, to continue our work to ensure that all Americans have access to the most fundamental right in a representative democracy: the right to cast a vote and have that vote counted. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the conference report of the national intelligence reform bill, which is currently pending before this body. I would like first to commend Senators Collins and Lieberman, as well as Representatives Hoekstra and Harman, for their efforts in crafting this legislation. Let me be clear from the outset. I support the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, as I think do most of us here in the Senate. The Commission was a bipartisan group whose members dutifully dedicated well over a year of their lives to the protection of our Nation. We owe them a great debt of gratitude--not only for the hard work that went into preparing their report, but for their concerted effort since then to keep the issue of intelligence reform at the front of the national agenda. But as we all know, many months have passed since the 9/11 Commission issued its report. And our Nation's intelligence system remains broken. That is not because the Senate failed to act. I was pleased in October when the Senate came together in a bipartisan fashion to pass the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, which closely followed the important recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. I strongly supported that bill. Had the House's version of that bill followed the 9/11 Commission's recommendations as closely as the Senate's version, we would not have been here today talking about the lingering need to pass intelligence reform. Unfortunately, House Republicans included several provisions in their bill--and insisted on them during conference--that nearly derailed the entire effort. The 9/11 Commission urged them to drop these provisions. But their pleas fell on deaf ears. President Bush was also slow to react. Although he has professed his support for intelligence reform, during most of this time, the President sat on the sidelines as members of his own party nearly prevented its implementation. Having said that, I am pleased that House-Senate conferees worked out their differences over this measure. I voted in support of this conference agreement a short while ago because reform of our intelligence systems is long overdue. It can not be put off any longer. In part, this bill achieves some important objectives set out by the 9/11 Commission. It establishes the position of Director of National Intelligence, DNI, the person who, hopefully, will help coordinate the flow of intelligence to the President, as well as set budgetary priorities for a fair amount of our Nation's intelligence activities. Among other things, this bill will also establish a national counterterrorism center, and direct the Transportation Security Administration to take steps to strengthen our transportation security efforts. But I also have strong reservations about certain aspects of this conference report. First, the new Director of National Intelligence, DNI, would not be directly in charge of day-to-day intelligence-gathering operations. Indeed, this bill--whose language, in some crucial places, is disturbingly vague--provides that the DNI will not in practice head up the intelligence pyramid providing recommendations to the President. Instead, the DNI will now have competition from the CIA Director, as well as the Director of the newly created National counterterrorism Center--both of whom will be presidential appointees requiring confirmation by the Senate. Rather than simplification and consolidation, it is possible that this could have the effect of creating new bureaucracies and increasing confusion. We should remember that among the purposes of creating a DNI was to consolidate intelligence coordination efforts in one person who could craft a suitable budget, ensure sharing of information among agencies, and consolidate information for presentation to the President. It is by no means certain that this purpose will be achieved by this legislation. Second, although the DNI would have control over much of America's total intelligence budget--roughly $40 billion--he or she would not have control over approximately 30 percent of this total, including certain tactical military intelligence operations. The Department of Defense, DOD, would retain control over those operations and funds. Why is this a problem? Because these DOD intelligence collection agencies provide three-quarters of our Nation's military and international intelligence. Leaving aside operational control, if the DNI doesn't have budgetary authority over three-quarters of some of our most important intelligence activities, how will that person be able to effectively carry out their job of protecting the American people? Also of concern are provisions which could affect Americans' civil liberties. For example, this bill will create an FBI intelligence directorate, and it will require the FBI to specifically train and dedicate a group of its agents to gather domestic intelligence against suspected terrorists. Obviously, we need to prevent terrorists from reaching our shores and root them out if and when they are here. But we will have to keep close watch to ensure that Americans' civil liberties are not violated as part of these efforts. That is why I am so concerned that although this legislation creates a panel to protect civil liberties and to prevent privacy abuses, this panel will not have subpoena power, and its members will serve at the pleasure of the President. This situation calls into question whether, in practice, the panel will be able to fulfill its role of protecting Americans from the excesses of power exercised by their Government. Despite these reservations, I voted in support of this conference report. We have already waited too long--3 years and 3 months--and the process of intelligence reform must begin. This legislation is a beginning. The tragedy of 9/11 continues to echo today with each family that lost a loved one that horrible day. No legislative reforms can alleviate that loss or wash away the heart-wrenching pain felt by these families. But if done right, reforms might help prevent another such tragedy from happening again. That is why I would also offer a word of advice to the administration, to the officials who are eventually confirmed for these posts, and to those whose jobs will be to root out terrorists within our borders. The American people will be watching you, as will Congress. And together, we will make every effort to ensure that the process of reform continues and that Americans' constitutionally guaranteed rights are protected.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, yesterday the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, along with Common Cause and the Century Foundation, sponsored the first comprehensive public review of election day issues, including a review of the implementation of certain provisions of the Help America Vote Act, HAVA, bipartisan legislation I was pleased to coauthor in the 107th Congress. Numerous other organizations are also planning similar reviews, including the distinguished ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman John Conyers, who is hosting a forum on election day issues today on the House side. As the primary Senate author of HAVA, I welcome these reviews and believe that Congress can learn much from them in terms of whether HAVA is working as intended. Following the debacle of the 2000 Presidential election, I sought the input and counsel of the Leadership Conference and countless other civil rights, disability, language minority, and voting rights groups to fashion legislation which would ensure that every eligible American voter would have an equal opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted. Our efforts, and the efforts of others, produced the Help America Vote Act. HAVA has been hailed as the first civil rights law of the 21st century, and I am committed to ensuring that it is fully implemented as such. The results of the 2004 Presidential election have not been contested in the same manner as those of the 2000 election. However, the jury is still out on whether HAVA successfully addressed the problems that arose in the 2000 election. While I believe there is still much work to do to ensure the franchise for all Americans, I am confident that without HAVA, thousands of eligible American voters would not have been able to cast a vote, nor have their vote counted, in the November 2004 Presidential election. It is important to remember that HAVA is not yet fully implemented. In some respects, the most important reforms have yet to be implemented by the States. These reforms include mandatory uniform and nondiscriminatory requirements that all voting systems provide second- chance voting for voters, be fully accessible to the disabled, provide for a permanent paper record for manual audits, and establish standards for what constitutes a vote and how such a vote will be counted for each type of voting system used by a State. Additional reforms, which must be implemented by 2006, include the establishment of a computerized statewide voter registration list which must contain the name and registration information for every eligible voter in a State. Most importantly, the statewide database must be available electronically to every State and local election official, ensuring access to voter information at the polling place on election day. Had these additional reforms been in place this November, many of the election day problems that arose across the country could have been avoided or resolved at the polling place. But what we do know is that HAVA's requirement that all States shall provide a provisional ballot to voters who are challenged at the polls, for any reason, ensured the franchise for thousands of Americans on November 2 this year. Although many States had forms of provisional ballots, HAVA requires that any voter who is willing to affirm that he or she is registered in the jurisdiction where they want to vote, and are eligible to vote in that election, must be allowed to cast a provisional ballot for the Federal offices in that jurisdiction. In Ohio alone, 155,000 voters cast provisional ballots, of which an estimated 77 percent were counted. That represents over 119,000 thousand American voters who otherwise might not have been able to cast a vote or have their vote counted, but for HAVA. Some States, including Ohio, attempted to restrict the right to a provisional ballot, but were ultimately unsuccessful. The Federal Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit of the United States affirmed the absolute right to receive a provisional ballot, without any additional requirements, in the decision of Sandusky vs. Blackwell decided on October 26, just one week prior to the election. That decision upheld the right of an individual voter to seek judicial redress of the rights conferred by HAVA and confirmed the absolute right of a challenged voter to receive a provisional ballot. I was pleased to file an amici curiae brief, along with my distinguished colleague, Congressman Steny Hoyer, in this case in which we urged the court to affirm and enforce these rights. As with any comprehensive civil rights legislation, HAVA's reach and effectiveness will have to be hammered out by the courts. As that process plays out, coupled with the States' implementation of the remaining HAVA reforms, we will be in a better position to assess whether this landmark legislation hit the mark or needs further reform. In order to assist Congress in assessing the effectiveness of HAVA, specifically with regard to the implementation of the provisional ballot requirement, I have requested that the GAO conduct and compile a nationwide review of state implementation of this provision. In particular, I have asked the GAO to compile data on the number of provisional ballots cast in the 2004 election, the number of provisional ballots counted, the number not counted and the reasons such provisional ballots were not counted. While it is already clear that the States are implementing this provision in significantly differing manners, it is troublesome that whether a Federal ballot is counted or not depends upon State law. Efforts such as the conference and forum this week, and others to occur in the coming weeks, are vital to understanding the full impact of HAVA and its limitations. Although some weaknesses in HAVA are already apparent, and it would be my intent to introduce legislation early in the 109th Congress to address these weaknesses to better ensure HAVA's effectiveness, it is through conferences and forums such as these that Congress can assess what further reforms are needed. At some point, we must ask ourselves whether we can ever truly ensure an equal opportunity to cast a vote and have our votes counted for all Americans when our elections are administered by 55 different State and territorial governments through over 10,000 local jurisdictions in a decentralized manner. Even in light of HAVA's farreaching reforms, this Nation is almost unique in its administration of Federal elections at the local level. Even under HAVA, States and localities have broad, but not absolute, discretion in how they implement HAVA. Similarly, the voting system standards which the Federal Election Assistance Commission will issue, pursuant to HAVA, remain voluntary only. This discretion played out quite differently across this Nation with respect to whether provisional ballots, once cast, were actually counted. It is time to consider whether, for Federal elections, there is a national responsibility to ensure that no matter where and how a ballot is cast for the Office of the President of the United States, all Americans will have confidence that their vote was cast and counted in a uniform and nondiscriminatory way. The Help America Vote Act is historic landmark legislation that comprehensively defines, for the first time in this Nation's history, the role of the Federal Government in the conduct of Federal elections. It was an important first step. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the civil rights, disability, language minority, and voting rights communities, as well as State and local election officials, to continue our work to ensure that all Americans have access to the most fundamental right in a representative democracy: the right to cast a vote and have that vote counted.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the FY 2005 omnibus appropriations bill, which the Senate passed late last month and the President signed into law earlier today. When this legislation was considered by the Senate, I cast my vote in opposition. At that time, I stated several reasons for my vote. I rise today to state several additional reasons for my vote--reasons which have come to light only upon a more thorough examination of this legislation. First, the omnibus appropriations bill underfunds educational activities in the No Child Left Behind Act by approximately $8 billion relative to authorized funding levels. It underfunds activities under Title I--which assist low-income school districts--by over $7.7 billion. The bill also underfunds activities authorized in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by over $10 billion. By denying localities adequate Federal support with which to raise school standards, student achievement, and infrastructure standards, we are denying millions of children and their families across the country the educational resources they need to succeed in a competitive world. We are denying them teachers. We are denying them tutors. We are denying them important components of the academic curricula--components that include art, foreign language, physical education, and music. Without these resources, our children are going to continue to struggle to keep up with children of other nations in educational achievement and proficiency. Moreover, this legislation freezes the maximum Pell grant for low- income students who plan to attend college to $4,050 for the third year in a row. It also does not include a necessary recalculation of eligibility requirements--an oversight that will cause up to 90,000 low-income students across this country to lose this vital resource for paying tuition costs. That oversight will also reduce the amount of a Pell Grant by an average of $300 for about one million students. The Pell Grant is the cornerstone of the Federal financial aid system that provides affordable college access for thousands of American students who otherwise could not advance their education. In an era of growing inflation and skyrocketing tuition costs, we should be encouraging and not denying our students' chances of achieving the American dream through education and hard work. Second, the bill does a poor job of making the needs of disadvantaged children and families a priority. Head Start, for example, has received $6.9 billion--a slight increase over the previous year, but only enough to reach and meet the needs of 60 percent of eligible young children. Inadequate investment levels have also been provided for important initiatives, such as the Child Care Development Block Grant and Community Health Centers, both of which provide vital services that ensure the health and well-being of disadvantaged families and their children. We all know that high-quality child care and health services for the poor continue to be in scarce supply or simply unavailable, unaffordable, and of dubious quality. Instead of trying to rectify these growing challenges, we are only exacerbating the problems faced by millions of Americans in urban, suburban, and rural areas. Third, the omnibus bill severely cuts important housing and community development services--particularly those services that assist low- income and elderly individuals. While the Department of Housing and Urban Development has received a meager 2 percent increase, the Section 8 voucher initiative has received inadequate investment, the Fund for Elderly Housing has been cut by $30 million over last year's funding level, Housing for People with AIDS has been cut by $11 million over last year's funding level, and the Community Development Block Grant-- an important initiative that has assisted dozens of distressed municipalities in my State--has been slashed by $212 million over the fiscal year 2004 level. In addition, the HOPE VI initiative, which has assisted in the redevelopment of public housing complexes across the country, has been cut by 75 percent over the past 4 years. Many municipalities in my State, including Danbury, Hartford, Middletown, New Haven, and Stamford have benefitted from HOPE VI resources totaling over $142 million to demolish deficient facilities and build quality affordable housing. Without this vital support, many of my constituents would have been denied the opportunity to live in decent and safe housing. I find it shameful that this bill fails to provide the resources that help Americans fulfill one of their most basic needs: a decent shelter over their heads. Fourth, the omnibus bill, in my view, discourages positive job growth and business expansion. This administration and Congress have talked endlessly about helping people find work and encouraging small businesses to grow. Unfortunately, the actions of this bill sadly contradicts their words. Aside from the fact that this bill allows up to 425,000 Federal jobs to be outsourced and up to 8 million private workers to be denied overtime compensation--two issues about which I spoke in my previous statement--it also cuts funds to the Small Business Administration by almost 19 percent and reduces initiatives that encourage small business growth in rural America by 77 percent. Instead of working towards creating new jobs and helping working families and individuals, the legislation creates yet another obstacle for millions of Americans to provide for themselves and their families. Beyond these four points, the omnibus bill provides inadequate investment levels for a variety of other services and initiatives that are vital to our country. The bill cuts the Environmental Protection Agency budget by 3 percent over the fiscal year 2004 level and cuts conservation programs run by the Department of Agriculture by 4 percent; it provides inadequate resources to the National Institutes of Health and beneficial research projects undertaken by that agency; it provides inadequate resources to the COPS initiatives, reduces support available to law enforcement agencies, and virtually eliminates a successful grant initiative to assist those agencies in hiring more personnel; it cuts the National Science Foundation's budget by $105 million over fiscal year 2004 levels and cuts $38 million from important arts initiatives run by the Smithsonian, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities; and it freezes funding for Amtrak for the third year in a row-- essentially negating any chance for our country to invest in new modes of regional rail transportation. Furthermore, every initiative in the bill suffers a further 0.8 percent reduction in support so that the strict budgetary restrictions imposed by the Bush administration would be met. It is worth to note this bill is not completely without merit. There are increased investment in child nutrition assistance, food stamps, local transportation initiatives, and global HIV/AIDS prevention. There is also much-needed support for several important initiatives in my home State of Connecticut. Unfortunately, these positive provisions do not outshine the legislation's numerous shortcomings. The President and several of our Republican colleagues have said repeatedly that the inadequate investment levels in this bill are designed to reduce the soaring deficits plaguing our country today. They go on to say that domestic initiatives are primarily responsible for the increasing deficits. Unfortunately, the facts before us today belie these assertions. According to a Congressional Budget Office report from September 7, 2004, it is not domestic investments but the grossly imbalanced tax cuts imposed by this administration that have chiefly caused our current deficit predicament--a predicament that promises to have long-term ramifications for the economic health of our country. According to CBO projections, the Bush tax cuts account for the majority of an expected $5.5 trillion deficit increase over the next 7 years. They are projected to increase the deficit more than all domestic investment combined. In short, this legislation, in my view, reflects a continuing failure to invest in the productive potential of our children, workers, and small businesses. I sincerely hope that the Senate will do better in the 109th Congress.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Center for Transportation Solutions Act of 2004. I am deeply troubled that the Federal Government is not doing enough to address important national and regional transportation issues from a systemic perspective. There is too little research being devoted to profound questions that have a long-term impact on the future viability of our nation's transportation network. Such questions may include: How well is our transportation system responding to the global economy? How can transportation meet the needs of greater environmental sustainability? How can people become more involved in transportation planning in their communities? What transportation technologies will be important in the future? Are there more effective ways to finance improvements to our transportation infrastructure? What will be the demand for various modes of transportation in the future? How well do the various modes of transportation interact? Is there a better way to reduce transportation accidents and enhance safety? In fact, the Federal Government does not adequately invest in finding answers to these and other important questions. The United States Department of Transportation spends approximately 1.5 percent of its budget on research. This amount is insufficient when compared to the 2.8 percent spent by the Department of Agriculture, 4.8 percent by the Department of Health and Human Services, 8.1 percent by the Environmental Protection Agency, and 14.9 percent spent by the Department of Defense. Much of that 1.5 percent spent by the Department of Transportation is focused on short-term, highly applied research activities, such as the performance of varieties of asphalt in different climates. Too few resources, however, are devoted to research in finding solutions to our most intractable long-term transportation problems. The consequences of this lack of foresight are significant. As Dennis Christiansen, Deputy Director of the Texas Transportation Institute, testified before the House Subcommittee on Highway, Transit, and Pipelines last year: ``In the private sector, failure to innovate may mean one goes out of business. In the public sector, failure to innovate may simply mean that we do things less efficiently and at a higher cost.'' In addition, the American Public Transportation Association commented at the same hearing that ``without research and training, innovation withers and American jobs are lost offshore.'' The lack of adequate investments in long-term transportation research, however, is not the only concern. The Nation's transportation research and technology programs are highly decentralized as well. There are state and federal transportation agencies, universities, contractors, and material suppliers all participating in transportation research activities. While this decentralization has its benefits in that the same broad array of institutions that are conducting the research are involved in its implementation, it also has its drawbacks. It poses challenges to effective priority-setting, and can lead to unnecessary duplication, results that are not transferable, and significant research gaps. The legislation that I am introducing will address these important issues by establishing a Center for Transportation Solutions as an independent agency in the executive branch of the government. Its purpose will be to develop and encourage the execution of a long-term national policy for the promotion of research and development related to multimodal transportation. The Center is modeled after the National Science Foundation. It will be under the leadership of a Director appointed by the President and a Board composed of sixteen individuals with expertise in transportation research and policy. Like the National Science Foundation, the Center will be organized into a series of research divisions on such issues as safety, the environment, infrastructure, intermodal connections, and transportation economics and financial policy. Regional Centers for Transportation Solutions will also be established to investigate these important issues from a regional perspective. The new Center will not supplant existing transportation research activities but supplement them. It will award competitive, merit-based grants to academic, public, and private research institutions to support long-term strategic transportation objectives. According to the Transportation Research Board, ``competition for funds and merit review of proposals are the best ways of ensuring the maximum return on investment of research funding and addressing strategic national transportation system goals.'' Sadly, much of the funding that is designated for transportation research today is earmarked for specific projects or research institutions without open competition. Finally, the Center will facilitate the interchange of transportation research data among interested parties, work closely with the United States Department of Transportation in setting research priorities, and coordinate its scientific research programs with public and private research groups. This legislation is a work in progress. In the coming months, I intend to further refine it for reintroduction in the 109th Congress. Nevertheless, the bill embodies an important goal namely, the need for increased resources and strategic planning devoted to tackling the nation's long-term transportation needs. I realize that the 108th Congress is nearing completion. I am also aware that the Senate and the House of Representatives will likely revisit the reauthorization of surface transportation programs soon after the 109th Congress convenes in 2005. That legislation would be the perfect opportunity for Congress to look farther into the future-- even beyond the traditional six-year scope of the surface transportation bill--and begin to make the investments necessary for solving our nation's most difficult transportation problems. After all, if we can devote resources to finding a cure for cancer and other life- threatening illnesses, shouldn't we do the same and find a cure for traffic congestion?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Death Care Inspection and Disclosure Act of 2004, a bill which I believe will go a long way in restoring the trust that Americans place in the funeral and death care industries. None of us like to think about death and dying. It is a painful and uncomfortable subject, and most Americans, understandably, choose not to confront matters related to the death of a loved one until the death actually occurs. And when a loved one does pass on, we turn to our friends and family to grieve. Certainly, the last thing anyone wants to do at such a painful time is to spend hours or days negotiating or shopping for a funeral, casket, or other goods and services. Instead, we leave most of these arrangements in the hands of funeral service providers, turning to them to ensure that our loved ones are cared for and treated with respect and dignity after their passing. We place a great deal of trust in funeral service providers. A funeral, after all, represents one of the largest purchases many consumers will ever make, just behind a home, college education, and a car. However, unlike these transactions, the purchase of funeral services is most often done under intense emotional duress, with very little time to spare, and without the benefit of the type of consumer information generally available when making such a large purchase. As a result, we trust funeral service providers to give us fair prices, to represent goods and services accurately, and to not take advantage of us during our moments of greatest grief and vulnerability. For the most part, this trust is well deserved. I have no doubt, that the majority of individuals working in the funeral industry are good men and women who practice their profession with the honor and gravity it demands. However, recent revelations of abuses in the industry have shown us that not all members of the death care industry are honest and upstanding. We all remember hearing recently of the discovery of over 200 bodies strewn in the woods near a crematorium in Noble, GA. There is also evidence of desecration of graves and remains at cemeteries in Florida, California, Hawaii, and my own State of Connecticut. These incidents, as well as developments in the funeral industry as a whole, compel us to reexamine the regulatory structure we currently have in place for this industry. Currently, the death care industry is regulated by a patchwork of state and local laws. These regulations may have been sufficient years ago, but the character of the industry has changed substantially since many of these laws were passed. The industry has become surprisingly large and diverse. The death care industry generates annual revenues of over $15 billion and employs over 104,000 Americans. The 1990's saw the rise of multi-state ``consolidators'' who purchased local funeral homes across the country. Even for small local firms, the business has become increasingly complex. As more and more Americans travel and live in places far from where they were born, the industry has become one that frequently does business across state and county lines. There have also been changes in Americans' cultural expectations of funeral services. For example, the percentage of cremations has risen from 5 percent in the 1970's to 25 percent today. However, only 12 States have substantive laws which cover cremation. In fact, in the case in Georgia I mentioned earlier, the crematorium in question was statutorily exempt from inspection, allowing the abuses to continue undiscovered. The only significant federal regulation of the industry exists in the Federal Trade Commission's Funeral Rule, promulgated nearly 20 years ago. Again, this rule has not kept up with the nature of the industry. Perhaps most importantly, the rule does not cover numerous sectors of the industry such as cemeteries, crematories, and casket makers. It also does not effectively regulate prepaid funeral contracts, which have become an increasingly popular option in recent years. In 2002, I chaired a hearing of the Subcommittee on Children and Families in which we examined developments in the industry and how they have impacted American families. Since that hearing, I have worked with both consumer and industry groups to craft legislation to protect Americans from potential abuse by funeral service providers. The Federal Death Care Inspection and Disclosure Act of 2004 would provide Federal funding to allow States to hire and train inspectors and give consumers the right to legal action against those who violate regulatory standards. In order to be eligible for funding, states would have to adhere to standards which are outlined in the legislation. The act would also codify and strengthen the existing FTC regulations governing licensing and registration, record-keeping, inspection, resolution of consumer complaints, and enforcement of state laws in the industry. It would clarify regulations to prevent deceptive trade practices in the industry and ensure that consumers can make informed decisions as they make funeral arrangements. Finally, the FTC rules would be expanded to cover all segments of the death care industry. I am aware that as we are in the closing days of this Congress, we will not have the opportunity to pass this legislation this year. However, I would like to take this opportunity to raise this issue with my colleagues today, and I hope that we will be able to move on this issue when we reconvene for the 109th Congress. It is my firm belief that this bill will help both consumers and industry. Consumers will have the peace of mind knowing that they are being treated fairly during their time of grief and distress, while the industry will benefit from regaining the high level of consumer confidence and trust that it has traditionally enjoyed. I urge my colleagues to join me by supporting this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Center for Transportation Solutions Act of 2004. I am deeply troubled that the Federal Government is not doing enough to address important national and regional transportation issues from a systemic perspective. There is too little research being devoted to profound questions that have a long-term impact on the future viability of our nation's transportation network. Such questions may include: How well is our transportation system responding to the global economy? How can transportation meet the needs of greater environmental sustainability? How can people become more involved in transportation planning in their communities? What transportation technologies will be important in the future? Are there more effective ways to finance improvements to our transportation infrastructure? What will be the demand for various modes of transportation in the future? How well do the various modes of transportation interact? Is there a better way to reduce transportation accidents and enhance safety? In fact, the Federal Government does not adequately invest in finding answers to these and other important questions. The United States Department of Transportation spends approximately 1.5 percent of its budget on research. This amount is insufficient when compared to the 2.8 percent spent by the Department of Agriculture, 4.8 percent by the Department of Health and Human Services, 8.1 percent by the Environmental Protection Agency, and 14.9 percent spent by the Department of Defense. Much of that 1.5 percent spent by the Department of Transportation is focused on short-term, highly applied research activities, such as the performance of varieties of asphalt in different climates. Too few resources, however, are devoted to research in finding solutions to our most intractable long-term transportation problems. The consequences of this lack of foresight are significant. As Dennis Christiansen, Deputy Director of the Texas Transportation Institute, testified before the House Subcommittee on Highway, Transit, and Pipelines last year: ``In the private sector, failure to innovate may mean one goes out of business. In the public sector, failure to innovate may simply mean that we do things less efficiently and at a higher cost.'' In addition, the American Public Transportation Association commented at the same hearing that ``without research and training, innovation withers and American jobs are lost offshore.'' The lack of adequate investments in long-term transportation research, however, is not the only concern. The Nation's transportation research and technology programs are highly decentralized as well. There are state and federal transportation agencies, universities, contractors, and material suppliers all participating in transportation research activities. While this decentralization has its benefits in that the same broad array of institutions that are conducting the research are involved in its implementation, it also has its drawbacks. It poses challenges to effective priority-setting, and can lead to unnecessary duplication, results that are not transferable, and significant research gaps. The legislation that I am introducing will address these important issues by establishing a Center for Transportation Solutions as an independent agency in the executive branch of the government. Its purpose will be to develop and encourage the execution of a long-term national policy for the promotion of research and development related to multimodal transportation. The Center is modeled after the National Science Foundation. It will be under the leadership of a Director appointed by the President and a Board composed of sixteen individuals with expertise in transportation research and policy. Like the National Science Foundation, the Center will be organized into a series of research divisions on such issues as safety, the environment, infrastructure, intermodal connections, and transportation economics and financial policy. Regional Centers for Transportation Solutions will also be established to investigate these important issues from a regional perspective. The new Center will not supplant existing transportation research activities but supplement them. It will award competitive, merit-based grants to academic, public, and private research institutions to support long-term strategic transportation objectives. According to the Transportation Research Board, ``competition for funds and merit review of proposals are the best ways of ensuring the maximum return on investment of research funding and addressing strategic national transportation system goals.'' Sadly, much of the funding that is designated for transportation research today is earmarked for specific projects or research institutions without open competition. Finally, the Center will facilitate the interchange of transportation research data among interested parties, work closely with the United States Department of Transportation in setting research priorities, and coordinate its scientific research programs with public and private research groups. This legislation is a work in progress. In the coming months, I intend to further refine it for reintroduction in the 109th Congress. Nevertheless, the bill embodies an important goal namely, the need for increased resources and strategic planning devoted to tackling the nation's long-term transportation needs. I realize that the 108th Congress is nearing completion. I am also aware that the Senate and the House of Representatives will likely revisit the reauthorization of surface transportation programs soon after the 109th Congress convenes in 2005. That legislation would be the perfect opportunity for Congress to look farther into the future-- even beyond the traditional six-year scope of the surface transportation bill--and begin to make the investments necessary for solving our nation's most difficult transportation problems. After all, if we can devote resources to finding a cure for cancer and other life- threatening illnesses, shouldn't we do the same and find a cure for traffic congestion?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Death Care Inspection and Disclosure Act of 2004, a bill which I believe will go a long way in restoring the trust that Americans place in the funeral and death care industries. None of us like to think about death and dying. It is a painful and uncomfortable subject, and most Americans, understandably, choose not to confront matters related to the death of a loved one until the death actually occurs. And when a loved one does pass on, we turn to our friends and family to grieve. Certainly, the last thing anyone wants to do at such a painful time is to spend hours or days negotiating or shopping for a funeral, casket, or other goods and services. Instead, we leave most of these arrangements in the hands of funeral service providers, turning to them to ensure that our loved ones are cared for and treated with respect and dignity after their passing. We place a great deal of trust in funeral service providers. A funeral, after all, represents one of the largest purchases many consumers will ever make, just behind a home, college education, and a car. However, unlike these transactions, the purchase of funeral services is most often done under intense emotional duress, with very little time to spare, and without the benefit of the type of consumer information generally available when making such a large purchase. As a result, we trust funeral service providers to give us fair prices, to represent goods and services accurately, and to not take advantage of us during our moments of greatest grief and vulnerability. For the most part, this trust is well deserved. I have no doubt, that the majority of individuals working in the funeral industry are good men and women who practice their profession with the honor and gravity it demands. However, recent revelations of abuses in the industry have shown us that not all members of the death care industry are honest and upstanding. We all remember hearing recently of the discovery of over 200 bodies strewn in the woods near a crematorium in Noble, GA. There is also evidence of desecration of graves and remains at cemeteries in Florida, California, Hawaii, and my own State of Connecticut. These incidents, as well as developments in the funeral industry as a whole, compel us to reexamine the regulatory structure we currently have in place for this industry. Currently, the death care industry is regulated by a patchwork of state and local laws. These regulations may have been sufficient years ago, but the character of the industry has changed substantially since many of these laws were passed. The industry has become surprisingly large and diverse. The death care industry generates annual revenues of over $15 billion and employs over 104,000 Americans. The 1990's saw the rise of multi-state ``consolidators'' who purchased local funeral homes across the country. Even for small local firms, the business has become increasingly complex. As more and more Americans travel and live in places far from where they were born, the industry has become one that frequently does business across state and county lines. There have also been changes in Americans' cultural expectations of funeral services. For example, the percentage of cremations has risen from 5 percent in the 1970's to 25 percent today. However, only 12 States have substantive laws which cover cremation. In fact, in the case in Georgia I mentioned earlier, the crematorium in question was statutorily exempt from inspection, allowing the abuses to continue undiscovered. The only significant federal regulation of the industry exists in the Federal Trade Commission's Funeral Rule, promulgated nearly 20 years ago. Again, this rule has not kept up with the nature of the industry. Perhaps most importantly, the rule does not cover numerous sectors of the industry such as cemeteries, crematories, and casket makers. It also does not effectively regulate prepaid funeral contracts, which have become an increasingly popular option in recent years. In 2002, I chaired a hearing of the Subcommittee on Children and Families in which we examined developments in the industry and how they have impacted American families. Since that hearing, I have worked with both consumer and industry groups to craft legislation to protect Americans from potential abuse by funeral service providers. The Federal Death Care Inspection and Disclosure Act of 2004 would provide Federal funding to allow States to hire and train inspectors and give consumers the right to legal action against those who violate regulatory standards. In order to be eligible for funding, states would have to adhere to standards which are outlined in the legislation. The act would also codify and strengthen the existing FTC regulations governing licensing and registration, record-keeping, inspection, resolution of consumer complaints, and enforcement of state laws in the industry. It would clarify regulations to prevent deceptive trade practices in the industry and ensure that consumers can make informed decisions as they make funeral arrangements. Finally, the FTC rules would be expanded to cover all segments of the death care industry. I am aware that as we are in the closing days of this Congress, we will not have the opportunity to pass this legislation this year. However, I would like to take this opportunity to raise this issue with my colleagues today, and I hope that we will be able to move on this issue when we reconvene for the 109th Congress. It is my firm belief that this bill will help both consumers and industry. Consumers will have the peace of mind knowing that they are being treated fairly during their time of grief and distress, while the industry will benefit from regaining the high level of consumer confidence and trust that it has traditionally enjoyed. I urge my colleagues to join me by supporting this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I regrettably voted against the adoption, of the conference report tonight. I say ``regrettably'' because I appreciate the efforts of Senator Stevens, Byrd, and others to fashion sound legislation for the country, including the State of Connecticut. I am grateful to them. I applaud their efforts. However, I felt compelled to oppose this legislation because of the troubling way this bill was brought before this body and because of certain provisions about which I held deep concerns. A few hours before the vote tonight, we were handed a piece of legislation 3,200 pages in length that combined nine appropriations bills worth over $380 billion. It is important to note that these appropriations bills did not follow the normal legislative process. Instead of being considered and voted on separately by the Senate and House and reconciled in a conference committee, they were combined into an existing conference report and sent to both the House and Senate with limited time for debate and no chance of amending. Furthermore, this omnibus bill was largely written under a shroud of secrecy--a shroud so thick that it became apparent this afternoon that not even the Senate leadership or Senate Appropriations Committee chairman knew fully what was contained in this legislation. Thanks to our colleague Kent Conrad and his staff this afternoon, we learned of an extraordinary tax provision buried in the middle of this 3-foot thick bill--a provision apparently unbeknownst to the majority that launches an unprecedented assault on the personal privacy. This provision allows certain Members of Congress or their designees--designees that could include anybody from staff members to private contractors--to request the tax returns of any United States citizen without having to give any reason for requesting the returns and without having any limitations on how to use those returns. Simply put, it is an unprecedented abuse of congressional power and a frontal assault on our civil liberties. I am told that the fact remains that this legislation contains a provision that strikes at the heart of our nation's civil liberties. Moreover, that this provision will be repealed by the House and Senate before becoming law. While I am comforted by this move, I remain deeply troubled that other damaging provisions such as the one above might remain in this bill. A second issue over which I hold deep concerns is that this conference report essentially allows health care providers to ``gag'' medical professionals and deny women from obtaining medically necessary information and services concerning reproductive health. This so-called Federal refusal clause would exempt health care providers from any existing federal, state, or municipal law that ensures that women have legal access to abortion services and reproductive health information. It would also bar states and municipalities from enforcing their own access laws without jeopardizing all of their federal funding for health and educational initiatives. While supporters of this provision claim that it solely serves as a ``conscience clause'' that protects the religious beliefs of certain health care providers, it is clear to me that this provision is yet another veiled attempt to undermine a woman's constitutional right to choose. I am encouraged that Senator Boxer has reached an agreement with the Senate leadership to introduce and consider a bill next year that will strip this provision. As legislators, I believe that we should not work to uphold the rights and freedoms proscribed by the Constitution. We should not work to stifle or remove them. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the constitutional rights of women as enshrined by Roe v. Wade. I urge them to support initiatives that properly and effectively make a woman's life and well-being a top priority. Furthermore, I am concerned that this conference report fails to contain several important measures that were previously approved by the House and Senate. One such measure prevents the Labor Department to, in effect, deny overtime pay to as many as 8 million workers across our country. While both the House and the Senate opposed this policy by bipartisan majorities, that opposition was ignored by Republican conferees. Many workers who now qualify for overtime pay would find their jobs reclassified as a managerial or professional position, thus making them ineligible for overtime pay if they work in excess of 40 hours. This change is significant because overtime pay can provide as much as 25 percent of a worker's annual income. Instead of working toward creating new jobs and helping working families and individuals, the legislation creates yet another obstacle for millions of Americans to provide for themselves and their families. Second, this conference report fails to stop the outsourcing of American jobs. The conference report that was before us tonight fails to reverse a Bush administration policy of allowing government functions to be outsourced to other countries--thereby causing thousands of job losses at home. Finally, the conference report wholly underfunds important domestic initiatives such as education and health. It shows once again the current Administration's failure in guaranteeing the well-being of all Americans. I regretted voting against this bill tonight because it does provide several million dollars for important initiatives in my home state of Connecticut and across the Nation. However, in my view, it carries too many negative provisions for me to support. I will continue to work with my colleagues in rectifying the bill's shortcomings in the coming months and new session of Congress.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am going to send a copy of this bill to the desk to be printed in the Record. It is not going to be referred to any committees in the waning minutes of this 108th Congress, but I will submit it for the Record. My plans are to reintroduce this legislation in January when we reconvene for the 109th Congress. I thought it might be helpful to have this legislation in the Record for my colleagues to review. It is called the Free Speech Protection Act of 2004. This bill is designed to ensure that the free speech guarantees enshrined in the First to the Constitution will be strong and effective for many generations to come. After all, it is the free flow of news and information to the public on a wide variety of concerns which makes our democracy vibrant and alive. Indeed, the very design of our democratic institutions is premised in large part upon an informed citizenry that could exercise informed judgments. As James Madison once observed: Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And apeople who mean to be their own Governor, must arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives. Madison and the other Founders of our great Republic understood full well that the best guarantee of a knowledgeable citizenry is a free press and a public free to speak to the press. The press must be free to report on the human condition, the conduct of public officials, matters of business and corporate governance, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of our society and its institutions. A free press must also be able to access a broad spectrum of views from a wide variety of sources. Once individuals deliberate over such information, they are able to make more educated decisions. In addition, they can also more effectively and intelligently participate in matters of public concern. To quote Madison once again: Popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy, or perhaps both. In fact, one of the hallmarks of a totalitarian government is that the state controls the press and similar sources of public information. Such regimes are characterized by extreme levels of secrecy and a total lack of transparency. The free flow of information to the public is greatly restricted. Criticism of the government could result in imprisonment or even death. In recent memory, such regimes existed in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, where the press was often used as a tool for propaganda. Unfortunately, there are still a number of governments around the globe today that greatly restrict the flow of news and information to their citizens. The United States, in its formative years, never chose that path. The Founding Fathers of this great Nation of ours knew the value of a free press because they had often been denied it by their colonial rulers. Repressive measures had long been part of English history in this regard, such as the censorship of published materials and a licensing system whereby nothing could get published without the government's consent. Our Founding Fathers recognized then that for a society to remain free, it must also allow for divergent views and opinions to be expressed, and for ideas to be openly exchanged. In many respects, the rights of free speech and a free press protect the government from trampling on the other political and personal liberties all Americans hold so dear. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are like the government watchdog that shines a spotlight when other rights are being threatened. Without this, the press becomes an extension of the government and the people know only what the government wants them to know. As Jefferson once commented: When the press is free and everyone is able to read, all is safe. Congress cannot afford to stand idly by and allow our sacred First Amendment freedoms to be threatened. Let me be clear. The legislation I submitted to the desk, the Free Speech Protection Act of 2004, is not merely about protecting the press. Instead, this legislation is about consumer protection. It is about openness, debate, the free flow of information and deliberation--the very ideals that the Senate holds so dear. It is also about ensuring that our constituents, the American citizenry, have access to the knowledge and information they need to make educated decisions and fully participate in our democracy. Yet these freedoms which we hold so dear are not as safe as they have been in other times in the life of our Nation. They have come under attack by the heavy hand of Government in a manner not seen since the height of the Watergate scandal 30 years ago. The press today is frequently being subpoenaed to appear in Federal court and threatened with fines and/or imprisonment if they refuse to reveal a confidential source to the prosecutor or attorneys involved in the lawsuit. In some instances, the prosecutor or attorneys might also request the reporter's notes, video outtakes, or other unpublished information. In recent months, the press has come under intense pressure to reveal the identity of their confidential sources, threatening the public's right to know. In Providence, RI, WJAR-TV reporter Jim Taricani aired an FBI surveillance tape in 2001 that showed an aide to Mayor Vincent ``Buddy'' Cianci accepting a bribe from a local businessman. Taricani broke no law in airing the tape, but a special prosecutor was subsequently brought in to investigate who leaked the information. He refused to identify the source and was convicted of criminal contempt yesterday in Federal court. Taricani now faces 6 months in prison when he is sentenced in December. Perhaps the most alarming instance in recent months of the growing threat to the sacred right to freedom of speech in America is the case of Judith Miller of the New York Times. Last month, a Federal judge held Miller in contempt of court for refusing to name her sources to prosecutors investigating the disclosure to syndicated columnist Robert Novak and to other journalists of Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA agent. Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, IV, had in a New York Times editorial criticized the Bush administration for claiming that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger. Unidentified senior administration officials revealed Plame's identity to Robert Novak and other Washington area journalists, allegedly as an act of revenge for Wilson speaking out against President Bush's rationale for invading Iraq. Mr. Novak then published Plame's identity in a July 2003 column, which prompted an investigation by the Justice Department and the subpoenaing of several journalists before a Federal grand jury, including Judith Miller, Tim Russert of NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' Walter Pincus and Glen Kessler of the Washington Post, and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper. Some of these reporters have talked to the prosecutors after the alleged Government sources signed waivers releasing the journalists from any pledge of confidentiality. New York Times reporter Judith Miller, however, has refused to testify, even under the limited terms of the waiver. As a result, she is being held in contempt of court and could face up to 18 months in jail unless she agrees to testify. What is so surprising about this case is that Judith Miller never even published an article in the New York Times, or any other newspaper or magazine for that matter, about Valerie Plame. The mere fact that Miller contemplated writing such an article and had conducted interviews for it was enough for the judge to hold her in contempt of court for refusing to name sources. Currently, 31 States and the District of Columbia have enacted protections for gatherers and disseminators of news and information. They include red States, blue States, Alabama, North Carolina, and Montana, for example. Why then is there a need for a Federal statute in this area? A strong and uniformed Federal law on shielding would provide uniformity and consistency to the patchwork of inconsistent court decisions and State statutes currently in place. In many instances, whether the disclosure will be compelled and how much information will be disclosed depends upon the particular State in which the journalist is pursuing a story when he or she is subpoenaed. The different potential outcomes affect reporters' practices, the flow of information, the articles written or not written, in various news media. It ultimately impacts the public's ability to learn about matters of interest and importance as well. The protections that these laws and court rulings provide vary widely in detail and in scope. For example, some States grant nearly complete protection for sources and information, while others provide little or none. In addition, the protections may differ in their applicability to criminal and/or civil proceedings. In the Federal court system, for instance, most have interpreted Branzburg, a 1972 United States Supreme Court decision, to provide at least qualified news gathering protection--that is, a protection that can be overcome in certain circumstances. A few Federal courts, however, such as the Seventh Circuit, have rejected such protection, or have limited it only to when the subpoenas are being used to harass the press. For those reasons, I think it is quite clear that a national standard would protect gatherers and disseminators of information from the varying State statutes and their interpretations by State courts. This goal is exactly what the Free Speech Protection Act of 2004 would achieve. Under the legislation, the protection against compelled disclosure for sources would be absolute. The protection against compelled disclosure of news and information, however, is qualified. That is, an individual involved in gathering news would be required to reveal their unpublished material only under certain circumstances. The legislation requires three criteria to be met before such news or information can be disclosed. First, the person seeking the news or information must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the news or information is critical or necessary to significant legal issues before a judicial, legislative, or administrative body that has the power to issue a subpoena. Secondly, the news or information could not be obtained by alternative means. Finally, there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure that must exist. The legislation I am introducing this evening is a work in progress. Obviously, in the coming weeks I intend to further refine it, and in the 109th Congress to seek out my colleagues' advice and counsel on how we might proceed. I am nevertheless introducing this bill in the closing hours of this Congress because I believe the Senate discussion of this matter is urgent. The public's right to know is under attack. When that happens, all Americans suffer since they are deprived of knowledge and information which affects their lives. There are countless examples of information that we have received because there have been confidential sources who have come forward. Certainly, we can go back to Watergate, Whitewater, or Iran-Contra, Abu Ghirab--the prison scandal in Iraq--Enron, WorldCom, corporate governance issues, the list is almost endless. Had it not been for confidential sources coming forward and sharing information with a free press that would then share that with the public, if we had to rely exclusively on government press releases or press conferences, then we might never have learned anything about some of these issues which have been so vitally important to make our Government and our Nation stronger. I urge my colleagues to take a look at this proposal and urge them to consider it when we return in January. I will reintroduce it again and urge them to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I draw attention to the growing problem of premature birth. As a sponsor of the PREEMIE Act, with my colleague Senator Alexander, I have heard the stories about the strain a premature birth places on families, as well as the lifelong health problems many preterm children face. Nationwide, 1 out of every 8 babies is born too early. In my own State of Connecticut, 1 of every 10 babies born in 2002 was preterm and the rate of preterm births in Connecticut has risen more than 11% since 1992. Senator Alexander and I are introducing a resolution to raise awareness of this public health crisis. As part of their 5-year campaign designed to use the combined power of awareness, education, and research to significantly decrease the number of premature births in the United States, the March of Dimes has designated November as Prematurity Awareness Month. I am pleased to be supporting this campaign. I urge my colleagues to find out about the toll of premature births in their states and to work together to solve this problem. I hope we can move the PREEMIE Act quickly in the 109th Congress in order to expand the Government's efforts to reduce the rates of preterm birth.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I support a bipartisan, bicameral reauthorization of the Individual with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. I want to start by thanking my fellow conferees and their staff for all of their hard work in putting together the bipartisan, bicameral legislation we are considering today. While we may still have some disagreements about the substance of the bill, getting to this point in a bipartisan way is no small achievement, and I know we are all better for it. Nothing pleases me more than to move forward with a reauthorization that the education, the disability, and the parent and student community have been eagerly waiting for: a bill that will ensure that students with disabilities get the services they are entitled to while providing school systems with a greater degree of flexibility in implementing the law. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 emphasizes accountability and improved results, improves monitoring and enforcement of the law, and works to reduce litigation by providing new opportunities for parents and schools to address concerns and disputes. The bill reduces paperwork by streamlining State and local paperwork requirements, provides earlier access to services and supports for infants, toddlers and preschoolers with disabilities, and properly puts added emphasis on transition services so that special education students leave the system ready to be full productive citizens, whether they choose to go on to college or a job. Like No Child Left Behind, this bill also increases and improves opportunities for parental involvement and supports special education teachers in becoming ``highly qualified'' to do their jobs. I am particularly pleased that the IDEA conference agreement contains provisions that I, along with Senators Cochran, Harkin and Bunning, originally introduced as the Instructional Materials Accessibility Act, IMAA. These important provisions will greatly aid blind and print- disabled students by ensuring that they receive their textbooks and other instructional materials in the formats that they require, such as Braille, at the same time as their sighted peers. Far too often, blind, visually-impaired and print-disabled students wait months for their State or local school districts to convert their textbooks into Braille or another alternative format. At the same time, school districts face exorbitant costs for these conversions. The Instructional Material Accessibility Act provisions included in this reauthorization will mandate the adoption of one uniform electronic file format that will greatly ease the process of converting learning materials into alternative formats, such as Braille. Secondly, the IMAA provisions will create a repository for these formats so that they can be disseminated to local school districts quickly and cost effectively. We often hear today the pledge that we will leave no child behind. May I suggest that we also make every effort to ensure that we leave no blind child behind. The adoption of these important provisions will go a long way toward ensuring that blind, visually-impaired and print- disabled students are not left behind in the classroom. And while I am disappointed that the bill does not contain a provision to provide mandatory full-funding of IDEA, I believe that the monetary targets that have been provided, are at least pointing us in the right direction. Still, I think it is important to remind everyone, yet again, that thirty years ago when we passed IDEA, we made a commitment to, over time, cover 40 percent of the State cost of servicing students with special needs. We have yet to make good on this commitment. Today the Federal Government supports less than 20 percent of the cost of the program. That is not even half of the 40 percent we promised 29 years ago. States and municipalities are bearing more than their share of responsibility for meeting disabled students' needs. States and municipalities need our help. As I have said before, I cannot accept the argument that because our economy is faltering, or we are a Nation at war, we cannot provide our children and their families with the critical educational resources they need. Investment in education is no less important in a weak economy or while our Nation is at war. Almost 30 years ago, Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to help States provide all children with disabilities with a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment possible. Since that time, this law has made an incredible difference in the lives of millions of American children and their families. Fundamentally, this is a good bill--one that will help guarantee the full potential of all our children while assisting school districts in their efforts to deliver special education services in an efficient manner. That is why I will support it.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to share a few thoughts about our Democratic leader. I mentioned at the outset of these remarks that I was so deeply moved and impressed today by the words of Tom Daschle. I hope all of our colleagues, if they were not here, will read his remarks. It was about as good a speech as I have heard given in this body in a long time. It laid out some pretty important standards for all of us to keep in mind, particularly those of us serving here--the notion of hope that he talked about; the notion of not forgetting where you come from no matter how important you think you are at any given moment; to remember your staff; to remember the people who helped make us successful and who deserve great credit for their tireless contributions; remembering people who work in the Senate, arrive here in the wee hours of the morning to make these buildings operate; and remembering his constituents and his family. It was as eloquent a farewell address as you are ever going to hear in the Senate. Tom Daschle, of course, has served with me in the Senate since 1987. He has served as Democratic leader for the past decade. He has been a very able leader and spokesman for our party and our beliefs on the Senate floor or on national news programs. Anyone who has observed Tom Daschle over these past 18 years knows he is generally not one to raise his voice. But beneath his gentle demeanor and soft tone and human decency is a fierce determination to do what is right for both his constituents in South Dakota and the American people. His service to the people of South Dakota has been outstanding. I noted earlier that Senator Paul Sarbanes of Maryland quoted some editorials from newspapers of South Dakota talking about his service to their State over these past 26 years in the House and the Senate. As a Senator from our Nation's third smallest State in terms of area, I am somewhat spoiled by the ease with which I am able to meet with my constituents. Tom, on the other hand, has represented a State of over 77,000 square miles, smaller I might add than the State of the Presiding Officer of Montana, but nonetheless daunting if you come from a State such as Connecticut which is so much smaller. You have counties in your State of Montana which are larger, I think, than the State of Connecticut. Each year Tom set aside time to drive to each of the 66 counties in the State alone in his car with no staff, just arriving in town, seeing people and talking to them regardless of the lofty position he held here on the Democrat side of the aisle. He always took that time out each year to go back to reconnect with the roots of South Dakota and to meet with his people at home is one of the reasons why he never was confused by the title of ``leader.'' He was always very firmly planted on the ground and why he would fight as leader not only for our national issues but for State issues. He was completely understanding of other Senators who would come to him and talk about the needs in their own States. Because he was so rooted in understanding of his own constituent needs, he was deeply sympathetic to other Senators as they lobbied on behalf of matters that were important to their constituencies. He championed legislation to provide disaster relief for farmers, expand health care services in rural area, expand health care to Native Americans, and the list goes on. In his role as Democratic leader Tom Daschle has stood for the values that are the bedrock of our Nation, such as a strong middle class, a foreign policy that keeps America strong by working with our allies, fiscally responsible economic policies that invest in critical national priorities such as jobs, education, and health care. During President Clinton's term he helped advance the agenda that created over 22 million new jobs in our Nation, the longest period of economic expansion in American history. Over the past 4 years, he has led our party's efforts to return to more responsible policies that can make our Nation stronger both at home and abroad. On a personal level, I will miss Tom Daschle very much. I am the individual who lost to him by one vote 10 years ago. I remember that day very well as we competed to become Democratic leader. Many people assume when anyone goes through a battle like that, an intense battle of some 24 days, that it may cause a permanent divide in a relationship. We quickly got over that. I certainly did, and Tom did. He reached out to me directly, invited me to be part of a circle that would help shape positions within our party. He is a gracious human being. We have become very good friends, and we will retain that friendship. I would be far less than candid with my colleagues or my constituents if I didn't tell you I will miss this man very much. He is as decent a human being as I have ever known in my life, in public or in private life. He is a good, good man. Whatever he does, he will bring great integrity, great honor, and great decency to any endeavor that he becomes involved in. I look forward to many years of good friendship with him and Linda. I wish he and his family the very best in the years to come. I apologize for taking this extra time. It is important that the public hear Members talk about each other, even those who disagreed on matters, that they understand why this institution works more than 230 years after the Founders created it. I, as a Senator from Connecticut, take unique pride in the Senate because it was Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, both of Connecticut, who offered at the Constitutional Convention the idea of the Senate representing small and large States. Arguing over a unicameral system, Sherman and Ellsworth said, how about having a second body with equal representation, regardless of the size or the population of the State. As a result, this institution was created. It has been a great place that has served our Nation for so long and I am confident it will in the future. We have been blessed by the participation of those who are leaving. All of us wish each and every one of them the very best in the years to come. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I know the hour is getting late and others want to be heard, but I briefly want to express some thoughts about our colleagues who are leaving this wonderful body. Today we have heard some very compelling speeches, particularly the one given by my good friend, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, our Democratic leader. I was pleased to see so many of our colleagues remain on the floor to listen to the departing Democratic leader. The words he expressed about his State, his staff, his colleagues, his feelings about the country, and the future, are instructive. I know it can sound repetitive when people hear us talk about our colleagues this way, but I think it is important for the public to note that while they might hear only about the bickering, the part that you do not often see is the deep respect, affection, and caring that goes on among the Members of this body. This affection comes despite the differences that exist in red States and blue States, or being strongly conservative or strongly liberal. There is this weaving of a common denominator through each and every one of us, particularly after years of common service in this remarkable institution we call the Senate. There is a deep and abiding respect for those who have come here, those who have served here, those who have tried to make a difference for our country. It may seem like it is inside discussion, but I hope the public understands how deeply felt these comments are about colleagues who will no longer have the pleasure of spending each and every day in this Chamber, but whose friendship and collegiality will continue in the years ahead as we encounter each other in different walks of life. Ernest Hollings First, Fritz Hollings has now served with two generations of my family. He served with my father briefly, and over the last 24 years we have served together in this Chamber. I have not had the pleasure of serving with Fritz Hollings, except once on the Budget Committee for a few years. We have become very good friends though. We have traveled together. We have spent a lot of time together. I have been to his State. I have gone to South Carolina at his invitation to speak to South Carolinians. Inviting this swamp Yankee from Connecticut to come south of the Mason- Dixon line was a source of tremendous joy and pleasure, especially to be with Fritz Hollings, his lovely wife Peatsy, and their constituents not too many months ago, on a St. Patrick's Day event in Charleston, SC. Fritz Hollings has done a remarkable job for his State of South Carolina, as well as for his nation, beginning with his career in the military, serving in North Africa and in Europe during World War II. He was awarded the Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons; elected to South Carolina's House of Representatives at the age of 26, the youngest Governor in that State in the 20th century; and during his 4 years as Governor, balanced the State budget, dramatically improving South Carolina's economy. He was elected to the Senate in 1964. His resume included an incredible list of legislative accomplishments. Anyone who would have accomplished any one of these things could have considered their career a successful one. He was the author of the Women, Infants and Children Program, the WIC Program. During my early years in the Senate, I had the pleasure of working with him on the famous Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act in 1985, which was called by the Brookings Institution one of the most significant pieces of legislation in the 20th century. He wrote the first law designed to protect our coastal wetlands, and initiated a nationwide effort to encourage women to screen themselves for breast and cervical cancer. Over the past few years he spoke forcefully about the dangers facing this country due to the outsourcing of jobs. Senator Hollings has always been a strong and loud voice against fiscal irresponsibility in our Government and in favor of creating American jobs. Fritz is an American original. The Senate is not likely to see his like here again. Whatever else you may have thought, he was direct and forceful, and spoke with great passion about the things he believed in. It is the kind of public service and the kind of stewardship in this body that others could duplicate in years to come. They would do well to follow the example of Fritz Hollings, a wonderful Senator, a delightful friend. I shall miss his service here, but I am very confident I will see him over and over again in years to come. And I wish, as my colleagues have, that he, Peatsy, and his family have many years of joyful retirement. Bob Graham Bob Graham is also leaving the Senate. I would like to recognize him and the State of Florida for sharing Bob Graham with us. He served for 18 years in the Senate. Prior to his election to this body, he served as a Governor for 8 years in Florida, and served previously in both the Florida State Senate and the House of Representatives. He is without a doubt one of the most respected and popular public figures who have ever represented the State of Florida. He is well known in Florida for working over 400 days alongside his constituents, as others mentioned this afternoon, giving him a unique perspective on the issues and problems they deal with each and every day. But not only was he doing it for Floridians, those 400 days he spent working along with others became a national symbol of someone who went out of his way to understand and learn how other people work and live every single day. He has been a tireless advocate for priorities that affect Florida's citizens, including prescription drug coverage for seniors, and preservation of the Everglades and the Florida coastline. I have been privileged to work with him on several occasions. I particularly appreciate his work for the people of Haiti. Since the attacks of September 11, Senator Graham has shown an unyielding and passionate commitment to making our Nation stronger, safer, and far more secure. In particular, he has spoken out forcefully and candidly in favor of reforming our intelligence agencies. As chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence during the previous Congress, he was the primary author of sections of the USA Patriot Act that require greater information sharing among intelligence and law enforcement agencies. He has been outspoken about what our Nation could have done before 9/11 to protect itself, and how it is just as important that we do everything in our power to make this country safer in the 21st century. Bob Graham leaves this body as one of its most respected Members, and one of the most well liked public servants in his State and in this Chamber. We will miss him in this body and I wish Bob and his lovely wife Adele and the rest of their family all the best in the years to come. John Breaux Our colleague, John Breaux of Louisiana, follows a great tradition of some remarkable people who served that State in this body. For 35 years, John has been, first a staff member, then a House Member for 14 years, and for the past 18 years a Member of the Senate. John Breaux was elected to the Senate to fill the seat of the late Russell Long, considered one of the most capable and effective men ever to serve in this body. In fact, my father, who served with Russell Long, as I did for some time, saw Russell Long as a great and dear friend. I am proud to call John Breaux a friend as well. Without a doubt, Senator Breaux has ably filled the imposing shoes of Russell Long during his service here. John Breaux has won great respect on both sides of the aisle for his ability to reach across party lines and bring Senators together. He is a legislator's legislator. We don't often celebrate legislators. People often run to serve in this body by promising to be independent, to be their own person, to not compromise. It is an appealing political argument. But all of us who serve here know that our ability to get anything done requires our ability to compromise with one another. We are 100 coequals serving in this great legislative body. The only way anything ever happens is if people are willing to compromise and work together. John Breaux understood that from the day he arrived here and never failed to seek out the means to achieve those goals during his 18 years of service. He is a wonderful example of what Senators need to do if they are going to be successful. If I could offer any words of advice to the incoming class of Senators who will be arriving on January 4, it is to follow the model set by John Breaux. I don't care what your politics are, if you want to succeed, if you want to help your State, if you want to make a difference for your country, then find out ways to work with people across the political aisle. If you do not, you may enjoy your service here but you will accomplish very little. John Breaux accomplished great things because he understood the importance of reaching out to people, people with whom he disagreed but he would constantly seek them out if there were some common ground about which they could agree. As a result, his accomplishments were significant. Many times the accomplishments don't bear his name. You might not find John Breaux's name on the bill, but ask anybody who was around when the bill became law, and they will tell you it happened because John Breaux brought people together. I will miss him. This body will. He had some wonderful accomplishments here which made a huge difference, and I wish him and his family the best in the years to come. John Edwards John Edwards, as well, is leaving the Senate. What a remarkable 6 years. Short in some ways but rather significant considering what he was able to accomplish. He brought enthusiasm, optimism, and eloquence that won him voters and supporters in his first effort to seek election in the State of North Carolina. He was a powerful voice for the Democratic Party throughout the Democratic primaries. He was a powerful voice for our party this past year as a Vice Presidential candidate. That is a rather remarkable set of accomplishments in 6 short years. He distinguished himself, of course, by exceeding expectations in many cases. He rose from a background of modest means. As we have heard said, he became the first in his family to go on to higher education, then law school, becoming one of the most successful attorneys in America, not only in his home State of North Carolina. He won difficult cases motivated by trying to see to it that people who had little means to protect themselves would have an advocate when he represented them in a court of law. Here in this body he took a leading role on the Patients' Bill of Rights. He brought a compelling and compassionate message to America. He talked about two Americas: the America of those who have, and those who lack the good things in life, who lack the essentials and basics. John spoke of the real moral values shared by mainstream America. He is a young man whose voice will be heard, I will predict, in the coming months and years. He spoke of our moral obligation to honor hard work, to lift Americans out of poverty, expand health care, break down racial and economic barriers, to enact fair tax policies to make sure that all Americans pay their fair share. He spoke honestly and directly about some of the widening gaps in our society. America listened, paid attention, and rewarded him their respect. I certainly believe he would have been an asset to his country had he stayed in the Senate. I am sorry he is not going to be here. He made the decision when he sought the Presidency to leave the Senate. I believe John Edwards would have made a tremendously fine Senator in the years ahead had he stayed here. He has decided to take another path. I am confident, as I said a moment ago, he will find a way to continue to be heard. I also want to take a moment to express my best wishes and those of my wife Jackie to his wife Elizabeth. America knows and deeply appreciates Elizabeth. As we all heard a few weeks ago, the family now faces a very different kind of fight. I am certain I speak for everyone in this body, across the country, regardless of their political views and how they voted on election day, when they heard that Elizabeth Edwards had breast cancer, every single person in this country prayed to the dear Lord that Elizabeth Edwards will be rid of this dreadful disease, and that she and her young children will have years and years of good health ahead. I am confident that will be the case knowing what a fighter she is and what a fighter her husband is. We all wish them and their family nothing but the best during this difficult time. Ben Nighthorse Campbell Mr. President, I also want to take a few minutes to speak about another dear friend, Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Ben and I have served together for a while on the same side of the aisle. Ben made a decision to move to the other side of the aisle a few years ago. We talked at great length about his decision. I recall how it was very difficult. In fact, we talked into the wee hours of the morning about his decision to go from the Democratic side of the aisle to the Republican side of the aisle. Despite that change, we have continued our strong friendship over the years. I respected his decision. I was disappointed by it, obviously, but nonetheless, I respected the decision he made and the reasons for his arriving at that decision. I have great affection for him and wish nothing but the best in the years ahead. He has a compelling story. He is the son of a Portuguese immigrant and a Northern Cheyenne Indian. He is 1 of 44 chiefs of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Tribe. He is the first American Indian to chair the Committee on Indian Affairs. Without a doubt, Senator Campbell's heritage has enabled him to bring a unique perspective to this body, a perspective I know all of us have valued over the years. Throughout his 12-year tenure in the Senate, Senator Campbell has represented not only his constituents in Colorado but Native Americans all across our Nation. For some years, he, along with Dan Inouye of Hawaii and others, have worked hard to establish the National Museum of the American Indian. Finally, this past September, the dream finally became reality. It never would have happened had it not been for Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Dan Inouye. As a result of their determination over the years to see that there would be adequate recognition for America's Native peoples, the museum would not have happened. Ben Nighthorse Campbell has been involved in many other issues such as the Helsinki Commission. But his particular contribution, I think, will always be raising the profile and the interests of our Native Americans. All of us, again, wish him and Linda and their family the very best in the years to come. Don Nickles Mr. President, Don Nickles and I arrived here on the same day in January of 1981. There were 16 Republicans and 2 Democrats. If you think we had a sweep one way or the other a week or two ago, in 1981 there was truly a sweep. There were 16 Republicans and 2 Democrats. The other Democrat was Alan Dixon of Illinois, my good friend. Of the 16 Republicans who were elected, there will now only be 2 left in the 109th Congress. Today there are three of the sixteen Republicans elected in 1980. Don Nickles is the third, and he is leaving. I always say 50 percent of the Democrats are still here after 24 years. It was an interesting class. Don Nickles certainly was a remarkable public servant. Here he is after 24 years. I think Don is barely over 50. He was one of the youngest people ever elected to the Senate. He looks even younger. I think he ran the marathon just a few weeks ago, and is certainly in great health. He is truly a remarkable person. We have disagreed on issues and have different points of view on many questions facing our country. But there has been no tougher, tenacious fighter for policies which he holds so dear, particularly in budgetary matters. He has been a staunch supporter of lower taxes on business, of free markets, of limited government regulation. He is as tough a competitor as you are ever going to find. I will tell you that when the battle is over--again, this is my advice to the new Members coming in, if you want a real role model to look to on how to serve--you could have one of the most fierce debates in your life out here on the floor with Don, but the minute that debate was over, you wouldn't have a better friend when you walked off the floor. He knew how to separate differences on public policy and not have it contaminate personal relationships. Again, the new Members arriving here, as you get involved in debates, if you have disagreements with your colleagues on matters, don't let it become personal. That very colleague you are having the fight of your life with today, tomorrow may be your most significant ally on another issue. Don Nickles is a wonderful example of that kind of stewardship in the Senate. So to Don, Linda, and their family and children, we wish them the very best in the coming years. I am confident one way or the other that Don Nickles is going to be directly and deeply involved in the public debate and discourse in our country in the coming years. Peter Fitzgerald

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, Peter Fitzgerald is also a good friend. He has represented his State of Illinois and is leaving after only one term. Again, as Senators from the opposite sides of the aisle, Senator Fitzgerald and I often disagreed. We found some common ground on some issues, including the Patients' Bill of Rights, the gun show loophole, and campaign finance reform. I wish him good luck when he returns to the private sector where he has been an extremely successful attorney in the banking industry. I caution him not to do too well. I am on the Senate committee responsible for overseeing that carefully. I say that, of course, with tongue in cheek. I certainly wish he, Nina, and Jake all the best in the years to come. Tom Daschle

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Dodd pertaining to the introduction of S. 3020 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, congratulate Dr. Rhona Campbell Free, an economics professor at Eastern Connecticut State University. Yesterday, Dr. Free was honored by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching as one of four recipients of the U.S. Professors of the Year Award. I would like to congratulate Dr. Free, as well as Dr. Douglas Cooper, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Connecticut, the winner of the Professor of the Year award for the State of Connecticut. This award is the only national honor that specifically recognizes excellence in teaching and mentoring at the undergraduate level. Over 300 nominees for the award were evaluated on their impact and involvement with students, their scholarly approach to teaching, their contributions to undergraduate education, and support from their colleagues and students. Dr. Free, who received her doctorate from the University of Notre Dame, has taught economics at ECSU since 1983. During that time, she has distinguished herself among her peers through her commitment to her students and to teaching. She helped found the Connecticut Consortium for Learning and Teaching, a statewide organization devoted to promoting excellence in teaching. She is also a member of the Connecticut Campus Compact, which focuses on service learning. Dr. Free's students know her as a professor who brings ideas from different academic fields into her classroom, and who creates new and innovative courses such as Economics of Professional Sports. She has also devoted her time and energy to improve academic advising and freshman orientation at ECSU. Her methods, techniques, and enthusiasm have won praise from fellow professors and students alike. In 2001, she was awarded the university's Distinguished Faculty Award. Dr. Rhona Free is truly an inspiration, not only to students and teachers, but to all of us who strive to make this country a better place for our children and grandchildren. In a demanding profession, she has gone above and beyond her duties and responsibilities to truly make a difference in the lives of not only her own students, but students and professors throughout the State of Connecticut. I congratulate her on her accomplishments, and I wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am going to send a copy of this bill to the desk to be printed in the Record. It is not going to be referred to any committees in the waning minutes of this 108th Congress, but I will submit it for the Record. My plans are to reintroduce this legislation in January when we reconvene for the 109th Congress. I thought it might be helpful to have this legislation in the Record for my colleagues to review. It is called the Free Speech Protection Act of 2004. This bill is designed to ensure that the free speech guarantees enshrined in the First to the Constitution will be strong and effective for many generations to come. After all, it is the free flow of news and information to the public on a wide variety of concerns which makes our democracy vibrant and alive. Indeed, the very design of our democratic institutions is premised in large part upon an informed citizenry that could exercise informed judgments. As James Madison once observed: Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And apeople who mean to be their own Governor, must arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives. Madison and the other Founders of our great Republic understood full well that the best guarantee of a knowledgeable citizenry is a free press and a public free to speak to the press. The press must be free to report on the human condition, the conduct of public officials, matters of business and corporate governance, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of our society and its institutions. A free press must also be able to access a broad spectrum of views from a wide variety of sources. Once individuals deliberate over such information, they are able to make more educated decisions. In addition, they can also more effectively and intelligently participate in matters of public concern. To quote Madison once again: Popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy, or perhaps both. In fact, one of the hallmarks of a totalitarian government is that the state controls the press and similar sources of public information. Such regimes are characterized by extreme levels of secrecy and a total lack of transparency. The free flow of information to the public is greatly restricted. Criticism of the government could result in imprisonment or even death. In recent memory, such regimes existed in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, where the press was often used as a tool for propaganda. Unfortunately, there are still a number of governments around the globe today that greatly restrict the flow of news and information to their citizens. The United States, in its formative years, never chose that path. The Founding Fathers of this great Nation of ours knew the value of a free press because they had often been denied it by their colonial rulers. Repressive measures had long been part of English history in this regard, such as the censorship of published materials and a licensing system whereby nothing could get published without the government's consent. Our Founding Fathers recognized then that for a society to remain free, it must also allow for divergent views and opinions to be expressed, and for ideas to be openly exchanged. In many respects, the rights of free speech and a free press protect the government from trampling on the other political and personal liberties all Americans hold so dear. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are like the government watchdog that shines a spotlight when other rights are being threatened. Without this, the press becomes an extension of the government and the people know only what the government wants them to know. As Jefferson once commented: When the press is free and everyone is able to read, all is safe. Congress cannot afford to stand idly by and allow our sacred First Amendment freedoms to be threatened. Let me be clear. The legislation I submitted to the desk, the Free Speech Protection Act of 2004, is not merely about protecting the press. Instead, this legislation is about consumer protection. It is about openness, debate, the free flow of information and deliberation--the very ideals that the Senate holds so dear. It is also about ensuring that our constituents, the American citizenry, have access to the knowledge and information they need to make educated decisions and fully participate in our democracy. Yet these freedoms which we hold so dear are not as safe as they have been in other times in the life of our Nation. They have come under attack by the heavy hand of Government in a manner not seen since the height of the Watergate scandal 30 years ago. The press today is frequently being subpoenaed to appear in Federal court and threatened with fines and/or imprisonment if they refuse to reveal a confidential source to the prosecutor or attorneys involved in the lawsuit. In some instances, the prosecutor or attorneys might also request the reporter's notes, video outtakes, or other unpublished information. In recent months, the press has come under intense pressure to reveal the identity of their confidential sources, threatening the public's right to know. In Providence, RI, WJAR-TV reporter Jim Taricani aired an FBI surveillance tape in 2001 that showed an aide to Mayor Vincent ``Buddy'' Cianci accepting a bribe from a local businessman. Taricani broke no law in airing the tape, but a special prosecutor was subsequently brought in to investigate who leaked the information. He refused to identify the source and was convicted of criminal contempt yesterday in Federal court. Taricani now faces 6 months in prison when he is sentenced in December. Perhaps the most alarming instance in recent months of the growing threat to the sacred right to freedom of speech in America is the case of Judith Miller of the New York Times. Last month, a Federal judge held Miller in contempt of court for refusing to name her sources to prosecutors investigating the disclosure to syndicated columnist Robert Novak and to other journalists of Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA agent. Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, IV, had in a New York Times editorial criticized the Bush administration for claiming that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger. Unidentified senior administration officials revealed Plame's identity to Robert Novak and other Washington area journalists, allegedly as an act of revenge for Wilson speaking out against President Bush's rationale for invading Iraq. Mr. Novak then published Plame's identity in a July 2003 column, which prompted an investigation by the Justice Department and the subpoenaing of several journalists before a Federal grand jury, including Judith Miller, Tim Russert of NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' Walter Pincus and Glen Kessler of the Washington Post, and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper. Some of these reporters have talked to the prosecutors after the alleged Government sources signed waivers releasing the journalists from any pledge of confidentiality. New York Times reporter Judith Miller, however, has refused to testify, even under the limited terms of the waiver. As a result, she is being held in contempt of court and could face up to 18 months in jail unless she agrees to testify. What is so surprising about this case is that Judith Miller never even published an article in the New York Times, or any other newspaper or magazine for that matter, about Valerie Plame. The mere fact that Miller contemplated writing such an article and had conducted interviews for it was enough for the judge to hold her in contempt of court for refusing to name sources. Currently, 31 States and the District of Columbia have enacted protections for gatherers and disseminators of news and information. They include red States, blue States, Alabama, North Carolina, and Montana, for example. Why then is there a need for a Federal statute in this area? A strong and uniformed Federal law on shielding would provide uniformity and consistency to the patchwork of inconsistent court decisions and State statutes currently in place. In many instances, whether the disclosure will be compelled and how much information will be disclosed depends upon the particular State in which the journalist is pursuing a story when he or she is subpoenaed. The different potential outcomes affect reporters' practices, the flow of information, the articles written or not written, in various news media. It ultimately impacts the public's ability to learn about matters of interest and importance as well. The protections that these laws and court rulings provide vary widely in detail and in scope. For example, some States grant nearly complete protection for sources and information, while others provide little or none. In addition, the protections may differ in their applicability to criminal and/or civil proceedings. In the Federal court system, for instance, most have interpreted Branzburg, a 1972 United States Supreme Court decision, to provide at least qualified news gathering protection--that is, a protection that can be overcome in certain circumstances. A few Federal courts, however, such as the Seventh Circuit, have rejected such protection, or have limited it only to when the subpoenas are being used to harass the press. For those reasons, I think it is quite clear that a national standard would protect gatherers and disseminators of information from the varying State statutes and their interpretations by State courts. This goal is exactly what the Free Speech Protection Act of 2004 would achieve. Under the legislation, the protection against compelled disclosure for sources would be absolute. The protection against compelled disclosure of news and information, however, is qualified. That is, an individual involved in gathering news would be required to reveal their unpublished material only under certain circumstances. The legislation requires three criteria to be met before such news or information can be disclosed. First, the person seeking the news or information must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the news or information is critical or necessary to significant legal issues before a judicial, legislative, or administrative body that has the power to issue a subpoena. Secondly, the news or information could not be obtained by alternative means. Finally, there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure that must exist. The legislation I am introducing this evening is a work in progress. Obviously, in the coming weeks I intend to further refine it, and in the 109th Congress to seek out my colleagues' advice and counsel on how we might proceed. I am nevertheless introducing this bill in the closing hours of this Congress because I believe the Senate discussion of this matter is urgent. The public's right to know is under attack. When that happens, all Americans suffer since they are deprived of knowledge and information which affects their lives. There are countless examples of information that we have received because there have been confidential sources who have come forward. Certainly, we can go back to Watergate, Whitewater, or Iran-Contra, Abu Ghirab--the prison scandal in Iraq--Enron, WorldCom, corporate governance issues, the list is almost endless. Had it not been for confidential sources coming forward and sharing information with a free press that would then share that with the public, if we had to rely exclusively on government press releases or press conferences, then we might never have learned anything about some of these issues which have been so vitally important to make our Government and our Nation stronger. I urge my colleagues to take a look at this proposal and urge them to consider it when we return in January. I will reintroduce it again and urge them to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak in memory of Cpl Kevin J. Dempsey, of Monroe, CT, who was killed in Iraq this past Saturday, November 13, 2004 at the age of 23. Corporal Dempsey served with the 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force, based out of Camp Lejeune, NC. He died in an explosion in the Al-Anbar province in Western Iraq. He had been in Iraq for only 3 months, and was sent there shortly after finishing a tour of duty in Haiti. Although Corporal Dempsey's given name was Kevin, he was known to his family and friends as Jack Dempsey, after the famous boxing champion. Kevin Dempsey truly was a fighter. At New Canaan High School, he wrestled and played for the football team, and was known for playing through injuries. Kevin was also a young man who would stand up for his fellow students, and help them out when they were in need. According to Corporal Dempsey's friends, he and the Marines were a perfect match. An individual known for his toughness and steadfast dedication found a branch of the Armed Forces with a reputation for those same traits. Corporal Dempsey brought to the battlefields of Iraq the same determination that he took to the wrestling mat. He loved his country, and he loved the U.S. Marines. Kevin Dempsey had considered enlisting in the Marines since he graduated from high school. But his decision became final after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Like so many others across this Nation, he resolved on that day to do what he could to defend our Nation. He called his recruiter at noon on that day and said he was ready to sign up. With each passing day we hear news out of Iraq about brave American men and women who have lost their lives fighting there. As the toll rises, it is critical for us to remember that our soldiers overseas are each individual young men and women, each with their own families, their own reasons for serving, and their own stories. I have told one story today, but there are, many others. Let us do our best to keep those stories in mind, and let us keep heroes like Kevin Dempsey and his family in our thoughts and prayers, particularly as we approach the holiday season. I offer my deepest sympathies to Corporal Dempsey's mother, Barbara, to his sister Jennifer, and to all who knew and loved him. chief warrant officer william brennan Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to CWO Brennan, a native of Bethlehem, CT, who was killed in Iraq last month. CWO Brennan died at the age of 36 when his Bell helicopter went down over Baghdad on October 16, 2004. William Brennan came from a family and community steeped in military tradition. His father Nicholas was a Navy commander during the Second World War. His uncle was a bomber pilot during World War II and the Korean War. And his godfather was a pilot who served in Vietnam. With those influences, it comes as no surprise that William Brennan, known to his friends and family as Will, dreamed from a young age of flying a plane. It wasn't an easy career path for William; in fact, the first time he applied to Army flight school, his application was tossed in the garbage after an Army official accidentally spilled coffee on it. But through persistence and perseverance, William Brennan realized his dream. William Brennan's military resume is one of which any soldier would be proud. His career in the Army spanned 15 years. In addition to his service in Iraq, he served as part of the peacekeeping mission led by the United States in Bosnia. And shortly after the attacks of September 11th, he flew surveillance flights over New York City. Chief Warrant Officer Brennan was proud of his service, and was proud of his family as well. He and his wife Kathy, who met while they were both stationed at Fort Drum, New York, were the parents of two girls, Kaitlin and Cassidy. In fact, William's greatest concerns leaving for Iraq were not about the danger he would face, but about the wife and daughters he was leaving behind. Next week we will be celebrating the holiday of Thanksgiving, and in another month, we will encounter the traditional winter holidays. Most of us will be gathering together with our families and giving thanks for all that we have. On these occasions, let us also remember families like William Brennan's, who have lost loved ones over this past year in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Let us remember them, and do what we can to offer them a helping hand, or a shoulder to cry on, during what is surely a difficult time of year. I offer my deepest sympathies to Kathy Brennan, to Kaitlin and Cassidy, to William's brothers and sisters, and their entire family. Lance Corporal James Swain

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I speak about the vote that took place yesterday to raise the statutory limit of our Nation's indebtedness. It is terribly unfortunate that for the third time in three years this administration has run up against the Federal debt limit, thereby forcing once again an increase in the National debt from $7.384 trillion to $8.184 trillion. I think it is a mistake for this body to give the administration what is essentially an $800 billion check to continue its irresponsible fiscal policies. For quite some time now, the Treasury Department has been forced to halt payments owed to federal retirement accounts and take other extraordinary measures in order to keep the government from defaulting. And now we are in a position where the Treasury Department has said that Congress must increase the debt ceiling by the end of this week or the government will default on its obligations. What this says is that the government is living far beyond its means. Just several years ago, when President Clinton was President, the National debt was shrinking, not growing. In 1997, the debt held by the public was $3.745 trillion. By FY2001, it decreased by more than $400 billion to $3.296 trillion. Former President Clinton made it a goal to pay off the debt by 2013, so that America would be debt free for the first time since 1835. He recognized that eliminating the debt would strengthen our economy, allow investments in education and other critical priorities, and ensure that Social Security could meet the challenges to come when the baby boomers retire. By contrast, under the Bush administration, the debt limit was raised by $450 billion in 2002 and $984 billion in 2003. And now, this year, in 2004 it will increase by $800 billion. I find it astounding that just four years ago we were having compelling conversations in the Senate Banking Committee with Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan about what would happen if we paid off the debt too quickly. And now, here we are about to pass another increase of $800 billion to the National debt. This new increase will bring the grand total to more than $2 trillion under President Bush--the largest total debt limit increase recorded under any President. Now instead of being eliminated, we are expecting the debt held by the public to reach $6.5 trillion by 2011. When President Bush first came to office he assured the nation that if we adopted his tax cuts, we would not only see job growth, but we would still be able to eliminate the publicly held debt by 2008. Instead, we have seen 1.5 million private-sector jobs lost, making this the first Administration since Herbert Hoover to actually lose jobs. In just 4 years, we have gone from a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion to a 10-year deficit of over $3 trillion. And now we are about to once again, for the third year in a row, increase the debt. If additional debt is going to be accumulated, the administration and the majority could at the minimum ensure that we are adequately investing in our children's education, the country's infrastructure, health care, the solvency of Social Security, and other vital national priorities. But that does not appear to be the case considering that we are seeing across the board cuts in the upcoming omnibus bill, and this Administration continues to push for policies that push us further in the red without any real results. The administration's reckless policies will pass the burden of paying for them onto future generations, and unfortunately, the administration has shown absolutely no regard for the hardship this will cause. We often discuss the so-called ``death tax'', this administration's reckless fiscal policies are forcing a ``birth tax'' on every child born today. What do I mean by the term ``birth tax''? Simply this: a child born today is born owing his or her country $25,000. That is that child's share of the national debt. This is unconscionable. We have a responsibility as lawmakers to leave our country better off tomorrow than it is today. With policies like this, I am afraid that this administration and its supporters are failing to meet this fundamental moral responsibility to our country and to future generations. Also deeply troubling is that in order to cover increased borrowing, the U.S. is going deeper into debt to foreign countries. Japan, China, the United Kingdom, and Caribbean Banking Centers are now the largest foreign holders of U.S. Treasury Debt. We have borrowed over $720 billion from Japan, over $174 billion from China, and even tens of billions of dollars from South Korea. During the term of the President's first four years, we have seen our foreign debt holdings increase 83 percent from just over $1 trillion to over $1.8 trillion. This is especially dangerous because these countries can collect their debt when it suits them, which could potentially puts our nation in a very difficult economic situation. I find it astounding that the administration and the majority of this Congress have not put forward any plan to reduce the alarming increase in our nation's debt--an increase largely caused by their reckless tax and budget policies. Indeed, their only known plans to permanently extend tax breaks for the affluent and drain at least $1 trillion from Social Security--would only make our current problems worse. I strongly believe that increasing the debt limit once again without a plan is a big mistake. We owe it to future generations to do more to ensure that their future is economically sound. I hope that this Administration, and the majority of the Congress begin to enact more responsible fiscal policies before it truly is too late.