Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is amendment No. 572. It is at the desk.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I may, the purpose I have outlined in the amendment says what it is for. Some may want to interpret it otherwise, but this is a vote on whether we value higher education enough to ensure that all Americans have access to it.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I apologize to my colleagues. I know it is now after 1 in the morning. People are tired. It has been a long day. I have great respect for this institution and do not normally like to test the patience of my colleagues, but as tired as all of us are at this very hour, there are some 250,000 orphans right now, 80,000 of whom live in the Caribbean, who are orphaned because their families, their parents, contracted AIDS. There are half a million people in the 14 CARICOM countries who will not be included as a part of this bill, for reasons that have never been explained adequately to me, who are suffering a lot more than just fatigue tonight because they will not get the kinds of medicines and support they deserve. I apologize for raising an amendment that is brought up at a late hour. I am sorry we are not going to be here tomorrow to debate some of these issues. The decision to be here at this hour is certainly not that of those who are offering these amendments. This is a very important bill. I have great respect for the President, who has made this an important issue, who wants to bring it up and see to it that these issues can be debated when he goes to the G-8. My amendment simply says that for the countries that suffer the second largest incidents of AIDS in the world, the Caribbean countries where 10 million American tourists go every year, ought to be included as part of this package. I do not think our colleagues in the House of Representatives, Democrats or Republicans, would reject this legislation because we add 14 countries where 5 million people live, where half a million people are suffering from AIDS, second only to that of sub-Saharan Africa. If they would object to the bill on that grounds, I do not understand this. Yet we have excluded all but two countries from being recipients of this aid. So my amendment merely says we ought to include these countries as part of this package. The average age of death in the Caribbean countries is 45 years of age. Twenty-five percent of all hospital beds in these Caribbean countries are now filled with people infected by AIDS. Few of these patients receive any treatment at all. The mother-to-child transmissions are the highest in the Americas. The AIDS epidemic has already left 80,000 orphans in these Caribbean countries. Globally, half of all infected are in children between the ages of 15 and 24, except in the Caribbean. There it is, 10 years of age. I know it is late, but it is getting later for these kids. It is getting a lot later for them. So I am asking my colleagues in the Senate to ask our colleagues in the House to accept an amendment that would include people who live only a few minutes from our shores, who deserve a little more than they are getting tonight. If you are a 10- year-old child and you are suffering from AIDS, you are one of 80,000 orphans in the Caribbean and you deserve better than being told that this bill cannot be changed, not one dot, not one comma, not one word. I know in fact this bill will be changed before we leave tonight. So the argument somehow that we cannot do this is specious. We ought to be doing better than that. We are the Senate. We are dealing with a critically important global issue. It deserves more of our time, attention, and concern than the argument that we are fatigued and tired, that we do not have the patience to go back to our colleagues in the House and say we can do better. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is not asking too much to say to half a million people who are a few miles from our shore that we want to include them as part of this effort to make this world a better and safer place. I urge its adoption.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank the chairman for responding. I am sad in a way, and maybe the amendment will be adopted by majority if that is the case and we can move beyond this. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. We have 20 hours for debate on a reconciliation bill, which may be the most significant debate we are going to have in this Congress. Twenty hours--that is all we get to talk about the importance of what we are about to do. I am deeply disappointed. We are constrained in the Senate of the United States to have a more meaningful debate about something as important as this. I, again, urge adoption of the Kennedy amendment to at least provide relief for those who have lost their jobs and ought to have some help to provide for their families.

Mr. DODD. This tax cut is way too excessive, in my view, and will benefit a small percentage of income earners, creating deficits from which we will spend years recovering as it squeezes our ability to provide help to working families and for education. I urge the adoption of the Kennedy amendment. I ask for an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. DODD. Further reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for 1 minute.

Mr. DODD. I want to know why this could not be adopted as part of this passage. We have an amendment here right now to do it. This is the time to do it. We all care about this and have people in every State adversely affected. Why wait another series of weeks? Why not do it right now and adopt the Kennedy amendment and move this issue beyond us and deal with the rest of the bill? That is my question to my distinguished chairman.

Mr. DODD. I further understand that the bill the chairman is talking about would not expand this at all but really just extend it; is that correct? So we will have a debate about that, obviously.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding me some time. I have just a few observations. First of all, on the amendment being offered by our colleague from Massachusetts, it has been said by others, by my colleague from Washington, and my colleague from Rhode Island, and certainly the Senator from Massachusetts, as well, that this is difficult for many of us to understand. I have served in this Chamber for more than two decades now. I don't recall another time when we had a downturn in the economy, where we had as many as 2 million jobs lost in the last 27 months, where 80,000 workers a week are losing their benefits. I don't recall under any administration--I have served here under Republican administrations and Democratic administrations, and I have served when this Chamber was controlled by Democrats and also under Republicans, and in the House also with both Democrats and Republicans; I know of no other time in the more than two decades I have been here where in a moment like this we would not provide an extension of unemployment benefits. It is truly shocking to see a piece of legislation designed to offer relief to people, allegedly, through the tax cuts the President is suggesting, with no assistance to the unemployed. We literally have thousands of people who are facing difficult times, whose ability to take care of their families, and to make ends meet have been hindered. We are talking about putting people back to work and getting them jobs. We are talking about 80,000 people a week running out of benefits. And yet we find no space in the legislation to provide assistance to them. I am really stunned in many ways that this is not part of this effort. I can only hope our colleagues, regardless of political party, will endorse the Kennedy amendment as part of this package. The administration says they are still deciding whether an extension of unemployment insurance is necessary. What do they need to know? Well, 80,000 people a week are losing their benefits. They are hard-working Americans trying to hold together families, pay mortgages, pay car payments, keep their kids in school. What do we need to know when 80,000 people a week are losing their benefits? Why can we not provide, in this legislation, which involves billions of dollars, some relief for these people? Our unemployment insurance amendment would protect the unemployment insurance safety net for 4 million out-of-work Americans. So I sincerely hope the managers of this bill, and others, would see fit to provide some space here. In my State alone, 58,000 people who are out of work would be helped by the Kennedy amendment; in California, 562,000; in Florida, 161,000. I ask unanimous consent that a State by State list, totaling the 4 million people who would be benefitted by this amendment be printed in the Record at this time.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I really cannot believe that at this moment in our history we would pass a bill that would not provide help to the many, many Americans who need it. Let me also say, because I know we are under time constraints--and I am probably not going to have a chance to have any extended time for discussion of this later--that I will speak briefly on an amendment that I have filed and intend to offer later, to reduce the tax cut package to increase resources for programs designed specifically to assist middle- and low-income families with the cost of higher education--and those are the Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits and the Pell Grant program. And, I also would have an equivalent amount of resources go to deficit reduction. If we are serious about having this bill contribute to our economic growth, then we ought to dedicate these resources to higher education. I don't need to lecture anyone in the Chamber about the value of providing higher education opportunities for people. Yet, in spite of his rhetoric, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget includes cuts in the maximum Pell Grant available to low-income students, and he would do nothing to expand the Hope and Lifetime Learning credits, which are specifically designed to help middle-income families. Nothing could be more devastating to a family than to discover that they cannot afford to send their son or daughter to college, regardless of their child's talent, determination, or ambition. Or others who want to continue learning throughout their lifetime of learning, but cannot, because instead of helping them, we decide to provide a tax cut that primarily benefits the wealthiest among us. For us to say to middle-income families that your opportunity to send a child to college is going to have to take a back seat to providing a tax break to the top 1 or 2 percent of income earners is something I don't think we ought to do. So I am going to try, with this amendment, to focus our attention on higher education. Of course, last week, we discovered the Government has reported that the unemployment rate jumped to 6 percent. There are economists in the country who believe the unemployment rate, by the first quarter of next year, will hover near 8 percent. It is beginning to become clear to this Senator that this possibility, as farfetched as it may have seemed a few months ago, is not so farfetched at all if we don't do something to stem the tide here. Nothing in this legislation is designed to do that. Now we are going to have, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the largest single deficit ever accumulated in the history of the United States of America. What a record that is. This is, of course, just 27 months after we came off of a period of economic growth, of accumulating surpluses, and putting our country on sound fiscal footing. Yet in 27 short months, we have gone from surpluses to the record high deficits ever accumulated in this country's history. That is an incredibly stunning record, not to mention the more than 2 million jobs that have been lost. In the midst of this massive tax break which will go mostly to the few elite in the country, we are also going to be raising the national debt to a point where it is almost a trillion dollars more than the present national debt. If you are out there paying mortgage payments, car payments, and student loans, you don't need to have a Ph.D. in economics to know that as you accumulate these deficits and debts eventually interest rates are going to start to go up. When interest rates go up, that is a tax increase on average Americans. When you start paying more for that house payment, that car payment, that student loan that your child may need in order to receive a higher education, that is a tax increase for middle Americans. If we do not stem this tide and become more fiscally responsible, then those interest rates are going to have a huge impact on literally millions of Americans. Again, you do not need to have me lecture about that point. I think most Americans understand it. We have seen periods in our recent past when that has happened. We are going to see it again, in my view, if this proposal is adopted as presented. Two years ago when we were debating the tax cuts of 2001, we were told we could expect almost $6 trillion in surpluses over the next decade. Instead, we are now getting record high deficits. Two years ago we were told that if we enacted the President's tax cut plan, we would virtually pay off the publicly held debt by 2008. We are headed in exactly the opposite direction. How many more signals do we need to get this Chamber to understand that as we are digging this hole deeper and deeper, we need to pull out of the hole. Instead, we are just as determined to dig that hole deeper to the point where we will be spending years trying to recover from this mistake. After this Chamber passes part of the President's so-called growth plan, and after we vote to increase the debt by almost $1 trillion, how many more trillions of dollars are we going to have to increase the debt limit to in order to make room for this irresponsible tax cut affecting such a small percentage of taxpayers? Let's consider what breaks people get. Again, I do not have to present all of the charts here, but so people understand what I am talking about, according to the Urban Institute Tax Policy Center, those who have incomes above $1 million will receive, on average, a tax cut of $64,400. For those in the middle-income spectrum, their tax cut will be $233. That is what we are about to adopt at a time when we are driving the deficit hole even deeper; and at a time when we are denying an extension of unemployment benefits to the 80,000 people a week who have and will be exhausting their benefits. It seems to me that we are headed in the wrong direction on both fronts. The Kennedy amendment would extend unemployment benefits. The very least we ought to do in this Chamber is to say to hard-working people: When you are caught up in an economic downturn, Republicans and Democrats alike in recent history have extended a hand to these families and said: Through no fault of your own, you have ended up in that situation. This Congress is not going to ignore you. This Congress is not going to pretend you do not exist. We are saying nothing about those people.

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, and I will be very brief.

Mr. DODD. I want to follow up. I know the chairman of the committee is here, and I missed a little of the discussion because I had to step outside the Chamber with some police officers from my State. I will take a minute or so and obviously then move to the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas. I understand the chairman made a statement about this issue of unemployment insurance at some point. I wonder if the distinguished chairman of the committee might share with Members when that might happen and why we cannot do it now. We know this is a growing problem, and we always delay these things. When 80,000 people a week are running out of benefits, we have had more than 2 million people lose work since the President came into office, why not extend unemployment insurance on this bill? It would be a great gesture to the American public. My question is, simply, to ask if the chairman of the committee might respond.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, last Friday, my Senate colleagues and I voted unanimously to confirm the nomination of Lewis J. Buckley to the rank of captain in the United States Coast Guard. This confirmation is well-deserved and bears a particular significance to the United States Coast Guard. Captain-Select Buckley is the conductor of the Nation's Coast Guard Band. Since its formation in 1925, this organization has developed an international reputation as one of the finest professional concert bands in the world. And since 1965, the Coast Guard Band has been the permanent, official musical representative of the nation's oldest maritime service. However, unlike its counterparts in the nation's four other military services, the Coast Guard Band has never been led by an officer over the military grade of O-5. Captain-Select Buckley's promotion demonstrates the ascendance of an institution with a laudable and grand tradition. Once regarded as the Coast Guard Academy's local music ensemble, the Coast Guard Band now routinely tours throughout the United States. It also often represents the Coast Guard around the world and will certainly promote a distinguished image of the country's new Department of Homeland Security. The Coast Guard could not have found a finer leader to oversee the ongoing evolution of this important institution. Captain-Select Buckley is an accomplished jazz trumpeter as well as music composer, arranger, and director. He is the recipient of the American Legion's Distinguished Service Citation and two Meritorious Service Medals. Since his appointment as conductor of the Band in 1975, Captain- Select Buckley has led the Coast Guard Band to play more concerts on air on National Public Radio than any other wind band, military or civilian--a fine testament to his able leadership and to the musical talent of the Coast Guard Band's men and women. Mr. President, I am proud that my colleagues acted to confirm this nomination, to honor my constituent, Captain-Select Lewis J. Buckley, and to pay tribute to an historic musical institution, headquartered in New London, Connecticut.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. After many years of armed conflict and internal unrest, Afghans are currently in the process of rebuilding their nation. And, now that the majority of military action in that country is complete, it is clear that many innocent Afghans lost their lives, homes, or family members as a result of coalition attacks. Certainly, I have no doubt that throughout our military actions in Afghanistan, our troops acted with the highest possible level of precision and professionalism in order to avoid civilian injuries or deaths. I applaud their valiant efforts and their excellent performance. We all do. However, in all armed conflicts there are mistakes made, and in this conflict, several hundred Afghans died as a result. The village of Madoo is a chilling example of this loss of life. An estimated 150 people were killed in this village, which was bombed by coalition forces, along with other villages located near Osama bin Laden's former lair in the mountains at Tora Bora. And, the magnitude of this loss of life is highlighted exponentially when one considers that Madoo was home to only 300 people. In these raids, not only was Madoo reduced to ruins, but half of its population died; half of all its inhabitants lost their lives. These were innocent people, and the ones who remain--like so many others in Afghanistan--are destitute. They did not only lose their friends and family; they lost their homes, possessions, and their livelihoods. Sadly, it has now been over a year since much of this damage was inflicted, and while some have begun to receive this aid, those injured by coalition bomb attacks are still in desperate need of assistance. With each passing day, there is growing doubt amongst many of the victims as to whether or not American aid will ever arrive. This is a troubling situation, and I hope my colleagues will join me in calling on the administration to ensure that these funds quickly reach all of those in need. Indeed, Congress has already appropriated funds to assist humanitarian and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the disbursement of these funds to victims of coalition attacks has been hindered for a number of reasons. Ongoing military skirmishes in Southeastern Afghanistan have in many cases prevented aid workers from safely reaching the most war-torn villages. In addition, widespread destruction caused by decades of conflict has spurred some Afghans to falsely attribute their suffering with coalition attacks. Moreover, local rivalries between clans and villages require the United States and the international community to distribute aid equitably, so that no particular group will feel a sense of inequity in the distribution of American aid, which would only serve to heighten tensions. I also understand the concerns expressed by some members of the administration regarding the complicated policy implications that providing monetary compensation for victims of coalition bombing raids could create. Certainly, the security interests of the United States are in the forefront of the minds of every member of this chamber. However, with our vast resources, as well as American ingenuity and creativity, we should work to develop innovative approaches that will ensure American aid reaches all of those in need, while also protecting regional and global American interests. I am heartened by recent developments that will allow the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, to begin distributing aid to war-affected communities in Afghanistan. The $1.25 million obligation for this effort is a good start. However, while there are many reasons for the slow distribution of American aid, the reality is that the victims of these attacks are still in great need of assistance. It is absolutely imperative that the administration now acts with the same swiftness and clarity witnessed in the fight against the Taliban to aid these innocent men, women, and children. We must remind them that our quarrel was not with the Afghan people, but rather the Taliban. Now that we have freed them from the oppressive hand of that brutal regime, we must not leave them alone. The needs of the Afghan people are immediate. They cannot wait. Indeed, they have already waited too long. If we continue to sit idly by; if we do not help alleviate the suffering that was unintentionally inflicted upon them, then we will be creating an incubator for the same type of anti-American sentiment on which the Taliban and Osama bin Laden thrived. We will be laying the foundations for the very mentality that we are trying to uproot. We will be serving to destroy all that we have worked to achieve. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Apr. 28, 2003] After the Airstrikes, Just Silence; No Compensation, Little Aid for Afghan Victims of U.S. Raids (By April Witt) Madoo, Afghanistan.--There are more graves than houses in Madoo. The mosque and many of the roughly 35 homes that once made up this hamlet in the White Mountains of eastern Afghanistan lie in rubble. At least 55 men, women and children--or pieces of them--are buried here, their graves marked by flags that are whipped by the wind. Seventeen months after U.S. warplanes bombed this village and others in the vicinity of Osama bin Laden's cave complex at Toro Bora, Madoo's survivors say they can tell civilian victims of U.S. bombing in Iraq what to expect in the way of help from Washington: nothing. ``Our houses were destroyed,'' said Niaz Mohammad Khan, 30. ``We want to rebuild, but we don't have the money. . . . We need water for our land. We need everything. People come and ask us questions, then go away. No one has helped.'' Madoo is one of several enclaves in the region that the U.S. military bombed over several days in December 2001, killing an estimated 150 civilians. Once home to 300 people, Madoo has lost roughly half its population, villagers say. In addition to the dozens killed by U.S. airstrikes, many others lost their homes and moved away. The people who remain are destitute. They live crowded in the few stone and timber homes they've managed to rebuild on their own. They subsist on bread and the vegetables they grow. Several children looks slight and frail. Half of world away in Washington, finding ways to help people in such desperate need became an immediate priority for some policymakers and a dangerous precedent to others. Congress directed that an unspecified amount of money be spent to assist innocent victims of U.S. bombing in Afghanistan, just as it recently called on the Bush administration to identify and provide ``appropriate assistance'' to civilian victims in Iraq. But the money has not yet reached any of the intended recipients, U.S. officials acknowledged. ``The money is there,'' said Tim Rieser, an aide to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.). ``Mistakes were made. Mistakes are made in wars. We all know that. But we have yet to see the administration take action to carry out the law in Afghanistan.'' The U.S. Agency for International Development, for example, had $1.25 million in last year's budget to help Afghan civilians who suffered losses as a result of U.S. military action, according to the U.S. Embassy in Kabul. But the agency has not spent any of that money helping Afghans who had their relatives killed, their children maimed, their homes leveled or their livestock and livelihoods destroyed by American bombing, several U.S. officials in Afghanistan conceded this week. The biggest obstacle to delivery of the aid, officials say, has been a prolonged debate over how to assist bombing victims without compensating them. To policymakers, the distinction between easing the plight of suffering innocents and compensating the victims of war is more than semantic. Both the U.S. military and the State Department are leery of setting legal precedents for compensation and have declined to establish programs that either systematically document civilian losses or give Afghans any opportunity to apply for reparations. Short of that, military civil-affairs units in Afghanistan have, in isolated instances, provided general humanitarian assistance to communities that happen to have suffered as a result of U.S. bombing. They are, for example, helping rebuild Bamian University--but only, officials insist, because Bamian needs a new university, not because U.S. bombs destroyed the old one. ``Claims have never been processed for combat losses,'' said Col. Roger King, U.S. military spokesman at Bagram air base near Kabul, the Afghan capital. The policy debate has gone on too long, Rieser said. ``It's tricky,'' he said. ``We don't imagine going around handing out dollar bills to people. We are sensitive to the issues. If we were to announce some kind of a claims program, every single person in Afghanistan would sign up. It's just not feasible. ``But we do know about a lot of these bombing incidents. We know there is a real need there. Why not start doing something about it in the context of our overall aid program? All Congress is saying is, don't leave out the people who suffered serious losses on account of our mistakes. It should have happened already.'' There are no official estimates of how many Afghan civilians have been killed by U.S. bombs. A survey published last year by the human rights group Global Exchange estimated the number at more than 800. A year and a half after the U.S.-led coalition ousted the Taliban and al Qaeda, bombs are still falling on Afghan civilians as U.S. forces combat a resurgence of terrorism aimed at destabilizing the government of President Hamid Karzai. In eastern Afghanistan this month, a U.S. warplane mistakenly killed 11 members of one family when a 1,000-pound laser-guided bomb missed its intended target and landed on a house. And Madoo still lies in ruins. The village, 25 miles south of Jalalabad, is not accessible by road. It is a short but arduous hike through mountain gorges from the Pakistan border. On the horizon jut the black peaks of Tora Bora, home of the cave complex where an estimated 1,000 of bin Laden's fighters are believed to have gathered after the defeat of the Taliban last fall. It was late afternoon on Dec. 1, 2001, when U.S. warplanes appeared over Madoo. The people of Madoo were observing Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting. ``It was the time of breaking fast, and we were just sitting together to have dinner,'' Munir, 12, recalled. ``We heard the voice of the planes, and we went out to see what was happening. A bomb landed on our home. There weren't any Taliban or Arabs with us. For nothing they dropped bombs here.'' After the first bombers left, Munir's mother and 8-year-old sister were dead. His infant brother, Abdul Haq, was buried alive. Relatives spied the boy's foot sticking out of a mound of dirt and dug him out. The bombers returned three times, villagers said. In all, the people of Madoo say they buried at least 55 loved ones. Many bodies were too damaged to identify. Some of the dozens of mounds in Madoo's hillside burial ground are marked with two and three pieces of wood, signifying that the remains of more than one person are interred there. The people of Madoo remain puzzled by Americans. A retired Ohio lawyer, who read about one Madoo boy injured in the bombings, was so moved that he visited and gave each survivor about $300. People bought tents and clothes and wheat seeds to plant. But Madoo's losses outstripped one man's largess. Munir's youngest brother, now a toddler, coughs frequently and swipes at his runny nose. His family, whose home and meager possessions were destroyed in the bombing, lives with relatives. ``Before, it was good here,'' Munir said. ``The people and my father worked on the land. Life was better than it is now. We have lost everything.'' Munir's father, Shingul, 55, who is raising his four surviving children alone, tried to talk about his late wife and daughter but could only turn away and weep. ``If we were doing something wrong, I could understand this,'' he said when he regained his voice. ``But it was Ramadan and we were breaking the fast. The main problem we have now is that we have nothing. We would really appreciate it if someone could help.''

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the innocent victims of coalition bombing raids in Afghanistan, and to submit for the record, an article regarding this situation from the Washington Post. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as you know, I had originally intended to offer an amendment to the pending resolution adding an additional declaration to the nine that were added during the Foreign Relations Committee's consideration of this matter. My amendment would have dealt with a topic already covered by the Warner-Levin amendment, namely the relevancy of the consensus rule by which the North Atlantic Council has historically carried out its decision making. Now that the Senate has adopted the Warner-Levin amendment by voice vote, I do not see any need to proceed with my amendment. My amendment would not have answered the question of whether in fact the consensus rule is relevant now that the world has profoundly changed and the membership of the organization has greatly expanded. It would however have appropriately called upon the President to review this matter as we move forward to sign off on the accession of seven additional members to this important organization. We all know that the latest round of NATO expansion--Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia, and Slovakia--will bring NATO membership up to 26 countries. And at least three more remain poised for admission in the coming years: Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia. Let me be clear. I am all for offering NATO membership to any democracy that wants to join and can contribute to our common security. But I am wondering how all this expansion will affect the decision- making capabilities of NATO as an organization. For more than 50 years, NATO decisionmaking has been based on consensus--every member state must agree on every important course of action. When 16 NATO countries all faced a common Soviet threat, achieving consensus on major issues was not much of a problem. We may very soon--within a few years--have 29 members of NATO, from all across Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe. That is almost double the number we had not too many years ago. The idea that the alliance's decisions will soon be dependent on the unanimous consent of so many diverse nations, seems to me, potentially a recipe for stalemate in NATO decision-making. My personal view is that NATO should consider creating some form of ``top-tier administrative council''--similar the U.N. Security Council--to prevent the diminution of NATO's power and effectiveness as a military alliance. At last year's NATO summit in Prague, President Bush pressed for ``the most significant reforms in NATO since 1949.'' He was mainly referring to the creation of a rapid reaction force to deal swiftly and effectively with new and emerging threats. Last month, Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman reiterated this idea during his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He rightly pointed out that NATO needs to be ``equipped with new capabilities and organized into highly ready land, air and sea forces able to carry out missions anywhere in the world.'' Mr. Grossman was referring to the need for the creation of a ``NATO Response Force'' to handle serious global challenges, such as proliferation and terrorism. I agree with him that such a force would be beneficial. But I also believe that is only half of the story. It seems to be stating the obvious that each addition to NATO will logically affect in some way the organization, mission, and effectiveness of this proposed rapid response force. Just as I agree that NATO needs to tailor itself to future global challenges by standing up a NATO Response Force, I can foresee scenarios in which quick and decisive action will be needed in a very short amount of time--perhaps days. I think it is reasonable to ask whether it will always be necessary or desirable for all 26, or 29, members of NATO to be involved in every aspect of the deployment of this force? If the answer to that question is no, then shouldn't we at least ask the U.S. administration to study the question of whether NATO should consider a more streamlined decisionmaking structure for NATO to take into account both NATO's new missions, and the alliance's ever- expanding membership. The Levin-Warner amendment should allow a serious review and discussion of that issue. As I have stated earlier, I am a strong supporter of the pending Protocol approving the new members to NATO. We all want a strong and vibrant NATO. I believe that the resolution of ratification, with the declarations and conditions that have been appended by the Senate will help to make that possible.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that is important to America's Federal law enforcement officers and the people they protect across the country. I am joined today by Senator Collins, Senator Clinton, Senator Corzine, Senator Cantwell, Senator Durbin, Senator Grassley, Senator Leahy, Senator Snowe, Senator Reed, Senator Biden, Senator Feinstein, Senator Schumer, Senator Lieberman, Senator Warner, Senator Johnson, Senator Murray, Senator Carper, Senator Kerry, Senator Baucus, Senator Reid, Senator Sarbanes, and Senator Jeffords. The legislation that we are offering will amend the Federal Law Enforcement Pay Reform Act of 1990 to ensure that the government treats Federal law enforcement officers fairly. This bill will partially increase the locality pay adjustments paid to Federal agents in certain high cost areas. These areas have pay disparities so high they are negatively affecting our Federal law enforcement officers, since locality pay adjustments have either not been increased since 1990, or have been increased negligibly. All over America, Federal law enforcement personnel are enduring tremendous stress associated with our Nation's effort to protect citizens from the threat of terrorism. Unfortunately, that stress has been compounded by ongoing pressing concerns among many such personnel about their pay. I have heard from officers who have described long commutes, high personal debts, and in some cases, almost all-consuming concerns about financial insecurity. Many of these problems occur when agents or officers are transferred from low-cost parts of the country to high-cost areas. I have been told that some Federal officers are forced to separate from their families and rent rooms in the cities to which they have been transferred because they cannot afford to rent or buy homes large enough for a family. Unfortunately, the raise in the cost of living in many cities across America has outstripped our Federal pay system. I recognize that this is a problem for other Federal employees and I am prepared to work with my colleagues to address this larger issue. The cost of living has also had a very negative impact on non-federal employees as well and I have consistently worked to ensure that all working Americans enjoy a truly livable wage. The legislation that we are introducing today in no way suggests that the needs of other workers should be ignored, but it acknowledges that as we continue to ask Federal law enforcement personnel to put in long hours and remain on heightened alert, we must provide them with a salary sufficient to allow them to focus on their vital work without nagging worries about how to provide their families with the essentials of food, clothing, and shelter. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, representing more than 19,000 Federal agents, along with the Fraternal Order of Police, National Association of Police Organizations, National Troopers Coalition, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, International Brotherhood of Police, and the Police Executive Research Forum have endorsed this legislative proposal. In these difficult times, we must remain committed to recruiting, hiring, and retaining law enforcement officers of the highest caliber. However, we must also recognize that the Federal government is in competition with State and Local police departments that often pay more and provide better standards of living. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in this effort. I hope that we can quickly pass this important legislation because it will improve the lives of the men and women who are dedicated to protecting us. In so doing, it will improve the Nation's domestic security. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that is important to America's Federal law enforcement officers and the people they protect across the country. I am joined today by Senator Collins, Senator Clinton, Senator Corzine, Senator Cantwell, Senator Durbin, Senator Grassley, Senator Leahy, Senator Snowe, Senator Reed, Senator Biden, Senator Feinstein, Senator Schumer, Senator Lieberman, Senator Warner, Senator Johnson, Senator Murray, Senator Carper, Senator Kerry, Senator Baucus, Senator Reid, Senator Sarbanes, and Senator Jeffords. The legislation that we are offering will amend the Federal Law Enforcement Pay Reform Act of 1990 to ensure that the government treats Federal law enforcement officers fairly. This bill will partially increase the locality pay adjustments paid to Federal agents in certain high cost areas. These areas have pay disparities so high they are negatively affecting our Federal law enforcement officers, since locality pay adjustments have either not been increased since 1990, or have been increased negligibly. All over America, Federal law enforcement personnel are enduring tremendous stress associated with our Nation's effort to protect citizens from the threat of terrorism. Unfortunately, that stress has been compounded by ongoing pressing concerns among many such personnel about their pay. I have heard from officers who have described long commutes, high personal debts, and in some cases, almost all-consuming concerns about financial insecurity. Many of these problems occur when agents or officers are transferred from low-cost parts of the country to high-cost areas. I have been told that some Federal officers are forced to separate from their families and rent rooms in the cities to which they have been transferred because they cannot afford to rent or buy homes large enough for a family. Unfortunately, the raise in the cost of living in many cities across America has outstripped our Federal pay system. I recognize that this is a problem for other Federal employees and I am prepared to work with my colleagues to address this larger issue. The cost of living has also had a very negative impact on non-federal employees as well and I have consistently worked to ensure that all working Americans enjoy a truly livable wage. The legislation that we are introducing today in no way suggests that the needs of other workers should be ignored, but it acknowledges that as we continue to ask Federal law enforcement personnel to put in long hours and remain on heightened alert, we must provide them with a salary sufficient to allow them to focus on their vital work without nagging worries about how to provide their families with the essentials of food, clothing, and shelter. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, representing more than 19,000 Federal agents, along with the Fraternal Order of Police, National Association of Police Organizations, National Troopers Coalition, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, International Brotherhood of Police, and the Police Executive Research Forum have endorsed this legislative proposal. In these difficult times, we must remain committed to recruiting, hiring, and retaining law enforcement officers of the highest caliber. However, we must also recognize that the Federal government is in competition with State and Local police departments that often pay more and provide better standards of living. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in this effort. I hope that we can quickly pass this important legislation because it will improve the lives of the men and women who are dedicated to protecting us. In so doing, it will improve the Nation's domestic security. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the budget resolution which my colleagues and I will be voting on this afternoon. First of all, I take serious exception to what has gone on here with respect to this year's budget resolution process. In all my years in Congress I have never seen anything quite like it. The budget resolution we are voting on today is different than the resolution passed by the House early this morning. This resolution creates an unprecedented ``point of order'' which ties the hands of the Senate by creating competing procedural paths between the House and the Senate for approving the size and nature of these proposed tax cuts. This is like a business keeping two sets of books. That is shady practice for a business and it is awful policy for this Nation's economy. But, more importantly, I believe that no matter how you look at this budget resolution it is extraordinarily fiscally irresponsible and will lock our Nation into years of record deficits and a skyrocketing national debt. I believe this resolution is profoundly unfair--providing hundreds of billions in tax cuts for the most affluent Americans who need them least, while slashing critical services from the American families who need them most. I believe that this resolution will be fundamentally ineffective in addressing the major challenges our Nation currently faces. I was in this Chamber in the early 1980s, when we debated the utility of enormous tax breaks benefitting mostly the wealthiest Americans and richest corporations. I was in this Chamber the last time we heard arguments about how passing large tax breaks and accepting huge deficits now will lead us to economic prosperity down the line. And I was here to witness what those breaks and deficits wrought on the American people: greater unemployment, lower growth, more homelessness, more poverty. For many of us, this budget resolution is--to quote Yogi Berra-- ``deja vu all over again.'' President Reagan was a remarkable man, who filled America with a sense of pride and optimism, at a time in our history when such feelings were sorely lacking. But that doesn't mean his fiscal policies were good for America. They were reckless policies that led us down the wrong path. I was one of a handful of Senators who voted against the Reagan tax cuts in 1981 and 1982. And history shows that the budget policies of the early 1980s were enormously destructive to the fiscal health of our Nation--the shameful legacy of which lasts to this very day. Our Nation's Federal budget deficit rose from $74 billion in 1980, to $221 billion in 1986, and peaked at nearly $300 billion in 1992. In 1980, our national debt stood at $712 billion. By 1990 it had reached $2.4 trillion. Well, ``here we go again.'' Here we are, once again, voting on an extraordinarily reckless budget, based on disproven and discredited economic theories. The philosopher George Santayana once said, ``Those who fail to remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' Our collective failure to remember the past, will be, in my view, far worse this time around than the first time we made these mistakes in the 1980s. This budget resolution locks in the largest deficits in our Nation's history. This year alone, the budget deficit could reach as high as $600 billion. That's more than twice as high as the highest annual deficit ever recorded in American history. According to the Republicans' own analyses, if these tax cuts are enacted, the deficits over the next 10 years will total as much as $6.7 trillion. If these tax cuts are enacted, our national debt, which currently stands at a whopping $6.4 trillion--thanks, again, to the budget policies of the 1980s--will rise as high as $12 trillion. Frankly, I am shocked that we are about to pass a bill that is almost universally recognized as an enormous fiscal mistake. Even many of the Republican's own hand-picked economic officials concede that the Bush economic package will likely do little to spur growth, and could well stifle it. This is profoundly unfair--tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while all others are making enormous sacrifices--including some in Iraq who are right now prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. During past Congresses and past administrations, the American people have always been called upon to share the burden that is brought about from conflict. They have done so by buying government bonds and by even paying higher taxes if necessary to support our troops in times of war. Americans made these sacrifices with a sense of pride because they recognized it as their responsibility. What past administrations and Congresses did not do was consider tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while their troops were in battle, which is what this administration and the majority in Congress are doing. I believe we missed an enormous opportunity here. I believe that we had an historic obligation and an historic opportunity to set our fiscal house in order this year. We had an opportunity to take enormous steps toward fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, and economic prosperity. Instead, the agreement that we are voting on today will bring about record-high deficits and will significantly shortchange families across America. As I said, this resolution is irresponsible, unfair, and ineffective. It is highly irresponsible in the middle of a war, and in the midst of a severe economic downturn, to have a budget reconciliation bill with more than $1.2 trillion in tax cuts as its centerpiece. The other centerpiece of this budget resolution is, of course, cutting crucial funding for our national priorities--including homeland security, education, and health care. And for what? To pay for a tax cut for the wealthy. While offering tax breaks of up to $90,000 for the most affluent among us, this resolution cuts more than $7 billion over 10 years in services for America's veterans. As tens of thousands of our young men and women return from the Persian Gulf, we will reward them with cuts to their health care benefits, their education grants, and their opportunities to get ahead. While assuring the richest of the rich will receive an unprecedented financial windfall this year and over the next 10 years, we are severely shortchanging our children's education--underfunding Title 1 by $5.8 billion, falling short of funding for the ``No Child Left Behind Act'' by roughly $8 billion, and slashing $400 million from after-school programs, which will force nearly 600,000 children out on the street after school. While making certain the bank accounts of the wealthiest Americans are secure, this budget fails to provide the funding necessary to make certain our homeland is secure. Money has been slashed for the FIRE grants program--which helps fire departments nationwide obtain the equipment and training they will need to effectively respond to new threats. And cuts have also been made to the COPS program and other programs critical to our defense against terrorism. We must attack head-on the argument that says that this tax cut is essential to our economic recovery. Just saying it is, does not make it so. Contrary to the belief of some on the other side of the aisle, deficits do matter. They lower future economic growth by reducing the level of national savings that can be devoted to productive investments--because more and more of the budget will be used to pay past debts, not to put into productive investments. They exert upward pressure on interest rates, which will mean higher rates for mortgages, new cars, business loans, and education loans-- which serve as a de-facto tax on our hardest-working families. They raise interest payments on the national debt. And they reduce our fiscal flexibility to deal with the unexpected. If we do not take action now to bring these growing deficits under control, those who endorse this document, in so doing, help to create the first generation of Americans less well off than their predecessors. The prosperity we had in the 1990s did not just come about from one day to the next. It came about through wise and tough decisions from the private and public sector. It took decisions to put an end to smoke and mirror accounting and budget gimmicks. It took tough decisions geared toward fiscal discipline and long term prosperity. Just 2 years ago, when President Bush first came into office, the Congressional Budget Office projected a surplus of $5.6 trillion over 10 years. And now we are projecting record deficits of up to $6.7 trillion over 10 years. That's a $12.3 billion decline in our Nation's budgetary health and economic prospects. This administration and the majority of this Congress are digging an enormous hole for our national economy. Their solution is more shovels and more digging. This does not strike me to be the wisest or most responsible course of action to take. I strongly oppose this budget resolution and urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it had been my intent earlier in the week to come and share with my colleagues some thoughts on the recent crackdown on human rights activists in Cuba. I was unable to do it, so before we adjourn for the Easter Passover recess, I want to take a few minutes to express my thoughts on the recent events in Cuba, and to express in the strongest terms possible my sense of outrage over what has happened. Cuban President Fidel Castro recently initiated severe and repressive measures in an attempt to silence prodemocracy activists on the island nation of Cuba. I rise to denounce in the strongest possible terms those actions. The arrests and show trials of these individuals are well beyond acceptable norms of governance today, and they call into question the very legitimacy of the Cuban state. It speaks volumes about that state's legitimacy when its citizens are denied an opportunity to dialog with the Government authorities about the future of their nation, its political institutions, and its practices. Over the last 40 years, there have been ebbs and flows with respect to the extent of political space granted to human rights activists and independent journalists by Cuban authorities. Last year, in the runup to the visit of former President Jimmy Carter to Havana, there was a perceptible loosening of restrictions on civil society activities. And the Cuban people exhibited a genuine interest in and motivation toward making the most of this newly found political space. When President Carter was in Havana, he was permitted to address the Cuban people, live and uncensored, on Cuban national television. At that time, he rightfully acknowledged the ongoing democratic grassroots activities on the island symbolized by the so-called Varela Project, headed by Oswaldo Paya. This important grassroots organization has already gathered more than 20,000 signatures on petitions in support of democratic reforms. Thanks to President Jimmy Carter, the activities of Mr. Paya are now known not only to the international community but to the Cuban people as well. Representatives of the Varela Project presented a petition with over 11,000 signatures to the Cuban National Assembly, calling on the Assembly to act on some vital democratic issues, including free speech and free press, economic liberalization, and the release of political prisoners. While I understand that the National Assembly has responded to the Varela petitioners, it has done so in a narrowly, legalistic manner that misses the larger political issues that deserve serious consideration by Cuban authorities. It speaks volumes that thousands of ordinary Cubans have been willing to publicly petition their government seeking change. I for one had hoped that the Cuban people's expressed desire for democratic initiatives would prompt further liberalization of the Nation of Cuba. In fact, if the Castro government abided by its own constitution, this might very well be the case. Instead, over the past several weeks, my colleagues, my fellow Americans, and the global community have witnessed the Castro government's abrupt and repressive retaliation against Cuban grassroots democracy activists, independent journalists, economists, and other dissidents. On trumped up charges of allegedly ``working with a foreign power to undermine the government,'' the Castro government is attempting to undermine the will of its own people, in my view, and about 75 Cuban dissidents have now been arrested and convicted. Opposition political party leader Hector Palacios has already received 25 years in prison, and his wife, Gisela Delgado was also convicted. Civil rights advocate Oscar Elias Biscet is expected to be sentenced this week. Economist Martha Beatriz Roque, who has been consistently critical of President Castro's handling of the Cuban economy--and rightfully so, I might add--which happens to be in dire straits, received 20 years in prison for merely doing that. Three others met the same fate, including dissident independent journalist Raul Rivero, independent magazine editor Ricardo Gonzales, and economist Oscar Espinosa Chepe. Indeed, up to this point, there have been 57 convictions, with sentences ranging from 6 to 28 years. And, I must say that after examining these tragic cases, it comes as no surprise that although Mr. Paya has not yet been arrested, 42 of the 74 people arrested in these crackdowns are participants in the Varela Project. Even more troubling is that these trials have been and are continuing to be conducted in a Havana courtroom closed to international diplomats and foreign journalists. I strongly believe that this atmosphere of authoritarianism is indicative not only of the lack of substantial evidence against these individuals, but these trials' lack of domestic and international legitimacy. For many years, I have strongly supported United States engagement of Cuba. I have worked to dismantle the myriad of restrictions on American interaction with that nation, including those on trade and travel. Once again, let me state for the record my belief that our 40-year long isolationist policy towards Cuba has played, unfortunately, a major role I believe in keeping the government of Fidel Castro in power. It has allowed the Castro regime to blame U.S. policies for the lack of food and medicine in Cuba and has created a siege mentality which has allowed repression to flourish under the guise of national sovereignty. For those reasons I continue to believe that U.S. policy needs to change to some degree. However, my support for United States engagement of Cuba should not be mistaken for support of the Castro Government or for the reprehensible tactics it resorts to in order to suppress popular dissent with its policies It is a curious thing, indeed, that prior to these recent actions by Cuban authorities, there was growing support in the Congress and in the Cuban American community in particular for more engagement with Cuba. It leads me to speculate whether President Castro's recent persecution of prodemocracy and human rights activists is not designed to chill efforts in the United States to engage more actively with the island. I call upon the Castro Government to take immediate steps for the release of its political prisoners, to stop the persecution of Cuban dissidents, and to show respect for and abide by the Cuban Constitution and the will of the Cuban people. Fidel Castro has always said that the Cuban Revolution liberated the Cuban people from tyranny and oppression. The events of the last few weeks would indicate just the opposite. Many of the actions that the Castro regime has taken in recent months, particularly against democratic activists and independent journalists make it crystal clear that tyranny is still the order of the day in Havana under Fidel Castro. It is time for Cuban authorities to drastically reverse course and allow the Cuban people to have a voice in their governance. Then and only then will the Cuban people be truly liberated from tyranny. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

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