Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I believe this is the chart regarding the second amendment that really makes the point very clearly. He showed this to me the other day, and it struck me as graphically describing exactly what the Senator from North Dakota is saying. Here are the years 2003 to 2008, and 2013. These are surplus numbers. Correct me if I am wrong, but these are surplus numbers we are looking at, in terms of the Social Security surplus. The light blue at the top is the Medicare surplus. That begins to run down and out around here, just the time that these tax cuts go into effect. The point I have understood him to make is that this seems to be designed specifically to starve our ability to see to it that both Social Security and Medicare have the resources they need. The President calls for more than $1 trillion in resources to support his tax cuts. Right at about the time these tax cuts will really hit home, we then lose the revenue ability to respond to the needs of Social Security and Medicare; is that correct?

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, can I receive 5 minutes or so?

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. I see my colleague from Colorado is here as well and wants some time to speak. I will be brief so he can be heard. These two amendments are different in thrust. I will address the first amendment. I know others have spoken about it. I heard over and over, and I agree--in fact, I listened to the Vice President the other day on one of our national news programs say how the world really has been divided into two parts over the last 18 months: What was going on prior to 9/11 and what has happened since 9/ 11. I agree with him. I think we have to look at the world in two parts. We will never be the same again. Others have said that over and over. I do not know anyone who fundamentally disagrees with that point. I am concerned about this budget process coming right on the eve, if you will, of significant, major conflict, and the fact we are debating the budget needs and priorities of our Nation and excluding from this debate the cost of this conflict and the cost of the reconstruction that will come afterwards. For the life of me, it is almost as if we are engaging in an Alice-in-Wonderland world here. On the one hand, the entire world is anxious about what may happen within hours of this debate, and on the other hand, we are debating a budget process that locks us in for a decade, and there is no discussion about what is going to become a major issue for us: the cost of this conflict and the cost of the reconstruction period afterwards. This morning I tried to go through the news media to see if I could find an article about this debate. I found very little about this debate. Obviously, the attention is on what will happen in Iraq. Yet what we are debating today, and will be debating tomorrow and the next day, in the midst of this conflict, I will argue is as significant in many ways as the impending conflict in the Middle East. But what concerns me is that we are literally locking ourselves into budget priorities that are excluding a tremendous cost, a cost, by the way, as one who supported the resolution last fall, I accept. It is one that we have to bear, but I do not know how the budget can be debated without talking about the major costs of war that we all know will be coming. The amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota says that we ought to at least require that the President provide Congress with a report on the costs of the imminent war with Iraq before the Senate acts on any new tax cuts or spending initiatives. I am not expecting a detailed accounting here. Obviously, you cannot do that, but you are not going to convince this Senator that there have not been people at the executive branch level who have anticipated best- and worst-case scenarios of this conflict. We have heard estimates anywhere from $60 billion to $95 billion, just on the military part. In fact, I gather we have already spent some $25 billion just in getting our forces and equipment to the Middle East. We are already incurring a cost, and yet there is no mention of those costs in this budget. Certainly, the idea that we have not incurred the cost yet because the conflict has not started, therefore, we cannot mention these numbers yet, I think flies in the face of reality. Clearly, we have costs already. I tried to historically see if I could find another example of when we were on a brink of a conflict when we actually had a tax cut of the magnitude we are talking about here. I cannot find any historical precedent for what we are about to do. In fact, Harry Truman, who is revered today as a courageous American President, prior to Korea said: We will do this, but, by the way, I am going to have tax increases to pay for it. If we are going into a conflict in the Pacific rim, I cannot very well ask us to go and not bear the financial cost of doing so. The only time I recall we went into a conflict and did not face the music financially was during the Vietnam conflict. We saw the ultimate results of trying to wage a fight there and not pay for it simultaneously. As someone who is supportive of the fact that we have to go to war-- reluctantly I regret that is the case but understand it must be so--I for one would like to see us adopt the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota because I think the American public would expect nothing less of us here. This is absolutely critical. We are prepared to put young men and women's lives at risk, who are about to bear the burden-- and let's be honest--almost solely so, certainly solely financially-- and yet we are engaged in a budget debate and discussion that does not even bring up a red nickel in the cost of this conflict and the cost of reconstruction. The amendment of the Senator from North Dakota says let's determine what these costs are. Let's factor that all in and then decide whether or not we want to support a $1.3 trillion or a $1.4 trillion tax cut over the next 10 years. I do not for the life of me understand why we would not pause a few moments here, a few days even, necessarily to see how this issue is going and come back to this issue and resolve it. I am hopeful our colleagues will support this amendment. I think it is patriotic. Can you imagine if this does not go as well as we might like and these costs explode and here we are locked into a situation in which we cannot afford to pay the costs? How ridiculous we will look as a Senate that we did not wait a few days to determine whether or not we needed extra resources to pay for these costs. My time has expired. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and support the second amendment as well. With respect to the first amendment, I cannot believe we are going to go on record and adopt a budget that does not take into consideration one of the greatest challenges we face as an American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business so as not to interrupt the debate on the nomination.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, might I inquire, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, obviously, the major conversation today is about how we might successfully disarm Saddam Hussein of the weapons of mass destruction, which many of us still believe are there in Iraq and pose a serious threat, not only to ourselves but to allies and others. I certainly do not minimize the importance of dealing with this issue. In fact, as my constituents know, I voted for the resolution last fall authorizing the President to use force if that became necessary. I still support that position. I think the President ought to have that authority from Congress. I am grateful to him for coming to Congress and asking for that kind of backing. When I voted to give him that authority, I did not mean, of course, necessarily that authority would be used regardless of other circumstances. And certainly, over the past several months, we have seen a concerted effort to try to resolve the problem of Iraq short of using military force. In fact, the President's own words, deserve being repeated; that is, that he did not welcome or look forward to the use of military force to solve this problem. He hoped it would be resolved without using force. I applaud him for making those statements and hope he is still committed to that proposition. I am concerned, still, as are many Americans, that we may see a military conflict in the coming days, and that every effort to try to resolve this matter, diplomatically and politically, has not yet been exhausted. I know the administration is working on it. As one Member of this body, I encourage them to continue doing so. I do not mean indefinitely, obviously. There are obviously points at which you have to accept the fact that there is not going to be the kind of cooperation you would like to have. I certainly would not suggest we ought to go on indefinitely here at all, but I do believe our allies and friends--principally Great Britain, which has been remarkably steadfast in their loyalty to the U.S. Government on this issue--need to be listened to, that their advice and counsel have value and weight. And if there are ways in which you can craft resolutions which would build support at the U.N. Security Council, then we ought to try to do that. That does not mean you go on weeks trying to sort that out. But I hope every effort is being made to fashion just such an arrangement that would allow us to deal with Saddam Hussein. I happen to believe, in the absence of the threat of force, I don't think diplomacy would work alone, nor do I necessarily believe the threat of force, without some effort by diplomacy and politics, would necessarily work as well as we would like. It is a combination of the threat of force and the use of diplomacy that I think has produced the significant, positive results we have seen in the last number of weeks. And the President deserves credit for that, in my view. There is almost a sense of victory occurring here. He may be the most critical voice regarding this progress that has been made, but, nonetheless, I think progress is being made. Mr. President, I want to shift quickly, if I can, however, to the cost of reconstruction. I know the conversation is whether or not there will be a war. Let's assume, for a second, that comes. As regrettable as it is--and we hope it will, obviously, be done at a minimal loss of innocent lives and the lives of the men and women in uniform--I am deeply troubled by the fact this administration has been unwilling to come before Congress to share with us their best and worst-case scenarios in terms of the cost of reconstruction in Iraq. Certainly, I do not expect, nor should anyone, that the administration would be able to tell you with any great deal of specificity exactly what those costs would be. But you are not going to convince anybody in this Chamber, or most Americans, that the administration has not projected some cost figures on what it is going to cost us to rebuild Iraq, either alone or with the cooperation of others around the globe. The reason I say that is because I noticed the other day that the administration had solicited bids from four or five major U.S. corporations to bid on an almost $1 billion contract for reconstruction or partial reconstruction in Iraq. I am convinced that those firms had to have some knowledge of what the bid was all about in order to make it. What concerns me is that there may be people in those corporations who know far more about what the costs may be than the representatives and taxpayers of this country, who will ultimately be asked to pay the bill. I was stunned, when we had a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just a few days ago on this very subject matter, at the cost of reconstruction, that the administration refused to send any witnesses up to share with the committee, under the leadership of the distinguished chairman of that committee, Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana--that the administration refused to even step forward and share with the committee their general thoughts on what may be the costs. How is it that four or five corporations can apparently have access to information and yet the Congress of the United States does not? The four or five corporations were Bechtel, the Fluor Corporation, Halliburton, owned by Kellogg, Brown and Root, the Lewis Berger Group, the Parson Group. Those, I believe, are the names of the corporations invited to bid on the reconstruction contracts. If you are telling these corporations about what the costs may be, and what may be involved, and yet you can't let Members of Congress know--particularly the committee charged with the responsibility-- ultimately, I think that is a mistake. There was a report conducted, I think by the Brookings Institution, with such distinguished Americans as James Schlesinger and others, that made an analysis of the post-cost figures on reconstruction. They all made the similar recommendation. You have to step forward. As our former colleague, John Glenn, used to say: If you want the American public to be supportive of actions like this, they have to be involved in the takeoff as well as the landing. I think his words, that I heard him repeat on numerous occasions, have particular value in talking about this debate. This is not to suggest that everyone is going to endorse the numbers. But you need to let the American public know what they are in for, so that there is some understanding of what this involvement is going to cost us. I think you are going to do far better at winning support ultimately for these figures if you share your ideas. Again, no one is expecting you are going to have to be wedded to these numbers. But you are not going to build the kind of domestic support you need for a number of years on the reconstruction of Iraq if you do not begin to share with the American public what sort of cost figures we are talking about. It is estimated by some groups already that the cost could be at a low figure of $20 billion a year. The cost of the war, of course, we can't get any numbers on. We don't have any numbers on how many of our U.S. military personnel might have to be stationed in Iraq for how long a period of time during the period of occupation. Let me share with you from the Brookings report. Even assuming, they said, little war-related damage--we hope that is the case--the reconstruction requirements in Iraq will be very substantial. Estimates of the requirement vary considerably from as little as $25 billion over a multiyear period to as much as $300 billion over 10 years. It is estimated that repairing and restoring Iraq's electrical power grid to its pre-1990 level would cost as much as $20 billion and that the short-term repairs for the oil industry would cost about $5 billion. Additional reconstruction requirements involve water, sanitation, transportation, and other infrastructure. I bring this up not because I am trying to persuade people they ought not to be for using force, if that becomes necessary, but just to suggest that if you don't involve people and share with them what the estimated cost of this may be, you will be in trouble. Let me tell you what I suspect is really behind a lot of this. As I am speaking on the floor of this Chamber, the budget committees of the Congress are meeting. They are talking about the cost of Government over the next number of years--tax policy, spending policy, what they will be. The estimates now for the deficit are hovering around $400 billion a year. I don't find it merely coincidental that the administration is refusing to share with us how much this war may cost, how much the reconstruction may cost at a time we are also considering the budget. Why is it they won't share these numbers? Is it because they don't want the Budget Committee or this Chamber, which will vote next week on the budget, to have before it some idea of what taxpayers will be asked to shoulder as a result of this involvement? Again, you will not convince me that those numbers don't exist. They do exist. It is outrageous that the administration won't step forward and say: Here is our best estimate, worst case, best case. Regardless of how you feel about this conflict, potential conflict--again, I voted with the President to support the use of force if necessary--where are the Members of the Senate? Why don't they stand up for the Senate when it comes to the budget--we are the ones being asked to vote on this--and be as demanding as I am about sharing these numbers? I would think every single Member of this body, regardless of how you feel about the war, would want to know what the cost may be, so that when you cast a vote either in the Budget Committee or on the floor of the Senate next week, you would have some idea of what the implications are going to be. Without having that information, I don't know how you will vote for some of these other matters, knowing that the cost could be billions and billions of dollars in the coming 5 or 10 years. Maybe I am the only one who feels this way. I suspect I am not. I suspect there is a tremendous concern growing that we are digging a very deep hole for ourselves financially with these massive tax cuts and massive spending going on. I find it more than ironic that some of the strongest advocates for this budget only a few short years ago were standing here begging us to vote for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget and, but for one vote, we would have written it into the Constitution. Now they stand before us and tell us deficits don't matter and that we don't even have to share with you the estimated costs of our involvement in Iraq. My hope is that in these coming days before the end of this week or the first part of next week, the administration might share through some vehicle, if not before a congressional committee then some other forum, what the costs are apt to be so that next week when we vote on the budget, we can include those numbers in the estimated burden the American taxpayer may be asked to shoulder. I am deeply worried that we are digging a very deep hole for ourselves, and we are not being honest and square with the American public about what those implications will be. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to welcome the Prime Minister of Ireland, who is here today. You will notice, I have a green tie on today. I am fully aware, as most Americans are, that St. Patrick's Day is on the 17th day of March, not the 13th day of March. But when the Prime Minister of Ireland arrives here to celebrate St. Patrick's Day a little earlier this year, those of us who are of Irish descent--and even those who are not but wish they were--generally wear a little green to celebrate this festive holiday. Prime Minister Ahern was at a lunch a little while ago hosted by the distinguished Speaker of the House, Denny Hastert. Vice President Cheney was also in attendance representing the President, who normally would be attending an event such as this today, but, obviously, events in the Middle East made it difficult for him to get away. All of us understand that. We regret he was not able to be with us, but we fully appreciate there are other matters that require his more immediate attention. But we thank the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach of Ireland, for him not only being here but for his tremendous work, along with Tony Blair and other political leaders in Northern Ireland, particularly Jerry Adams and David Trimble, in their efforts to try to resolve, once and for all, the political disputes that have been so devastating on the people of Northern Ireland over these last number of years. Based on conversations we have had, it would appear that we are getting very close to, hopefully, a final resolution of those issues. So I welcome the Prime Minister and other political leaders from Ireland and Northern Ireland who have come, as they traditionally do, to celebrate St. Patrick's Day, but have made this a working holiday, if you will, to engage in further conversations on what we might do to help resolve the matters of Northern Ireland, as well as to listen to their sound advice and observations regarding the turmoil that is brewing in the Middle East.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Senate had an opportunity this week to find common ground on an issue that has too often been an ideological battleground: abortion. As the Senate debated the partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, I cosponsored a bipartisan amendment authored by Senator Durbin that could have actually reduced the number of abortions in our country while at the same time protecting a woman's life, health, and her constitutional right to choose. While the amendment was defeated, I remain hopeful that it will ultimately prevail someday as the most sound and moderate approach to addressing the troubling issue of late- term abortions. The Durbin amendment struck a reasonable middle-ground approach on an issue that has frequently been dominated by the extremes. There are those who would universally ban all abortions. Others would universally allow all abortions. I respect the views of the people in each camp, but I disagree with them both. Abortions ought to be legal, safe, and rare. That is my fundamental view, and it's the view that the Supreme Court has affirmed and reaffirmed for the past three decades since its decision in Roe vs. Wade. Abortions have never been--and should not be-- available at any time for any reason. As Roe held, once a fetus achieves the point of viability, abortions may be regulated, but States must allow abortions to preserve a woman's life or health. Forty-one States have already enshrined this standard, or one like it, into their State statutes. The Durbin amendment would have written it into Federal law. It would have respected a woman's constitutional right to choose while appropriately curbing choice after the point of viability where abortions are only necessary to preserve a woman's life or health. This proposal was reasonable, it was constitutional and sensitive to the wrenching circumstances that families typically face when they must contemplate a late-term abortion. Unfortunately, it was adamantly opposed by those seeking a ban on so-called partial-birth abortions. Their proposal had two serious flaws that made it impossible for me to support. First, the ban on partial-birth abortions bans just one medical procedure. It will not stop all late-term abortions from being performed, because an alternative procedure might be found. The Durbin amendment, on the other hand, would have limited all constitutionally- unprotected abortions without regard to a specific procedure. Why? Because the wisdom of using a given medical procedure is best left with medical professionals. We are legislators, not doctors. Second, the partial-birth ban contained in this legislation will not protect a woman's health. The few women who might require this procedure to protect their health from severe injury will be completely barred from receiving it. A pregnancy gone awry is a tragedy. The partial-birth abortion ban will only compound that tragedy by forcing a woman to forego a safer procedure. The partial-birth abortion ban, as its supporters readily admit, is intended not to find common ground and reduce unnecessary abortions, but to lead to a ban of any and all abortions in America--regardless of whether they are needed to protect a woman's life and health. I find this argument simply unacceptable and blatantly unconstitutional in light of Roe vs. Wade. Therefore, it is for this reason and the reasons stated above that I voted against final passage of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. While the Durbin amendment would not have ended the national debate over abortion, it respected the deeply held views of people on both sides of this issue. It offered the Senate and our country an opportunity--not to debate our differences, but to affirm our similarities. It would have allowed us to come together in a bipartisan fashion, pro-life and pro-choice--and offer something that would have reduced the number of abortions while preserving a woman's life, health and constitutional freedom.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, earlier today the Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing about U.S. plans for humanitarian relief and reconstruction of Iraq, in the event we choose to use force to disarm that country. Senator Lugar, the Chairman of the Committee did a superb job of assembling a panel of experts to talk about the various issues associated with that subject, including what such initiatives are likely to cost and how much assistance we can expect from other governments, international relief agencies and non- governmental organizations. The Committee learned a great deal from our witnesses. We had a very good discussion of the range of costs we may be looking at to pay for not only U.S. military action, but humanitarian relief and the longer term reconstruction of Iraq--and the costs are likely to be substantial--even under relatively optimistic assumptions. I was very disappointed that no administration representatives were present to take part in the Committee's deliberations. While the witnesses we heard from today were excellent and are certainly well qualified experts who could credibly speculate on the costs of these operations and other related matters, they aren't the people who are planning the U.S. operations in Iraq. Let me say, that my comments are not meant as a criticism of Senator Lugar, the Chairman of our Committee. He rightly identified the two key administration officials who are most knowledgeable on this matter-- Andrew Natisos, USAID Administrator, and retired General Jay Garner, Director of the newly established Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance at the Pentagon--two key individuals in any humanitarian relief and reconstruction effort in Iraq. The administration declined to make them available this morning. That is deeply troubling to me. I have to believe that the administration's reluctance to make its representatives available to the Committee was because they would have been asked some hard questions, including the range of cost estimates that they have been working with as they plan for military action, humanitarian relief and the longer turn reconstruction of Iraq. I don't think the Committee would have found it very credible to hear from these witnesses that such a range of costs has yet to be developed, when we are just days away from war with Iraq. Nor would we have found it credible to hear that national security concerns prohibited them from sharing this information, particularly as USAID has just sought public bids from five major U.S. construction firms for $900 million in contracts for reconstruction projects in Iraq-- including for restoration of water systems, roadways, ports, hospitals and schools. Mr. President, are we saying that private American construction companies can be privy to details of U.S. reconstruction plans, but the Congress and the American people cannot? Who is paying the bills here anyway? Perhaps the administration's unwillingness to provide these witnesses had something to do with the timing of the hearing. Could it be that the administration did not want to make public those cost numbers just as the Senate and House are about to begin debate on the FY 2004 Budget Resolution? How can this body or the House have a credible debate on the FY 2004 budget without knowing what war and the aftermath of that war with Iraq is likely to cost? How can this body have a credible debate about the FY 2004 budget without knowing what the total cost of our so called diplomatic efforts to persuade governments to allow the U.S. to station military troops within its territory, or cast favorable votes at the U.N. Security Council will reach? The answer quite simply is, we cannot. Mr. President, it would appear that we are on the eve of going to war. This is a very solemn moment for our Nation. The Congress and the American people need to have a full understanding of all that is involved in doing so, including what it will cost and the sacrifices that may be required in other areas. It is time for this administration to stop playing games and politics with this critically important issue. I would say to the administration it is time to come clean and tell the American people what they are going to have to pay for our military actions in Iraq and for nationbuilding in the aftermath of that conflict.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a special friend and outstanding public servant, Bruce Gwinn, who passed away on January 29, 2003, following a year-long battle with cancer. I share the grief of many here in Washington who came to know and love Bruce Gwinn in the course of his 30 years working on Capitol Hill. And, of course, my most heartfelt sympathies go out to Bruce's wife, May, his three children, Dylan, Maria and Byron, and his entire extended family. Bruce was born and raised in Charleston, SC, and graduated from Duke University in 1971. After serving in the Army, Bruce moved to Washington to begin a career in public service. Following my election to the House of Representatives in 1974, Bruce came to work for me as my first Legislative Director, and he served with me right up until I was elected to the Senate in 1980. Bruce was far more than a superb advisor--he was a valued and trusted friend. From 1981 to 1990, Bruce worked as a professional staffer on the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, where he served under three chairman. He then served as a senior policy advisory for the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, where he was responsible for all regulatory issues. In 1997, Bruce returned to work on the Energy and Commerce Committee, where he served as Congressman John Dingell's top advisor on international trade policy. True to inform, he worked full-time right up until days before he passed away. Bruce Gwinn was of a rare and special breed. He was known by everyone with whom he came in contact as a supreme optimist. Although he had his share of challenges in life, Bruce was always thankful for what he had, and always thought the best of others. People were naturally drawn to Bruce because of his contagious smile and enormous heart. And he had the most uncanny ability to diffuse any tense situation with his endearing sense of humor. Although Bruce was a very soft-spoken man, when he spoke, you knew you could take his words to the bank. He was as knowledgeable as anyone on Capitol Hill, on a whole variety of issues. At any point in the past 20 years, Bruce could have taken his expertise on trade, commerce, consumer protection, and other important matters, and left the Hill for more lucrative employment. Bruce chose to stay in government. This surprised nobody. Bruce chose to stay in government because that's where he felt he could best serve the interests of hard-working Americans and their families. He chose to stay in government because he wanted to dedicate himself to improving the lives of others. Bruce Gwinn was, above all, an extraordinarily dedicated public servant. Edmund Burke once said, ``There is no greater glory than to work for the public's good.'' Bruce lived by those words every day, and our nation owes him a debt of gratitude. Mr. President, Bruce Gwinn's life was cut short--he was only 53 years old, and in the prime of his life. And he will be terribly missed. But I came to the Floor of the Senate today not simply to mourn a loss--I came to the Floor to celebrate a life. The life of Bruce Gwinn was truly a life well-lived. He touched so many, and everyone of us he touched is a better person because of it. I am proud to have worked with Bruce, and lucky to have had him as a friend. I thank the President.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, first, I say to my friend from Virginia, this is an opportunity for us to spend a few minutes talking about the issue of war with Iraq. We all listened last evening to the comments of the President during his press conference. We all have great respect, obviously, for the Presidency of the United States. I would not call the President's press conference a Churchillian moment, but certainly the President expressed his views on what he believes ought to be done. On October 11, 2002, I voted for H.J. Res. 114, a resolution providing the President with the authority to use force against Iraq if proved necessary. The vote on that resolution was 77 to 23. I voted for the entire resolution including language which requires the President to first determine that ``reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or is not likely to lead to the enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Resolutions.'' The particular requirement seems to have gotten lost in recent discussions about Iraq and deserves repeating in the context of our debate this morning. My concern is that the Bush administration, at this juncture, has not made the case that we have reached the point that we can say that diplomacy has failed. I do not know of anyone who disagrees with the notion that we would be far better off with Iraq disarmed. Every person I know supports that conclusion. The debate, if you will, is not over whether Iraq should be disarmed but whether there are means short of military conflict for doing so. Knowing all the hazards and dangers that will arise when we send American service men and women into combat to achieve that result, we must not take that decision precipitously, without first exhausting other options, particularly diplomatic options. As I stated earlier, I voted for H.J. Res 114 last fall, and I would vote for it again because I believe force, coupled with with diplomacy, are needed in this circumstance. Threats of force alone without diplomacy can too often lead us to unnecessary armed conflict and costly destruction and loss of life. We fail sometimes to recognize and understand the value of diplomacy and how well it has worked for us in times past. We saw diplomacy at work during the Kennedy administration when President Kennedy diffused the Cuban missile crisis. We saw it at work as well in the Carter administration when Sadat and Begin came together at Camp David to end conflict between Israel and Egypt. We saw it at work in 1993 when, through the efforts of former-President Carter in North Korea, we were able to diffuse a situation that was getting very serious. Diplomacy has successfully resolved many disputes large and small. On each occasion it requires our President to put his credibility on the line and work diligently day in and day out to bring those warring parties together to avoid the conflict that would have ensued. I think too often we fail to appreciate the value of what can be done through diplomacy. There are countless examples throughout our history. My plea this morning, is not that we renounce the use of force multilateral or unilateral--in the case of Iraq or any other circumstance where US national security interests are at stake. I would never support a resolution that would deprive our Nation of the opportunity to protect and defend its security and its sovereignty, including by the unilateral use of force. My only concern is that we ought not rush unnecessarily to that conclusion when other options still remain. Do we really want to unnecessarily put at risk the lives of innocent Iraqi people or more importantly the lives of our own young men and women in uniform who have been deployed to the Middle East and await the orders of the Commander in Chief? My plea today is that the President seriously consider giving the U.N. effort the diplomatic track a bit more time. Obviously, there is a threat in Iraq. We all know that. But it is a threat at this moment that is being effectively contained by the presence of international inspectors and the threat of force. Yes, Iraq is a threat, but there are graver and more immediate threats confronting the United States. I believe that North Korea poses a far greater and far more immediate danger to the United States and the region. U.S./Korean experts across the political spectrum share that view. I am concerned that our impatience over Iraq is doing great harm to our relationships with our long standing friends and allies. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 did not contain an end date by which the inspectors were to conclude their mission. However, from the very beginning, the administration showed very little patience for the inspections process. Almost before it began, members of the Bush Administration were ridiculing the process, suggesting it would never work anyway; why are we bothering with it? One might ask the basic question: If we never thought it was going to work, why did we support U.N. Security Resolution 1441 in the first place? The problem of Iraq and Saddam Hussein is not weeks old, it is years old. We all know that. Nonetheless, we drafted, worked, suggested, and supported the resolution that called for an inspections process. There is no certainty that an inspections process will necessarily succeed, given the size of the country and the difficulties involved, but we voted to send inspectors to Iraq and we supported the terms of their mission as spelled out in the text of the resolution. Yet as the inspection mission was getting underway, the administration seemed to already have lost patience with it. Perhaps that is why other members of the Security Council began to question whether the United States was ever genuinely committed to an inspections regime. U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix spoke before the United Nations this morning. Let me share with my colleagues some of his conclusions--very significant conclusions in my view. Mr. Blix said that the inspectors were in a better position to carry out their work than they had been in the 1990s because of the existence of international pressure. The President should claim victory that his policy is succeeding--the combination of diplomacy and the threat of force is bearing fruit. We ought to be celebrating the fact that the inspectors have made progress in disarming Iraq. I do not think that a call for inspections without a threat of force would have produced positive results. The combination of the threat of force and the inspections process is, according to those we have asked to perform these duties, producing far better results than we ever could have imagined. Mr. Blix went on to say that there is no air surveillance over the entire country, and that inspectors can move freely anywhere in Iraq. Even with enhanced Iraqi cooperation, Mr. Blix stated that the mission would need some additional months not years to complete its work. I am not interested in seeing the inspections process prolonged indefinitely. I do not think that is in anyone's interest. We have men and women in uniform deployed abroad, waiting for orders. We cannot keep them there indefinitely without having the necessary rotations. That poses some problems. I hope we never reach the conclusion that simply because we have deployed our forces to the Middle East, we see that action as putting our credibility on the line if we don't then take military action, even though diplomacy may be working. American service men and women certainly understand that when they are called to duty, there may be times they are asked to put their lives on the line. They also know there may be times when they are going to be asked to wait. Certainly, we need to understand the conduct of this particular delicate situation. Asking our men and women in uniform to be patient as we try to see if we cannot resolve this problem without putting them in harm's way is not an irresponsible way to proceed at all, given the fact we may get exactly what we are seeking as a result of the combined efforts of diplomacy and threat of force. I believe this process is working and the President ought to claim victory, in a sense, because as a result of his efforts, we are getting the job done better than we might have imagined we could. In a sense, I almost get the feeling we are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by moving away from a process that appears to be working despite all the difficulty surrounding it. Obviously, if we want the multilateral support of our allies then we need to allow the U.N. effort some time. I can make a strong case that we probably do not need multilateral forces to win the military contest here. I am quite confident the United States military can more than adequately perform the challenges posed in Iraq militarily. But the problem becomes greater when you think of the aftermath, of how we manage that, how this event will affect other relationships we have where international cooperation is important. I say this with a great deal of lament. Diplomacy has been suffering terribly here over the last few years. This is not just my conclusion. This is the conclusion of the responsible people who have watched, tragically over the last 24 months, where diplomacy has not been working as well as it could. I don't want to digress very much. I will keep focused on the discussion in front of us, but from the outset there was a notion that international cooperation was somehow a sign of weakness; that, in fact, the comments of our friend from Alabama suggesting a moment ago that international organizations and the United Nations could not perform duties when asked to act and asked to get a job done, I disagree with. I have my difficulties with the performance of the U.N. from time to time, but I ask anyone to suggest what the world might look like if we did not have a U.N. system to respond all over the globe to every imaginable crisis that emerges. The idea of deriding and ridiculing and diminishing the role of the U.N. system is not in our interest, and I don't think it is in our interest to ridicule our allies in Europe and elsewhere. These are good friends. They have been and will continue to be. But we need to work at those relationships to keep them strong. Unfortunately, we have not been doing that. And, we are paying a price for that. That is why the American public and so many around the world are worried about unnecessarily taking unilateral action. Particularly a preemptive unilateral action. Having said that, I applaud the President's decision last night to go to the U.N. and to put a resolution on the table. I feared he might abandon the U.N. effort without doing so because some of his advisors have recommended this course of action. I commend the President for still being willing to try and get that international support. I hope a resolution can be crafted which our allies and others will feel comfortable supporting, one that gives the inspections more time to see if they can succeed. If I didn't feel time might work for us here, or that there was an imminent threat to our nations, then I would stand with those who would say we have to go forward now and unilaterally respond to the threat. I don't believe that moment has arrived. Last night the President said that the world has changed since September 11th. I agree with him. The administration's eyes obviously were opened to the fact we needed help and support from the nations in coping with the amorphous nature of the stateless and faceless terrorist organizations. We heard the great news in the last few days of the capture of some al-Qaida operatives. I would respectfully say that this would not have happened without international cooperation. So in this particular set of circumstances, we have seen the value of international cooperation. While Bush administration officials have seen the wisdom of cooperating with our allies in combating terrorist organizations, key administration policymakers still hold--too many of them--the fundamental belief that as the world's only remaining superpower, the United States does not need to consult or build the support from other nations in the conduct of foreign policy. They believe that we can singlehandedly decide who are good guys and bad guys, the members of the axis of evil, in the Bush administration's lexicon. It is this tension that brings us where we are in Iraq and North Korea. Now we have, of course, the paradox that the administration is in no particular hurry, it would appear, to resolve the North Korean problem which was precipitated in part, I argue, by our handling and engagement with Iraq. It has no patience in the case of Iraq to allow the inspections process to play out. I appreciate that the administration is trying to maintain the readiness of more than 200,000 American troops that are or will soon be in the region and that this cannot go on indefinitely without troop rotation. However, I strongly believe the American forces are carrying out an incredibly important mission, even if the order is never given to attack. Just being there has a tremendous value in terms of what we are trying to achieve in the Middle East. Their presence signals a seriousness and resolve on the part of the United States that Iraq must disarm. Iraq is, in fact, beginning, as we see here, to respond--not as quickly as I would like, not in the ways some might prefer--but Hans Blix has reported progress. We should not yet draw the conclusion that in U.N. effort has failed. I want to see Iraq disarm. Every American does. I believe as a way of doing this, at least a way worth trying to get this accomplished without resorting to force. The bellicose and public efforts by the administration to end the inspections process is going to have severe diplomatic costs in the months and years ahead. My hope is that we will be able to repair these relationships. The quick way we might do that is to allow this process to work a bit longer. If we do that, I think we can build the kind of support that is necessary to achieve not only the desired results in Iraq, but also to allow us to continue to build the relationships that are going to be critically important to deal with other pressing foreign policy concerns. We live in a world that absolutely requires international cooperation, and the United States must be a leader in this effort. The great leaders in the post-World-War-II period understood this. The great people we revere and talk about often, people like Omar Bradley and George Marshall, the Dulles brothers and others, who understood the value and the importance of international organizations. They were the architects of these institutions. They were the ones who argued so vociferously to create a U.N. system, international courts of justice, to build a NATO system. They understood the importance of international cooperation. They understood that even a great power such as ours could not solve all the world's problems single-handedly. Too often, as we engage in this debate, many Americans and many people across the globe have the impression that the United States no longer believes that international cooperation is important in the conduct of our foreign policy. I disagree with that profoundly. That worries this Senator very deeply. I will not take a backseat to anybody in my concern about Saddam Hussein. I would support the resolution which I voted for in October again today if it were the pending business of this body. I don't believe that the resolution calls upon the President to abandon diplomacy. For those reasons I would urge and encourage the President to continue his efforts with the framework of the U.N. Again, I want to compliment him for indicating he is going to go back to the U.N. in the coming days to see if we can get a resolution that will build the kind of international cooperation that is necessary. But I have this nagging fear that there are some in the President's inner circle who believe this is all a waste of time and effort, that it is not in our interests to do it, and the sooner we move away from seeking international cooperation the better off we are going to be. That mentality seems to be gaining currency in the minds of far too many. That is a dangerous road to follow. It is one I hope and pray that the President does not take. Mr. President, let me associate myself with what others have said in the course of this debate. If or when the President orders U.S. Service Members into combat, I and every other member of this body will support these brave men and women one hundred percent and we will pray that they return home to their families unharmed. With those thoughts in mind, I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to express some views on this critical issue. I am certainly anxious to hear the thoughts of my colleagues as they express those during the remaining time of this debate.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Before you put words in my mouth, my concern has been that the administration has not been terribly supportive of the inspections process. Numerous Administration officials have been very dismissive of the inspections effort. My colleague from Virginia may have a different one. But my impression is that the administration has never embraced the inspections process, endorsed it, or supported it with the kind of rhetoric that I would have assumed would have been the case since we certainly supported the resolution that established the inspections initiative.

Mr. DODD. Let me respond to your rather long question.

Mr. DODD. I presume there is a question there.

Mr. DODD. My response is the inspection teams were not at full strength until about the end of January. Obviously, we didn't think Saddam Hussein was a wonderfully truthful, reliable head of state last fall when the U.S. voted for U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. We have known Saddam Hussein for a long time, and it therefore comes as no great surprise that it has taken international pressure to get results. It has only been about a month since the inspections team has been fully operational in Iraq. That is a fact. To expect somehow that within a month's period of time, or a little more than a month, an inspections team was going to be able to complete the job was naive. This morning U.N. Weapons Inspections chief, Mr. Blix--whom I think most people respect as being an honorable person and certainly one who has dedicated much of his career to eliminating weapons of mass destruction--reported that the inspections are making progress, that today inspectors are getting a lot more done than they did in the 1990s. We should listen to Mr. Blix and give his remarks serious consideration as we decide the next steps. My only point in taking the floor today is not to suggest, as some may, that we ought to under no circumstances in dealing with Iraq ever contemplate the use of force. I would disagree with that. I think having a threat of force is absolutely critical to achieving a desired result. The only point is that we ought not do this alone. I don't think it is necessary, and I think we ought to at least give this process time to work. I think the cost of not doing that could be profoundly dangerous to our country. I hope I am wrong about that, but I am fearful I may be right. In waiting a few weeks to get this right, I don't think the dangers posed by Iraq are that imminent that a few weeks or a few months would necessarily cost us. I would argue differently about North Korea. I don't think we have that much time. I think every day we lose in dealing with North Korea raises the risks to this country and the world profoundly. I don't disagree with my colleague from Virginia at all about this except to the extent that the impression is we really are not going to give this the kind of time to prove it can work and then have the kind of support that I think we ought to have internationally. We only paid about 10 percent of the cost of the gulf war. The rest of the world which felt most threatened by Iraq contributed 90 percent of that cost. As I shared with my colleagues last evening a conversation which I had with one of the major European Commissioners, a great ally of ours, the Commissioner said: We have been delighted to support the effort in Afghanistan. I think the European Community contributed about $1 billion. He said: I would not anticipate any financial support under the present circumstances in winning the peace in Iraq if this is a unilateral effort on the part of the United States. That is a very troubling comment. This problem is a problem not just for us, it is a problem for the region, as my colleagues have said. I believe Saddam Hussein poses a global threat, and that certainly needs to be addressed. But we need to understand that diplomacy has value. And I think there are those who today are in positions of making a difference who don't appreciate that enough. That is my concern as I take the floor today.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, if you use your 11 minutes, Senator Kennedy and I want to take some time. Others may come. Certainly we can engage in some discussion. I would say use the 11 minutes now.

Mr. DODD. Time is moving.

Mr. DODD. May I inquire, if my colleague will yield, how much time remains on both sides of this discussion?

Mr. DODD. I am prepared to say, use your 11 minutes and then we will pick up our time here. We ought to not waste any more and get to it.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, for tragic reasons, organ donation has been in the spotlight of late. On Saturday, February 23, 2002, 17-year-old Jessica Santillan died after receiving organs from a donor with an incompatible blood type. I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt condolences to Jessica's family and friends. While it is critical to understand how mistakes led to Jessica's death, and how they can be avoided in the future, this tragic incident should not diminish our commitment to organ donation--a procedure that saves thousand of lives each year, and was in fact Jessica's only chance for survival. Instead, we should make a commitment to increasing our donation rates and saving even more lives. Today, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation with Senator Bill Frist to do just that. The Organ Donation and Recovery Improvement Act, which Senator Frist and I originally introduced last Congress, will bring positive attention to this critical public health issue by increasing resources and coordinating efforts to improve organ donation and recovery. I am proud to be working with my friend and colleague, Senator Frist, whose leadership and professional experience as a heart and lung transplant surgeon has been critical in making this issue a priority. At this very moment, more than 80,000 people are waiting for an organ transplant, and one person is added to this list every thirteen minutes. This list has increased from 19,095 people a decade ago. Unfortunately, the discrepancy between the need and the number of available organs is growing exponentially. From 1999 to 2000, transplant waiting lists grew by 10.2 percent, while the total increase in donations grew by 5.3 percent. Tragically, in 2000, approximately 5,500 wait-listed patients died waiting for an organ. Undoubtedly, the task before our nation in caring for these patients seems daunting. However, each person who makes the decision to donate can save as many as three lives. None of us wants to imagine the anguish of watching a family member or a friend wait for an organ transplant hoping that their name reaches the top of the list before their damaged organ fails or having to bear the emotional, physical, or financial costs of undergoing a transplant procedure. For those that do, and for all of those that will, we must improve and strengthen our systems of organ donation and recovery. The legislation that Senator Frist and I are introducing today represents a significant step towards this goal. It would establish a task force to evaluate and improve federal efforts relating to organ donation and transplantation research, and would also authorize $3 million in fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be necessary in fiscal years 2005 through 2008 for grants to Organ Procurement Organizations to coordinate donation activities between hospitals. A vital part of increasing donations lies in education and public awareness initiatives. This legislation would authorize $5 million in fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be necessary in fiscal years 2005 through 2008 to educate the public about issues surrounding organ donation, as well as train health care providers and other appropriate professionals in the best methods to use when approaching possible donors and their families. This funding could also be used for other demonstration projects to increase organ donation and recovery rates. In addition, an equal amount is authorized to expand the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality's authority to improve organ donation practices. We must also work to remove the barriers that stand in a donor's way as he or she seeks to help another person continue life. Our bill would seek to expand living donation by authorizing $5 million in fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be necessary in fiscal years 2005 through 2008 for the reimbursement of related expenses incurred by the donor. In addition, this legislation requests an Institute of Medicine report on living donation practices and potential long-term health risks. Finally, we must work to improve the science of donation and recovery, and address legal issues relating to donation, including consent. More than 20 states currently have registries that may prove indispensable in ensuring that we honor a donor's wishes. This bill would establish an advisory committee to study the benefits, and potential shortcomings, of these arrangements and work to create a national sense of urgency that matches the national need for donors. I would like to recognize the invaluable support and guidance we received in drafting this bill from the American Society of Transplantation, the American Liver Foundation, the Patient Access to Transplantation Coalition, the North American Transplant Coordinators Organization, and the National Kidney Foundation. I would be remiss not to also mention the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, whose members nationwide have worked so tirelessly to bridge the gap between the immense need for and the inadequate supply of donated organs. In my home state of Connecticut, we are well-served by the tremendous work of the Northeast Organ Procurement Organization and the New England Organ Bank. Finally, I look forward to working with my colleagues, including Senator Kennedy, Senator Gregg, and Senator Durbin, whose commitment to this issue has been unparalleled. I urge Congress to take swift action on this bipartisan legislation aimed at increasing organ donation and saving lives.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, for tragic reasons, organ donation has been in the spotlight of late. On Saturday, February 23, 2002, 17-year-old Jessica Santillan died after receiving organs from a donor with an incompatible blood type. I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt condolences to Jessica's family and friends. While it is critical to understand how mistakes led to Jessica's death, and how they can be avoided in the future, this tragic incident should not diminish our commitment to organ donation--a procedure that saves thousand of lives each year, and was in fact Jessica's only chance for survival. Instead, we should make a commitment to increasing our donation rates and saving even more lives. Today, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation with Senator Bill Frist to do just that. The Organ Donation and Recovery Improvement Act, which Senator Frist and I originally introduced last Congress, will bring positive attention to this critical public health issue by increasing resources and coordinating efforts to improve organ donation and recovery. I am proud to be working with my friend and colleague, Senator Frist, whose leadership and professional experience as a heart and lung transplant surgeon has been critical in making this issue a priority. At this very moment, more than 80,000 people are waiting for an organ transplant, and one person is added to this list every thirteen minutes. This list has increased from 19,095 people a decade ago. Unfortunately, the discrepancy between the need and the number of available organs is growing exponentially. From 1999 to 2000, transplant waiting lists grew by 10.2 percent, while the total increase in donations grew by 5.3 percent. Tragically, in 2000, approximately 5,500 wait-listed patients died waiting for an organ. Undoubtedly, the task before our nation in caring for these patients seems daunting. However, each person who makes the decision to donate can save as many as three lives. None of us wants to imagine the anguish of watching a family member or a friend wait for an organ transplant hoping that their name reaches the top of the list before their damaged organ fails or having to bear the emotional, physical, or financial costs of undergoing a transplant procedure. For those that do, and for all of those that will, we must improve and strengthen our systems of organ donation and recovery. The legislation that Senator Frist and I are introducing today represents a significant step towards this goal. It would establish a task force to evaluate and improve federal efforts relating to organ donation and transplantation research, and would also authorize $3 million in fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be necessary in fiscal years 2005 through 2008 for grants to Organ Procurement Organizations to coordinate donation activities between hospitals. A vital part of increasing donations lies in education and public awareness initiatives. This legislation would authorize $5 million in fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be necessary in fiscal years 2005 through 2008 to educate the public about issues surrounding organ donation, as well as train health care providers and other appropriate professionals in the best methods to use when approaching possible donors and their families. This funding could also be used for other demonstration projects to increase organ donation and recovery rates. In addition, an equal amount is authorized to expand the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality's authority to improve organ donation practices. We must also work to remove the barriers that stand in a donor's way as he or she seeks to help another person continue life. Our bill would seek to expand living donation by authorizing $5 million in fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be necessary in fiscal years 2005 through 2008 for the reimbursement of related expenses incurred by the donor. In addition, this legislation requests an Institute of Medicine report on living donation practices and potential long-term health risks. Finally, we must work to improve the science of donation and recovery, and address legal issues relating to donation, including consent. More than 20 states currently have registries that may prove indispensable in ensuring that we honor a donor's wishes. This bill would establish an advisory committee to study the benefits, and potential shortcomings, of these arrangements and work to create a national sense of urgency that matches the national need for donors. I would like to recognize the invaluable support and guidance we received in drafting this bill from the American Society of Transplantation, the American Liver Foundation, the Patient Access to Transplantation Coalition, the North American Transplant Coordinators Organization, and the National Kidney Foundation. I would be remiss not to also mention the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, whose members nationwide have worked so tirelessly to bridge the gap between the immense need for and the inadequate supply of donated organs. In my home state of Connecticut, we are well-served by the tremendous work of the Northeast Organ Procurement Organization and the New England Organ Bank. Finally, I look forward to working with my colleagues, including Senator Kennedy, Senator Gregg, and Senator Durbin, whose commitment to this issue has been unparalleled. I urge Congress to take swift action on this bipartisan legislation aimed at increasing organ donation and saving lives.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Warner, Senator Hollings, Senator Reed, Senator Daschle, Senator Lieberman, Senator Clinton, Senator Sarbanes, and Senator Landrieu to introduce the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response, SAFER, Act. This legislation will help to remedy a critical shortage in the fire service and help ensure that America's firefighters have the staffing they need to safely do their jobs. Every day approximately one million firefighters put their lives on the line to protect the people of our great Nation. I firmly believe that in recognition of that fact, our Nation has an obligation to ensure that the brave men and women of the fire service have the tools, the training, and the staffing they need to do their jobs safely. In recent years, the Federal Government has recognized that it can and should be a better partner with local firefighters. In 2000, Senator DeWine, Senator Levin, Senator Warner, and I worked successfully to help create the FIRE Act. This law stood as the first Federal grant program explicitly designed to help fire departments throughout America obtain better equipment, improved training, and needed personnel. Since September 11, 2001, Congress and the administration have provided billions of dollars to help local firefighters purchase equipment and training to respond to acts of terrorism, accidental fires, chemical spills, and natural disasters. Over the last 2 years, the Federal FIRE Act grant initiative has provided nearly half a billion dollars in direct assistance to local fire departments across the country and the FIRE Act will provide another $750 million this year. We are beginning to significantly improve the quality of the equipment available to firefighters in every State and in communities large and small. Unfortunately, the FIRE Act has not improved staffing conditions for America's fire service. Severe staffing shortages still plague departments across the country. Currently two-thirds of all fire departments operate with inadequate staffing. And the consequences are often tragic. According to testimony by Harold Schaitberger, General President of the International Association of Firefighters, presented before the Senate Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee on October 11, 2001, understaffing has caused or contributed to firefighter deaths in Memphis, Tennessee; Worcester, Massachusetts; Keokuk, Iowa; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Chesapeake, Virginia; Stockton, California; Lexington, Kentucky; Buffalo, New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Washington, D.C. In each case, firefighters went into dangerous situations without the support they needed and they paid the ultimate price. The unfortunate reality is that our local communities have not been able to maintain the level of staffing necessary to ensure the safety of our firefighters or the public. Since 1970, the number of firefighters as a percentage of the U.S. workforce has steadily declined and the budget crises that our state and local governments are enduring has made matters worse. Across the country today, firefighter staffing is being cut and fire stations are even being closed because of state and local budget shortfalls. All of this at a time when the threats of terrorism are placing unprecedented demands on our fire service. According to a ``Needs Assessment Study'' recently released by the U.S. Fire Administration, USFA, and the National Fire Protection Association, NFPA, understaffing contributes to enormous problems. For example, USFA and NFPA have found that only 11% of our Nation's fire departments have the personnel and equipment they need to respond to a building collapse involving 50 or more occupants. The USFA and NFPA also found that there are routine problems that threaten the health and safety of our first responders. In small and medium-sized cities, firefighters are too often compelled to respond to emergencies without sufficient manpower to protect those on the ground. More often than not, firefighters in too many of our communities respond to fires with fewer than the four firefighters per truck that is considered to be the minimum to ensure firefighter safety. The USFA/NFPA study also suggests that shortages of personnel prevent many firefighters from taking time off to receive training and too few departments can afford to hire dedicated training staff. As a result, nearly three-quarters of all fire departments cannot comply with EPA and OSHA regulations that require formal hazardous materials response training for front-line firefighters. The SAFER Act is a national commitment to hire the firefighters necessary to protect the American people from the consequences of terrorist attacks and from more ordinary, but often equally devastating, events. This legislation will put 75,000 new firefighters on America's streets over the next 7 years and will help provide Americans with the level of protection they need and deserve. As I have said before, just as we have called up the National Guard to meet the increased need for more manpower in the military, we need to make a national commitment to hire firefighters to protect the American people here at home. In these difficult times, it is both necessary and proper for us to send for reinforcements for our domestic defenders. The SAFER Act will make that commitment. In closing let me say that this legislation honors America's firefighters. It acknowledges the men and women who charge up the stairs while everybody else is running down them. But it does more than that. This legislation is an investment in America's security, an investment to ensure the safety of our firefighter as well as American families and their homes and businesses. Both the International Association of Firefighters and the International Association of Fire Chiefs have expressed their strong support for this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join those of us who have introduced this measure today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Warner, Senator Hollings, Senator Reed, Senator Daschle, Senator Lieberman, Senator Clinton, Senator Sarbanes, and Senator Landrieu to introduce the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response, SAFER, Act. This legislation will help to remedy a critical shortage in the fire service and help ensure that America's firefighters have the staffing they need to safely do their jobs. Every day approximately one million firefighters put their lives on the line to protect the people of our great Nation. I firmly believe that in recognition of that fact, our Nation has an obligation to ensure that the brave men and women of the fire service have the tools, the training, and the staffing they need to do their jobs safely. In recent years, the Federal Government has recognized that it can and should be a better partner with local firefighters. In 2000, Senator DeWine, Senator Levin, Senator Warner, and I worked successfully to help create the FIRE Act. This law stood as the first Federal grant program explicitly designed to help fire departments throughout America obtain better equipment, improved training, and needed personnel. Since September 11, 2001, Congress and the administration have provided billions of dollars to help local firefighters purchase equipment and training to respond to acts of terrorism, accidental fires, chemical spills, and natural disasters. Over the last 2 years, the Federal FIRE Act grant initiative has provided nearly half a billion dollars in direct assistance to local fire departments across the country and the FIRE Act will provide another $750 million this year. We are beginning to significantly improve the quality of the equipment available to firefighters in every State and in communities large and small. Unfortunately, the FIRE Act has not improved staffing conditions for America's fire service. Severe staffing shortages still plague departments across the country. Currently two-thirds of all fire departments operate with inadequate staffing. And the consequences are often tragic. According to testimony by Harold Schaitberger, General President of the International Association of Firefighters, presented before the Senate Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee on October 11, 2001, understaffing has caused or contributed to firefighter deaths in Memphis, Tennessee; Worcester, Massachusetts; Keokuk, Iowa; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Chesapeake, Virginia; Stockton, California; Lexington, Kentucky; Buffalo, New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Washington, D.C. In each case, firefighters went into dangerous situations without the support they needed and they paid the ultimate price. The unfortunate reality is that our local communities have not been able to maintain the level of staffing necessary to ensure the safety of our firefighters or the public. Since 1970, the number of firefighters as a percentage of the U.S. workforce has steadily declined and the budget crises that our state and local governments are enduring has made matters worse. Across the country today, firefighter staffing is being cut and fire stations are even being closed because of state and local budget shortfalls. All of this at a time when the threats of terrorism are placing unprecedented demands on our fire service. According to a ``Needs Assessment Study'' recently released by the U.S. Fire Administration, USFA, and the National Fire Protection Association, NFPA, understaffing contributes to enormous problems. For example, USFA and NFPA have found that only 11% of our Nation's fire departments have the personnel and equipment they need to respond to a building collapse involving 50 or more occupants. The USFA and NFPA also found that there are routine problems that threaten the health and safety of our first responders. In small and medium-sized cities, firefighters are too often compelled to respond to emergencies without sufficient manpower to protect those on the ground. More often than not, firefighters in too many of our communities respond to fires with fewer than the four firefighters per truck that is considered to be the minimum to ensure firefighter safety. The USFA/NFPA study also suggests that shortages of personnel prevent many firefighters from taking time off to receive training and too few departments can afford to hire dedicated training staff. As a result, nearly three-quarters of all fire departments cannot comply with EPA and OSHA regulations that require formal hazardous materials response training for front-line firefighters. The SAFER Act is a national commitment to hire the firefighters necessary to protect the American people from the consequences of terrorist attacks and from more ordinary, but often equally devastating, events. This legislation will put 75,000 new firefighters on America's streets over the next 7 years and will help provide Americans with the level of protection they need and deserve. As I have said before, just as we have called up the National Guard to meet the increased need for more manpower in the military, we need to make a national commitment to hire firefighters to protect the American people here at home. In these difficult times, it is both necessary and proper for us to send for reinforcements for our domestic defenders. The SAFER Act will make that commitment. In closing let me say that this legislation honors America's firefighters. It acknowledges the men and women who charge up the stairs while everybody else is running down them. But it does more than that. This legislation is an investment in America's security, an investment to ensure the safety of our firefighter as well as American families and their homes and businesses. Both the International Association of Firefighters and the International Association of Fire Chiefs have expressed their strong support for this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join those of us who have introduced this measure today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to one of our most essential and enduring national endeavors: the Peace Corps. Last Friday, February 28, was National Peace Corps day. While the Senate was not in session on Friday, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the Peace Corps--an institution that is certainly deserving of our praise and support. As my colleagues are aware, it is always with tremendous fondness and pride that I speak of the Peace Corps. It gives me occasion to recall my own years as a volunteer in the Dominican Republic. Indeed, I have often spoken of how these 2 years changed my life. Living and working outside of the United States and seeing the way other nations operated for the first time, I grew to appreciate our Nation more and more, and developed a strong sense of what it means to be an American. I was proud to share my experience as an American citizen with the people I was there to help. Those 2 years were invaluable to me, and truly brought home to me the value of public service. It was 42 years ago when President Kennedy laid out his vision for the future of American volunteer service. Speaking of a corps of committed and idealistic young volunteers who would travel all over the world ``promoting world peace and friendship,'' he saw public service as an ideal to transcend political rhetoric. Peace Corps volunteers were not to reflect particular Republican or Democratic ideology. Rather, their service would be a manifestation of the core American values we all share. Since 1961, more than 168,000 Americans have responded to President Kennedy's call, and the Peace Corps now sends more than 7,000 volunteers to 76 different countries every year. This means that there are 7,000 important American liaisons scattered around the world helping people and promoting American values. In fact, the need for such ambassadors--people who truly show the world the best of America-- has never been greater. Especially in these difficult and tumultuous times, I believe that an increased Peace Corps presence in regions with significant anti-American sentiment could help to foster greater mutual understanding and tolerance between Americans and the communities they serve. After all, these volunteers are really the heart and soul of the Peace Corps. They are the ones on the front lines, working hard, making one-on-one connections with the citizens of the countries in which they work. For 42 years, they have brought a wealth of practical experience to communities in Africa, Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and the Pacific. And, I believe it is important to recognize that the enduring success of the Peace Corps is rooted in each volunteer's commitment to leave behind skills that allow people to take charge of their own futures. The Peace Corps is a truly remarkable institution in America, a symbol of the very best of our ideals of service, sacrifice, and self- reliance. I believe that we must provide sufficient resources for the Peace Corps so that it can increase the number of volunteers in the field and continue its noble mission. National Peace Corps Day honors its volunteers, past and present, and reaffirms our country's commitment to helping our friends and neighbors throughout the world. Mr. President, in recognition of National Peace Corps day and in light of the special service this institution performs for our nation and the global community. I reaffirm my strong support of and commitment to this invaluable institution. I hope my colleagues and fellow Americans will do the same. I thank the President.