Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to conclude my comments.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I don't want to interrupt the flow. The Senator is going through a lot of numbers and statistics, and we owe a debt of gratitude to Senator Conrad for this analysis. I would like to come back to this deficit picture. I think these other numbers on jobs and so forth are in direct relation to our fiscal policies. There is a correlation because of our inability--and I am posing a question to the Senator--or unwillingness to make the kind of important investments that any period of economic growth requires, which are obviously being adversely affected by the amount of debt we are accumulating. I don't know if my colleague from North Dakota saw the same article I did yesterday, which was the lead story in the World Business section of the New York Times in which the IMF chief sees potential hazard in U.S. fiscal policies. I quote: ``We believe that such a large imbalance'' Talking about debt and deficit. ``is a risk not only to the United States economy, but for the world economy'' as well. There are implications of allowing this fiscal situation to get so out of hand so quickly. As I recall it, in January 2001, we were looking at 10 years of surplus of $5.6 trillion. We are told now that the projections over the next 10 years of debt is somewhere around $3.5 trillion. My question is, what are the implications for the younger generation? We have heard debate about death taxes. What about a birth tax here? What are the obligations of the children being born who are accumulating the debt that is occurring here? I wonder if he might comment on the IMF story and what it means for a child born in the 21st century with this kind of debt, what sort of price tag have they been saddled with as a result of the mismanagement of our fiscal economy?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I was stunned by those numbers. As I recall, I think you said that we have borrowed around $600 billion from Japan, about $150 billion from China, and billions more from other countries. To make the picture clear, that is like a bank holding a mortgage on your home. They hold the paper on America. They can call due those notes at any time, I presume, or within a reasonable time, and could insist upon us paying back those obligations. So, in other words, our economic well-being is in no small measure tied to the desires of nations that may not have the same goals as we do, either in economic or foreign policy. They hold the mortgage, in a sense, on our future; is that correct?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I may further add, that is just the exact point I wanted to raise with my colleague from North Dakota. We talk about rising interest rates, and we are talking about some tax cuts. As I understand it, when we begin to talk about an interest rate hike, which we invariably are going to see, the actual cost of a college loan, a home mortgage, a car payment, or any other obligation which most middle-income families have to borrow to meet these obligations-- we have watched higher education costs go up more than 30 percent; we have watched health care premiums go up 45 percent; we have watched the price of gasoline go up 20 percent; all under this President's watch. To make those payments, it will actually exceed whatever tax cut we may be providing to that middle-income family because of our inability or the unwillingness of this administration to actually be more responsible in managing the fiscal picture of this country, and average consumers are going to see interest rate hikes that are going to dwarf any tax cut they may get; isn't that correct?

Mr. DODD. In 40 months.

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield for a question?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. That is a long time.

Mr. DODD. How long did the Senator from Connecticut speak?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes this afternoon and express my concern and the concern of many of us around the country about the growing squeeze that is occurring on middle-income families in the United States. This is a very alarming trend we are seeing. I address not only that point but also the issue of what is happening with the rising level of poverty in the country, particularly poverty among our youngest citizens in the earliest ages, and the number of children being born in the United States who are being born into extreme poverty--not just living in poverty but living below half the poverty line. When you think of the combination of the squeeze occurring on the middle income and watching the growing numbers of children living in poverty in this country, all of us ought to be supremely alarmed about those trendlines. Add to that the fact that there now appears to be the largest single deficit in the history of the United States, and the failure to create new jobs in the country, which is the worst performance of job creation since just prior to the beginning of the Great Depression back in the 1920s. We have lost somewhere between 1 million and 1.5 million jobs in this country in the last 4 years. When you compare that to the 20 million jobs created during the 1990s, there is a startling contrast in what is happening to America's economy. I think it is critically important in these days that the American people be well informed factually about what is occurring as we make the difficult choices in the coming days about the leadership of this Nation. Let me begin with the middle-income squeeze because I think it is important to know what is happening to families out there. We are watching a tremendous decline in household incomes. Household incomes have fallen about 3.4 percent during the last 4 years. Let me put that in terms of dollars and cents. To give you some idea of the median household income in the year 2000, the median household income was almost $45,000 a year--actually $44,853. Today, that median income is now $43,318. That is a decline of $1,500 in median household income. That is a drop in earning power. If you have merely a decline in income and also a commensurate decline in costs, you would say that is not great, but certainly given the cost of essential items that middle-income families must acquire, those prices are going down, then the declining income would not be startling. But what is happening is quite the opposite. We have watched median household income decline by $1,500, and simultaneously watched gas prices during the same period of time go up almost 20 percent in the United States. College tuition has gone up some 28 percent in that same 4-year period, and family health care premiums have risen 45 percent just in the last 2 years by 26 percent-- 11 percent in 1 year and 15 percent the next. So we are watching household median income decline by $1,500, and then we are watching college tuition, health care premiums, and gasoline prices soar. This is the squeeze. This is what is happening to average families in this country. Also, as I mentioned at the outset, we are watching jobs not being created. We are short of well over a million jobs that we need in order to maintain a growing economy. But even these jobs are not coming back. We saw 144,000 new jobs created in the month of August. That is certainly vastly improved over the 32,000 new jobs created in July. Understand that just to keep pace with the new entries into the job market we should be creating about 220,000 jobs every month. That is what we need to do in an economy such as ours with a population of almost 300 million people: You have it produce about 220,000 new jobs every month just to stay even. When we start talking about 32,000 jobs or 144,000 jobs, while certainly 133,000 is positive news, it still is well below what we ought to be doing if we are going to keep people working at levels that will allow them to provide for their families. As I mentioned a moment ago, we are watching incomes decline. This is even more true when you start talking about new entrants into the job market from people who have lost a job and then go back to work. They are making about $9,000 less a year overall, putting all incomes together, than they were before. While we are creating some new jobs, the wages these jobs are paying and the benefits being provided are very different than they were with the previous jobs held by these very same people. This is tough news. Again, there are choices that will be made in the next 45 or 50 days. I point out for the purposes of discussion--sometimes it all gets lost--that there are those who are claiming there is nothing to worry about, that in fact our economy is good and strong. I noted the other day that there was a speech the President gave in Michigan when he talked about how well our economy was doing. I think it was in Muskegon, MI. He was speaking just 2 days ago: This economy of ours is strong, and it's getting stronger. That was a speech given in Muskegon and Greenwood Village, CO. Since the President has taken office, less than 4 years ago, the State of Michigan has lost 250,000 jobs. In Colorado, there has been a loss of 80,000 jobs. I don't know how you square a statement of saying the economy is strong and getting stronger when a quarter of a million people in one of the most industrial States in the United States have lost work, and 80,000 jobs in the State of Colorado no longer exist. How is that a strong economy or a stronger growing economy? I don't see that. I don't think most Americans would. John Kerry, our colleague, who is running for the Presidency, has promised to create 10 million new jobs during the first 4 years of his administration. We need job creation in this country. We need to be talking about creating tax cuts for middle-income families and smaller businesses. That is where real growth occurs when you provide the kind of stimulus to smaller businesses and industries. They need the relief financially to modernize, to buy new equipment, to make themselves more competitive in a global economy. We need more of that kind of economic thinking than what we have seen in the last few years which has contributed to the worsening economic program at home. I am an optimist and believe we ought to talk about good things that can happen in our country. It is very difficult to go anywhere in this country and have that kind of a conversation when people are out there struggling every day harder and harder to make ends meet, watching their incomes decline and their costs rise, and wondering how they will deal with the issues. There are an additional 1.2 million Americans who no longer have health insurance. That number is up to 45 million in our country; it was below 44 million, but in the last year or so that number has jumped by 1.2 million. Those people are working Americans who have lost their health care coverage because of the rising premium costs of smaller and midsized businesses. Their employers are not mean spirited. They just cannot afford to maintain the cost of the health care premiums and some are dropping their employees from this kind of coverage. So now we have working Americans who have watched their health care premiums jump tremendously. The average home health care premium in 2000 was $6,351 a year. Less than 4 years later it has jumped to well over $9,000, almost $10,000. That is staggering. Employers just do not have the resources to pay these bills. So we find now 1.2 million working families in the ranks of the uninsured in our country. That adds to our problems. I mentioned a moment ago child poverty. I will share with my colleagues my deep and growing concern about these numbers because this worries me. This is not the America that I was raised to believe in. We are talking about a generation of kids coming along who will have to be the best educated, best prepared our Nation has ever produced. We are now in a highly competitive marketplace in the world. When kids grew up a generation or two ago you worried, if you were in Connecticut, that you might end up competing with a young person from New Mexico or you might compete with a person in Oregon. That was what it was like in this country. Today, for a child growing up in New Mexico or in Oregon or Connecticut, their competition will be in Beijing, it will be in Moscow, it will be in Sydney, in Johannesburg, London. A global economy will be the challenge. How well prepared is this generation coming along? We may be in the most unique position of any generation of Americans in watching a succeeding generation be less well off, less well prepared than we were as a generation. Every other generation throughout the more than 200-year history of our country has left their children and grandchildren in a stronger position. That has been our legacy as a nation. We are now precariously close to setting back for the first time in our history where a generation coming along may not be as well prepared, particularly when the challenges are going to be greater than ever before. I worry very much when we see the jump, by 4.3 million, of Americans living in poverty over the last 3 years. In the year 2000, of the 300 million Americans, there were 31.6 million Americans living in poverty. Today that number is close to 36 million, up 4.3 million people living in poverty in the United States. Of those numbers, we have almost 13 million of that 36 million who are children. While the overall child poverty rate is 17.6 percent, the poverty rate for children under 5 is 20 percent. That makes the fastest growing group among the poor today, families with children under the age of 5. Those are the facts. That is the legacy of 36 months--not quite, almost 40 months of leadership here. We are finding ourselves in worse shape. We are fighting tooth and nail to get some resources for child care, for nutrition, for WIC programs to try to do something to assist these kids and these families. It is like pulling teeth around here to get some help for the kids who, through no fault of their own, are living in poverty. Yet the children are the ones who will be asked to defend our country, to become well educated, to provide for the strength of America in the 21st century. I am deeply alarmed about the trendlines. We are not spending enough time addressing and talking about what we might do. This is the largest annual increase in child poverty in 10 years that has occurred in our country. Overall child poverty increased by 5.4 percent in 2003 while children living in extreme poverty increased by 11.6 percent. In fact, extreme poverty for children under 5 increased by 16.2 percent. According to the Census Bureau, over 40 percent of children under the age of 18 who are being raised by a single mom are poor. Over half of them live in extreme poverty. That is below the poverty level. More than half of our children under the age of five who are being raised by a single mom are poor. And, 60 percent of them--three of every five poor 5 year olds being raised by a single mother--are living in extreme poverty. I addressed the issue of the squeeze that is occurring on middle- income families, watching the incomes decline and the costs rise. They are dramatic over the last few years. I am worried about the crushing blow that is occurring to children and the level of poverty that is occurring. I raise these issues because we are going to have to change direction. We cannot continue the path we are on and expect these numbers to change. Every indication we have is the numbers are going to get worse and not better if we do not take dramatic steps in a different direction. I raise them today, and I pointed out earlier, and these are not personal attacks, they are choices we have to make. The candidates for President have entirely different views on how we ought to address this. I mentioned earlier our colleague, Senator Kerry, has talked directly about tax cuts and where they ought to occur--for middle-income people, for smaller businesses; a health care plan that would start taking people off the rolls of the uninsured, put people in insurance programs and relieve them of the fear of a child or a loved one being caught with a crippling illness or accident and bankrupting a family overnight because of their absence of insurance protection; of seeing to it that people who work overtime get paid for the overtime instead of shutting them off and depriving them of the extra income they need; of raising the minimum wage instead of depriving people of the kind of increases they need to make ends meet. The tax incentives make a difference. Those are choices. The President says the economy is strong and getting stronger. Tell that to the 250,000 people in Michigan or the 80,000 Coloradans who have lost their jobs. I think they will agree. This is hardly getting better. We need a change. That change will be available to people in less than 50 days. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I congratulate one of my Connecticut constituents, George Brunstad, on an extraordinary achievement. A few weeks ago, George, a resident of Ridgefield, became the oldest person to swim across the English Channel. George, who celebrated his 70th birthday on August 25, began his record-breaking swim three days later when he left Dover, England shortly after 9 a.m. on Saturday, August 28. He reached Sangatte, on the French coast, after midnight on Sunday, completing the 21-mile stretch in 15 hours and 59 minutes. Prior to George, the oldest person to swim the Channel was Clifford Batts, who was about 100 days shy of his 68th birthday. Let me tell my colleagues a little about George Brunstad. He is a retired Air Force pilot who flew B-52 bombers. For 20 years, he piloted jumbo jets for American Airlines. Currently, he is a swim coordinator for children at the YMCA in Wilton, CT, where he is affectionately known as ``Grandpa George.'' George and his wife Judy are active members of the Wilton Baptist Church, where George serves as a Deacon. For 20 years, George has been associated with Pivot Ministries, a group that helps men who are recovering from drug and alcohol addiction. While George was on the swim team in college, he had been away from the sport for 20 years before he saw a sign at the Wilton YMCA advertising competitive swimming for adults. That was 31 years ago, and George Brunstad hasn't stopped swimming since. He is a World Masters Open Water Swimming Champion and has won more than 100 national championship medals in U.S. Masters Swimming. But George Brunstad's feat last month was much more than an athletic achievement. Last year, George and Judy traveled on a mission to the island nation of Haiti with their church. They were appalled by the incredible poverty that continues to afflict that nation. They were particularly saddened by the large numbers of homeless children they saw in Haiti. And they decided to do what they could to help those children. George and Judy are founding members of the board of directors of the Center of Hope, an organization devoted to building an orphanage and school in the Haitian city of Hinche. Hinche has 80,000 people, most of whom are desperately poor and lack basic needs like clean water, shelter, medical care, transportation, and education. George decided that his swim across the Channel would be a perfect way to raise money for the Center of Hope. In total, he managed to raise over $11,000. As someone who has been to Haiti numerous times, and as a Senator who has done his best to try to direct our attention to Haiti's dire needs, I'm particularly pleased that George Brunstad chose to turn his moment of personal triumph into one that will help better the lives of some of the residents of an impoverished nation only a few hundred miles from our shores. This coming weekend, the Wilton Baptist Church and the Center of Hope will be holding a special celebration in George's honor. I send George, Judy, their family, and all those who will be attending the celebration my best wishes, and my enthusiastic congratulations.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in my conversations with the distinguished chairman of the committee, the Senator from Mississippi, it is my understanding the bipartisan amendment I offered earlier today--on behalf of myself and Senator Specter, along with several other colleagues, including Senators Stabenow, Snowe, Biden, Mikulski, Corzine, and Clinton--to provide funds to fire departments to hire firefighters, will be accepted by the committee. That being the case, I see no reason for us to ask for a rollcall vote. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the National Volunteer Fire Council be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. I appreciate immensely the support of the Senator from Mississippi and others who are willing to accept the amendment. I want to commend Senator Byrd, Senator Specter, as well as their staffs, for the tremendous efforts they have made on behalf of the amendment. We were able to work out an offset that will not do any significant damage to the management and administrative functions of the Homeland Security Department. We still would have a 35-percent increase in title I, and roughly the status quo when it comes to title IV. Firefighter staffing is the No. 1 issue for firefighters all across America. By agreeing to this amendment, we are fulfilling our pledge to these heroes to do everything we can to not only provide them with the materials, training, and equipment they need, but also the necessary personnel these departments must have if they are going to complete their jobs. Again, I thank the Senator from Mississippi and his staff for their outstanding efforts.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. If I may briefly respond, let me thank my colleague again. As I said at the outset, he has a difficult job. Everyone has different ideas. I understand he has to balance all these. If I may respectfully challenge what he said on the offsets, because this is a critical question and obviously we have to pay for these initiatives. We took money from two different titles in this bill, Title I and Title IV. In Title I, which is where the bulk of the money would come from for the amendment, it would still leave an increase in the account of 35- percent over last year. The offset reduces it from an 88 percent increase that is in the underlying legislation. I should mention at the outset, and I don't want to confuse our colleagues, that there are two separate proposals. One is the FIRE Act grant initiative, which the committee has been very supportive of, and I appreciate that. The bill has funding for $700 million for the FIRE Act grant program, which provides assistance for training and equipment. This amendment, however, is about personnel, which is a different issue. Our argument is that you can get a grant for new equipment, but it is meaningless if you don't have the personnel to do the job. That is why the SAFER bill is a top priority for the fire organizations. Second, when it comes to the Title IV offsets, you still leave the administrative and management dollars at a level higher than what is in the House-passed bill. So it is not bare-bones budgeting at all in this area. In those three categories, we are leaving more money than was in last year's budget, and at least as much as in the House-passed bill in either case. We did it very carefully with the full knowledge that you don't want to be robbing Peter to pay Paul, as the expression goes, or cut into other critical areas. So by reducing across the board in these management areas, bringing them down to levels that still are above what they were previously, we think we have come up with a very balanced approach that deals with a very serious problem, and that is the 20-percent decline in the number of personnel that is affecting paid and volunteer departments across the country. It is a glaring problem that even the U.S. Fire Administration, aside from what firefighters and fire chiefs are saying, believes is absolutely critical. Again, I thank my colleague from Mississippi for allowing me to bring up the amendment by having a unanimous consent to set aside pending amendments. If need be, Senator Specter may also want to share some comments before we finally vote on the matter. Would that be permissible? I understand that at a later time another Senator wants to talk on this before we actually vote. Would that be permissible?

Mr. DODD. At the conclusion of these remarks, I ask unanimous consent that the letter of full endorsement of the Dodd-Specter amendment by Harold Schaitberger, general president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, be printed in the Record. I have mentioned already where the fire chiefs are on this issue. I also ask unanimous consent that the letter from Chief Robert DiPoli, who is the president of the International Association of Fire Chiefs, of full endorsement of this legislation as well be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment dealing with the SAFER Act. This is the No. 1 priority of the various firefighting organizations of the United States, whether they be paid firefighters, volunteer firefighters, fire chiefs organizations, and others. On behalf of Senators Specter, Levin, Harkin, Kennedy, Sarbanes, Daschle, Schumer, and myself, we offer this important amendment. I want to take a few minutes, with the full recognition that my friend and colleague from Mississippi wants to move matters along. I will take as little time as I can to explain this amendment and what we are trying to do, why I think it is a worthwhile amendment, how we pay for it, and why I don't feel that the offset we are suggesting here in any way would be detrimental to the Department of Homeland Security. Our amendment will help the 33,000 fire departments across America-- paid departments, volunteer departments, and combination departments. It will help them acquire the necessary personnel they need in order to fight fires and respond to situations all across the country, particularly terrorist incidents and other large-scale emergencies that may emerge. Just yesterday, I spent a couple of hours with the fire department of Enfield, CT. I went out on one of the calls--a traffic accident. It turned out not to be a serious emergency, but the first vehicles to actually respond to the situation were the fire departments of Enfield. That happens every single day in this country. I think one firehouse in Enfield--one of five--has some 1,200 calls they respond to each year, to give you an idea of the magnitude of emergencies these departments are called upon to respond to every day of the year, all hours of the day and night. Mr. President, this amendment is the single most important legislative priority of the International Association of Firefighters. It is also strongly supported by the International Association of Fire Chiefs and the National Volunteer Fire Council. If our colleagues support firefighters--and I know many, if not all, do--this is an opportunity to support bipartisan legislation that will make a huge difference in the personnel area of a fire department. In particular, this amendment provides $100 million for the SAFER Act, which stands for Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response. It was enacted last year with significant bipartisan support as part of the fiscal year 2004 Department of Defense Authorization Act. In fact, the lead sponsors at that time were Senator Warner of Virginia, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, along with Senators Sarbanes, Daschle, Snowe, Clinton, Corzine, Durbin, Johnson, Kerry, Landrieu, Murray, Reed, and Schumer. The House of Representatives also has championed very similar, if not exact, legislation. It has been supported by the Chairman of the House Science Committee, Sherwood Boehlert of New York; Republican Congressman Curt Weldon, a tremendous champion of firefighters for many years; along with House minority whip Steny Hoyer, and Representative Bill Pascrell, a strong advocate of firefighters. The $100 million our amendment provides is fully offset by reductions in management and administrative expenses in title I and title IV of the underlying bill. Even with these offsets, the accounts that will be affected will still receive an increase over last year's funding levels. After all, this debate is fundamentally about priorities. Senator Specter and I strongly believe the need for additional firefighters on our Nation's streets far outweighs the need for increased resources devoted to administration and management in Washington, DC. If I can, I will explain how this offset works because I know my good friend from Mississippi will want to address this. I know that my friend from Mississippi has a very difficult job trying to put a bill together that is balanced. I respect him immensely for having to wrestle with these important issues. Certainly, I would have supported a larger 302(b) allocation for homeland security, but that is a debate for another day. Nevertheless, Senator Specter and I have chosen these offsets with a great deal of care. In no instance do they cut programs below last year's levels. They don't affect the intelligence community in any way. If anything, our offsets will respect the increases in the underlying bill but grant smaller increases. In addition, these offsets are from increases to administrative and management accounts. We believe it is more important to place new firefighters on the streets than new managers and administrators in Washington. I will mention specifically what we are doing. The Office of the Undersecretary for Management in Title I, for example, received a significant increase in this bill over last year's level. Last year, we funded it at $130 million. This year, the Senate bill provides an increase to $245 million for the same office. That is an 88-percent increase over last year! If our amendment is adopted, the Office of the Under Secretary of Management would still receive a 35- percent increase over last year's bill. It seems to me that if we were gutting the Office for Undersecretary for Management and making it impossible for it to operate, others could argue we don't have a good case. But in order to help put 75,000 new firefighters on the street over the next seven years, I think is a fair tradeoff. Under title IV of the bill, the $30 million we offset only comes from management and administrative expenses. By the way, with that cut we are talking about, we still leave the level under title IV higher than what is in the House-passed bill. We don't believe these offsets we found are in any way damaging to the underlying bill. They still allow for substantial increases in management and administrative costs, as well as leaving title IV in the same position it would be funded at in the House-passed legislation. You don't have to take our word on the importance of the legislation and the need for increasing the number of people we have in our fire departments. The U.S. Fire Administration--not the firefighters, not the fire chiefs, but U.S. Fire Administration--and National Fire Protection Association found that fire departments throughout the Nation, rural America and urban America, lack sufficient personnel to adequately protect the public. These concerns were echoed last year in the Council on Foreign Relations report, authored by our former colleague Warren Rudman. The report was entitled ``Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Drastically Underprepared.'' It noted that ``only 10 percent of fire departments in the United States have the personnel . . . to respond to a building collapse.'' It also found that ``two-thirds of our fire departments do not meet the consensus fire standard from minimum safe staffing levels,'' which is at least four firefighters per truck at the scene of an emergency. If our colleagues are not concerned about these findings, they ought to be concerned about the Rudman report's conclusion. It said: If the Nation does not take immediate steps to better identify and address the needs of emergency first responders, the next terrorist incident could have an even more devastating impact than the September 11 attacks. On Saturday our Nation commemorated the third anniversary of that tragic day three years ago. No American citizen will ever forget--no citizen in the world, for that matter, could ever forget--the heroism of the firefighters who were among the first on the scene that day and who charged the stairs, while everybody else was running out of these buildings. Those 343 members of the New York Fire Department made the ultimate sacrifice that day in their efforts to save thousands of lives trapped in the World Trade Center. After September 11, of course, we realized that firefighters face new and profound challenges. No longer do they just fight fires, promote safety, and inspect fire code violations. Firefighters still have those traditional responsibilities, but they are now called upon to do far more. They are now asked to respond to the threat of biological, chemical, and even nuclear terrorism. In other words, they are asked to confront what once seemed unthinkable on American soil. It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that the Nation's firefighters are now literally on the front lines of the war on terror, protecting our Nation from the very clear and present danger of future terrorist attacks. In the past, the Congress has come to the aid of America's firefighters. We have provided substantial funds for the FIRE Act Grant Program, which I also authored with my good friend Senator DeWine of Ohio. FIRE Act grants have enabled fire departments, large and small, paid and volunteer, to purchase the necessary equipment and train firefighters. That assistance allows them to do a better job. In Enfield, CT, yesterday, I saw exactly the kind of equipment that can be purchased with a fire grant proposal. It has made a huge difference to that one department in a relatively small community in my home State of Connecticut. While training and equipment are extremely important, they are meaningless, obviously, without the personnel needed to take advantage of it. After all, what good is a new breathing apparatus if there is no firefighter to use it? What good is new protective clothing if there is no firefighter to wear it? What good are new firetrucks if there are no firefighters to drive them? What good are new portable radios if there are no firefighters to communicate with each other? We cannot lose sight of the human side of this important issue. It takes significant manpower to rush into burning houses and buildings, to save the life of a child, deliver emergency medical services and respond to an incident involving a chemical or biological agent. It is, therefore, this shortfall in firefighter staffing that this bipartisan, fully offset amendment that I am offering with Senator Specter and others addresses. The manpower situation was not always this dire. Yet over the past two decades the number of firefighters as a percentage of the U.S. workforce has declined considerably. I am going to put up a chart that lays out exactly what has happened. This chart will give us a clear understanding of the problems that exist. Only 11 percent of fire departments can handle, with local personnel, a building collapse with 50 occupants or more in it. That means 89 percent of our departments cannot respond to that. Only 13 percent of fire departments can handle a hazardous material incident with chemical or biological agents and 10 injuries. Again, 87 percent cannot respond to this in an adequate way. Forty percent of fire department personnel involved in hazardous material response lack formal training in these duties, and 60 to 75 percent of fire departments do not have enough fire stations to achieve widely used response time guidelines. That gives some idea just in a brief synopsis of how serious the problems are across our country as far as the lack of personnel. In 1983, for example, there was 1 firefighter for every 212 of our citizens. In the year 2000, there was only 1 firefighter for every 260 Americans. To put it another way, the number of firefighters has declined by almost 20 percent, nearly one-fifth, over the last two decades. In fact, we have fewer firefighters per capita than nurses and police officers. The amendment I am offering with our colleagues, if it is approved today, will hopefully begin to reverse this disquieting trend. In fact, the fire chief at Enfield, CT, told me that when he joined the department, there was a waiting list in order to get on the fire department. Today they are out every single day seeking to find people who will make this a career choice. In fact, they are understaffed at that particular station house. As to our volunteer departments across the country, particularly in rural America, the days when people would be able to serve in a volunteer fire department and work in the town they lived in is diminishing. More and more people are choosing to live in rural environments and work someplace else, and they are unable to be volunteer firefighters in the home communities. Thus, the number of hired personnel becomes more important. In rural and urban America, the problem is the same. These numbers I have just cited have recently been exacerbated by the fact that many firefighters have been called to active duty in the National Guard or Army Reserves. According to a recent survey, the smallest fire departments are disproportionately affected by the call- up of military personnel, and I note the presence of the Presiding Officer who comes from the State of Wyoming, where again a lot of small rural communities have been disproportionately affected by the call-ups and are feeling it in a very significant way. We are told that these departments are the least able to absorb the loss of trained staff and will stand to benefit from assistance made available under this amendment. Finally, making matters worse for the fire services are the budget crises that State and local governments are enduring. This amendment is not suggesting that this ought to be a permanent program where we assume the responsibility of paying for the personnel at local fire departments across America; it is saying that the U.S. Government ought to be a better partner. Just as we have been doing with the COPS program, we can be so doing with our fire departments--not at the same level, not even close to the same level--but being a better partner to help get this on the right track again. Then hopefully, as our economy improves, our State and local governments will take over the responsibility. Over the next 5 or 6 years, stretching this out, not trying to do it in 1 year, we can make a real difference in putting some people on the ground who can make a difference and save lives in this country. Across our Nation today, firefighter staffing is being cut, and fire stations are being closed because of State and local budget shortfalls. These events are occurring at the same time that threats to our Nation by terrorism are placing unprecedented demands on the Nation's fire services. I need not remind our colleagues this morning that we are currently spending billions of America's tax dollars to reconstruct Iraq. Some of those very funds are being spent to hire and train Iraqi firefighters and build fire stations in that nation. If we can find the resources to hire firefighters and renovate fire stations in Iraq, I do not think it is outrageous at all to suggest that we might find some resources to make a difference in hiring some people to protect our own communities in this great Nation of ours. Again, I want to emphasize that our amendment is fully paid for, with reductions in management and administrative expenditures, by allowing for an increase of 35 percent in those areas, reducing the increase from 88 to 35 percent, and still by allowing under title 4 the amount for administrative and management expenditures at levels above those included in the House-passed bill. It also has the endorsement of every major firefighter organization in this country. This is their No. 1 bill. This is their No. 1 priority. If we are going to go back home and talk about the importance of homeland security and doing a better job, standing up for these men and women who put their lives on the line every single day for our country, then it seems to me the very least we can do is see to it that they have the necessary personnel to do the job, and that is what we are asking for with this amendment. America's firefighters are always the first ones in and the last ones out. They risk their own lives to save the lives of others. They stare danger in the face every single day because they know they have a duty to fulfill. On the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks, where 343 firefighters lost their lives doing just that, first ones in and last out, I believe there is no better way for us to commemorate September 11 and recognize the contribution of those individuals than to respond to the very organizations who represented them, who have asked us to do a bit better under this bill to see to it that our firefighters have the necessary personnel they need in order to do their job. I thought I had already done this, but if not, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton of New York be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending amendment aside.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Specter to the desk.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 2328, the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act of 2004, and to explain my reasons for becoming a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation, which was introduced by Senators Dorgan and Snowe earlier this year. My decision to cosponsor this bill has come after serious and careful deliberation. I know that there are many who oppose the importation of prescription drugs, and I have carefully considered their arguments. However, I have come to the conclusion that this bill can be helpful to ensuring that Americans have access to the drugs they need, with the peace of mind that the medications they are taking--or giving to a family member--are safe. Mr. President, all of us are aware of the unfortunate news released over the last several weeks about the state of health care in our country. In many respects, we have the greatest health system in the world, but far too many Americans are unable to take advantage of this system. According to data released by the Census Bureau in August, 45 million Americans were without health insurance in 2003--an increase of 1.4 million over 2002. The primary reason for the continued increase in the number of uninsured is that employers are dropping their health coverage. That's right Mr. President, most of the newly-uninsured are working Americans. Employers are not dropping health coverage out of malice they are doing so because they can no longer afford to provide this benefit. Year after year, health care costs increase by double digit percentages. The cost of employer-sponsored coverage increased by 14 percent in 2003. And year after year, the increase in the cost of prescription drugs stands out as a driver of the overall cost increase. Over the last three years, drug costs have increased by over 50 percent. Mr. President, I do not subscribe to or participate in the attacks on our prescription drug industry. The American drug industry is an extraordinary success story. As a result of the innovations that this industry has spawned, millions of lives have been improved and saved in our country and around the globe. Because of the importance of these medicines to our health and well-being, I have consistently supported sound public policies to help the industry to succeed. These policies include authoring a successful statute to ensure that drug manufacturers receive appropriate incentives for ensuring that their products are safe and effective for children. I have also co- authored legislation to make sure that new drugs can more swiftly move through the approval pipeline and move quickly into the hands of the patients who need them. I have worked to create a fair balance between the need to protect drug patents for their full patent life, and the need to ensure that generic pharmaceuticals are able to come to market when that patent life has expired. I have always encouraged pharmaceutical research and development. I have also supported trade agreements to help open international markets for American pharmaceuticals. The American pharmaceutical industry is the best in the world, and it has succeeded, and will continue to succeed, in a competitive global environment. Prescription drugs are an absolutely integral part of our health care system. I am proud that many of these medicines are made in my home state of Connecticut. But Mr. President, I am saddened that such a basic and necessary part of modern health care is becoming unaffordable for the average American--including many thousands of men, women, and children in Connecticut. Americans should not be put in the position of choosing whether to purchase groceries or medicine. And yet I have talked to far too many of my constituents who are faced with that choice every day. We have an obligation to seek opportunities to lower drug costs. I was disappointed that such an opportunity was missed during our consideration of the Medicare Modernization Act. That law now prohibits the Federal government from using its purchasing power to bargain for lower drug prices. Such a measure is inconsistent with the economic principle of competition that is fundamental to our economy. We are now faced with another opportunity to control prescription drug costs by allowing the importation of FDA-approved prescription drugs from Canada and other industrialized nations. I have long taken the position that drug importation should only be allowed if we can ensure that it is safe. I do not want affordable medicines to come at the cost of quality and safety for American consumers. I have looked at every importation proposal with these priorities in mind. Mr. President, Senate bill 2328, while not perfect, is a sensible approach to the issue of drug importation. I believe that it addresses the safety concerns that have been raised in the past, and in my discussions with opponents of this bill, I have yet to hear an argument that makes me believe that the medicines imported under this bill would be unsafe. In fact, I believe that it has the potential to be significantly safer for American consumers than the status quo. Currently, an American can easily go on the Internet and order drugs from another country. But there is no guarantee that these drugs are safe, and no way to prevent these drugs from entering the country. We are being flooded with counterfeit and compromised medicines, and people are being hurt. Under the Dorgan-Snowe bill, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would be given the authority and resources necessary to make drug importation a safe proposition. Importers would be required to register with the FDA, so Americans can know where it is safe to purchase imported medicines. Mr. President, with the issue of safety addressed, this really becomes an issue about what is best and what is fair for American consumers. At the moment, Americans pay significantly more for prescription drugs than those in other industrialized nations. Based on that fact, it is my belief that we should work toward a more open global market for prescription drugs, just as we do for countless other products that we trade internationally. As I mentioned earlier, I am confident that the American drug industry can compete with that of any other nation. I am committed to ensuring that this continues to be true. We should, in my view, take steps to bring about fairer trade, freer trade, and safer trade for prescription medicines. This legislation represents one such step. I intend to continue to talk to all interested parties about this bill. If safety concerns should arise in the future that have not been previously considered, I will do everything in my power to address them with the sponsors of this legislation. But it is past time for us to do something about the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs, and I support this bill as a step in the right direction.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, be also added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.